Continuing the discussion here from another thread:
One person making a decision with no immediate safeguards will speed up decisions. That's true.
Thank you for agreeing with me.
A government that can respond quickly can handle situations requiring immediate answers far more quickly than one with a bureaucracy.
But, any benefit that it affords is outweighed by the increased risk of oppression and harm.
As opposed to the guaranteed oppression and harm done by democracies and republics? I'll take the chance of a good king over a guarantee of an oppressive majority.
Government should protect minorities from the majority. Thus government should protect minorities from majority rule, not impose it upon them. More likely the majority will exploit a minority, than a minority misuse the majority. Democracy empowers the majority to abuse any minority: the rich, white males, Christians, etc.
And, the corrective measure is harsh.
There are far more harsh things than civil disobedience.
The only way to stop a wayward autocrat is violent upheaval.
Civil disobedience is not "violent upheaval."
Give that much power to one person increases hubris, egotism, and bloodlust
As opposed to the same amount of power being given to hundreds or even millions of people?
Tell me how that wouldn't increase their hubris, egotism, and bloodlust.
Better living under one tyrant three thousand miles away, than under three thousand tyrants one mile away, though counting yourself among them.
I find it fascinating that your are advocating this position while Putin is murdering civilians for no good reason.
I've been advocating this position since 2015.
And yes, Putin is wrong in doing such things for multiple reasons. But Zelenskyy isn't much better, by comparison.
Nice, instead of voting to express my concerns, I need to set myself on fire or get run over by a tank.
The things you would be protesting wouldn't be things you could vote on anyways, only the actions of the king in violation of the law he is under.
So, you think blind chance is the best way to select a leader? Seems like a recipe for disaster.
Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV
Compare that to democracy and republics:
The detestable desire to lord it over one’s neighbor incites the worst of men to campaign for office. Democracy, a leftwing idea loved by modern liberals, appeals to those obsessed with control. Democracy, the most divisive form of government, sets neighbor against neighbor. Via democracy, the morality of the Average Man pulls government downward.
Again: One bet against the gaming house might win; likewise, one leader may be benevolent, but not millions. As wagers multiply, the chance of loss increases; so do many voters increase the likelihood for evil.
In BOTH republics and democracies, "politics" and "politicians" are used as perjoratives.
Democracy enables a few to manipulate the many, and easily conceals the true rulers. Republics obscure accountability more so than democracies. We blame officials who blame us.
You will get someone with low IQ
Why do you assume that a higher IQ necessarily makes someone better qualified to lead than a lower IQ?
And couldn't the person, upon becoming king, learn how to rule through gaining of experience?
I don't know what the IQ of King Josiah was when he became king at 8 years old, and he was arguably the best king Israel had, other than David, and he ruled for 31 years.
David was just a shepard when he was chosen to be the next king after Saul.
I presume you meant "or" here...
severe personality disorder and the whole society will suffer for it.
Disorders such as?
Equally, rather, even more likely that we get someone who can lead a nation competently enough that the status quo is, at the very least, maintained.
As opposed to democracies and republics: The larger the committee the more unreliable its performance, thus democracy leads poorly. Even more so for republics.
Would you let your precinct decide your medical treatment? Then should they decide the nation’s
future?
Morally, the majority sinks to the level permitted by government. If the majority is the government, nothing can stop a nation’s decline.
All flawed individuals checked by the other branches of government.
Which are themselves flawed. Which raises the question: Who watches the watchers? This is one of the biggest flaw in the system you defend.
There was a mob on January 6th. But, the NAACP is not a mob, the ACLU is not a mob. Think tanks across the nation are not mobs.
I'm not seeing the relevance.
Flaws in the system are far more tolerable than the havoc that would eventually ensue by relying on chance.
First you have to show that it WOULD result in havoc. And it wouldn't always be chance. In fact, a king would RARELY be chosen by chance, once a lineage had been established. Remember, choosing the king via lottery is only done upon instituting the proposed government (see OP), or when a king dies and doesn't have a son to succeed him.
Why do . . .like lottery selection?
Casting lots causes contentions to cease, And keeps the mighty apart. - Proverbs 18:18
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Proverbs18:18&version=NKJV
Lottery has been used anciently to decide divisive issues peacefully. Selecting leadership by lottery avoids the terrible side effects of democracies and republics.
Some decisions are best made with great deliberation and with input from many viewpoints.
Are you saying a king cannot deliberate or have input from the people he governs?
They crumble much faster than do monarchies, and certainly much faster than constitutional monarchies.
That does not mean Democracies are no good.
You seem to be under the impression that there exists a "good form of government." There isn't, simply because any government on earth contains man as part of that government. Man is inherently flawed, evil. Thus, the "best" form of government is one with as few men in power as possible.
A leader selected by chance is no smarter than any citizens
Yes, and? Better a citizen chosen at random than someone who has the detestable desire to lord it over one’s neighbor, which incites the worst of men to campaign for office.
and that fact that he is imbued with absolute power
No one said the king would be given absolute power.
does not make him competent.
And you think 4-8 years is enough time for someone to become competent at leading a nation? And no, years spent as a politician don't count, since they're not the leader, only someone in power.
The executive branch has power to make immediate decisions when the situation warrants.
And how long do those decisions usually take, from the moment they're proposed, to the moment they're decided upon? Weeks? Months? years?
A single person could decide such matters in a moment.
Decisions about foreign affairs and national security can be made swiftly.
And can be made even more swiftly with a single person leading the nation, no committee required.
Other decisons of domestic policy and spending is controlled by congress.
Moot.
The government's only responsibilities are infrastructure and criminal justice (including foreign). Beyond that, it doesn't have the authority to set policies or determine how much should be spent.
Such is unnecessary, and only inhibits the function of government.
This is a preferable scenario.
How is the government running like a machine gummed up with molasses a preferable situation compared to a government running like a well oiled machine?
Otherwise, we would get leaders passing laws based on their own limited opinions -- possibly treating matters of style like they are matters of substance.
This is a problem your form of government seeks to address, but that mine doesn't even have to deal with.
Under the proposed government, laws are set in stone.
Correct principles of governance do not change. To the extent a constitution reflects true principles of governance, to that extent it needs no alteration. Any amendment process fails to realize that over time, institutions do not improve, but degenerate. Incremental changes to a government tend to deteriorate it morally, not improve it.
The same applies to a nation's criminal code.
As for legislatures:
Laws should be discovered, not created. Laws should not multiply endlessly. Human nature compels legislatures to constantly create new, and increasingly destructive, laws. True criminal law is nonarbitrary. Arbitrary criminal law is more harmful than, and causes, crime. Good criminal law is overwhelmingly negative law, yet legislatures obsess with positive law. Principles of governance are nonarbitrary. Arbitrary governance usurps deity and destroys a nation. The king, not a committee, has the authority to amend only America’s Code of Use. Membership on a committee enables individuals to blame poor performance on the group. Even legislators who voted for admittedly bad law blame the legislature, not themselves. Generally, direction from an individual is more trustworthy than from a committee.
Even a super-majority vote in the senate involves agreement of only 60% of the senators. Unanimity is not a requirement in ANY government decision in a Democratic Republic.
Which is, again, moot under the proposed government.
