The problem is that it is a republic.
It means For the Totally Wise.
:think: Well, that beats Follow The Whiner, so you can imagine my relief...
toldailytopic: Third party candidates.
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
- Status
:think: Well, that beats Follow The Whiner, so you can imagine my relief...
penofareadywriter
New member
They bring up good points.
If Conservatives vote third party, we will be guarantied that a Lib. will win. The Rep. party must get back to true conservatism.
My personal belief is that the system is too broken to be fixed...
Newman
New member
:think: I think we should go back to monarchy as well.
I'd be happy to reinstate the divine right of kings, starting with me, of course.
I'd prefer monarchy over the way our system is going currently.
Think about it this way: you have two houses that you are prepared to let people borrow. You let one person borrow house A for 4 years, and then they have to give it back to you so you can give it to someone else. House B you give to somebody for them to keep until they die, and then they can give it to their offspring, and the house changes ownership like that, generation to generation.
Which house is going to be better taken care of? The one that was only kept for 4 years or the one that is passed down from generation to generation?
If you lend a house to somebody, and they know that they only have a certain amount of time to use it, they are going to treat it horribly! They won't take care of it, it will get dirty, things will break and won't be repaired, nobody will make any investment in the house, they'll invite friends over and party and make a mess of the place, etc.
If, however, you give somebody a house that they will keep and then give to the next generation of their family, they will take very good care of the house, will make strong and durable investments in it, will keep it clean and looking nice, and will fix anything that is broken.
Here we have democracy with a 4 year presidential term vs. monarchy. I posit that monarchy is the lesser of the two evils.
This analogy came from Hans Hermann Hoppe by the way.
The Graphite
New member
Newman, I think without realizing it you are insulting God. God favors monarchy, and gave kings to Israel. Monarchy is not evil. The Lord did not command Israel to have an evil government.
On the other hand, not only is democracy NEVER supported in the Bible, but on the contrary the principle of it is frequently derided. Saul listens to the will of the people, to the majority rule, and as a result, he loses the throne in his posterity. The messiah would have sat on his throne, but Saul blew it. King Saul practiced representative democracy, ie. republicanism.
At any given time, the majority are in rebellion against God. At any given time, the majority are wrong. Truth and justice are not determined by popular vote. The majority yelled "Crucify Him!"
Most people are sheeple, and there is typically about 10% of evil people leading, and 10% godly people leading, and the question is which 10% will be successful in leading the middle 80% to do the right thing in spite of themselves. The interesting thing is, the winner of that tug of war is not dependent on how smart and hard-working the evil side is. The winner of that tug of war is determined by whether the 10% on the right show up and refuse to compromise on God's principles. In that situation, the Lord brings victory, and then the people rejoice.
On the other hand, not only is democracy NEVER supported in the Bible, but on the contrary the principle of it is frequently derided. Saul listens to the will of the people, to the majority rule, and as a result, he loses the throne in his posterity. The messiah would have sat on his throne, but Saul blew it. King Saul practiced representative democracy, ie. republicanism.
At any given time, the majority are in rebellion against God. At any given time, the majority are wrong. Truth and justice are not determined by popular vote. The majority yelled "Crucify Him!"
Most people are sheeple, and there is typically about 10% of evil people leading, and 10% godly people leading, and the question is which 10% will be successful in leading the middle 80% to do the right thing in spite of themselves. The interesting thing is, the winner of that tug of war is not dependent on how smart and hard-working the evil side is. The winner of that tug of war is determined by whether the 10% on the right show up and refuse to compromise on God's principles. In that situation, the Lord brings victory, and then the people rejoice.
Newman
New member
God reluctantly gave Israel a king. 1 Samuel 8:1-22
God doesn't favor or disfavor any form of government. God cares about individuals and who they love (hopefully God, and not a political leader or military commander).
You are the one insulting God. I think you are imposing something on to the scripture that isn't there. It's eisegetical to assume certain forms of government are represented in the Bible, when really you are just pushing your own political ideology.
In my opinion, government just gets in the way and becomes one more thing for people to worship besides God. I'm not really an anarchist, but pretty close--a minarchist, if you will.
The Graphite
New member
Newton, you are incorrect. God admonished them for demanding a king out of due time, ie. at the wrong time. The Lord has promised them a king previously, and when they asked for a king prior to God's intended time, they got Saul, who turned out to be a disaster.
You are accusing God of commanding Israel to do something that you say is "evil."
God does not tell peopl to do evil things, and I'm asking you to take back that terrible assertion. You falsely accuse God.
Newman
New member
I'm not accusing God of anything, and my user name is "Newman".
I don't really think monarchy is evil, it was really just an expression of speech when I said "lesser of two evils" when comparing it to democracy. What I meant was "I'm not a big fan of government, but if I had to choose between those two, I'd take monarchy."
I won't take back my assertion because my only assertion is that God does not favor one political system over another.
This is what we get with a government by the people. And it is sad that people still believe in that idea.
I wonder what blacks thought of majority rule in South Carolina in 1840. And then again in 1940.
The Graphite
New member
They were probably looking at their own slave owner and wishing they could shout "Crucify him!"
Anyone want to seriously compare the rule of kings to the track record of our democracy? oly: An odd bit of business this...mistrusting the many in favor of the one who could be as mad as King George was once, as feckless as the twisted Richard, as corrupt or brutal as, well, you get the idea. I much prefer a government run by men who step out of the common experience of equality before the law, where every man is answerable to his peers and the highest office is held by a man no more or less entitled than his neighbor.
:e4e:
oly: An odd bit of business this...mistrusting the many in favor of the one who could be as mad as King George was once, as feckless as the twisted Richard, as corrupt or brutal as, well, you get the idea. I much prefer a government run by men who step out of the common experience of equality before the law, where every man is answerable to his peers and the highest office is held by a man no more or less entitled than his neighbor.:e4e:
The good government is the one that answers to right, not man [or men].Anyone want to seriously compare the rule of kings to the track record of our democracy?
:e4e:
The Graphite
New member
Quite right.
And on a side note, Richard the Third probably got a bum rap and wasn't the villain they portrayed him to be. Careful investigation in recent years has uncovered that he may have been made a patsy in the midst of the complex and extremely divisive politics of his day.
Which doesn't impact my question or statement in the least. Though right doesn't mean much absent application and through whom do you believe that happens?
I think having a say in what that right is holds a better chance of coming near it than in trusting my fate to another man who is no better or worse than any number of fellows and that's without addressing succession.
And TG, there's no short list, so if you want Ivan the Terrible or a host of other examples of how undivine a goodly number of kings behaved there's no shortage of examples. :e4e:
Doesn't sound too bad. :think:
What is the definition of a political party? What, specifically, would you ban? Like WoO said, I think people would get around it by forming different groups. It might be worth the try though.
I voted Ron Paul. :thumb:
Anyone want to seriously compare the rule of kings to the track record of our democracy?
:e4e:
:up: Given the state of things and the nature of humanity, I think democracy is better than a monarchy. Spread the power out to prevent abuses. Democracy has its own flaws, namely ignorance and apathy of the people, but I still think it's better than giving so much power to one person, or just a few. God may prefer monarchy, but I don't much care unless he plans to come down and be King himself. Until he sits on the throne, I'll take our democracy, or something along those lines.
Democracy is mob rule, and the majority is wicked. It is easier to turn one man than to turn a nation. It is also easier to overthrow one man than an entire nation.
And a king is a tyrant, but who argued for pure democracy? I support our Republic, the wisest construct in the history of man's attempt at social compact with respect to right and freedom.
It is easier to turn out a President than usurp a king.
If you can't see the absurdity of that position I'm afraid you're beyond my means to instruct or aid...so I'll say this instead. That's very, very funny. :e4e:
- Status