Author Topic: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?  (Read 16613 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #90 on: June 01, 2014, 08:33:56 PM »
Monarchy was the most natural among all people, even the civilised nations. The Romans, rightly I begin to think, rejected monarchy and the result of the Ides of March was bad for Rome in one way and yet divinely ordered one might say in another--Constantine arose out of the Roman Empire. I agree with Dante at least on this: That God chose the Romans among the Gentiles because their empire could aid in spreading Christianity to the world. Whether the fall of liberty was good or bad is another question since God works through evil. I am certain that he chose the Roman monarchy to punish the sins of the Jews when they not only conquered them but destroyed Jerusalem. But he also chose the Babylonians for such and yet the Babylonians are the image of paganism in Scripture. But the fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire seems divinely ordered at the very least.
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #91 on: June 01, 2014, 08:39:05 PM »
An army as in early ancient Athens, though, or modern (1940s) Catalonia, or even much of colonial America, was formed and directed by freely-associating and volunteering citizens -- an army with the soul of a knighthood, perhaps? -- at any rate an unusual hybrid, and one I think we common people today could learn something from.

In those situations mercenaries were generally used to seize and maintain power. With the advance of technology volunteer armies just don't cut it anymore.

Very interesting point you raise.

What is it about technology that tends to keep its most advanced forms out of the hands of most people? The irony becomes greater with technologies that require to be built, maintained, or used by large numbers of people.

One could refer to cost, but that is not cutting to the root, since capital is a species of legal permission, and to say "cost" then is the same as, in the old days, to say "power."

No, personally I think technology is just the latest in a series of distractions from the real analysis. What, practically, would prevent the 90 percent of people from taking technology into their own hands, especially if they are its creators and maintainers? It is not different from the question what prevented an army from siding with the people, in the era before ours, or what prevented the people from overpowering their knights when they wished, in the era before that. Of course there are historical examples of all these things, but overall they did not happen -- and what prevented them? I think the answer is part natural, part psychosocial. It is not natural for very large groups to work in unison (perhaps at this point I am partly agreeing with what you keep asserting about nature and kings, but if so very partly), and it is not natural for the vast majority of individuals even to desire to be powerful and violent (see, I am still refuting Hobbes). And then rulers' propagandists and educators (and churchmen) have exploited this nature to strengthen it against all other nature -- so that common people simply have no idea that by colluding they would be the most powerful force on earth even today, have no idea (more and more this is true) even how to get along with one another, and certainly have no idea that their ambition and rulers' is comparable (they think theirs would be a special sin while in rulers it may even be a virtue).

Well, if any of that is true, then we begin to see the sword is not the mightiest weapon -- or even the hired army -- but the mindset of the people. The kings need their priests, the presidents need their educators ... and again, to my (admittedly strange) perspective, we come back to the subject of the Church ...
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #92 on: June 01, 2014, 08:43:35 PM »
Monarchy was the most natural among all people, even the civilised nations. The Romans, rightly I begin to think, rejected monarchy and the result of the Ides of March was bad for Rome in one way and yet divinely ordered one might say in another--Constantine arose out of the Roman Empire. I agree with Dante at least on this: That God chose the Romans among the Gentiles because their empire could aid in spreading Christianity to the world. Whether the fall of liberty was good or bad is another question since God works through evil. I am certain that he chose the Roman monarchy to punish the sins of the Jews when they not only conquered them but destroyed Jerusalem. But he also chose the Babylonians for such and yet the Babylonians are the image of paganism in Scripture. But the fall of the Republic and rise of the Empire seems divinely ordered at the very least.

Habakkuk stood upon the wall of the city crying to the Lord for justice or an explanation of an unjust world. The Lord responded that the world is a wheel, unjust civilization crushing unjust civilization forever, thus just. Habakkuk could not be contented with this and promised to stay upon the wall until God gave him a better answer. Eventually the Lord responded with a great vision of the rise of the common people, their entrance into universal peace, and an End of Days reuniting Lord and man in paradise. Many will take issue with this summary of mine, but at least I think the book will show that, yes, the Lord is not content with the excuses the Babylons make for themselves, and that, yes, kings must fall and pass away.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline OrthoNoob

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,159
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #93 on: June 01, 2014, 09:17:57 PM »
...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued.

There never was a Federalist president, if memory serves me well. John Adams was somewhat sympathetic to the Federalist cause, yet his feud with Hamilton was as fierce, if not more so, than his feud with the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. After Hamilton got himself shot in a silly duel the Federalist party crumbled and vanished, never to return. Too bad, though. The Federalists made more sense than the Jeffersonians - which is, admittedly, not too difficult.

The only chance of America having become a monarchy after the declaration of independence was if they would have crowned George Washington.

And they quite nearly did! Honestly I think George would have made a good King...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued. There would be no Trail of Tears, likely no violent conflicts over slavery, no Civil War, a constitutional Kingdom of America would have been quite more elegant if you ask me.

Pure fantasy.

A monarchical dynasty, beloved by the whole country because of the feats of Washington, and with roots in the South (and especially Virginia), might have served as a rallying point for both sides. Perhaps the civil war wouldn't have happened. Then again, there's no way to know.

Exactly.  And England had a civil war because of its monarchy.

How do you figure?
http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'

Offline podkarpatska

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,732
  • Pokrov
    • ACROD (home)
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #94 on: June 02, 2014, 12:10:07 AM »
Nicene, do you really think life would be hell on earth under a good king rather than a corrupt president? You think he would really send you for slave labor in a factory or something?

Also, I just want to clarify that some lands are just by nature suited for certain governments; North America just seems suited for republics (and tribal democracies if Natives ever get land again), although not the American system. Europe and Asia is the land for monarchies, and Africa just seems to be a wild card.

Then even by that stance of equivalence, a king still is a champion of the people and inspires culture and ambition.

Amatorus, I think you simply read too much Victorian fiction. (And Cyrillic watches too much Game of Thrones.)

:P

Line of the year.....after scratching my head readings the posts in wonderment, that one made me burst out laughing. (It does help if you're the king to have a champion like the Mountain on GOT!)

Offline therovingmethodist

  • Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 138
  • A very bad Christian
"One Bishop to rule them all, One Bishop to find them, One Bishop to bring them all and in the darkness bind them"
-Kostac

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #96 on: June 02, 2014, 10:58:53 PM »
...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued.

There never was a Federalist president, if memory serves me well. John Adams was somewhat sympathetic to the Federalist cause, yet his feud with Hamilton was as fierce, if not more so, than his feud with the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. After Hamilton got himself shot in a silly duel the Federalist party crumbled and vanished, never to return. Too bad, though. The Federalists made more sense than the Jeffersonians - which is, admittedly, not too difficult.

The only chance of America having become a monarchy after the declaration of independence was if they would have crowned George Washington.

And they quite nearly did! Honestly I think George would have made a good King...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued. There would be no Trail of Tears, likely no violent conflicts over slavery, no Civil War, a constitutional Kingdom of America would have been quite more elegant if you ask me.

Pure fantasy.

A monarchical dynasty, beloved by the whole country because of the feats of Washington, and with roots in the South (and especially Virginia), might have served as a rallying point for both sides. Perhaps the civil war wouldn't have happened. Then again, there's no way to know.

Exactly.  And England had a civil war because of its monarchy.

How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Iconodule

  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,964
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Ecumenical Patriarchate (ACROD)
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #97 on: June 03, 2014, 12:18:11 PM »
A suitable description of the modern monarchist, from the Aeneid (via Dryden):

Quote
His pow'r to hollow caverns is confin'd:
There let him reign, the jailer of the wind,
With hoarse commands his breathing subjects call,
And boast and bluster in his empty hall.
Quote
Radiates, vegetables, monstrosities, star spawn— whatever they had been, they were men!
- Lovecraft, At the Mountains of Madness

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #98 on: June 03, 2014, 12:25:29 PM »
A suitable description of the modern monarchist, from the Aeneid (via Dryden):

Quote
His pow'r to hollow caverns is confin'd:
There let him reign, the jailer of the wind,
With hoarse commands his breathing subjects call,
And boast and bluster in his empty hall.

;)

Quote
He spoke; and, while he spoke, he smooth'd the sea,
Dispell'd the darkness, and restor'd the day.

But yes, monarchists in the US are weird. In the UK republicans would be weird.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 12:29:36 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Alpo

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 9,440
  • Faith: Finnish Orthodox
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #99 on: June 03, 2014, 12:35:14 PM »
^I kind of agree with that but I still think that having this or that political doesn't make one weird.

But the stranger that dwelleth with you shall be unto you as one born among you, and thou shalt love him as thyself; for ye were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God.
Leviticus 19:34

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,241
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #100 on: June 03, 2014, 01:05:21 PM »
A suitable description of the modern monarchist, from the Aeneid (via Dryden):

Quote
His pow'r to hollow caverns is confin'd:
There let him reign, the jailer of the wind,
With hoarse commands his breathing subjects call,
And boast and bluster in his empty hall.




ah, the naïveté (and hypocrisy) of republicans.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 01:07:26 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,241
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,241
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #102 on: June 03, 2014, 01:12:13 PM »
Do you really think life would be hell on earth under a good king rather than a corrupt president?
This is really not the question. If you have a good leader, he could be president, king, prime minister, chieftain, etc and he will do a good job and be a benefit to the citizenry.  If you have a corrupt leader, some of those options would be markedly worse than others.  You can have a corrupt president in a governmental system like the US and it is not near as damaging to the general populace as having a corrupt leader in a governmental system like North Korea.  A governmental system should be designed to be able to withstand and minimize the damage that the most corrupt, vile leader can muster because sooner or later, someone like that will end up in power.
You do realize that you are comparing republics to republics, no?
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,241
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #103 on: June 03, 2014, 01:15:44 PM »
Yes, aristocracy will developed, or rather some imitation of it. In America it is movie stars and so forth, but in politics we have families that become powerful like the Kennedys, The Bushs, etcs. But the real aristocracy are the Hollywood types and so forth, who become like the court, and of course the 1%. There is the famous quote by C.S. Lewis

Quote
Quote
Monarchy can easily be debunked, but watch the faces, mark well the debunkers. These are the men whose taproot in Eden has been cut: whom no rumour of the polyphony, the dance, can reach---men to whom pebbles laid in a row are more beautiful than an arch. Yet even if they desire mere equality they cannot reach it. Where men are forbidden to honour a king they honour millionaires, athletes or film stars instead: even famous prostitutes or gangsters. For spiritual nature, like bodily nature, will be served; deny it food and it will gobble poison.

White? Really?

My apologies to prostitutes. (as we say in Egypt, better a humble whore than a tarted lady).

« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 01:16:51 PM by ialmisry »
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline OrthoNoob

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,159
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #104 on: June 03, 2014, 01:16:01 PM »
...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued.

There never was a Federalist president, if memory serves me well. John Adams was somewhat sympathetic to the Federalist cause, yet his feud with Hamilton was as fierce, if not more so, than his feud with the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. After Hamilton got himself shot in a silly duel the Federalist party crumbled and vanished, never to return. Too bad, though. The Federalists made more sense than the Jeffersonians - which is, admittedly, not too difficult.

The only chance of America having become a monarchy after the declaration of independence was if they would have crowned George Washington.

And they quite nearly did! Honestly I think George would have made a good King...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued. There would be no Trail of Tears, likely no violent conflicts over slavery, no Civil War, a constitutional Kingdom of America would have been quite more elegant if you ask me.

Pure fantasy.

A monarchical dynasty, beloved by the whole country because of the feats of Washington, and with roots in the South (and especially Virginia), might have served as a rallying point for both sides. Perhaps the civil war wouldn't have happened. Then again, there's no way to know.

Exactly.  And England had a civil war because of its monarchy.

How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

Oh, that civil war. OK. I thought you meant the English Civil War.
http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #105 on: June 03, 2014, 01:16:51 PM »
A suitable description of the modern monarchist, from the Aeneid (via Dryden):

Quote
His pow'r to hollow caverns is confin'd:
There let him reign, the jailer of the wind,
With hoarse commands his breathing subjects call,
And boast and bluster in his empty hall.




ah, the naïveté (and hypocrisy) of republicans.

All Statists, whether big govt. or small govt. are all still Statists.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 01:17:55 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #106 on: June 03, 2014, 01:19:14 PM »
...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued.

There never was a Federalist president, if memory serves me well. John Adams was somewhat sympathetic to the Federalist cause, yet his feud with Hamilton was as fierce, if not more so, than his feud with the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. After Hamilton got himself shot in a silly duel the Federalist party crumbled and vanished, never to return. Too bad, though. The Federalists made more sense than the Jeffersonians - which is, admittedly, not too difficult.

The only chance of America having become a monarchy after the declaration of independence was if they would have crowned George Washington.

And they quite nearly did! Honestly I think George would have made a good King...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued. There would be no Trail of Tears, likely no violent conflicts over slavery, no Civil War, a constitutional Kingdom of America would have been quite more elegant if you ask me.

Pure fantasy.

A monarchical dynasty, beloved by the whole country because of the feats of Washington, and with roots in the South (and especially Virginia), might have served as a rallying point for both sides. Perhaps the civil war wouldn't have happened. Then again, there's no way to know.

Exactly.  And England had a civil war because of its monarchy.

How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

Oh, that civil war. OK. I thought you meant the English Civil War.

That one seems to fit too. I only knew of the War of the Roses. So, I learned something new today.  :D
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline OrthoNoob

  • OC.net guru
  • *******
  • Posts: 1,159
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #107 on: June 03, 2014, 01:23:49 PM »
...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued.

There never was a Federalist president, if memory serves me well. John Adams was somewhat sympathetic to the Federalist cause, yet his feud with Hamilton was as fierce, if not more so, than his feud with the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. After Hamilton got himself shot in a silly duel the Federalist party crumbled and vanished, never to return. Too bad, though. The Federalists made more sense than the Jeffersonians - which is, admittedly, not too difficult.

The only chance of America having become a monarchy after the declaration of independence was if they would have crowned George Washington.

And they quite nearly did! Honestly I think George would have made a good King...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued. There would be no Trail of Tears, likely no violent conflicts over slavery, no Civil War, a constitutional Kingdom of America would have been quite more elegant if you ask me.

Pure fantasy.

A monarchical dynasty, beloved by the whole country because of the feats of Washington, and with roots in the South (and especially Virginia), might have served as a rallying point for both sides. Perhaps the civil war wouldn't have happened. Then again, there's no way to know.

Exactly.  And England had a civil war because of its monarchy.

How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

Oh, that civil war. OK. I thought you meant the English Civil War.

That one seems to fit too. I only knew of the War of the Roses. So, I learned something new today.  :D

I dont think I'd agree that the English Civil War happened because of the monarchy, unless you want to say anything that happens in a monarchy by definition happens because of the monarchy.
http://avengingredhand.wordpress.com -- My blog

'These words I, Leo, have set down for love and as a safeguard of the Orthodox Faith'

Offline genesisone

  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,906
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #108 on: June 03, 2014, 01:33:55 PM »
This seems relevant.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/06/02/deeply-unpopular-spanish-king-to-abdicate-throne-in-favor-of-son/
So His Majesty saved their democracy for this ingratitude.  Typical.
Not disagreeing with you at all. I much prefer the attitude of my own queen who committed her life to service. However what is happening in Spain (and has happened elsewhere recently in Europe) shows that monarchy is surprisingly flexible in providing leadership within a democratic system.

Offline James2

  • Mr.
  • High Elder
  • ******
  • Posts: 753
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #109 on: June 03, 2014, 02:16:34 PM »
...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued.

There never was a Federalist president, if memory serves me well. John Adams was somewhat sympathetic to the Federalist cause, yet his feud with Hamilton was as fierce, if not more so, than his feud with the Democratic-Republican Jefferson. After Hamilton got himself shot in a silly duel the Federalist party crumbled and vanished, never to return. Too bad, though. The Federalists made more sense than the Jeffersonians - which is, admittedly, not too difficult.

The only chance of America having become a monarchy after the declaration of independence was if they would have crowned George Washington.

And they quite nearly did! Honestly I think George would have made a good King...better than the Federalist rabble that ensued. There would be no Trail of Tears, likely no violent conflicts over slavery, no Civil War, a constitutional Kingdom of America would have been quite more elegant if you ask me.

Pure fantasy.

A monarchical dynasty, beloved by the whole country because of the feats of Washington, and with roots in the South (and especially Virginia), might have served as a rallying point for both sides. Perhaps the civil war wouldn't have happened. Then again, there's no way to know.

Exactly.  And England had a civil war because of its monarchy.

How do you figure?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wars_of_the_Roses

Oh, that civil war. OK. I thought you meant the English Civil War.

That one seems to fit too. I only knew of the War of the Roses. So, I learned something new today.  :D

I dont think I'd agree that the English Civil War happened because of the monarchy, unless you want to say anything that happens in a monarchy by definition happens because of the monarchy.

I was referring to the 17th century English Civil War, but certainly the Wars of the Roses were also fought because of the monarchy.  The difference is that in the Wars of the Roses the issue was which branch of the royal family should have the throne, while in the Civil War the issue was the nature and powers of the monarchy itself.  The monarchy was permanently changed as a result of the Civil War.  Never again was the king able to rule for a protracted period of time without Parliament.

Offline Carl Kraeff (Second Chance)

  • Merarches
  • ***********
  • Posts: 8,017
  • Faith: Orthodox Christian
  • Jurisdiction: Diocese of the South (OCA)
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #110 on: June 03, 2014, 02:56:24 PM »
What a silly thread.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #111 on: June 03, 2014, 03:06:37 PM »
All Statists, whether big govt. or small govt. are all still Statists.

They weren't anarchists, which is the only alternative to being a statist.

Offline Pravoslavbob

  • Moderator
  • Archon
  • *****
  • Posts: 3,394
  • Out for a stroll...
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic
  • Jurisdiction: Antioch
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #112 on: June 03, 2014, 03:28:14 PM »
"Listen--strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you."
Atheists have noetic deficiencies.


Don't believe everything you think.


The more I know, the less I know.   ;)

Offline ialmisry

  • There's nothing John of Damascus can't answer
  • Strategos
  • ******************
  • Posts: 41,241
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #113 on: June 03, 2014, 03:38:33 PM »
"Listen--strange women lying in ponds distributing swords is no basis for a system of government.  Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony."

"You can't expect to wield supreme executive power, just because some watery tart threw a sword at you."
Ah, the coronation of King Mob.

a mandate of collective stupidity, as if morons reaching a critical mass results in intelligence. THAT's a farce.
Question a friend, perhaps he did not do it; but if he did anything so that he may do it no more.
A hasty quarrel kindles fire,
and urgent strife sheds blood.
If you blow on a spark, it will glow;
if you spit on it, it will be put out;
                           and both come out of your mouth

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #114 on: June 03, 2014, 03:45:37 PM »
All Statists, whether big govt. or small govt. are all still Statists.

They weren't anarchists, which is the only alternative to being a statist.

Rubbish. It's not necessary to be an "-ist" to live, at all. However this modern choice we're presented between statism and chaos is so logically fallacious and so transparently self-serving I don't know how even one citizen can take it seriously.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #115 on: June 03, 2014, 03:47:52 PM »
modern choice we're presented between statism and chaos is so logically fallacious

When there's a power outage the people start looting like barbarians and copulating like rabbits. What'd you think happens without a state to restrain them?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 03:50:03 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #116 on: June 03, 2014, 03:56:17 PM »
... a mandate of collective stupidity, as if morons reaching a critical mass results in intelligence. THAT's a farce.

It's simple decency that those involved in some endeavor (such as living) be given charge of it. If they really do make a hash of it (and it's not as though you have empirical evidence they would), then that's on them. And what's the alternative? Do you believe that gods walk among us, not subject to the "collective stupidity"? (Are you one of them, or imagine your qualities would get their appreciation?) But the fact of the matter is that authorities and experts at best can give broad guidance and meddle. In the end, the gardener will plant the garden, the mother bear the children, the doer will do with his own hands and eyes, and the details of their endeavors and the meaning of them will be known only to them and God (n.b.: not gods).

Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἐαυτοὐς ἀπὀ τῶν εἰδώλων.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #117 on: June 03, 2014, 03:59:16 PM »
modern choice we're presented between statism and chaos is so logically fallacious

When there's a power outage the people start looting like barbarians and copulating like rabbits. What'd you think happens without a state to restrain them?

This is the humanity you know? I'd lament your self-loathing, but bow to you as authority on the reason for it.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #118 on: June 03, 2014, 04:05:55 PM »
... a mandate of collective stupidity, as if morons reaching a critical mass results in intelligence. THAT's a farce.

It's simple decency that those involved in some endeavor (such as living) be given charge of it. If they really do make a hash of it (and it's not as though you have empirical evidence they would), then that's on them. And what's the alternative? Do you believe that gods walk among us, not subject to the "collective stupidity"? (Are you one of them, or imagine your qualities would get their appreciation?) But the fact of the matter is that authorities and experts at best can give broad guidance and meddle. In the end, the gardener will plant the garden, the mother bear the children, the doer will do with his own hands and eyes, and the details of their endeavors and the meaning of them will be known only to them and God (n.b.: not gods).

Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἐαυτοὐς ἀπὀ τῶν εἰδώλων.

Some people are more fit to rule than others, and some are fit only to be ruled. This can be because of nature, education, experience or other things. You would want experts in baking bread to bake your bread, so why shouldn't you want experts in ruling to decide how the country is ruled? Surely, you can't leave it to the mob.

Or, if you want the sentiment expressed in Greek, as you seem to like:  "τὸ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ προορᾶν ἄρχον φύσει καὶ δεσπόζον φύσει, τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον τῷ σώματι ταῦτα πονεῖν ἀρχόμενον καὶ φύσει δοῦλον: διὸ δεσπότῃ καὶ δούλῳ ταὐτὸ συμφέρει."

modern choice we're presented between statism and chaos is so logically fallacious

When there's a power outage the people start looting like barbarians and copulating like rabbits. What'd you think happens without a state to restrain them?

This is the humanity you know?

That's how humanity is.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 04:08:45 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #119 on: June 03, 2014, 04:23:04 PM »
Aristotle noticed that it is in men's nature to be slaves, yes, and did he also notice the drive in men to die? The two are connected, in my mind, and are examples of the sordid anti-nature in fallen man, the self-destruction to which the infection of demons drives him, and not of the intended nature from the God who loves mankind. The Logos and the holy Fathers and we must unite in nurturing the intended nature in men -- this would be true "rule." All these alternatives rooted in loathing or ambition are to unite with demons in their view of mankind.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #120 on: June 03, 2014, 04:26:19 PM »
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 04:29:33 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #121 on: June 03, 2014, 04:32:21 PM »
modern choice we're presented between statism and chaos is so logically fallacious

When there's a power outage the people start looting like barbarians and copulating like rabbits. What'd you think happens without a state to restrain them?

The minority of the population. The majority of people would go on with their lives. Most people want to live their lives, not cause problems.

Furthermore, why is state control of electricity so necessary? Can't in be in the hands of people, and not a monopoly? Give people the means to generate their own electricity, and not force them to submit to a welfare state or a corporate monopoly.

Quote
Some people are more fit to rule than others, and some are fit only to be ruled. This can be because of nature, education, experience or other things. You would want experts in baking bread to bake your bread, so why shouldn't you want experts in ruling to decide how the country is ruled? Surely, you can't leave it to the mob.

Which experts? The incestual, half-witted monarchs; the genocidal, megalomaniac dictators; or specific modern American political reference removed. Take your pick. I choose the Mafia, they'd be better leaders.

Quote
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.

Sure. But 'we' are not the ones running the government. Assuming 'we' were in charge, I'd agree with you.

It's fine to discuss general principles and the pros and cons of different forms of government in the public forum, but you crossed the line when you mentioned a specific current American political institution in your comments.  Because this is not the first time you have been asked to not make political comments on public threads, I am giving you a formal warning that will last for 7 days.

Pravoslavbob
Non-religious topics moderator
« Last Edit: June 05, 2014, 10:03:08 AM by Pravoslavbob »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #122 on: June 03, 2014, 04:37:10 PM »
Furthermore, why is state control of electricity so necessary? Can't in be in the hands of people, and not a monopoly? Give people the means to generate their own electricity, and not force them to submit to a welfare state or a corporate monopoly.

Never said that. I only illustrated what happens during a power outage. Chaos.

Quote
Which experts? The incestual, half-witted monarchs; the genocidal, megalomaniac dictators; or the corrupt, special-interest obsessed, moneygrubbing Democrats? Take your pick. I choose the Mafia, they'd be better leaders.

I was thinking about some sort of a census suffrage or having to do a very difficult test before being allowed to vote or be a candidate. Perhaps even the British system from the first half of the nineteenth century. There must be some ways to get rid of most fools and put power in more able hands.

The minority of the population. The majority of people would go on with their lives. Most people want to live their lives, not cause problems.

While being robbed by armed gangs, with nobody to stop them.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 04:39:00 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #123 on: June 03, 2014, 04:38:25 PM »
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.

You do yourself great disservice. It is as much in us to grow healthy and strong as it is in plants that are well grown. Holy wisdom is available and love and joy are always at hand. Centuries of active degradation and fragmentation of us has just sickened and blinded us. But, yes, paradise is to be regained, as we meet with it every Liturgy.

The people need to return to the land, and the Church needs to accept a role of true rulership.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #124 on: June 03, 2014, 04:42:27 PM »
Quote
Quote
Furthermore, why is state control of electricity so necessary? Can't in be in the hands of people, and not a monopoly? Give people the means to generate their own electricity, and not force them to submit to a welfare state or a corporate monopoly.

Never said that. I only illustrated what happens during a power outage. Chaos.

Quote
Which experts? The incestual, half-witted monarchs; the genocidal, megalomaniac dictators; or the corrupt, special-interest obsessed, moneygrubbing Democrats? Take your pick. I choose the Mafia, they'd be better leaders.

Quote
Quote
Quote
I was thinking about some sort of a census suffrage or having to do a very difficult test before being allowed to vote or be a candidate. Perhaps even the British system from the first half of the nineteenth century. There must be some ways to get rid of most fools and put power in more able hands.

We wouldn't have massive power outages if the inefficient system of the state or monopolies weren't the only ones with energy.

I agree that there may be many good alternatives. But I highly doubt that the system will allow for any changes of those kinds. That's why I don't believe in the system.

I don't know how crime and criminality work in Anarchist societies, but most people need reasons to do things. Even if say, looting happened, I am sure a rational transaction can be an alternative. Anyway, communities which have adversities can purge them from the community.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 04:46:49 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #125 on: June 03, 2014, 04:44:44 PM »
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.

You do yourself great disservice. It is as much in us to grow healthy and strong as it is in plants that are well grown.

Individually, yes. Collectively, no way.

Most people don't want 'holy wisdom' or anything like that. They want to get rich, drive nice cars, get to boss people around, etc. etc. 'Holy wisdom' is very low on the list of priorities for most people. Nothing is going to change that; that's how humanity works. Any politician who's attempting to achieve heaven on earth will make it a hell.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 04:47:15 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline xOrthodox4Christx

  • Taxiarches
  • **********
  • Posts: 7,322
  • Faith: Orthodox Catholic Church
  • Jurisdiction: Orthodox Church in America
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #126 on: June 03, 2014, 04:48:47 PM »
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.

You do yourself great disservice. It is as much in us to grow healthy and strong as it is in plants that are well grown.

Individually, yes. Collectively, no way.

Most people don't want 'holy wisdom' or anything like that. They want to get rich, drive nice cars, get to boss people around, etc. etc. 'Holy wisdom' is very low on the list of priorities for most people. Nothing is going to change that; that's how humanity works. Any politician who's going to achieve heaven on earth will make it a hell.

And that's because systems of power gave them those ideas. Human beings don't think about money, power and property when they come out of their mother. Those are thrust upon them.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 04:50:10 PM by xOrthodox4Christx »
I reject all that I wrote that isn't in accordance with the teachings of the Orthodox Church. Also, my posts reflect my opinions (present or former) and nothing else.

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #127 on: June 03, 2014, 04:56:29 PM »
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.

You do yourself great disservice. It is as much in us to grow healthy and strong as it is in plants that are well grown.

Individually, yes. Collectively, no way.

Most people don't want 'holy wisdom' or anything like that. They want to get rich, drive nice cars, get to boss people around, etc. etc. 'Holy wisdom' is very low on the list of priorities for most people. Nothing is going to change that; that's how humanity works. Any politician who's attempting to achieve heaven on earth will make it a hell.

Well, this is the modern doctrine, almost universally accepted. Refuting received wisdom is difficult, as, by the time it is received, it has already had its way with paradigm and popular experience. I can only describe the alternative as I see it -- and wish you joy of the boot upon your neck.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #128 on: June 03, 2014, 05:00:38 PM »
It's with that fallen human nature, a nature generally inclined to evil, destruction and crime, that we'll have to live. The best we can do is constrain the people, bind them with laws, traditions and a sense of morality, in order to make sure they can't do as much harm as they would like. We can't possibly turn billions of people into angels, nor regain, on earth, a paradise lost.

You do yourself great disservice. It is as much in us to grow healthy and strong as it is in plants that are well grown.

Individually, yes. Collectively, no way.

Most people don't want 'holy wisdom' or anything like that. They want to get rich, drive nice cars, get to boss people around, etc. etc. 'Holy wisdom' is very low on the list of priorities for most people. Nothing is going to change that; that's how humanity works. Any politician who's going to achieve heaven on earth will make it a hell.

And that's because systems of power gave them those ideas. Human beings don't think about money, power and property when they come out of their mother. Those are hoisted upon them.

Ah yes, that was what Rousseau - one of my least favorite philosopher - said. Obviously, it is not true. Virtually every adult, wherever and under which system he lives, has a desire for wealth, power and sex.
Some vices are simply hardwired into humanity.

Rousseau's utopianism and his idea about the perfectability of men always tends to end in revolution, disorder, a loss of true liberty and mass executions.


Well, this is the modern doctrine, almost universally accepted. Refuting received wisdom is difficult, as, by the time it is received, it has already had its way with paradigm and popular experience. I can only describe the alternative as I see it -- and wish you joy of the boot upon your neck.

"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths [...] To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind. "

"Men are qualified for civil liberty in exact proportion to their disposition to put moral chains upon their own appetites; in proportion as their love of justice is above their rapacity —in proportion as their soundness and sobriety of understanding is above their vanity and presumption; in proportion as they are more disposed to listen to the counsels of the wise and good, in preference to the flattery of knaves. Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without. It is ordained in the eternal constitution of things, that men of intemperate minds cannot be free. Their passions forge their fetters." "Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves"

Your orderless freedom would quickly result in the greatest and most abject servitude. My idea of ordered liberty would provide the greatest amount of liberty and security to all.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 05:16:23 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #129 on: June 03, 2014, 05:18:35 PM »
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths [...] To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind."

Gosh, I'm not sure how to point this out without embarrassing you, but that quote is not on your side. A vision of wise, virtuous, and free people guided with much thought and deep reflection is not combinable with love of the despot's executioner and hatred of humankind. Perhaps the idiomatic use of singular "mind" at the end of the quote made you think a hymn to a king was intended.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Cyrillic

  • Laser Basileus.
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 13,710
  • St. Theodoret of Cyrrhus, pray for us!
  • Jurisdiction: But my heart belongs to Finland
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #130 on: June 03, 2014, 05:24:18 PM »
"But what is liberty without wisdom and without virtue? It is the greatest of all possible evils; for it is folly, vice, and madness, without tuition or restraint. Those who know what virtuous liberty is, cannot bear to see it disgraced by incapable heads, on account of their having high-sounding words in their mouths [...] To make a government requires no great prudence. Settle the seat of power, teach obedience, and the work is done. To give freedom is still more easy. It is not necessary to guide; it only requires to let go the rein. But to form a free government, that is, to temper together these opposite elements of liberty and restraint in one consistent work, requires much thought, deep reflection, a sagacious, powerful, and combining mind."

Gosh, I'm not sure how to point this out without embarrassing you, but that quote is not on your side. A vision of wise, virtuous, and free people guided with much thought and deep reflection is not combinable with love of the despot's executioner and hatred of humankind. Perhaps the idiomatic use of singular "mind" at the end of the quote made you think a hymn to a king was intended.

Not at all. Restraint is stressed. The other quotes I gave are crucial to the first one in understanding what restraint means. I'll repeat the important parts.

"Society requires not only that the passions of individuals should be subjected, but that even in the mass and body, as well as in the individuals, the inclinations of men should frequently be thwarted, their will controlled, and their passions brought into subjection. This can only be done by a power out of themselves"

and

"Society cannot exist unless a controlling power upon will and appetite be placed somewhere, and the less of it there is within, the more there must be without."

Which power outside of themselves but the state is going to thwart the inclinations of men?
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 05:38:58 PM by Cyrillic »

Offline Sinful Hypocrite

  • Everyday I am critical of others. Every day I make similar mistakes. Every day I am a hypocrite.
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,297
  • The Lord helps those who help others
  • Faith: Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: God
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #131 on: June 03, 2014, 05:37:24 PM »
... a mandate of collective stupidity, as if morons reaching a critical mass results in intelligence. THAT's a farce.

It's simple decency that those involved in some endeavor (such as living) be given charge of it. If they really do make a hash of it (and it's not as though you have empirical evidence they would), then that's on them. And what's the alternative? Do you believe that gods walk among us, not subject to the "collective stupidity"? (Are you one of them, or imagine your qualities would get their appreciation?) But the fact of the matter is that authorities and experts at best can give broad guidance and meddle. In the end, the gardener will plant the garden, the mother bear the children, the doer will do with his own hands and eyes, and the details of their endeavors and the meaning of them will be known only to them and God (n.b.: not gods).

Τεκνία, φυλάξατε ἐαυτοὐς ἀπὀ τῶν εἰδώλων.

Some people are more fit to rule than others, and some are fit only to be ruled. This can be because of nature, education, experience or other things. You would want experts in baking bread to bake your bread, so why shouldn't you want experts in ruling to decide how the country is ruled? Surely, you can't leave it to the mob.

Or, if you want the sentiment expressed in Greek, as you seem to like:  "τὸ μὲν γὰρ δυνάμενον τῇ διανοίᾳ προορᾶν ἄρχον φύσει καὶ δεσπόζον φύσει, τὸ δὲ δυνάμενον τῷ σώματι ταῦτα πονεῖν ἀρχόμενον καὶ φύσει δοῦλον: διὸ δεσπότῃ καὶ δούλῳ ταὐτὸ συμφέρει."

modern choice we're presented between statism and chaos is so logically fallacious

When there's a power outage the people start looting like barbarians and copulating like rabbits. What'd you think happens without a state to restrain them?

This is the humanity you know?

That's how humanity is.

Speaking of Greeks and leaders, most Greeks will tell you the only leader that matters is the family one , if you look to political leaders you are lost.
The Lord gathers his sheep, I fear I am a goat. Lord have mercy.

"A Christian is someone who follows and worships a perfectly good God who revealed his true face through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth.“

Offline wainscottbl

  • Swine of the Sheep
  • Archon
  • ********
  • Posts: 2,943
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #132 on: June 03, 2014, 05:48:52 PM »

Which power outside of themselves but the state is going to thwart the inclinations of men?


Which is why I think libertarian thinking naturally ends in anarchy. Not that it is not something tempting to turn to in the age of statism and nation states, but the state is not some necessary evil. Perhaps often it becomes evil but it is a good. But I prefer "body politic", though it is somewhat outdated one might say.  The state if we must use the word, however, with its laws, is what controls the evil inclinations of men--at least that is the idea of a state and law. They are often abused.

In monarchy the monarch is the state, or the persona of the state at least, with varying assistance of parliamentary assistance. In a republic the people are the state, but the lawmakers their representatives since. Democracy often grows out of the republic, and with it oligarchy, which the multitude, drunk with democracy, often do not see is the real power. Not that there is not a perversion in monarchy--there is in dictatorship. But I tend to think the perversion is less clear, and thus more dangerous, in republics and democracies. In fact the reason of the transition of Rome from a republic to a monarchy lies in the instability of a republic, too. And it is the reason our own republic is now unstable. Monarchies may be prone to a dictatorship, but they are usually more stable.
« Last Edit: June 03, 2014, 05:50:02 PM by wainscottbl »
The roots of education are bitter, but the fruit is sweet.
                                                             -Aristotle



Mor Ephrem, section moderator[/b][/color]

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #133 on: June 03, 2014, 06:00:01 PM »
Cyrillic (and I'm not really addressing you, since you are so committed, but addressing some of what you have written), it cannot at all be granted categorically that a man is unable to rule himself. God gave us by wise creation everything we need to flourish, as he gave the animals and plants (also fallen, yet you would not argue they have lost the capability of growing and bearing in themselves). Yet it may be that there is a man who is entirely unable. In such a case, I would say he is in need of healers, guides, rebukers, and brother-neighbors -- he is in need of inner and outer reconstitution -- and indeed that all men are in some need of this. Yet it does not at all follow that only a nation-state can give him this or, for that matter, that a nation-state even can give him this. His fellows can give him this. Sinful Hypocrite's comment illuminates my proposition that nation-states and before them ambitious cabals and persons ruled not because men had need of them but because men had so little need of them they could tolerate their puerile atrocities and blasphemies and continue to operate as men need. Far from the teacher of mankind you seem to be proposing them, the modern nation-states have been warriors against mankind, enslaving us and separating us from ourselves -- making us, if anyone can, unable to rule ourselves. No, the toxin will not be the antidote.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy

Offline Porter ODoran

  • PHILIA NIKA
  • Toumarches
  • ************
  • Posts: 12,133
  • St. John the Beloved, pray for me
  • Faith: Eastern Orthodox
  • Jurisdiction: GOAA
Re: Is monarchism dead? Will we forever live in the Age of Republics?
« Reply #134 on: June 03, 2014, 06:02:14 PM »
... The state if we must use the word, however, with its laws, is what controls the evil inclinations of men--at least that is the idea of a state and law. ...

There is no necessary identity between state (especially as we know it) and law.
"Love ... is an abyss of illumination, a mountain of fire ... . It is the condition of angels, the progress of eternity" (Climacus).

Quote from: Seekingtrue
Yes we who are far from sainthood we can recognize a living saint and I'm talking from personal experience.Yes they are gentle soo gentle it can not be described it is like gentleness and humility in one and also they have this light this energy it's beyond words...and when you are near them you feel ecstatic and very happy