Y Repwblic
Conversations with Wales' Republicans : Poblachiaethwyr - Repwbligwyr - Gweriniaethwyr

The Four Estates Theory : Renaissance Republicanism c1450

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2636

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 12:32 am    Post subject: The Four Estates Theory : Renaissance Republicanism c1450 Reply with quote

[ MARIANNE WANDERED INTO POLITICAL THEORY SO I GAVE HER THIS ANSWER ]

Marianne asked - " Do you mean that before 1948 you could vote twice if you were a graduate in a university constituency? "

http://repwblic.informe.com/viewtopic.php?p=4307#4307

There were several conditions for decades in which certain ( wealthy ) people had more than one vote e.g. members of a university ( I am not sure how that was qualified ) owners of businesses ( could have a vote for their business whilst voting in another constituency - possibly several votes ? ) and possibly a few other kinds of double standards e.g. as the suffrage expanded it was given bit by bit to specific groups of men ( not women ) and when it finally became basically one person one vote the age for women to get the vote was still higher than for men ... some women however acquired the vote for certain kinds of elections before men ... it was all arbitrary and that as such reflects the fact that basically nobody has anything by right in " The United Kingdom " because of the non-political non-principle of " Sovereignty " by which everything that The People in Wales think is theirs by right is in fact nothing more that a temporarily granted privilege which can be withdrawn whenever those possessed of " Sovereignty " wish to : this is the difference between a Pure Democracy and a Pure Republic - the difference between an Ultraism and an Altruism - between The United Kingdom and The United Republic ...

... But less polemically most real modern political systems are a compromise with a bias towards one or the other e.g. " Democratic Republicanism " gets its name from Thomas Jefferson's " Democratic Republican Party " and is taken in general to be like The USA in which The People decide what The State will be like by electing their representatives as agents on their behalf excepting that The Supreme Court restricts the scope of what they can do : this has arguably proven to be the most successful model - except that in many cases suffrage was refused to many groups such as immigrants, women, blacks, natives etc ... In contrast there is what might be described as Napoleon Bonaparte's " Republican Democracy " which is taken to be like The First French Republic where in effect The Supreme Court decided the scope of what The State could do and on its behalf selected the potential representatives which The People could elect : this was the result of their problem of trying to dismantle the extraordinarily authoritarian society of The French Kingdom without The People in France possessing the skills of Democracy : they tried to copy The USA without understanding that The American Revolution was not so much a radical reaction but the re-assertion of the established norms of British-American society against the developing authoritarianism of The United Kingdom which during The Seven Years War had effectively become the mirror image of its main opponent - The French Kingdom ... in early 18c Britain being a Republican was not only normal but patriotic : when The Americans were disputing the behaviour of Parliament in its imposing taxes to pay for The Seven Years War without their having representatives in it they were citing the political doctrine which its existing members cited themselves - Republicanism ...

... This is why Edmund Burke supported the American revolutionaries and argued for their claims - and this is also why he opposed the French revolutionaries : because he viewed the American revolutionaries as defending The Rule of Law - and he viewed the French revolutionaries as overthrowing The Rule of Law ... Edmund Burke's attitude to The Democrats was ambivalent and distrustful : he is notable for asserting - against his own voters of which there were but a few score in those days - that he was not bound to do as they demanded i.e. he was not a delegate merely carrying out their commands but a representative who conveyed their wishes but had to consider the arguments of other elected representatives and so be trusted to make the best decision and if necessary to change his own mind if he came to a better understanding of the circumstances involved. He apparently did not agree with a one person one vote suffrage - but he did anticipate that it was immanent in his famous speech about ' The Representatives of The Fourth Estate ' when the journalists were first allowed to actually sit in a gallery over The House of Commons i.e. the modern usage of " The Fourth Estate " is a misquotation from that speech which equates that term with ' The Media ' when in fact Edmund Burke was citing the Republican argument of " The Theory of The Four Estates " in which " The Peasantry " or " The Democrats " are " The Fourth Estate " ( In the original theory ' The First Estate ' is " The Hierocrats," ' The Second ' is " The Monocrats," ' The Third ' is " The Aristocrats." ) ... BUT WHAT USE IS A DEMOCRACY FOR THE PEOPLE IN IGNORANCE ?

FEUDAL POLITICAL SYSTEMS AND RIGHTS TO VOTE IN THEM WERE BASED ON THE POSSESSION OF LAND : WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR CLAIMED ALL OF THE PEASANTS' LAND AND DEPRIVED THE FOURTH ESTATE OF ITS VOTING RIGHTS - HENRY VIII CLAIMED ALL OF THE CHURCH'S LAND AND DEPRIVED THE FIRST ESTATE OF ITS VOTING RIGHTS BY MAKING HIMSELF HEAD OF THE CHURCH. THIS LEFT THE SECOND ESTATE OF THE MONARCHY WHICH BECAME THE HOUSE OF LORDS ( WHERE THE THRONE IS ) AND THE THIRD ESTATE OF THE ARISTOCRACY WHICH BECAME THE HOUSE OF COMMONS ( WHERE THE SPEAKER'S CHAIR IS ) ... DOES THAT SOUND ODD ? ... LOOK AT THE HISTORY OF PARLIAMENT : THE UNITED KINGDOM IS STILL RULED BY THE ARISTOCRATS THROUGH THEIR PROXIES.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estates_of_the_realm

The estates of the realm were the broad orders of social hierarchy used in Christendom (Christian Europe) from the medieval period to early modern Europe. Different systems for dividing society members into estates developed and evolved over time.

The best known system is the French Ancien Régime (Old Regime), a three-estate system used until the French Revolution (1789–1799). This system was made up of clergy (the First Estate), nobility (the Second Estate), and commoners (the Third Estate). Some countries, notably Scandinavia and Russia, split burghers (the urban merchant class) and rural commoners into separate estates, creating a four-estate system with rural commoners ranking the lowest as the Fourth Estate. In England, a two-estate system evolved that combined nobility and bishops into one lordly estate with "commons" as the second estate. This system produced the two houses of parliament, the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In southern Germany, a three-estate system of nobility (princes and high clergy), ritters (knights), and burghers was used. ... Today the term "Fourth Estate" usually refers to forces outside the established power structure (evoking medieval three-estate systems), most commonly in reference to the independent press or media. Historically, in Northern and Eastern Europe, the Fourth Estate meant rural commoners.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Estate

In Burke's 1787 coining he would have been making reference to the traditional three estates of Parliament: The Lords Spiritual, the Lords Temporal and the Commons. If, indeed, Burke did make the statement Carlyle attributes to him, the remark may have been in the back of Carlyle's mind when he wrote in his French Revolution (1837) that "A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up; increases and multiplies, irrepressible, incalculable." In this context, the other three estates are those of the French States-General: the church, the nobility and the townsmen.

http://cs.stanford.edu/people/eroberts/cs201/projects/2010-11/Journalism/index7f0d.html?page_id=16

Journalism has long been regarded as an important force in government, so vital to the functioning of a democracy that it has been portrayed as an integral component of democracy itself. In 1841, Thomas Carlyle wrote, “Burke said there were Three Estates in Parliament; but, in the Reporters’ Gallery yonder, there sat a Fourth Estate more important far than they all” (On Heroes and Hero Worship). Four years earlier, Carlyle had used the phrase in his French Revolution: “A Fourth Estate, of Able Editors, springs up, increases and multiplies; irrepressible, incalculable.” Carlyle saw the press as instrumental to the birth and growth of democracy, spreading facts and opinions and sparking revolution against tyranny. ... The fact of the matter is that democracy requires informed citizens. No governing body can be expected to operate well without knowledge of the issues on which it is to rule, and rule by the people entails that the people should be informed. In a representative democracy, the role of the press is twofold: it both informs citizens and sets up a feedback loop between the government and voters. The press makes the actions of the government known to the public, and voters who disapprove of current trends in policy can take corrective action in the next election. Without the press, the feedback loop is broken and the government is no longer accountable to the people. The press is therefore of the utmost importance in a representative democracy.


Last edited by dai on Wed Nov 02, 2016 8:55 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dai



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 2636

PostPosted: Wed Nov 02, 2016 1:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Post Script to the above -

- prior to The Norman Invasion of Wales - which was a piecemeal affair of successive incursions which gradually eroded The State in Wales - we had all of The Four Estates : The First Estate was The Hierocracy of Yr Eglwys - The Second Estate was The Monocracy of Y Brenin ( e.g. Hywel Dda ) later Y Tywysog ( e.g. Llewelyn Olaf ) - The Third Estate was The Aristocracy of Yr Arglwydd ( e.g. Rhys ) - The Fourth Estate was The Democracy ( e.g. Llewelyn Bren ) - and most importantly The Law in Wales survived The Fall of The Roman Empire in The West and set Y Cymru apart from the rest of The People in Europe : The Nomocracy ( e.g. Glyndwr ) meant that a pauper could sue a prince - and win !

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

( The following morning )

In the arguments which I began making several years ago I used elements of Frankl's Logotherapy and Kelly's Personal Construct Psychology together with The Theory of The Four Estates to argue that all of them are incursions into society which reach out to exploit The People in The Family which are to be protected from this by The Rule of Law i.e. Nomocracy is to be identified with The Family - whose welfare is The Public Interest. The People in The Family do not - well, in theory do not - seek to coerce each other i.e. it is not in the private interest of any individual to harm or destroy their own family because they know from their own experience that they are heavily reliant upon it when they are very young and very old - but - The Family does not ultimately exist to serve the private interests of any individual within it because we all die and we can not take anything out of The World which we live in : the prospect of Death leads all sane people to do those things which procure more Life for themselves and also more Life for others because we are at all times dependent upon each other to obtain our private interests ... hence The Public Interest is fundamentally about maintaining Life and therefore all sane people are always orientated towards The Future - yet we ourselves can not live forever and since Death can take any one of us at any time nobody can be sure - however hard they try - that they can leave to their own families any legacies such as money, property or status etc. Even if we can leave such legacies we can not ensure that those we leave them to will pursue the private interests which we wish them to : those who imagine that they can enforce their own will upon others after their Death are insane ...

... And therefore we must conclude that those who try to enforce their own will upon others before their Death are also insane : it is not possible for us to enforce our own private interests upon another - we can only be pursue them by mutual agreement and we can only do this through The Public Discourse in which we determine the basis for The Social Contract which inevitably decides The Public Interest which by definition can not allow there to be any exceptions to The Rule of Law : Republicanism refuses to licence the idea that any person is excepted from The Rule of Law - a person who is protesting by resorting to unlawful behaviour for a moral or ethical reason must publicly state why beforehand and report a true account of them and then present themselves for trial in order to make their arguments to The Court in Wales ... This has to be the order of things in order to uphold The Rule of Law whilst disputing whether a particular law is in The Public Interest : it is the duty of all Republicans to uphold all good laws in order for us to claim the privilege of opposing all bad laws - thus criminality is banned : " Nomocracy " means " The Power in The Law " and is the posh word for " Republican " - whereas what those claiming " Sovereignty " mean by it is " We are God's anointed - therefore we are above The Rule of Law " - and it really is just a posh word for " Bandits."

Now I have to hurry along to do other things this morning - but when you start to view things in terms of Nomocracy your view of what happened in Britain over the past thousand years will drastically change : Hywel Dda as The King in Wales was a party to an agreement with The Kings in England and Scotland which was the first incarnation of our present polity in which the inter-dependence of their three realms was acknowledged - but that agreement broke down when The King in Scotland invaded England ... The problem is not one of national rivalries but of The People in Wales, England and Scotland finding that their legal systems were being seized by various Ultraists who re-shaped them to suit their own ends : The People in England may be those who have in the recent past enjoyed the most wealth - but their legal system has historically been the worst ... or rather became the worst : The People in Anglo-Saxony in fact had a pretty good legal system for their time - a thousand years ago - but nine hundred and fifty years ago William The Bastard deliberately smashed it to pieces and reduced them to the level of livestock on the land which previously they had owned. The same bunch of Ultraists did much the same in Scotland ( even before The Ultraists in England tried to invade Scotland and steal what their erstwhile northern allies had stolen ) and of course they did the same in Ireland ( or rather they hurried to follow The Ultraists in Wales into Ireland lest they establish bases on both sides of The Irish Sea.)

The Ultraists in Wales did not start with The Norman French : Ultraism means " Beyond The Boundary " and one way to conceive of it is to think about the social psychology of criminals everywhere - think about it in terms of your own family to gain the immediate sense of it ... A person places a boundary around themselves : they may explain this in any number of ways but the important thing about it is that they become pre-occupied with their own private interests ... e.g. other people become The Other People : they may start to argue that their own private interests are more important than the private interests of The Other People ... it begins as such an argument and you can dramatise this by thinking about such an argument taking place between The People in The Family - when brothers and in particular perhaps sisters - find themselves being defined as The Other People then The Idiots ( literally somebody who lives in The World of Their Own Making ) are laughed off but if they refuse to be reminded of their interdependence with the rest of The Family they are shunned as free-loaders ... Think about badly behaved teenagers who simultaneously scorn all other members of The Family whilst ( A ) producing pretentious lying arguments as to why they are specially privileged ( B ) bullying and emotionally manipulating other children to agree that they are better than them ( C ) expecting, demanding or just stealing money from parents, grandparents who begrudgingly indulge them to begin with but begin to protest and refuse ( D ) eventually - once they have ground down any resistance to these successive behaviours - begin to threaten the others with violence and then to totally control The People in The Family by bringing into their home all of the other criminals they know in order to use The Home as their headquarters to successfully conduct their organised crimes from ...

... Of course there are rival crime syndicates to The Family and in their bandit wars they will set out to kill all of The People in The Family : Granny of course was Ga-Ga and did not understand why the house was full of teenagers or what a ' bong ' was but she did sort of like that nice new cousin whom she never knew that she had who kept dressing in those nice new Italian suits but never played his violin ... But having such nice new members of The Family counted for nothing when she went down to the corner betting shop one day where she was bayoneted by a Grenadier Guardsman who was one of The People in The Other Family ... TOO WHACKY AN ANALOGY ? ... IN MY SOCIO-PSYCHOLOGICAL ADAPTATION OF " THE FOUR ESTATES " THEORY USING THE POLITICAL CONCEPT OF " STASIS " TO DESCRIBE AN INCOMPETENT SOCIETY RESULTING FROM A PROGRESSION THROUGH AN ACCUMULATION OF DEFECTS IN " THE FOUR CONSCIOUSNESSES " OF OUR " OPERATIONS " WHICH ARE NOT JUST THE SOCIO-POLITICAL OPERATIONS OF GOVERNMENT BUT " THE FOUR STASES " OF SOCIETIES CRIPPLED BY INTERNAL CONFLICTS ... ( A ) The First Estate - The Village - Hierocracy : Cognition - Lies ( B ) The Second Estate - The Town - Democracy : Emotion - Hatred ( C ) The Third Estate - The City - Aristocracy : Sensation - Enslavement ( D ) The Fourth Estate - The Empire - Monocracy : Action - War ... [ ... ( E ) The Fifth Estate - The End of Civilisation - Chaos : No Consciousness - Death ... ]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_Estate ... C'mon - I can not bend everything to fit my theory !

Presently I am juxtaposing Nomos V Chaos in The Model - Daf objects because Chaos supposedly obeys Nomos too - a term which probably makes better sense is " Anocracy " -

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anocracy

An anocracy is a government regime featuring inherent qualities of political instability and ineffectiveness, as well as an " incoherent mix of democratic and autocratic traits and practices." These regime types are particularly susceptible to outbreaks of armed conflict and unexpected or adverse changes in leadership. Despite its popular usage, anocracy lacks a precise definition. ... Anocratic regimes are also loosely defined as part democracy and part dictatorship, or as a "regime that mixes democratic with autocratic features".Another definition classifies anocracy as "a regime that permits some means of participation through opposition group behavior but that has incomplete development of mechanisms to redress grievances" ... [ SOUNDS LIKE THE WELSH GOVERNMENT - I BET THEY WOULD BE BEWILDERED BY THE FOLLOWING : THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF SOMEBODY DISCUSSING " OPERATIONALISATIONALISM " I.E. AN EXAMPLE OF PROPER REPUBLICAN POLITICAL ANALYSIS - UNLIKE WOT I DUZ ] ...

... The operational definition of anocracy is extensively used by scholars Monty G. Marshall and Benjamin R. Cole at the Center for Systemic Peace and gains most of its dissemination through the polity data series. The data set aims to measure democracy in different states, and retains anocracy as one of its classification methods for regime type. The data series scores regimes on executive recruitment, on constraints on executive authority, and on political competition. The 21-point sliding scale ranges from -10 to +10, where -10 corresponds to hereditary monarchy and +10 to consolidated democracy. Anocracies are regimes that receive a score between -5 and +5, as well as the special values of -66, -77, and -88, which correspond to cases of foreign interruption, interregnum, and transition regimes. The data set further sorts anocractic regimes into "closed anocracies" (-5 to 0) and "open anocracies" (1 to 5). Consequently, anocracy frequently appears in democratization literature that utilizes the polity-data set. In a closed anocracy, competitors are drawn from the élite. In an open anocracy, others compete too. ...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Y Repwblic Forum Index -> Damcanol - Theoretical All times are GMT
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


© 2007-2008 Informe.com. Get Free Forum Hosting
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
 :: 
PurplePearl_C 1.02 Theme was programmed by DEVPPL JavaScript Forum
Images were made by DEVPPL Flash Games