Why a Monarchy is the best form of Government?

Status
Not open for further replies.
One reason I dislike monarchy is that it is fundamentally based on the principle that the monarch of the nation holds the power even if the monarch ruling has no information or education in the matters on which he is asking to rule on. Most monarchs vote for what is best for him or what he wants rather than what is best for the nation or common good.
You have just described most democratically elected politicians. There are problems with monarchy, to be sure, but if the above is a problem, then it equally applies to 95% of democracies and republics.
 
Most objections to a constitutional monarchy rest on the fallacy of allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good. With what would we replace the monarchy in Britain? Any problems with the monarchy would, in all likelihood, just be replicated in whatever replaced it and it would likely lead to loads of other problems.
 
There are problems with monarchy, to be sure, but if the above is a problem, then it equally applies to 95% of democracies and republics.
Yes. I largely agree. It was a joke-troll but I was trying to make a point. I think these lines of questions are important but ultimately cannot be resolved (at least for not very long). To speak in yours and the OP's favor, the US is under 300 years old and many European democracies are not much over 100 in their current form. Many, like Spain, are even younger. All forms of government have their horror stories.
 
I believe we ought to scrap the current democratically elected politicians and have an absolute monarchist rule and reign.
I don't think that I've ever heard of a Puritan (and this is the Puritan Board!) who argued for an absolute monarchy. There are plenty of French, Spanish, and other continental monarchs who argued for such (and some achieved it!). And there are British monarchs who picked up on this--certainly during the Tudor/Stuart period, various monarchs favored an absolutist sovereign--but it was never allowed to stand, being especially opposed by Puritans and other sound thinkers. The British Constitution is decidedly not supportive of an absolute ruler but of a constitutional one who works with a Parliament of Commons and Lords in governing the land. I can't imagine that you really want the equivalent in the UK of the Sun King, the fellow who said "l'état, c'est moi!"
Most objections to a constitutional monarchy rest on the fallacy of allowing the perfect to become the enemy of the good.
What Mr. Hughes suggests is not a constitutional monarchy, of course, but an absolutist one that apparently does away with all the conventions and trappings of a duly elected body of representatives and lords spiritual and temporal. Never mind the storied English history of Magna Carta, Henry III, Simon de Montfort, Edward I, and all that followed and that gave the world something better than the absolute rule of a single man, which we want only from God himself.

I simply cannot believe that a Briton is arguing this way on this board. Breathtaking!

Peace,
Alan
 
I don't think that I've ever heard of a Puritan (and this is the Puritan Board!) who argued for an absolute monarchy. There are plenty of French, Spanish, and other continental monarchs who argued for such (and some achieved it!). And there are British monarchs who picked up on this--certainly during the Tudor/Stuart period, various monarchs favored an absolutist sovereign--but it was never allowed to stand, being especially opposed by Puritans and other sound thinkers. The British Constitution is decidedly not supportive of an absolute ruler but of a constitutional one who works with a Parliament of Commons and Lords in governing the land. I can't imagine that you really want the equivalent in the UK of the Sun King, the fellow who said "l'état, c'est moi!"

What Mr. Hughes suggests is not a constitutional monarchy, of course, but an absolutist one that apparently does away with all the conventions and trappings of a duly elected body of representatives and lords spiritual and temporal. Never mind the storied English history of Magna Carta, Henry III, Simon de Montfort, Edward I, and all that followed and that gave the world something better than the absolute rule of a single man, which we want only from God himself.

I simply cannot believe that a Briton is arguing this way on this board. Breathtaking!

Peace,
Alan

I am a constitutional monarchist and I agree with you.
 
I am a constitutional monarchist and I agree with you.
You sound like you go to meetings about the subject. :)

A constitutional monarchy is not unblical In my humble opinion. Seriously, where in the Bible, except for Christ, is there anyone resembling an absolute monarch? Pharaoh? I think some are hung up on the idea of hereditary monarchy.
 
You sound like you go to meetings about the subject. :)

A constitutional monarchy is not unblical In my humble opinion. Seriously, where in the Bible, except for Christ, is there anyone resembling an absolute monarch? Pharaoh? I think some are hung up on the idea of hereditary monarchy.

And Babylon.

Right. Even the Roman Emperors, the cliched Nero, never had true absolutism. The Senate still existed. In any case, the Praetorian Guard was the true power.

Constitutionalism is nice and all, though I think it is ultimately susceptible to Carl Schmitt's "Rule of the Exception." We saw this in Covid, where Anthony Fauci had complete dominance over society in a way that Louis XIV could only dream of.

Patriots like to say, "We have a Constitution that protects our liberties from absolutism." To which Big Corporate in the month of June will say, "Good luck with that."
 
To which Big Corporate in the month of June will say, "Good luck with that."

Nonsense. They only control so many social media platforms and streaming services. Outside of a banner on my Google home as I search for edifying articles and a banner on Amazon Prime page as I watch "Hiding Place", "Genesis: Paradise Lost" etc, I will see none of it.

They would love to force the PB server to sport a misappropriated rainbow, but they won't because they can't. The Constitution is indeed used by God to protect our liberties from absolutism.

Generally, people are getting sick of it all. And we continue to be allowed to boycott Target, Bud Light, and express outrage or evangelism freely - even on social media sites owned by Big Corporate.

I am no "Patriot" per se and I would not say the Constitution "provides protection" directly, rather the Constitution is used by God to alleviate the absolutism they desperately want to implement.
 
Nonsense. They only control so many social media platforms and streaming services. Outside of a banner on my Google home as I search for edifying articles and a banner on Amazon Prime page as I watch "Hiding Place", "Genesis: Paradise Lost" etc, I will see none of it.

They would love to force the PB server to sport a misappropriated rainbow, but they won't because they can't. The Constitution is indeed used by God to protect our liberties from absolutism.

Generally, people are getting sick of it all. And we continue to be allowed to boycott Target, Bud Light, and express outrage or evangelism freely - even on social media sites owned by Big Corporate.

I am no "Patriot" per se and I would not say the Constitution "provides protection" directly, rather the Constitution is used by God to alleviate the absolutism they desperately want to implement.

I am encouraged by your optimism. I could be wrong. Maybe time will tell. We did seem to win the War for Bud Light, so that is good.
 
What Mr. Hughes suggests is not a constitutional monarchy, of course, but an absolutist one that apparently does away with all the conventions and trappings of a duly elected body of representatives and lords spiritual and temporal. Never mind the storied English history of Magna Carta, Henry III, Simon de Montfort, Edward I, and all that followed and that gave the world something better than the absolute rule of a single man, which we want only from God himself.

I simply cannot believe that a Briton is arguing this way on this board. Breathtaking!

Yes, I know, and I agree with you on all counts; I distanced myself from such a sentiment earlier in the thread.
 
Representation and mediation are inevitable in a government. Not even the most autocratic ruler (who was almost always extremely limited in power outside his central area) can make all the day to day decisions. Inevitably there will arise something like a Senate. Maybe never formally such, the but the idea is there. The ancient Romans had a functioning Senate long after the rise of the emperors.
 
Representation and mediation are inevitable in a government. Not even the most autocratic ruler (who was almost always extremely limited in power outside his central area) can make all the day to day decisions. Inevitably there will arise something like a Senate. Maybe never formally such, the but the idea is there. The ancient Romans had a functioning Senate long after the rise of the emperors.
So good points made.
 
I have read all the comments and posts made in regard to my original post and I think there have been some good points made and much food for thought. I am considering everything that had been said. Thank you for a healthly and good discussion on the topic.
 
I don't think that I've ever heard of a Puritan (and this is the Puritan Board!) who argued for an absolute monarchy. There are plenty of French, Spanish, and other continental monarchs who argued for such (and some achieved it!). And there are British monarchs who picked up on this--certainly during the Tudor/Stuart period, various monarchs favored an absolutist sovereign--but it was never allowed to stand, being especially opposed by Puritans and other sound thinkers. The British Constitution is decidedly not supportive of an absolute ruler but of a constitutional one who works with a Parliament of Commons and Lords in governing the land. I can't imagine that you really want the equivalent in the UK of the Sun King, the fellow who said "l'état, c'est moi!"

What Mr. Hughes suggests is not a constitutional monarchy, of course, but an absolutist one that apparently does away with all the conventions and trappings of a duly elected body of representatives and lords spiritual and temporal. Never mind the storied English history of Magna Carta, Henry III, Simon de Montfort, Edward I, and all that followed and that gave the world something better than the absolute rule of a single man, which we want only from God himself.

I simply cannot believe that a Briton is arguing this way on this board. Breathtaking!

Peace,
Alan
Yes, you are right there are not many of us left who believe in an absolute monarchy. I think it is worth a try. It cannot be worse than what we currently have in the UK and the West. If we had a genuinely Evangelical and Protestant King with total control and power in the UK then our society would benefit greatly from that, I believe.
 
Thought I might as well post this here while its on the clip board.

Hate to go against you brother, but the scripture if full of examples of it explicitly saying that the people choose their rulers and kings many times in Israels civil government (I'm neither a fan of monarchy or democracy, but I am a fan of constitutional republics):

Numbers 11:16, 17- 16And the LORD said unto Moses, Gather unto me seventy men of the elders of Israel, whom thou knowest to be the elders of the people, and officers over them; and bring them unto the tabernacle of the congregation, that they may stand there with thee. 17And I will come down and talk with thee there: and I will take of the spirit which is upon thee, and will put it upon them; and they shall bear the burden of the people with thee, that thou bear it not thyself alone.


Deuteronomy 1:9-15- 9And I spake unto you at that time, saying, I am not able to bear you myself alone: 10The LORD your God hath multiplied you, and, behold, ye are this day as the stars of heaven for multitude. 11(The LORD God of your fathers make you a thousand times so many more as ye are, and bless you, as he hath promised you!) 12How can I myself alone bear your cumbrance, and your burden, and your strife? 13Take you wise men, and understanding, and known among your tribes, and I will make them rulers over you. 14And ye answered me, and said, The thing which thou hast spoken is good for us to do. 15So I took the chief of your tribes, wise men, and known, and made them heads over you, captains over thousands, and captains over hundreds, and captains over fifties, and captains over tens, and officers among your tribes.


Deuteronomy 17:14, 15- 14“When you enter the land which the LORD your God gives you, and you possess it and live in it, and you say, ‘I will set a king over me like all the nations who are around me,’ 15you shall surely set a king over you whom the LORD your God chooses, one from among your countrymen you shall set as king over yourselves; you may not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.


Judges 9:6- And all the men of Shechem gathered together, and all the house of Millo, and went, and made Abimelech king, by the plain of the pillar that was in Shechem.


Judges 11:11- Then Jephthah went with the elders of Gilead, and the people made him head and captain over them: and Jephthah uttered all his words before the LORD in Mizpeh.



1 Samuel 11:15- And all the people went to Gilgal; and there they made Saul king before the LORD in Gilgal; and there they sacrificed sacrifices of peace offerings before the LORD; and there Saul and all the men of Israel rejoiced greatly.



2 Sam 2:4- And the men of Judah came, and there they anointed David king over the house of Judah. And they told David, saying, That the men of Jabeshgilead were they that buried Saul.



2 Samuel 5:1-3- 1Then all the tribes of Israel came to David at Hebron and said, “Here we are, your own flesh and blood. 2Even in times past, while Saul was king over us, you were the one who led Israel out and brought them back. And to you the LORD said, ‘You will shepherd My people Israel, and you will be ruler over them.’ 3So all the elders of Israel came to the king at Hebron, where King David made with them a covenant before the LORD. And they anointed him king over Israel.



1 Kings 1:39- And Zadok the priest took an horn of oil out of the tabernacle, and anointed Solomon. And they blew the trumpet; and all the people said, God save king Solomon.



1 Kings 12:1- And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for all Israel were come to Shechem to make him king.



1 Kings 12:20- And it came to pass, when all Israel heard that Jeroboam was come again, that they sent and called him unto the congregation, and made him king over all Israel: there was none that followed the house of David, but the tribe of Judah only.



1 Kings 16:16- And the people that were encamped heard say, Zimri hath conspired, and hath also slain the king: wherefore all Israel made Omri, the captain of the host, king over Israel that day in the camp.



1 Kings 16:21, 22- Then were the people of Israel divided into two parts: half of the people followed Tibni the son of Ginath, to make him king; and half followed Omri. But the people that followed Omri prevailed against the people that followed Tibni the son of Ginath: so Tibni died, and Omri reigned.



2 Kings 10:5- and he that was over the house, and he that was over the city, the elders also, and the bringers up of the children, sent to Jehu, saying, We are thy servants, and will do all that thou shalt bid us; we will not make any king: do thou that which is good in thine eyes.



2 Kings 11:4, 12- And the seventh year Jehoiada sent and fetched the rulers over hundreds, with the captains and the guard, and brought them to him into the house of the LORD, and made a covenant with them, and took an oath of them in the house of the LORD, and shewed them the king's son. and he brought forth the king's son, and put the crown upon him, and gave him the testimony; and they made him king, and anointed him; and they clapped their hands, and said, God save the king.



2 Kings 14:21- And all the people of Judah took Azariah, which was sixteen years old, and made him king instead of his father Amaziah.



2 Kings 21:24- And the people of the land slew all them that had conspired against king Amon; and the people of the land made Josiah his son king in his stead.



1 Chron 11:1-3- Then all Israel gathered themselves to David unto Hebron, saying, Behold, we are thy bone and thy flesh. 2And moreover in time past, even when Saul was king, thou wast he that leddest out and broughtest in Israel: and the LORD thy God said unto thee, Thou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be ruler over my people Israel. 3Therefore came all the elders of Israel to the king to Hebron; and David made a covenant with them in Hebron before the LORD; and they anointed David king over Israel, according to the word of the LORD by Samuel.



1 Chronicles 12:23, 38- And these are the numbers of the bands that were ready armed to the war, and came to David to Hebron, to turn the kingdom of Saul to him, according to the word of the LORD…All these men of war, that could keep rank, came with a perfect heart to Hebron, to make David king over all Israel: and all the rest also of Israel were of one heart to make David king.



1 Chronicles 29:21-24- 21And they sacrificed sacrifices unto the LORD, and offered burnt offerings unto the LORD, on the morrow after that day, even a thousand bullocks, a thousand rams, and a thousand lambs, with their drink offerings, and sacrifices in abundance for all Israel: 22And did eat and drink before the LORD on that day with great gladness. And they made Solomon the son of David king the second time, and anointed him unto the LORD to be the chief governor, and Zadok to be priest. 23Then Solomon sat on the throne of the LORD as king instead of David his father, and prospered; and all Israel obeyed him. 24And all the princes, and the mighty men, and all the sons likewise of king David, submitted themselves unto Solomon the king.



2 Chronicles 10:1-And Rehoboam went to Shechem: for to Shechem were all Israel come to make him king.



2 Chronicles 22:1- And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.



2 Chronicles 23:1-3, 11-13, 20- 1And in the seventh year Jehoiada strengthened himself, and took the captains of hundreds, Azariah the son of Jeroham, and Ishmael the son of Jehohanan, and Azariah the son of Obed, and Maaseiah the son of Adaiah, and Elishaphat the son of Zichri, into covenant with him. 2And they went about in Judah, and gathered the Levites out of all the cities of Judah, and the chief of the fathers of Israel, and they came to Jerusalem. 3And all the congregation made a covenant with the king in the house of God. And he said unto them, Behold, the king's son shall reign, as the LORD hath said of the sons of David11Then they brought out the king's son, and put upon him the crown, and gave him the testimony, and made him king. And Jehoiada and his sons anointed him, and said, God save the king. Now when Athaliah heard the noise of the people running and praising the king, she came to the people into the house of the LORD: 13And she looked, and, behold, the king stood at his pillar at the entering in, and the princes and the trumpets by the king: and all the people of the land rejoiced, and sounded with trumpets, also the singers with instruments of musick, and such as taught to sing praise. Then Athaliah rent her clothes, and said, Treason, Treason…20And he took the captains of hundreds, and the nobles, and the governors of the people, and all the people of the land, and brought down the king from the house of the LORD: and they came through the high gate into the king's house, and set the king upon the throne of the kingdom. 21And all the people of the land rejoiced: and the city was quiet, after that they had slain Athaliah with the sword.



2 Chronicles 26:1- 1Then all the people of Judah took Uzziah, who was sixteen years old, and made him king in the room of his father Amaziah.



2 Chronicles 36:1- 1Then the people of the land took Jehoahaz the son of Josiah, and made him king in his father's stead in Jerusalem.
Some good points. I think you make a good case there for people choosing their King. The only point I would make is that I personally believe that if God appoints the King then if take away from man appointing the ruler. We can clearly show who is "his man" by right of birth.
 
By Me Kings Reign

Rev. Todd Ruddell has a great series of sermons from Proverbs 8:15-16 on this; he shows how God both raises up and puts down kings and kingdoms, and also shows how from the OT that they are to be installed by the will of the governed. WELL worth the time to listen.
 
Yes, you are right there are not many of us left who believe in an absolute monarchy. I think it is worth a try. It cannot be worse than what we currently have in the UK and the West. If we had a genuinely Evangelical and Protestant King with total control and power in the UK then our society would benefit greatly from that, I believe.

The 20th Century would very much beg to differ. What we have is not even close to bad in historical terms for Christians. Even the present corruption in public morality, while unique in some dimensions is really not different than other periods of moral decay, including in Anglo-American society. Regency England was notoriously decadent and while formal morality was strict in many Medieval locales the actual morality was often appalling. Even if the authorities in the West were to start arresting us for being Christians, some aspects would be better, worse, or equal, depending on the prison and system.

Our current system is a mess and there are many things I and others would prefer and suggest as improvements, but giving one man, no matter how virtuous, absolute power in any sphere (family, state, or church) leads to the most appalling sin.

Even the absolutist monarchies of the past and present always have serious checks on them by established institutions. Louis XIV could have chosen not to persecute Protestants but he only very doubtfully could have imposed Protestantism on France. The Saudi King can do a great deal but good luck if he converts to Christianity or Buddhism and tries to impose that on his realm.

Worse still, often the best kind of absolute leader is the corrupt, selfish kind that's mostly nonchalant about their power and doesn't care about ideas. Absolute power wielded zealously and for even the most righteous of causes quickly turns diabolical. That's exactly how you get totalitarian families, states, and churches/cults. I'd also say the evidence for the papacy is far stronger than an absolute, all-powerful monarch from Scripture, and we certainly reject that.
 
a genuinely Evangelical and Protestant King with total control and power
It has yet to be proved that these are not mutually exclusive. That is, would it be morally acceptable for a Christian to assume such a role? Is there Biblical and theological justification for assuming "total control and power"? I do not subscribe to the belief that all forms of government and distribution of governmental powers are acceptable to God.
I think you make a good case there for people choosing their King.
I'm not convinced these scriptures proved such a case - these are mostly examples of where groups of people expressed their approbation or assent of who had been selected.
We did seem to win the War for Bud Light
If you were drinking Bud Light, then you were already brainwashed and controlled by Big Corporate!
 
If we had a genuinely Evangelical and Protestant King with total control and power in the UK then our society would benefit greatly from that, I believe.

And if a married man was still a bachelor, he could date other women without committing adultery.

Unless my reductio ad absurdum is missing a nuance here?
 
Another thing both sides need to consider:

The terms "monarchy" and "republic" are not univocal throughout history. Not practically, anyway. Republics were never intended to function with 350 million people. As you no doubt remember from reading your Montesquieu, a republic was designed to maximize public virtue and civic responsibility. That is not going to happen in a country of 350 million.

So also with monarchy, those of us who praise monarchy, the OP excepted, have in mind the post-1688 settlement. Any real criticism of monarchy must focus on that. If Louis XIV is your token monarchist, then you must accept Robespierre as the token republican. That is the problem and the reason why I never wrote my book on monarchism. It is very difficult (practically impossible) for both sides to keep in mind the distinction between ideal figures (e.g., the Jeffersonian farmer) and historical examples (Ghengis Khan).
 
Here are some of my notes from Montesquieu.

The best government is one that best agrees with the disposition of a people (I.3). Following this line of thought, Montesquieu notes that good laws not only reflect the disposition of a people, but they also reflect the soil and climate.

From here he carries on Aristotle’s discussion of the three types of government: monarchy, democracy, and aristocracy. All have their strengths and weaknesses, though he seems to favor an aristocracy that is able to lift the masses out of poverty. Concerning republics, he notes, as have many monarchist critiques of republicanism, that when a rich and powerful private citizen is able to woo the masses and rise to power, the result is often something worse than monarchy. It is worse because monarchies already exist within the framework of a people’s laws. This new situation has no such immediate remedy.

Monarchies almost always have nobilities because nobilities are the most natural channel from which the power flows. Montesquieu notes that if one abolishes the nobility, the end result is not more freedom, but a despotic prince. This is another way of saying that societies need intermediate structures between the people and the state. Erase these structures, as is often done in modern liberalism, then there is nothing to shield the average man from the raw power of the state.

Montesquieu says virtue is not necessary to a monarchy, but what he means is civic virtue, not the classic virtues. Since the average man is not involved in politics, he is not required to have the political self-restraint and “knack” for politics. By contrast, republican governments not only demand virtue, but they demand it in large reserves and if they do not get it, it becomes the most base of societies.

Rather, “honor is the prevailing principle in monarchies.” It “sets all the parts of the body politic in motion.”

Education

In monarchies education has an eye to forming honor, to ennobling the mind. In despotic governments, fear. If republican governments aim for virtue in education, what is that virtue? It is “love of laws and of our country” (IV.5). It prefers public to private interests. To preserve a country or mode of government, one must love it. That is the problem with public intellectuals in America, they may love representative government; they do not love America.

Music allows the soul to have a share in education (IV.8).

Virtue

Montesquieu says virtue is a sensation and not the result of acquired knowledge (V.2). It seems he says this because he wants to allow that the commonest of men can have virtue. If it were knowledge, it would be unlikely an unlettered man could have it.

In an aristocracy nobles should not levy taxes (V.8).

In a monarchy, laws ought to be in relation to the primary principle, honor. Hereditary nobility isn’t a boundary, but a link between prince and people (V.9).

The Status of Women

Women, wealthy ones anyway, are surprisingly free in monarchies. Their rank calls them to court where they are assumed to have a spirit of liberty (VII.9). In despotic governments women are not luxurious but are objects of luxury. In republics women are free by law and restrained by manners. Montesquieu then adds that as republics banish luxury, they banish corruption. This does seem right, as he will later say that republics are commercial powerhouses, which as such accumulate luxury
 
Republics were never intended to function with 350 million people.
It would be interesting to see if it could as designed in the US.

The US Constitution still states "The Number of Representatives shall not exceed one for every thirty Thousand" (Article I, Section 2). So there should be over 10,000 members in the House of Representatives right now). But this was stopped in 1920s - the Republicans feared that the influx of immigrants and the trend from rural to urban would have shifted political power away from them so they refused to reapportion the House and in 1929 they locked the number at 435 via legislation (the Reapportionment Act of 1929). Thus the US has comparatively massive constituencies amongst modern republics, thanks to Congress passing this de facto (unconstitutional) amendment to the Constitution. Were the constitutionally prescribed ratio in effect, my little county of 27,000 people would have its own Representative. Instead, I live in a Congressional district (21st - pink/peach section of NY below) covering 15 counties and 700,000+ people:
1684936307179.png
 
Twelve states via their legislatures (elected by the minority of free, male, adult landowners) appointed 70 individuals to the Constitutional Convention. 55 of them attended the Constitutional Convention sessions. Only 39 signed the new Constitution. This does not, in my view, resemble a government designed by a large group of people.

None of the 39 men who signed the US Constitution were ministers and only two of the signers of the earlier US Declaration of Independence were ministers (Lyman Hall of GA and John Witherspoon of NJ). When the representatives of the British colonists of the united States of America declared themselves to be "Free and Independent States," they at least appealed to God as Creator and "Supreme Judge of the world," expressing their "firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence." After this declaration of independence, which most generally agree to be a noble and righteous action, the new nation, despite the seeming favor of God in delivering the freedom they sought, quickly rejected Him in favor of secular humanism. Within a decade they had adopted a constitution which, rather than appealing to God, placed the power and glory in "We the people," with no mention of God save for the date at the end, and even then they sought to replace the work of Christ with the work of man: "the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth."

It is telling that only 6 of the men who signed the Declaration signed the Constitution - there is quite a departure in substance between the two documents. I maintain that any Biblical principles contained in the US Constitution were adopted on the basis of being principles of natural law without any reference to Christianity. Very shortly after the ratification of the new constitution, the nation proclaimed to the world that "the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion" (Treaty of Peace and Friendship, signed at Tripoli 4 November 1796, Article 11).
The signatories of the Constitution were delegates chosen by individual states, representing a substantial portion of the population. My point is that decision-making power was not concentrated in the hands of a single individual, but rather distributed among many, aiming for a balance of power. This approach is similar to church governance, where a group of elders collectively makes decisions, avoiding the sole authority of one individual or family.

Regarding biblical principles, it is worth noting that many of the delegates were Christians, which heavily influenced the Constitution through their Christian worldview. While the topic at hand is the Monarchy form of government, assuming we stay focused and avoid semantic critiques, it appears that you argue the government was designed by a small number of people, and their efforts to distance themselves from Christianity suggest the inferiority of the US government compared to a Monarchy. I respectfully disagree. I believe the US government is firmly rooted in Christian principles, but its framers made deliberate efforts to separate it from state-run religion, such as the Church of England. Unfortunately, being fallible humans, they have diminished God's glory to take credit for themselves.
 
The best government is one that best agrees with the disposition of a people

For the following few questions, please consider my questions curious rather than implied challenges. All due respect to Montesquieu, but a modifying clause is required here in that it must also punish evil and by consequence - have a clear definition of good and evil that is line with God's objective standards regardless of the disposition of a people. Regardless of republic vs. monarchy - the same issues challenging the US are challenging the UK.

good laws not only reflect the disposition of a people, but they also reflect the soil and climate.

Please do not laugh, but does he mean literal soil and climate? It makes sense but then I wondered if my brain was substituting climate as avg, temp, rainfall, etc for climate as social discourse, temperament etc.

Concerning republics, he notes, as have many monarchist critiques of republicanism, that when a rich and powerful private citizen is able to woo the masses and rise to power, the result is often something worse than monarchy. It is worse because monarchies already exist within the framework of a people’s laws

But in republics, isn't it more difficult for one to rise up? For a Soros, there are Kochs. Now in certain areas, that seems to amount to no real difference (like gay marriage) but in other areas it amounts to a huge difference (as in law enforcement). I find it curious to insist that these issues get even a little better with a monarchy instead (again see UK).

what he means is civic virtue, not the classic virtues.

How is civic virtue defined? Thank you.
That is the problem with public intellectuals in America, they may love representative government; they do not love America.

I largely agree, and I predict that the next wave of liberal "intellectuals" will be different. They will embrace an America (or something else nationalistic and serviceable) created in their imaginations that will have enough historicity masking the deconstructive elements of their cause. I also suspect that quite a few of them see it, and are working hard on making it happen. If they could unroll it now, they would. But it probably needs another generation or two of mindless HS grads coming in to workshop on them hoping for new suggestive avenues of Woke 2.0 or 3.0.
 
Another thing, didn’t Owen and Cromwell almost have a parting of the ways over Cromwell pausing to think at all before refusing the title of “king?”
 
but a modifying clause is required here in that it must also punish evil and by consequence - have a clear definition of good and evil that is line with God's objective standards regardless of the disposition of a people. Regardless of republic vs. monarchy - the same issues challenging the US are challenging the UK.

Sure, but that is more day-to-day government business, rather than the nature of government.
Please do not laugh, but does he mean literal soil and climate? It makes sense but then I wondered if my brain was substituting climate as avg, temp, rainfall, etc for climate as social discourse, temperament etc.

It was a common line of argument up until modern times. Geography and weather shape how people view and interact with the world.
But in republics, isn't it more difficult for one to rise up? For a Soros, there are Kochs. Now in certain areas, that seems to amount to no real difference (like gay marriage) but in other areas it amounts to a huge difference (as in law enforcement). I find it curious to insist that these issues get even a little better with a monarchy instead (again see UK).

Part of that might be the nature of technology and money today. In the older republics, of which he probably meant Venice, it was harder for a strongman to rise up. Now that today's power is "soft power," that difficulty is removed.
How is civic virtue defined? Thank you.

I;ll give a longer definition later.
 
Sure, but that is more day-to-day government business, rather than the nature of government.

How does the purpose of government affect the "day-to-day" more so than affect the very nature of government itself?

It was a common line of argument up until modern times. Geography and weather shape how people view and interact with the world.

I see, and it could still go that way again. If an EMP takes out everyone's heating/AC then the most popular candidate would easily be the one who can either turn it all back on or give us something else engaging to keep our spoiled brains off the fact that pioneers had no central climate control either.

I also long harbor the supposition that idea is out there in the files of one or more government-operated 3-lettered agencies.

I;ll give a longer definition later.

Thank you.

Now that today's power is "soft power," that difficulty is removed.

But it is still more difficult for "one to rise up" in a republic than a monarchy. Money and technology has also granted citizens the "soft power" to become our own curators of information (for either good or bad in each individual case). Radical antifa drones et al get that freedom but so do you and me.

I must be missing how a monarchy helps alleviate the (admittedly real) dangers of power consolidation among the elite above and beyond a republican form of government?
 
many of the delegates were Christians
Only in the sense that most of Congress currently claims to be Christians.
it appears that you argue the government was designed by a small number of people
Because it was.
the US government is firmly rooted in Christian principles
It is firmly rooted in natural law. That much of it is compatible with Christian principles does not make it purposefully Christian, it just means it will work well, naturally.
its framers made deliberate efforts to separate it from state-run religion
Yes, in the sense that the framers deliberately made it non-Christian (see end of #23 above) and free from religion.
 
How does the purpose of government affect the "day-to-day" more so than affect the very nature of government itself?

I do not know. You mentioned something like punishing evildoers, but I was not clear on why that would be different between a monarchy and a republic.
I must be missing how a monarchy helps alleviate the (admittedly real) dangers of power consolidation among the elite above and beyond a republican form of government?

That depends more on the political heritage of the people in question. In Britain, not so much. In other countries, the monarch was often at war with the boyars/monied interests, and was often seen as a last resort for the peasants. Again, depends on the country in question.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top