An Advocation of Government

[JudgeRightly]

So, this "king" hasn't really got much power at all then. "King" in name only pretty much...

Sure he does.

He can do everything except make changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code.

EDIT: Why is it only available every five years?

Ask him. I don't know.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Open to ridicule is one thing.

Using ridicule as your argument against my position is another, and is what you were doing.

I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is and why it wouldn't work.

Saying it doesn't make it so.

Asserting that it would certainly doesn't.

Yup.



Straw man.

If he is capable of leading, he should lead.

If he is not capable, he should not.

Who decides what amounts to "capable"? Say that the person randomly selected is certainly capable of rule but fundamentally disagrees with what you advocate? Face it, you're part of a tiny minority of even fundamentalist Christians who promote this stuff so the odds are that a lottery is going to produce a "king" that would object to it. What then?

Why the quotations?

Because he doesn't have any real power.

So what?

Changes to the Constitution and the Criminal Code would not be allowed.

Well, as above, what's the point? That isn't a "ruler".

God.
Constitution (plus Criminal Code)
The king.

In that order. Does that help?

If he's an atheist (which you haven't ruled out from being capable to "rule") or someone who believes but opposed to this type of "constitution" and legalism then no, it doesn't help. The guy has no power. What if he voices his public opinions that disagree with these laws? Is that grounds for removal?

He doesn't get to choose, as he has no power to change the constitution or criminal code.

:dunce:

Exactly, he doesn't really have any power at all.

:freak:

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure he does.

He can do everything except make changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code.

Does he have the power to voice protest over laws he thinks have no place in the constitution?

Ask him. I don't know.

Oh, okay. Being one of his most ardent followers I thought you might know but fair enough.

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm pointing out how ridiculous it is and why it wouldn't work.

Yet you haven't been able to back it up with logical arguments.

Asserting that it would certainly doesn't.

Which is why I don't just say it would work, I show HOW.

Who decides what amounts to "capable"?

Trying to put a pin on "capable" is like trying to stem a waterfall with one's bare hands.

Say that the person randomly selected is certainly capable of rule but fundamentally disagrees with what you advocate?

Then he would be king until he dies.

I don't see what your problem is with that.

Face it, you're part of a tiny minority of even fundamentalist Christians who promote this stuff so

So what?

the odds are that a lottery is going to produce a "king" that would object to it. What then?

What of it?

The Constitution defines that the nation would be without a king for at most 7 days.

Because he doesn't have any real power.

Sure he does.

He can do everything except make changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code.

Well, as above, what's the point? That isn't a "ruler".

Sure "it" is. :idunno:

A ruler does far more than just sit around all day singing "ho hum" because he cannot change what's in the constitution or criminal code.

lain:

If he's an atheist (which you haven't ruled out from being capable to "rule") or someone who believes but opposed to this type of "constitution" and legalism then no, it doesn't help.

So what?

The guy has no power.

Sure he does.

He can do everything except make changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code.

What if he voices his public opinions that disagree with these laws?

Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

Is that grounds for removal?

The only way a king can be removed from power is if he dies.

EDIT: OR if he is rendered incapable of leading, for example, via a coma or disease, and even those don't guarantee his removal.

Exactly, he doesn't really have any power at all.

Sure he does.

He can do everything except make changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code.

[emoji33]:

AB: :allsmile:

Does he have the power to voice protest over laws he thinks have no place in the constitution?

As above, even the king has the right to his own opinion.

Oh, okay. Being one of his most ardent followers I thought you might know but fair enough.

Being privy to more information than most does not necessarily mean that I am in his inner circle.

:idunno:

 

[ok doser]

artie thinks that because a king wouldn't have unlimited legislative power that he would have no power, overlooking the functions of judicial and executive

which makes sense, i suppose, seeing that he venerates the legal system and lawyers


correction: the corrupt legal system and scumbag lawyers

 

[Arthur Brain]

Yet you haven't been able to back it up with logical arguments.

Which is why I don't just say it would work, I show HOW.

No, you haven't. You've gone on about how having some random bloke as king is going to work without any detailed arguments at all or any rebuttals to the obvious problems addressed further in.

Trying to put a pin on "capable" is like trying to stem a waterfall with one's bare hands.

What would you consider to be incapable?

Then he would be king until he dies.

I don't see what your problem is with that.

It wouldn't be my problem. If he fundamentally disagrees with your system of rule then he's not likely to perform any expected duties or have any enthusiasm for the position at all. What then? Is there some sort of penalty for a king who "shirks responsibility"?

So what?

So it wouldn't be long before there was a revolution to overthrow such. That's just going along with the hypothetical of it becoming real in the present which obviously it wouldn't.

What of it?

The Constitution defines that the nation would be without a king for at most 7 days.

If you have someone who's utterly opposed to the "constitution" and is only king by force and has no interest in it then you wouldn't have any sort of king for the rest of the year either.

Sure "it" is. :idunno:

A ruler does far more than just sit around all day singing "ho hum" because he cannot change what's in the constitution or criminal code.

What makes you think he'd be interested in doing anything as king?

So what?

As above and prior.

Everyone has a right to their own opinion.

So the king would be allowed to express his disgust at laws then, often and repeatedly?

The only way a king can be removed from power is if he dies.

Oh, okay. So if he steadfastly refuses to do anything while in "reign" he can't be booted out of "power" then.

EDIT: OR if he is rendered incapable of leading, for example, via a coma or disease, and even those don't guarantee his removal.

Interesting.

AB: :allsmile:

Yeah, really not very old are you?

As above, even the king has the right to his own opinion.

What if part of that opinion encourages people to protest?

Being privy to more information than most does not necessarily mean that I am in his inner circle.

:idunno:

Fair enough, seems rather odd is all. Why remove it from the site at all?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Sure he does.

He can do everything except make changes to the Constitution and Criminal Code.



Ask him. I don't know.

To add, according to that piece from Enyart, the king is obliged to obey and enforce the criminal code. If he fundamentally disagrees with it, or at least in part then he's not likely to do that is he?

 

[JudgeRightly]

No, you haven't.

THIS ^^^

CONTRADICTS

THIS vvv

You've gone on about how having some random bloke as king is going to work

:think:

Me: "Which is why I don't just say it would work, I show HOW."

You: "You've gone on about how [the system] is going to work"

In other words, you agree with me that I have shown, or at least am attempting to show, how the system will work.

without any detailed arguments at all

I provide plenty of detailed arguments.

Whether you (and others) listen to them is another matter entirely.

or any rebuttals to the obvious problems addressed further in.

I provide plenty of rebuttals.

Whether you (and others) listen to them is another matter entirely.

:think:

"obvious" :mock:

What would you consider to be incapable?

Are you trying to get me to use a circular definition here?

Just look up the word capable (and incapable, if you must).

It wouldn't be my problem.

You keep making it your problem.

If he fundamentally disagrees with your system of rule then he's not likely to perform any expected duties or have any enthusiasm for the position at all. What then?

Then he'll be known as a lazy king. :duh:

Is there some sort of penalty for a king who "shirks responsibility"?

Penalty? Everyone has a right to fail. That includes intentional failure.

The consequence of being a lazy king who doesn't do anything is that history would record him as such.

For most people, that would be motivation enough to not be lazy.

So it wouldn't be long before there was a revolution to overthrow such.

Why do you assume this?

That's just going along with the hypothetical of it becoming real in the present which obviously it wouldn't.

:blabla:

If you have someone who's utterly opposed to the "constitution" and is only king by force and has no interest in it then you wouldn't have any sort of king for the rest of the year either.

And yet, life would go on.

What makes you think he'd be interested in doing anything as king?

What makes you think he WOULDN'T be?

As above and prior.

So the king would be allowed to express his disgust at laws then, often and repeatedly?

Sure. But why complain about something that cannot and will not change?

Oh, okay. So if he steadfastly refuses to do anything while in "reign" he can't be booted out of "power" then.

Even a lazy king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s
actions.

Interesting.

lain:

Yeah, really not very old are you?

Please stop trying to bring up my age.

What if part of that opinion encourages people to protest?

Against what?

Against whom? The king is the highest authority in the land (under the constitution and Criminal code).

Fair enough, seems rather odd is all. Why remove it from the site at all?

Again, ask him.

To add, according to that piece from Enyart, the king is obliged to obey and enforce the criminal code. If he fundamentally disagrees with it, or at least in part then he's not likely to do that is he?

Nope. But...

· Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.
· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.
· A bureaucracy can last for centuries and it morally deteriorates over time.
· Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.
· Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.
· Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.
· Many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these crimes.
· A criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.

 

[Arthur Brain]

THIS ^^^

CONTRADICTS

THIS vvv



:think:

Me: "Which is why I don't just say it would work, I show HOW."

You: "You've gone on about how [the system] is going to work"

In other words, you agree with me that I have shown, or at least am attempting to show, how the system will work.

Well no, with this post and the following you've actually gone on to show just how it couldn't work unless you had a king who was fully or at least pretty much sympathetic with your advocacy of how things should be ran.

I provide plenty of detailed arguments.

Whether you (and others) listen to them is another matter entirely.

No, you haven't, in fact you've undermined yours if you think a king is so important as I'll address in the following.

I provide plenty of rebuttals.

Whether you (and others) listen to them is another matter entirely.

Soundbites and smileys aren't rebuttals.

:think:

"obvious" :mock:

Case in point...

Are you trying to get me to use a circular definition here?

Just look up the word capable (and incapable, if you must).

No, I'm trying to get you to define what would make someone capable of being king, not that it really matters anyway given the following.

You keep making it your problem.

Hardly, I'm not advocating this stuff.

Then he'll be known as a lazy king. :duh:

Why would he care if he fundamentally opposes your proposed system? What would even be the point in having this "king" if he can get away with not doing anything either? Who's gonna perform his duties?

Penalty? Everyone has a right to fail. That includes intentional failure.

So, you think it's important to have a king, one that can't be removed from "power" unless he's in a coma or some such extreme and even if he does nowt he's king until he dies.

Are you seeing the lunacy in this yet or does it still need to be spelled out?

The consequence of being a lazy king who doesn't do anything is that history would record him as such.

For most people, that would be motivation enough to not be lazy.

For someone who's forced into such a position and who fundamentally opposes your system then it wouldn't be out of laziness anyway, it would be out of opposition. I wouldn't want to be on record for acquiescing to an oppressive state and would sooner be in history for someone who fought against it.

Why do you assume this?

Because oppression often leads to uprising and what you promote is an infringement on civil liberty and human rights. If your lottery elected king voices protest on the same then do you think nobody would do the same?

:blabla:

Yeh, that's a detailed argument...

lain:

And yet, life would go on.

Who said it wouldn't? But then, what the heck is the point of having a king if he can effectively get away without doing anything?! Seriously, what is the point?

:idunno:

What makes you think he WOULDN'T be?

Um, if he's opposed to your system then why would you think he'd want a part in it, a forced one at that?

Do the math.

Sure. But why complain about something that cannot and will not change?

Because it can. History tells you that.

Even a lazy king knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s
actions.

Or history might remember a guy who fought against a draconian system and brought about change for the better through protest.

A lazy one isn't likely to care and can just say he was forced into the role through some stupid lottery. Either way, you've got a "king" who's importance is what exactly? Via your system this supposed "king" is in "power" until he dies whether he does a job of it or not, more likely not.

Please stop trying to bring up my age.

Then please start acting it. You're not that young.

Against what?

Against whom? The king is the highest authority in the land (under the constitution and Criminal code).

Against laws that infringe upon human rights and liberty. If the king is the "highest authority" in the land and he publicly speaks against laws that kill people for being gay etc then what do you expect is going to happen?

Again, ask him.

I doubt I'd get an answer and I'm not that bothered. Just seems rather odd not to have it up all the time.

Nope. But...

· Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates.
· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions.
· A bureaucracy can last for centuries and it morally deteriorates over time.
· Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die.
· Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow.
· Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy can never change millions.
· Many monarchs steal, murder, and commit adultery, yet historically they have not legalized these crimes.
· A criminal king harms his nation far less than democracies by which the masses will legalize crime.

Who do you think would be effectively leading the nation if the king was in opposition to his enforced role or couldn't be bothered to carry any functions out?!

 

[JudgeRightly]

Well no,

Actually yes.

You seem to think that it would be impossible for the one picked to change his mind, or for him to be convinced to rule.

Which isn't the case at all.

No, you haven't

Yes, I have.

lain:

Soundbites and smileys aren't rebuttals.

I don't see any smileys or soundbites in the portion you quoted.

:think:

Arty, are you seeing things?

Case in point...

Someone has no sense of humor.

No, I'm trying to get you to define what would make someone capable of being king, not that it really matters anyway given the following.

Well, for starters, a male, any age.

:think:

Hardly, I'm not advocating this stuff.

Straw man.

Never said you were. I said you were making it your problem. You keep complaining about the idea that someone might disagree with the system they are a part of.

Say that the person randomly selected is certainly capable of rule but fundamentally disagrees with what you advocate?

-Arthur Brain

So what?

It doesn't change the fact that he is still king and is expected to rule by those who serve him. And as I said above, it's very easy to change one person's mind.

Why would he care if he fundamentally opposes your proposed system?

Peer pressure, judgment of history, it's what's expected of him.

Stuff we've been over already.

What would even be the point in having this "king" if he can get away with not doing anything either?

What's the point of your complaining?

So the king doesn't want to do his job. SO WHAT!? You act as if he cannot and will not ever be convinced of taking on the responsibilities of leading a nation.

Who's gonna perform his duties?

No one can perform the duties of the king but the king himself.

:duh:

So, you think it's important to have a king, one that can't be removed from "power" unless he's in a coma or some such extreme and even if he does not he's king until he dies.

Yup.

[QUOTE}Are you seeing the lunacy in this yet or does it still need to be spelled out?[/QUOTE]

Appeal to ridicule.

You should start making rational arguments instead of fallacious arguments.

For someone who's forced into such a position and who fundamentally opposes your system then it wouldn't be out of laziness anyway, it would be out of opposition.

:think:

· Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates. · Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions. · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die. · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow. · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.

I wouldn't want to be on record for acquiescing to an oppressive state and would sooner be in history for someone who fought against it.

Good for you.

Because oppression often leads to uprising

· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions. · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die. · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow. · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.

and what you promote is an infringement on civil liberty and human rights.

No, that's just an assumption on your part.

You seem to think that the person chosen would immediately become king.

You fail to consider that there would be a bit of time (not too long) between the person being chosen, and the point when he is crowned king.

And it typically doesn't take much convincing to get someone to accept the power of ruling a nation.

If your lottery elected king voices protest on the same then do you think nobody would do the same?

You keep asserting this, yet fail to consider that he could be convinced to rule, even if he doesn't want to at first.

Yeh, that's a detailed argument...

lain:

I don't argue against opinions.

If you would like to present a logical argument instead of opinion, I would be more than happy to respond accordingly.

Who said it wouldn't? But then, what the heck is the point of having a king if he can effectively get away without doing anything?! Seriously, what is the point?

A single point of accountability.

Which, by the way, often rightly motivates.

:idunno:

That, I agree with.

Um, if he's opposed to your system then why would you think he'd want a part in it, a forced one at that?

This assumes that the person could not be convinced to rule.

Do the math.

:blabla:

Because it can. History tells you that.

Or history might remember

A coward who didn't want to rule for his own selfish reasons.

a guy who fought against a draconian system

Careful now, this "draconian system" comes from the Bible.

Casting lots was how kings were chosen in the Bible when there were no heirs to the throne.

and brought about change for the better through protest.

:blabla:

See above.

A lazy one isn't likely to care and can just say he was forced into the role through some stupid lottery.

"stupid lottery"

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

So, not stupid at all.

Either way, you've got a "king" who's importance is what exactly?

A single point of accountability.

Via your system this supposed "king" is in "power" until he dies whether he does a job of it or not, more likely not.

The likelihood of picking a king who could not be convinced to rule is incredibly small.

The likelihood of picking a king who initially cannot be convinced, but as time goes on, he accepts his role, is more likely than the above, but still not very likely.

The likelihood of picking a king who can be convinced in a short period of time to rule is adequately likely, and would account for the second largest portion of potential rulers.

And the final and largest portion is those who would accept being chosen as king, and who would begin their rule as soon as possible.

Then please start acting it. You're not that young.

Stop bringing up my age, or I'm going to have you removed from my thread.

Do not bring this up again.

Against laws that infringe upon human rights and liberty.

Already addressed.

If the king is the "highest authority" in the land and he publicly speaks against laws that kill people for being gay etc then what do you expect is going to happen?

I would expect that those who serve him would commit civil disobedience, and even try to convince him that what he's doing is illegal, and even wrong.

I'm not that bothered.

Then why make a fuss about it?

Who do you think would be effectively leading the nation if the king was in opposition to his enforced role or couldn't be bothered to carry any functions out?!

No one. And it would be the king's fault.

Hence:

· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions. · Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die. · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow. · Men under an evil king need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.

 

[ok doser]

Then why make a fuss about it?

Good question


And why the bizarre obsession with your age?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Good question

:idunno:

And why the bizarre obsession with your age?

No idea. But it's getting annoying.

 

[ok doser]

No idea. But it's getting annoying.

he's been annoying since he blew in here twelve years ago as red77

here's an interesting response to red77/artie from SOTK (i was koban back then)

if you read the red77 posts, you'll see that artie hasn't changed a bit in twelve years



eta: here's an interesting exchange between Nineveh and red77


Nineveh and SOTK are two posters who I miss - they may still lurk, but i haven't seen them post in quite a while

 

[JudgeRightly]

he's been annoying since he blew in here twelve years ago as red77

here's an interesting response to red77/artie from SOTK (i was koban back then)

if you read the red77 posts, you'll see that artie hasn't changed a bit in twelve years

Btw, I fixed my formatting issue. Forgot the end quote tag on the first part of my post.

 

[ok doser]

and i edited my post and added to it

 

[JudgeRightly]

and i edited my post and added to it

Reading the second bit now

 

[Arthur Brain]

Actually yes.

You seem to think that it would be impossible for the one picked to change his mind, or for him to be convinced to rule.

Which isn't the case at all.

Impossible? No, unlikely? Very much so. You have to bear in mind here that what you propose for modern day society is anathema to the vast majority of the population, including Christians. Addressed more in depth further in.

Yes, I have.

No, you assert lots of things as you do in this post that I'll address separately as it goes on and you make a habit of it aka doing away with speeding limits etc.

Someone has no sense of humor.

Sure ain't me, although something has to be funny first...

Well, for starters, a male, any age.

Any age?

2?

Straw man.

Never said you were. I said you were making it your problem. You keep complaining about the idea that someone might disagree with the system they are a part of.

Let me break it down here. I'm running with the hypothetical of something that couldn't actually happen, but for the sake of argument I'm imagining such a system being enforced on the modern day West. It's not a case that someone might disagree with the system, it's a fact that the overwhelming majority of citizenry would. You're a tiny minority of Christianity alone so the odds of randomly picking someone who would empathize with such a system are astronomical.

Say that the person randomly selected is certainly capable of rule but fundamentally disagrees with what you advocate?

-Arthur Brain

So what?

It doesn't change the fact that he is still king and is expected to rule by those who serve him. And as I said above, it's very easy to change one person's mind.

"So what?" If you were forced into rule over a country where you fundamentally disagreed with the laws in place could your mind be so easily swayed to surrender your beliefs and cowtow to the status quo? That's just another empty assertion on your part. How is it "very easy to change one person's mind"?

Peer pressure, judgment of history, it's what's expected of him.

Stuff we've been over already.

Eh, if I were forced into "power" then all of my peers would support my railing against such a system and "failing to perform expected duties" as it would be in turn if one of my peers were forced into the very same. Where it comes to the judgement of history then a king who helped dismantle and usurp some oppressive hyper zealot state then he'd be looked favourably upon after sanity has prevailed.

What's the point of your complaining?

So the king doesn't want to do his job. SO WHAT!? You act as if he cannot and will not ever be convinced of taking on the responsibilities of leading a nation.

Who's complaining? I'm just pointing out some of the obvious flaws in your own position.

If a king who is ostensibly opposed to a system he finds extremist, oppressive, barbaric etc then what exactly do you think is going to convince him otherwise after he's been forced into a role he had no interest in? Bob Enyart pod casts?

No one can perform the duties of the king but the king himself.

:duh:

So how important are these duties and what happens if he steadfastly refuses to carry them out? If they're of high/vital importance to the nation and you can't remove the king until he dies then that bodes well for your "system" doesn't it?

Yup.

Appeal to ridicule.

You should start making rational arguments instead of fallacious arguments.

Addressed in the previous post and directly above. If you place such importance on having a monarch in power and yet said monarch can decide to perform none of the duties that only he can undertake then that is open to ridicule for reasons that should be downright obvious. Do they still need to be spelled out?

:think:

· Monarchy is the purest form of government. A single point of accountability often rightly motivates. · Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions. · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die. · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow. · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.

Most people would be morally opposed to the very system you envisage that is practically based on OT laws intended for times past. Do you still believe in an "eye for an eye and tooth for tooth"? An evil king is likely one who rules out of greed for power and devoid of compassion or concern for their subjects. That ain't something you can level at one who refuses to serve out of ethical objections to a fanatical religious state.

Good for you.

Yes, it would be. I'd make it clear in no uncertain terms that I hold no truck with legalism and bloodthirsty modern day adherents to ancient laws who would stone people to death, do away with basic human rights and turn the modern day West into a medieval nightmare.

· Even an evil King knows that history will hold him personally responsible for his government’s actions. · Corrupt institutions virtually never revive. Corrupt kings can repent, or at the very least, die. · Individuals often repent, bureaucracies rarely even express sorrow. · Men under an evil King need change only one heart; those in a democracy/republic can never change millions.

Repeating the same quote doesn't make your point.

No, that's just an assumption on your part.

You seem to think that the person chosen would immediately become king.

You fail to consider that there would be a bit of time (not too long) between the person being chosen, and the point when he is crowned king.

And it typically doesn't take much convincing to get someone to accept the power of ruling a nation.

If it's assumption on mine then it's no less on yours. As it happens, you're a minority amid your own faith, that's not opinion, it's fact. Where is your evidence that it "typically doesn't take much convincing to get someone to accept the power of ruling a nation" from? There are examples of kings abdicating from power and that's not in anything like the zealot state that you would have where they've been forced into it by some random throw of the dice. If this king is fundamentally opposed to your state then how are you going to convince him to change his mind?

You keep asserting this, yet fail to consider that he could be convinced to rule, even if he doesn't want to at first.

As above, the chances are he is opposed to your religious state so how do you convince him?

I don't argue against opinions.

If you would like to present a logical argument instead of opinion, I would be more than happy to respond accordingly.

You've been presented with plenty so start responding accordingly.

A single point of accountability.

Which, by the way, often rightly motivates.

So what? Again, you need to take into account that most people consider your ideal of society to be born of religious zealotry ran amok so accountability isn't going to matter to a king who despises those "values". All he has to do is say he was forced into it via some bonkers throw of a dice, has the option of refusing to do anything after having being forced into it to start with and ridicule the people who have nobody in place to perform the duties that only he can perform. Then he can laugh when everything falls apart because it was so ill thought though.

This assumes that the person could not be convinced to rule.

All addressed above and prior else explain how a guy who detests a state that oppresses people is going to be inclined to support it after having been forced into the position.

A coward who didn't want to rule for his own selfish reasons.

Or one who was morally opposed to the state that forced him into a role.

Careful now, this "draconian system" comes from the Bible.

Casting lots was how kings were chosen in the Bible when there were no heirs to the throne.

Yeh, because how things were done thousands of years ago in ancient times were meant for the modern day...

:rain:

:blabla:

See above.

That smiley fits you to a tee.

"stupid lottery"

Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18 http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV

So, not stupid at all.

As addressed above. We don't live in ancient times and tribes anymore.

A single point of accountability.

All addressed prior. If a king can refuse to perform only the duties he's ascribed then who's fault is it for setting up a system where none of those things can get done?

The likelihood of picking a king who could not be convinced to rule is incredibly small.

Total assertion without substance. Unless you hit the lottery against the odds then the chances of the king being a radical zealot of like mind is incredibly small.

The likelihood of picking a king who initially cannot be convinced, but as time goes on, he accepts his role, is more likely than the above, but still not very likely.

Only if he could be convinced to be of the same zealous persuasion as yourself or had a selfish lust for power.

The likelihood of picking a king who can be convinced in a short period of time to rule is adequately likely, and would account for the second largest portion of potential rulers.

Hardly, again, most people would think that the system is nuts and oppressive and short of someone who just wants power they wouldn't be interested. But you don't want a greedy king either, right?

And the final and largest portion is those who would accept being chosen as king, and who would begin their rule as soon as possible.

You're a tiny minority among Christendom alone and you assert about the largest portion who would oppose your state? That's some irony right there. What was that you were saying about opinion again?

Stop bringing up my age, or I'm going to have you removed from my thread.

Do not bring this up again.

What, are you a mod now? I asked you to please start acting your age as you're a grown man aren't you? In other words how about quitting with the juvenile smileys as response? If that still offends your sensibilities then go ahead and report me.

Already addressed.

Hardly. Under your system, women are back to being second class citizens and the freedoms and liberties that are valued in the West are done away with.

I would expect that those who serve him would commit civil disobedience, and even try to convince him that what he's doing is illegal, and even wrong.

Unless his "servers" are all hardcore, religious zealots then most would agree with him.

Then why make a fuss about it?

You confuse an opposing position in a debate with "making a fuss"?

No one. And it would be the king's fault.

Hardly, it would be the fault of zealots who think electing a king through chance in a modern day age is a good idea.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Btw, I fixed my formatting issue. Forgot the end quote tag on the first part of my post.

Oh wow, I see doser's still following me about and even dredging the archives...

Still, at least I only get to see his obsessive, bonkers shtick when he's quoted now.

 

[Kit the Coyote]

I would think the first thing most people would do once they got crowned king in this scenario would be to call a constitutional convention and vote to dissolve and replace the government.

 

[Arthur Brain]

I would think the first thing most people would do once they got crowned king in this scenario would be to call a constitutional convention and vote to dissolve and replace the government.

Ah, but they're not allowed to do that. They're subject to the "code of law" etc. The king doesn't really have that much power...