I would have taken republicanism to presuppose subsidiarity, though I suppose that’s just because I’m young and idealistic or something ;p The point of republicanism, surely, should be to enable a pathway for truly significant rulership decisions to work their way up the chain, while everything else is taken care of at the lower levels.
5 Likes
I got curious about this, and found this interesting distinction between republic vs democracy:
The key difference between a democracy and a republic lies in the limits placed on government by the law, which has implications for minority rights. Both forms of government tend to use a representational system — i.e., citizens vote to elect politicians to represent their interests and form the government. In a republic, a constitution or charter of rights protects certain inalienable rights that cannot be taken away by the government, even if it has been elected by a majority of voters. In a “pure democracy,” the majority is not restrained in this way and can impose its will on the minority.
I’m not as educated in this area as I wish I was. But from what I’m reading, a republic is no more subsidiary in nature than a representative democracy.
1 Like
Interesting.
Next time, make sure you include an option for patriarchal subsidiary republicanism 
4 Likes
Actually, I guess a republic, in some sense is an example of not subsidiarity, but the converse—a limit being placed on government, but from above.
1 Like
An old roommate once shared this quote with me, by Geoff and Vince Graham, “I am, at the Fed level, libertarian; at the state level, Republican; at the local level, Democrat; and at the family and friends level, a socialist.” And perhaps at the global level, Anarchy?
It summed up a lot of what I had long been trying to put together myself. Early America was more like this, no? No need to have a uniform government throughout the hierarchy.
5 Likes
As pastor @tbbayly said: whatever form, it must include a strict adherence to subsidiarity. Republicanism doesn’t necessarily implement subsidiarity. Subsidiarity is a more organic and vertical mechanism, whereas republicanism enforces checks and balances horizontally by having a mixture of monarchy, aristocracy (or oligarchy as we call it now), and democracy. The point is to offset the weaknesses inherent to each system. While I think that the ideal form would be rule by a good king, as Aquinas puts it… we know that won’t happen on earth til Christ returns. So, in the meantime in the civil realm, I see a republican form as the wisest.
I’d like to see a confederation of small states; at the central level it would be republican, leaning more heavily toward monarchy, but strictly minarchist. At the state and local level the weight could shift more toward aristocracy or democracy… but only as long as subsidiarity is being held to, emphasizing the household as the foundation, and with a proper understanding of the role of civil government as protecting borders and punishing criminals (and that’s it).
1 Like
Are you saying that the need for checks and balances implies unacceptable problems in the system?
We need things like checks and balances to deal with imperfect systems/people. The only seemingly perfect system wouldn’t include humans. And we don’t want that. We have to always have some allowance or level of toleration for bad people, corruption, immature Christians, simple disagreement. An example is the tension often present here in Sanityville, because we are purposely wanting to grow and to challenge each other. And allowing jaywalkers, and allowing some rich men to hoard their wealth. Allowing pot smokers 
I am seeing here that horizontalness is problematic, which makes sense. It’s where we break from clear authority. So a man and wife in proper position requires less internal tie-breaking, less external arbitration. An attempt at egalitarian marriage is self cursed. It’s a mess when our government’s checks and balances are exercised. It’s much cleaner when problems are appealed to a higher authority. Marriages which try to be properly structured become one of a variety of nightmares when the protection and care from the Church are not above it.
Even if “egalitarian” marriages statistically showed less abuse of some sort, it wouldn’t be an affront to patriarchy, because proper patriarchy includes the safeguards of subsidiarity. (Thanks for the new word)
So where does the Church sit in relation to government? Wouldn’t the right place for the Church be some sort of horizontalness, interacting at various levels. Or is the Church really only acting outside it’s sphere through its people who are directly included in other spheres?
Precisely what needs to happen with denominations. Confederation of small presbyteries with all of them united in repudiating any nationalistic aspirations.
2 Likes
Me and my roommates had mainly horizontal relationships. One will be eldest, one may be landlord, but we’re primarily brothers in Christ (or at least each others’ neighbors). The fruits of the Spirit and Christian Liberty keep the peace.
Great question, but let’s not chase it here in this topic. If you want, create a separate topic. (Maybe later?)
1 Like
No I agree, we need checks and balances because of the fallenness of humans… the different forms of government (monarchy, oligarchy, democracy) all bear open channels for the expression of human depravity, but in various ways… republicanism is simply trying to offset those avenues… this is Aquinas’ argument in De Regno.
We should not confuse Theocracy (rule of God) with Ecclesiocracy (rule of a Church). I believe the Bible teaches the former (Romans 13) but not the latter (even in OT Israel, there was a separation of church and state). God created both the State and the Church and rules over both by both special and general revelation.
I voted for Democratic Republic because I see that modeled in Scripture, both in Israel and the church. But I actually believe in a Theocratic Constitutional Republic: a people choose representatives for themselves and are bound together by a covenant, the people and the representatives are obligated to abide by a written document, and all are under the authority of God.
There are church / state implications of all that, but that’s for another thread!
4 Likes
I clicked “other” because “Democracy/Republic” and “Monarchy” were too vague!
Private property and subsidiarity a must in any case.
I’m preparing a sermon on 1 Samuel 8 for my discipleship class. I want the pillars of fire and smoke, you can keep your lower-case kings. 
But as for my worldly answer, well…let me contextualize a bit.
I have a Bachelor of Science in Political Science in which I emphasized my studies in Political Thought. Starting in Classical & medieval, to modern, to American Political Thought. Also spent a lot of time on Constitutional Law and a bit in Criminal law. My Masters is in Public Administration and I’ve worked in Government for over 15 years.
So as for my preferred human governance, a democratic republic is close but a little too short-hand for my liking. I’m gonna outline foundational mechanisms originally found in the constitution but long since ignored or changed.
Federally, all powers must be enumerated without any implied powers. It should not be a force for domestic justice but more for international relations and for keeping economic peace between the states. I’m in favor of the Executive branch having no judicial, no law making ability and no purse to pay for anything. I’m in favor of the Legislative branch having no sword with which to enact anything and no judicial function for enforce it. And I’m in favor of the judicial branch having neither sword nor purse, stuck with the boring job purely of adjudicating cases, with NO LAW-MAKING abilities, as in the Constitution.
The legislative function should be bicameral with one half being representative of districts by population and the other camera being representative purely of each state with two Senators appointed by their respective state legislatures; not elected by the public. All tax and spending legislation must start in the House of Representatives not the senate.
As for law and order, Romans 13 should guide all state, county, and local authorities. Wield the sword to punish objectively evil wrong doers, and promote morally righteous behavior among the remaining rabble. But most authority frankly would remain with the family.
There’s so much more to be said, but I will quote Milton Friedman. “Just tell me where in the world you find these angels who are going to organize society for us.”
Or as Alexander Hamilton put it, “If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary. In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty lies in this: you must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place oblige it to control itself."
7 Likes
Great quotes. Thanks for sharing. And I agree with your ideal government.
1 Like
Would that I could, my friend!
1 Like
Ok, we knew this would tend to drift into the much bigger topic of the relationship between the church & state, so I’ve created a new topic which will probably spawn many other conversations and debates. Let’s keep this one on the topic of form of government.
2 Likes
What Stephen Baker said.