You wrote:
“OK Let’s take a more recent (if shopworn) example: Adolf Hitler. Duly elected bad guy.”
No. He was appointed by the German president. He was not elected as chancellor. He was appointed and then given supreme powers legally through the German Reichstag. He was not elected to more than the typical parliamentary office.
“Did he stop being a ruthless murderer due to the principle of subsidiarity?”
So you’re denying the value of subsidiarity by pointing pout a ruthless dictator who denied it? That’s like saying babies’ lives must be worthless because abortionists deny that they have worth. If you were smart, just play along for a minute, you would have realized that Germany was a state with no history of subsidiarity in politics. If Germany had been thorouhly embued with subsidiarity would Hitler have ever come to power? No. Subsidiarity as a principle would deny centralization which was essential to the Nazis. But, of course, this reality is al lost on you.
“Did he ever heed any admonition from the Pope?”
Nope. Do yo? Apparently not.
“I am not attacking the Pope, or Catholics. I am saying that this call for a “World Authority,” and imagining that any such authority would be subject to ANY principle completely ignores human nature.”
So we should then abandon principles because human nature often fights against them?
“Period.”
Again, should we then abandon principles because human nature often fights against them?
“If you want to go beyond that (with me) bring it on.”
You’ve already lost. We must support principles or else we lose what it means to be human no matter what the flaws of human nature.
This about elections:
With new election coming up in March 1930, he seized the moment. Hitler and the Nazis went on a whirlwind campaign, making several speeches a day and cascading Nazi propaganda. When all was said and done, Hitler and the Nazis became the second largest political party overnight, winning 107 seats in the Reichstag, the German House.
With a rapid takeover of the Reichstag soon complete, Hitler set his sights for the presidency. In 1932, Hitler ran against Hindenburg in March. With his “Freedom and Bread” campaign slogan, Hitler and the Nazis ran a furious campaign, far out reaching that of 1930. His counterpart, Hindenburg, relied on his reputation to win and did far less than his eager opponent. In the spring of 1932, with 6 million Germans out of work, chaos in Berlin, starvation, and an uncertain future, people looked towards the Nazis with a new and positive light. On March 13, the results came back and Hitler had won 30% and Hindenburg 49%, a run-off election had to take place to decide the winner. The Nazis set out on another whirlwind campaign and Hindenburg did even less than before. Rumors stared of Hindenburg having ill health, but his overall reputation won him the election in the end. However, the Nazi Party gained a huge following and Hitler a new sense of hope for the future.
On July 31st 1933, Hitler’s sense of hope was strengthened was the Nazi Party became the largest party in the Reichstag. The 33 election won Hitler 230 seats in the House. With a strong control of the government and being sworn in as the Chancellor of the German Nation several months prior (Jan. 30, 1933),
http://www.uvm.edu/~sgutman/Twentieth_Century_History.html#The%20Rise%20of%20Hitler
Although there is a difference of opinion regarding elected/appointed, the electionscaused the appointment.
No. He was appointed by the German president. He was not elected as chancellor. He was appointed and then given supreme powers legally through the German Reichstag. He was not elected to more than the typical parliamentary office.(#633)
Is there ANY reason to imagine that ANY elected/appointed "world authority" would be any different?
If you were smart, just play along for a minute, you would have realized that Germany was a state with no history of subsidiarity in politics.
If you were smart, just play along for a minute, you would have realized that THE WORLD is a state with no history of subsidiarity in politics.
Nope. Do yo? Apparently not.
Oh, excellent rejoinder. And so to the point.
Again, should we then abandon principles because human nature often fights against them?
Principles are fine things. I think everybody should express their principles. I do not think anyone should call for a "world authority," to redistribute wealth and bring about disarmament, and imagine that such an authority would actually follow any principle.
DG