Thanks for these answers! I respect your views and patriotism, but my American patriotism urges me to share this Thomas Paine quote out of respectful disagreement with your points of monarchs. Here is the other side of the coin -- the all-too-often mentality monarchs actually have, as well-worded in the all-time best-selling work in America, Common Sense: "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
— Thomas Paine (Common Sense, excerpted from The Thomas Paine Reader, p. 79)
Aquinas points out that precisely because monarchy is the best potential system it also has the greatest potential for tyranny. But it's naive to think republics don't tend towards monarchy anyway. They do. Power gets concentrated in a small oligarchy, but there's no king to protect the people from it.
But who is to protect the people from the king? With the power of our lobbyists in Washington & so on, I do see the oligarchical-trend in America. However, taking Aquinas's warning into account, our relative checks and balances are better than a king without any. Plus, oligarchs seem aimed against oligarchs sufficiently that any tyrant does get replaced by another with different leanings every 4 to 8 years without a violent overthrow. Also, we can apply the law to the oligarchs (even if unsuccessfully) whereas kings tend to always be "above the law" and rarely indicted and actually brought to account for any of their actions. (Btw, I understand if you run out of time trying to dialogue me through this, & I have listened to your interview with the Matthew Raphael Johnson several times, but the arguments of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. remain more convincing (some of which are worded in much less eloquent ways in this message).)
It is very difficult trying to talk to Americans about monarchy because for them the idea of a republic has an almost religious significance. Study the problems with democracy throughly first. The importance of that should be clear since their consequences are all around you.
Only the king can protect the people from the oligarchs, and he's preferable to oligarchs. As Dante explained, 'a monarch...has nothing to tempt appetite, or, at least, less than any other man, as we have shown before; whereas other princes have much; and appetite is the only corrupter of righteousness, and the only impediment to justice. A monarch therefore is wholly, or at least more than any other [regional] prince, disposed to govern well: for in him there may be judgment and justice more strongly than in any other.'
Dante's point makes me think of King David who had everything and still committed the adulterous and murderous acts, as God says (even making Dante's point at the end), "I gave your master’s house to you and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and if that was not enough, I would have given you even more. Why then have you despised the command of the LORD by doing evil in His sight?" (2 Samuel 12:8-9). But I will keep reading what you put out. It's a perspective I've never been exposed to before coming across your material (and I see you've just posted on Bonald, whom I've never heard of; I will read it). Thank you for your material.
Dante would counter that by pointing to the universal peace under Augustus. And it's vital to note that BECAUSE monarchy is the best form of government it ALSO has the greatest potential for tyranny. 'The corruption of the best becomes the worst.'
This is why Aquinas says monarchy is the best system SIMPLY speaking, but the best POSSIBLE system practically is what God actually established. Moses (and his successors) ruled the Jews as a monarch, but there ALSO existed a council of seventy-two elders which provided “an element of aristocracy.” Since the rulers were selected from among the people, this sacred regime of the Bible incorporated a certain DIMENSION of democracy (ST, I-II, 105.1).
The "best possible system is what God established" does make me wonder if a monarchy who submits to the magisterium of the Catholic church could work, e.g., St. Louis of France who ruled justly versus Henry VIII of England who ruled unjustly. I've read Catholic Republic by Timothy Gordon, but Catholic Monarchism is still mostly foreign to me and I don't know if (or how much) it actually does entail that the monarchy submits to the magisterium, etc. Any reading suggestions will be greatly appreciated (perhaps reading your post on Bonald and his website this weekend will greatly enlighten me but other reading suggestions would also be quite appreciated (but are unexpected--I appreciate you continuing to allow me to encroach upon your time)).
Thanks for these answers! I respect your views and patriotism, but my American patriotism urges me to share this Thomas Paine quote out of respectful disagreement with your points of monarchs. Here is the other side of the coin -- the all-too-often mentality monarchs actually have, as well-worded in the all-time best-selling work in America, Common Sense: "In England a king hath little more to do than to make war and give away places; which in plain terms, is to impoverish the nation and set it together by the ears. A pretty business indeed for a man to be allowed eight hundred thousand sterling a year for, and worshipped into the bargain! Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived."
— Thomas Paine (Common Sense, excerpted from The Thomas Paine Reader, p. 79)
Aquinas points out that precisely because monarchy is the best potential system it also has the greatest potential for tyranny. But it's naive to think republics don't tend towards monarchy anyway. They do. Power gets concentrated in a small oligarchy, but there's no king to protect the people from it.
But who is to protect the people from the king? With the power of our lobbyists in Washington & so on, I do see the oligarchical-trend in America. However, taking Aquinas's warning into account, our relative checks and balances are better than a king without any. Plus, oligarchs seem aimed against oligarchs sufficiently that any tyrant does get replaced by another with different leanings every 4 to 8 years without a violent overthrow. Also, we can apply the law to the oligarchs (even if unsuccessfully) whereas kings tend to always be "above the law" and rarely indicted and actually brought to account for any of their actions. (Btw, I understand if you run out of time trying to dialogue me through this, & I have listened to your interview with the Matthew Raphael Johnson several times, but the arguments of Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine, etc. remain more convincing (some of which are worded in much less eloquent ways in this message).)
It is very difficult trying to talk to Americans about monarchy because for them the idea of a republic has an almost religious significance. Study the problems with democracy throughly first. The importance of that should be clear since their consequences are all around you.
Only the king can protect the people from the oligarchs, and he's preferable to oligarchs. As Dante explained, 'a monarch...has nothing to tempt appetite, or, at least, less than any other man, as we have shown before; whereas other princes have much; and appetite is the only corrupter of righteousness, and the only impediment to justice. A monarch therefore is wholly, or at least more than any other [regional] prince, disposed to govern well: for in him there may be judgment and justice more strongly than in any other.'
Dante's point makes me think of King David who had everything and still committed the adulterous and murderous acts, as God says (even making Dante's point at the end), "I gave your master’s house to you and your master’s wives into your arms. I gave you the house of Israel and Judah, and if that was not enough, I would have given you even more. Why then have you despised the command of the LORD by doing evil in His sight?" (2 Samuel 12:8-9). But I will keep reading what you put out. It's a perspective I've never been exposed to before coming across your material (and I see you've just posted on Bonald, whom I've never heard of; I will read it). Thank you for your material.
Dante would counter that by pointing to the universal peace under Augustus. And it's vital to note that BECAUSE monarchy is the best form of government it ALSO has the greatest potential for tyranny. 'The corruption of the best becomes the worst.'
This is why Aquinas says monarchy is the best system SIMPLY speaking, but the best POSSIBLE system practically is what God actually established. Moses (and his successors) ruled the Jews as a monarch, but there ALSO existed a council of seventy-two elders which provided “an element of aristocracy.” Since the rulers were selected from among the people, this sacred regime of the Bible incorporated a certain DIMENSION of democracy (ST, I-II, 105.1).
Thanks for reading.
The "best possible system is what God established" does make me wonder if a monarchy who submits to the magisterium of the Catholic church could work, e.g., St. Louis of France who ruled justly versus Henry VIII of England who ruled unjustly. I've read Catholic Republic by Timothy Gordon, but Catholic Monarchism is still mostly foreign to me and I don't know if (or how much) it actually does entail that the monarchy submits to the magisterium, etc. Any reading suggestions will be greatly appreciated (perhaps reading your post on Bonald and his website this weekend will greatly enlighten me but other reading suggestions would also be quite appreciated (but are unexpected--I appreciate you continuing to allow me to encroach upon your time)).