Monarchy, Democracy, or Communism - Take 2
Nine years ago, I was taking courses at Aiken Technical College and was able to complete 30 hours in 1 year - which is full-time college. Before you laugh too hard, the classes taken there were every bit as robust as any course from the other 5 or 6 colleges or universities that I attended previously or since. In some cases, more rigorous.
It so happened that I did a Philosophy course to fulfil the need for another social science course that I would need for my bachelor's program.
We were tasked to write an APA formatted paper and we were given a small list of choices. To me, delving into the best form of government between Monarchy, Democracy, or Communism was of interest to me. I'll not be using APA format or citing anything. Unfortunately, the original paper is lost - this one is mostly a recollection of the original - with almost 10 years of insight. I scored 117 out of 120 on the original - with 3 points lost sprinkled about for grammar violations. Would probably be about 85 today - and maybe even less since academia has shifted greatly in this amount of time. This shift is concerning and for a rant at a later day.
Monarchy
To be truthful, I unfairly dismissed this form of government mostly because I just have strong feelings against the governing by a single monarch. Additionally, the idea that a person or family gets to live above others - but live off of others like parasites offends every sense and belief that I have. My arguments for monarchs were few, against monarchs were many - but likely unfair. In a Biblical sense, if a perfect monarch existed so much could be made by decree to fix everything. This is not a point made before. The professor had by all rights docked me many points for not being balanced.
Democracy (Democratic Republic)
The pros and cons for Democracy were fairly balanced and generally fair arguments. But there was and I believe even today that you must have the right quality of citizens for this form of liberty to exist. As is a major tenet of democracy, particularly a representative democracy; citizens vote freely for a representative to work on their behalf in a governing body - locally, at the state level, and the national level. We trust our representatives to act morally and in a way that is good for us.
The flipside of being represented by others is the concept of legitimacy of the citizen. We agree to follow the laws of those that we sent to represent us. We agree to contribute to society through the fruits of our labor and sweat of our brow. We agree to pay a reasonable tax and we expect for all men to work equally vigorously and in essence - pull their own weight.
But what happens when our elected officials become corrupt and create laws that is not in line with our will? What happens when the citizens become illegitimate - not law-abiding? What happens when they become slothful and come to believe that they are entitled? What happens when those with good work ethics and morality come to realize that they are being used. Free market economies work best in such a style of governing.
Communism (Totalitarianism)
The evil deeds and the murders of likely 100,000,000 people in the last century pretty much doom any preference to this style of governing. Many innocent people are drawn into and have only lived their lives under a communist regime. Most often, the economic system is socialism - which may very well be the most moral form of wealth distribution. There are many flaws to including a lack of that element of greed that causes a worker not to strive to do better, to reach for the stars, not to make more - because it will be redistributed anyway. Such economies tend to be more stable, but also do not grow to a degree that uplifts the most people from poverty. Sure everyone has "enough" (most of the time), but much can be said about innovation and just plain freedom. Free market economies have clearly uplifted more of humankind from poverty, albeit unevenly.
Communist governments and even monarchs can lead by decree and fix problems. Recently, there have been articles in the paper about how China was able to deal with the Covid-19 novel virus more efficiently than our democracy. But certainly, the civil liberties of the citizens there was not of great concern.
Wrapping it up
Circling back to previously asked questions. What happens when citizens in democracies do not respect the rule of law, regardless of the reason? What happens when citizens in a socialist economy come to realize that there isn't much of a point in participation in production of goods and services? What happens when a majority of citizens withdraw from such production?
Governments of all forms must ensure the citizens are, as a minimum - fed, marginally sheltered, and out of the elements. Without a labor force that is willfully part of the production of needed goods, that labor must be compelled to participate.
In short, a citizenry that willingly participate in production (with an additional motivation of profit and a better life), that elect representatives that create laws that they will follow - are certainly candidates for a democratic form of government. They deserve liberty and democracy.
Citizens that will not honor laws of the land, will not participate in production of goods needed by all - must be compelled; therefore, for those lost souls - deserve to be ruled.
Applying these thoughts to the America we live in today, how far are we from deserving less than the liberty of democracy and the free market economy that we have.
Comments
Post a Comment