Replies

The power of medieval monarchs, while theoretically supreme, was in practice rather severely limited and decentralized, by the aristocracy, the Church, and common law.

Ah, yes. The aristocracy "limited" the monarch when he wasn't greasing their palms. The Church "limited" the monarch when, well, he wasn't acceding to the wishes of whichever powerful Cardinal or Bishop was the local Pope.

As for "common law," that's laughable. It was ignored, on a regular basis.

For all the faults of the American Constitutional Republic, every single individual in authority is answerable, ultimately, to the people.

Imperfect? Yes. Preferable? Absolutely.

How can our rulers be said to be "answerable to the people" (whatever that means) when the only way of voicing displeasure with them is to vote for one (only one!) other candidate who may be just as bad for different reasons? If the American political system gave alternative parties and views a chance, I might have a more favorable view of it. But the Democratic/Republican duopoly disgusts me and certainly does not give me the impression that those in authority are in any way "answerable" to me or to Americans in general.

Polls routinely show that a majority of Americans oppose amnesty for illegal aliens and support greater restrictions on immigration. And yet both parties remain essentially committed to open borders. This does not look like "accountability" to me.

What about Americans who oppose both abortion and an aggressive foreign policy, or who are against affirmative action but also believe in environmental protection? Our system effectively disenfranchises them. Anyone whose views do not fit neatly into either the Democratic or Republican categories has no way of effectively making his rulers "answerable" to him without compromising on essential principles.

I'd rather have a head of state who no one chose than a head of state who others voted for but I did not.

The aristocracy "limited" the monarch when he wasn't greasing their palms. The Church "limited" the monarch when, well, he wasn't acceding to the wishes of whichever powerful Cardinal or Bishop was the local Pope.

Local pope? I thought you were a Catholic, you know nothing of Catholic history. Guess they don't teach that in modernist parishes these days.

As for "common law," that's laughable. It was ignored, on a regular basis.

You make vague assertions with nothing to back them up, you are operating entirely on modern democratic programming. England had a common law system - continential Europe has always followed Roman legal code. Read a book and start with this one Liberty or Equality . Then try learning the history of your church instead of libeling Her. Try Christoper Dawson or Hilaire Belloc first, Harry Crocker III is good for an easy to read summary.

For all the faults of the American Constitutional Republic, every single individual in authority is answerable, ultimately, to the people.

Now your just being silly. You actually buy this claptrap?

America was designed as a republic but with the imposition of dogmatic egalitarianism it has degenerated to an indirect democracy at the federal level with numerous features of a direct democracy at the state level. Why do you think America is becoming more and more socialist and why Europe is completely socialist? There are always more poor people than rich therefore politicans that crave power will pander to them.

Political equality demands economic equality - it's fallen human nature - greed and envy.