Democracy, especially in the currently understood "universal" sense, is a pure fallacy. By metaphysical law it is impossible for good things to proceed from "below"; that is, from what we might call "Substance" (crudely convertible, in Scholastic terminology, to "Existence" in the universal). What this amounts to saying is that what is good can ultimately only proceed from Being to beings, not the other way around.

Universal Substance is the "passive" (synonyms from various traditions and practical applications for reference: moon, negative, Gaia, Niflheim, passive, centrifugal)  ontological pole of creation, the "opposite" (complementary) being Essence, crudely called "Substance" by many Scholastics, which is the "active" (sun, positive, Ouranos, Muspelheim, active, centripetal) pole. These, by interaction, manifest the "wheel of life", in Christian tradition "creation".

It may seem that I am merely "speculating" here, but these are universal metaphysical doctrines that are similar and essentially united not because of extensive "borrowing", but because they are true and were passed down by God. The fact of the matter is that "passive perfection" can never really be "active perfection", and whenever this is attempted, in whatever degree of Universal Existence, the result will eventually be suffering (specifically applicable to beings with a capacity to experience such) and deformation (universal). 

Democracy, especially if indiscriminate and merely secular, will inevitably be a more or less catastrophic affair, even if the consequential forces of dissolution may not be perceived until it is too late. For he who cannot perceive them now, I must urge some serious consideration. I know that this goes against many "American dreams" and a lot of "hope" that people may have invested in this world, but the good news is that there are, in addition to the corporeal, actual psychic and spiritual realities that are more ontologically fundamental (and much less narrowly limited) than the former, in that precise order of fundamentality.

Western society can only pray that there will be a restoration of traditional order (proceeding from the purely spiritual domain, from "above" to "below", "active" to "passive") without too much cataclysm and suffering. Anything else, no matter how promising it might seem, will only lead to further "devolution" (a surprisingly proper word in this context) sooner rather than later.

To the extent that one has not realized this, one has yet to shed a few modernist garments.

Last edited by Caeliger (7/21/2017 12:26 pm)

It is often argued, however, that it is harder for a State to commit horrendous crimes such as genocide (in your example) if it is a democracy. The majority of people, at least today, condemn absurd immoralities such as these. People don't like a government that can turn on them ans take away their liberties, and since democracies allow for continuous change in power (by e.g. elections) it is often taken that democracies are better at guaranteeing respect for human rights. And I think that's plausible. Just take a look at the world: most countries that fully respect human rights for its citizens are democracies; and most countries that grossly violate human rights are not democratic. So while it is in theory possible for democracies to bring about corrupt societies that violate basic liberties, it seems that it is much less likely to happen than with monarchies or dictatorships.

Another reason why there is an association of virtue with democracy is, I think, because adult citizens should have a say in how their lives are affected by society. In theory, democracy is better at keeping that right, since it allows for the right to vote for representatives.

That is not to say there aren't problems with democracy or advantages to monarchy. Democracy can easily become a demagogy, and while most people won't endorse serious violations of liberty, they are still prey to populism and can, for instance, elect incompetent representatives that may well ruin the economy, infrastructure, etc of the State. The risk of populist demagogy is the main issue with democracy.

I don't think there is one *best* form of government per se. I tend to agree with Aristotle, and there are societies that are more apt for democracies while others are more apt for monarchies. So we shouldn't treat democracy as some kind of heavenly gift that can solve life's problems and must absolutely be implemented around the world. That being said, however, I personally favor democracy as I think it is generally better at preserving fundamental human rights, and more easily prevents tyranny.

Miguel wrote:

It is often argued, however, that it is harder for a State to commit horrendous crimes such as genocide (in your example) if it is a democracy. The majority of people, at least today, condemn absurd immoralities such as these. People don't like a government that can turn on them ans take away their liberties, and since democracies allow for continuous change in power (by e.g. elections) it is often taken that democracies are better at guaranteeing respect for human rights. And I think that's plausible. Just take a look at the world: most countries that fully respect human rights for its citizens are democracies; and most countries that grossly violate human rights are not democratic. So while it is in theory possible for democracies to bring about corrupt societies that violate basic liberties, it seems that it is much less likely to happen than with monarchies or dictatorships.

Another reason why there is an association of virtue with democracy is, I think, because adult citizens should have a say in how their lives are affected by society. In theory, democracy is better at keeping that right, since it allows for the right to vote for representatives.

That is not to say there aren't problems with democracy or advantages to monarchy. Democracy can easily become a demagogy, and while most people won't endorse serious violations of liberty, they are still prey to populism and can, for instance, elect incompetent representatives that may well ruin the economy, infrastructure, etc of the State. The risk of populist demagogy is the main issue with democracy.

I don't think there is one *best* form of government per se. I tend to agree with Aristotle, and there are societies that are more apt for democracies while others are more apt for monarchies. So we shouldn't treat democracy as some kind of heavenly gift that can solve life's problems and must absolutely be implemented around the world. That being said, however, I personally favor democracy as I think it is generally better at preserving fundamental human rights, and more easily prevents tyranny.

The number one evil generally cited against republican or democratic forms of government is that they are almost necessarily divided into factions immediately. The FF in the USA deplored the idea of partisan politics but it happened anyways (that's one reason parties have no legal recognition in the Constitution). That hardly mattered, of course, because it's virtually in the very nature of such governments to descend into factions: populist demagogy can become a temptation exactly because the society grows sick of the ills concomitant upon factions and partisanship - it desires unity, That being said, I agree with you that in practice republics and democracies are generally better, though mixed systems like Aquinas argued for in the ST also have their merit and, indeed, repubics are pretty close to such a mixed system.

Last edited by Timocrates (12/30/2017 9:07 pm)

Timocrates wrote:

seigneur wrote:

DanielCC wrote:

Simply put: Democracy refers to a form of government not that government's moral character.

Is there a name of a form of government (aristocracy, monarchy, republic, etc.) that *does* refer to that government's moral character?

That's the thing though: it's the moral character that differentiates government; e.g., what provides the difference between a monarchy and a tyranny.

And also the difference between democracy and anarchy. Right?

Caeliger wrote:

Democracy, especially in the currently understood "universal" sense, is a pure fallacy. By metaphysical law it is impossible for good things to proceed from "below"; that is, from what we might call "Substance" (crudely convertible, in Scholastic terminology, to "Existence" in the universal). What this amounts to saying is that what is good can ultimately only proceed from Being to beings, not the other way around.

Universal Substance is the "passive" (synonyms from various traditions and practical applications for reference: moon, negative, Gaia, Niflheim, passive, centrifugal)  ontological pole of creation, the "opposite" (complementary) being Essence, crudely called "Substance" by many Scholastics, which is the "active" (sun, positive, Ouranos, Muspelheim, active, centripetal) pole. These, by interaction, manifest the "wheel of life", in Christian tradition "creation".

It may seem that I am merely "speculating" here, but these are universal metaphysical doctrines that are similar and essentially united not because of extensive "borrowing", but because they are true and were passed down by God. The fact of the matter is that "passive perfection" can never really be "active perfection", and whenever this is attempted, in whatever degree of Universal Existence, the result will eventually be suffering (specifically applicable to beings with a capacity to experience such) and deformation (universal). 

Democracy, especially if indiscriminate and merely secular, will inevitably be a more or less catastrophic affair, even if the consequential forces of dissolution may not be perceived until it is too late. For he who cannot perceive them now, I must urge some serious consideration. I know that this goes against many "American dreams" and a lot of "hope" that people may have invested in this world, but the good news is that there are, in addition to the corporeal, actual psychic and spiritual realities that are more ontologically fundamental (and much less narrowly limited) than the former, in that precise order of fundamentality.

Western society can only pray that there will be a restoration of traditional order (proceeding from the purely spiritual domain, from "above" to "below", "active" to "passive") without too much cataclysm and suffering. Anything else, no matter how promising it might seem, will only lead to further "devolution" (a surprisingly proper word in this context) sooner rather than later.

To the extent that one has not realized this, one has yet to shed a few modernist garments.

But if the people are themselves or the greater part are informed 'from above,' and vote accordingly, then what would be the problem with democracy? In my opinion it is probably more the fact or problem that most citizens aren't in a position to have the time or resources to fully educate and inform themselves on many even vital issues while also being inundated with misinformation that makes it difficult for a democracy to be virtuous in effect more than a problem inherent in the people themselves exercising rule or power.