That extreme Monarchy you refer to is actually what I believe to be the natural order that people fall into without the hands of empire sheephearding people around.
I do not disagree with you here. I should correct myself and say that extreme democracy leads to tyranny (whether post-republic Rome was a tyranny is debatable of course). In a healthy society, each member is subject to the laws of one's caste and the circumstances that define that caste. Each member should only be allowed to make decisions that are relevant to the healthy functioning of his caste, and family. For example, a farmer should have to make all the decisions that are required of him and learn from his mistakes, and pass those things onto posterity so that they may thrive. However, the farmer should not be making the decisions of the religious and/or aristocratic caste.
I doubt we disagree here.
But I think (and this is just my opinion based on my own reading of history) that you are putting the cart before the horse with the church. I believe a religion that preaches strong values is useless without those values already being inherent in a population, which is why different peoples practice religion differently depending on how their society is structured. I think no church can give people values, and that there are only two ways to bring forth values and that is 1) By example of society (which could have a church at its core or else some other value system based on adhering to the laws of nature) or else or 2) DNA, which I am believing in more and more, but for the sake of argument, I'll stick to the former, since that latter is out of our control.
You raise an interesting point!
But I think Conservationist hit the nail on the head here, religion etc are expressions of the soul of a people. Perhaps I am wrong but you seem to be suggesting that the Church (lets just say religious authority eh?) is some sort of inorganic power strucutre grafted onto a people. And moreover that it debilitates their capactiy to think for themselves and is thus a long term detriment to the well being of a people. Would that be correct?
I simply disagree, having taken the piece provided by Conservationist, I agree that any religious authority as the expression of the essential soul of a people. The religious authority is the upholder and protecter of the ideal a people has for itself. When one submits to the authority of the religious caste one is attempting to mould one's character and life in accordance with the instinctual ideal one has for one's self anyhow.
Perhaps we can both agree that in a Traditional society we do not have to worry about people thinking for themselves, because the religious authority is an expression of their innermost desires anyway?
Your original argument (and I hope I am not misrepresenting you, and if so, correct me or disregard this) was that a person in order to do good must submit to something higher than himself. I'll agree on a couple things about this statement. I agree when you say some people are better fit to lead than others, but I believe when society is left to a natural order, these people rise to the top on their own, and I also agree that self denial is something very important, but I believe people need to run their own lives and judge their own actions and that a society becomes stronger when it does this. I agree with Machievelli when he says that societies that are use to making the decisions on their own are better at it, because I have seen it in history, and the opposite as well, where people who have their decisions made for them become stagnant and useless.
Monarchy is best, the best leading is best. Whether or not this is natural is debatable and to assume that this will happen naturally reeks of the romantic view of human nature, viz that man left alone and given space blossoms like a flower with his highest and best faculties naturally taking over. Is that true of society? Do the best naturally rise to the top, or do the weeds always try to suffocate them?
Society, I think, naturally tends towards disorder unless there is a counter-prevailing force.
Each person must make profound decisions, with you I agree here, but what those profound decisions will be should be based on one's station in life.