There is an assumption many make that changes the interpretation of history, to give it a name, it is infamously called Modernism. Wikipedia defines Modernism thus: "Modernism, in general, includes the activities and creations of those who felt the traditional forms of art, architecture, literature, religious faith, philosophy, social organization, activities of daily life, and even the sciences, were becoming ill-fitted to their tasks and outdated in the new economic, social, and political environment of an emerging fully industrialized world." Later Wikipedia states, " ..especially in the West, are those who see it as a socially progressive trend of thought that affirms the power of human beings to create, improve and reshape their environment with the aid of practical experimentation, scientific knowledge, or technology." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modernism)
When Modernism is applied to the issue at hand, the interoperation is vastly different then an objective interpretation. While an objective interpretation would look at the matter strictly as it's own subject, modernism looks at it through the lens of current thinking. Thus the "Divine Right of Kings" becomes a stepping stone in the social and biological progress of Man. According to modernism, humanity needed chiefs to evolve into kings, to evolve into monarchs, to evolve into assemblies, to evolve into republics, to evolve into democracies; where we find ourselves today. Therefore, according to this assumption, the argument at hand really is just a historical marker, only fit for a history class and nothing more.
What if instead of looking through the lens of the modernist theory, one was to change the theory out for a new one? Suppose instead of modernism, one was to substitute the more practical absalutetism? By making this change in the theory, a new result comes out of the logical machine. While modernism works off the assumption of evolution, absolutism works off the assumption that their are constants. Working at the problem from this angle suddenly transforms "the divine right of kings" from a historical trivia into a very valuable piece of information, because now it is applicable whereas before it was behind the times. Furthermore, by using absolutism as the theory, it is possible that monarchy is not entirely in the past, and could, provided that the causes were right, result in the effect that monarchy can happen again.
How so? Redirect attention to the three arguments for the divine right of kings and the answer becomes transparent. In order for a monarchy to occur, there must be three conditions: a paternal government, a non-representative government, and a government that plays God. Possible? Extremely so. Here are three ways that the Federal Government has done these three things:
The first way as it pertains to a paternal government can be found in the welfare state. Any kind of welfare from a governing party, steps over the bounds of fraternal government and enters the realm of the paternal. By fraternal is meant the idea that citizens and government are not by right, able to siege the property of another citizen. Whereas by Paternal is meant the idea that citizens and government have a right and a duty to oversee the welfare of lesser citizens, much like the care a father gives his children. The U.S. Government plays the role of father as it manages it's forced welfare.
The second way as it pertains to responsibility and representation can be found in the increasing governing from the bench the country sees today. instead of the citizens using representative means such as the House of Representatives and the Senate, a quorum of nine judges makes the laws. Thus is a tyrannical state relieved from representing the people.
The third way as it pertains to godhood is clear. The U. S. Government thinks that it is a god, upon it's throne in D.C. playing God can be seen with the micro management of everything including the economy, the environment, nature, the laws of nature, the laws of nations, religion, health, taxes/tithing, et cetera infinity.
The US Government is indeed taking on many Monarchal properties. Therefore, do not dismiss the politics from the past, because in reality, those dead politics are still very active.
No comments:
Post a Comment