An Advocation of Government

[Kit the Coyote]

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...

But what he does have is the bully pulpit. No government can stand if the will of the people is not behind it and if the King is laying out daily on national television why the system harms those people and should fall....

 

[Arthur Brain]

But what he does have is the bully pulpit. No government can stand if the will of the people is not behind it and if the King is laying out daily on national television why the system harms those people and should fall....

Exactly. If the ruler slates the system and has the free speech to do so and can't be removed from rule over it then who wouldn't if they were opposed to such a state, as the vast majority are?

 

[Arthur Brain]

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.

Just to pick up on this bit again. How can a king who refuses to perform such duties that only he has authority to do so be accused of doing anything illegal? He's not breaking any law as you've clarified already. He can't be removed for it and any accusations of wrongdoing are just hot air. You've got a "king" who can't be gotten rid of except through nefarious means.

How important are the king's duties again?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Just to pick up on this bit again. How can a king who refuses to perform such duties that only he has authority to do so be accused of doing anything illegal? He's not breaking any law as you've clarified already. He can't be removed for it and any accusations of wrongdoing are just hot air. You've got a "king" who can't be gotten rid of except through nefarious means.

How important are the king's duties again?

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION],

Any answer on this? How can a king who refuses to "perform his duties" be doing anything illegal as you've already stated he's within his rights to do so?

 

[Arthur Brain]

So, effectively, this "advocation of government" comprises of drawing lots and an ensuing "king" who isn't legally obliged to do a darned thing and can sit back and undermine the whole process if he so chooses...

Makes sense in a kinda Monty Python way I suppose...

 

[JudgeRightly]

With the (possibly permanent) posting of kgov.com's Proposed constitution, I figured I'd pin this thread for a bit, and link to the show pages on kgov and their respective threads once they're up on TOL.

So, here goes!

 

[JudgeRightly]

A monarchy is only as good as its king.
A democracy is only as good as its citizens.

It's a gamble either way.

Coming back to this...

In a democracy, it is nearly impossible to cause an institution to repent.
In a monarchy, all you have to do is convince one person that he's wrong, which is far easier to do, and is completely possible.

 

[JudgeRightly]

[MENTION=16942]JudgeRightly[/MENTION],

Any answer on this? How can a king who refuses to "perform his duties" be doing anything illegal as you've already stated he's within his rights to do so?

Perhaps asking you this question might provide you somewhat of an answer, if not make you consider the idea a bit more:

What would you do if, being suddenly thrust into the ruling position over an entire nation, you were told that you could, as long as it did not violate the proposed constitution linked to at the beginning of this thread, do whatever you wanted to, including appointing whoever you wanted to serve under you into positions of power?

In other words, you -- being reminded (if you were an atheist, then told flat out) that God exists, as you were obligated to read the Constitution and Criminal Code when you became ruler, will be held accountable for your actions, even if you will not face punishment on this earth -- would have virtually no opposition to whatever you did, (Assuming you were to appoint people you knew and trusted as your staff. I mean, who wouldn't?) and things would remain that way until your death.

Who would refuse to take on such a position, even considering the responsibility that goes along with it?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Perhaps asking you this question might provide you somewhat of an answer, if not make you consider the idea a bit more:

What would you do if, being suddenly thrust into the ruling position over an entire nation, you were told that you could, as long as it did not violate the proposed constitution linked to at the beginning of this thread, do whatever you wanted to, including appointing whoever you wanted to serve under you into positions of power?

In other words, you -- being reminded (if you were an atheist, then told flat out) that God exists, as you were obligated to read the Constitution and Criminal Code when you became ruler, will be held accountable for your actions, even if you will not face punishment on this earth -- would have virtually no opposition to whatever you did, (Assuming you were to appoint people you knew and trusted as your staff. I mean, who wouldn't?) and things would remain that way until your death.

Who would refuse to take on such a position, even considering the responsibility that goes along with it?

Well, I'd pretty much do what I've answered earlier. I wouldn't conform to any such constitution as outlined in the Kgov link and would do all in my power to subvert and decry it from within if forced into such a role. None of my appointees would support such measures that would effectively resemble a state akin to Orwell's 1984 in many ways.

I'm not an atheist but even if I was, what do you suppose would be the point of "flat out telling me that God exists"? You think that's gonna change someone's mind because you assert it? Any sort of threat about being held accountable for actions after death isn't going to mean much in the same respect either. People's beliefs, hearts and minds don't change because of assertions and threats of retributive action down the line JR. Continuing with the hypothetical, supposing the role of the dice appoints a guy who turns out to have a differing faith when appointed? What happens then?

Who would refuse it? Plenty I would wager as they wouldn't want to be part of some nightmare, draconian scenario like it to begin with. Of course there's plenty of people denied the choice anyway as well, like women?

 

[Arthur Brain]

Coming back to this...

In a democracy, it is nearly impossible to cause an institution to repent.
In a monarchy, all you have to do is convince one person that he's wrong, which is far easier to do, and is completely possible.

Um, so what does that achieve overall? So, say this one person accepts that they're "wrong". Suppose they fall lock and step into your belief system and advocate all that you think should be mandated over the nation. You honestly think that everything would just be sweet and all citizenry would gladly tow the line?

 

[ok doser]

... gladly tow the line?

:doh:

 

[eider]

With the recently elected President of the United States of America finally taking office, I think it's time we really looked at what kind of government God wants. When we look at the Bible, we see that the only form of government God authorized (in both the Old and New Testament) is a Constitutional Monarchy.

---

Questions? I will do my best to answer.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

How do you get rid of s bad Monarch?

A minimum of laws is hardly God's word, leaving out the ceremonial and sacrificial laws there are 507 others. Why would you neglectvso many?

 

[JudgeRightly]

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Ok, and?

How do you get rid of s bad Monarch?

A bad king will eventually die, leaving the possibility that the next king, be it his son or someone else, will be good.

On the other hand, a democracy, republic, et al, once established, does not die easily, if at all, and when it becomes exceedingly wicked, will only continue to become more wicked. This is evidenced by America's current government.

A minimum of laws is hardly God's word,

Fill in the blank:

God originally gave Adam (and Eve) only ____ (number) laws to follow.

leaving out the ceremonial and sacrificial laws there are 507 others. Why would you neglect so many?

Not needed.

At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.

 

[eider]

Ok, and?



A bad king will eventually die, leaving the possibility that the next king, be it his son or someone else, will be good.

On the other hand, a democracy, republic, et al, once established, does not die easily, if at all, and when it becomes exceedingly wicked, will only continue to become more wicked. This is evidenced by America's current government.



Fill in the blank:

God originally gave Adam (and Eve) only ____ (number) laws to follow.



Not needed.

At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.

An execution and flogging system, eh?
Within the 'original' laws scores of other laws have been inserted and hundreds discarded at whim, it seems

And yet, a corrupt King can live on, carrying on, until death.
Neither humane, wholesome nor Holy imo.

 

[JudgeRightly]

An execution and flogging system, eh?
Within the 'original' laws scores of other laws have been inserted and hundreds discarded at whim, it seems

And yet, a corrupt King can live on, carrying on, until death.
Neither humane, wholesome nor Holy imo.

When you don't discuss the points being made and answer the questions you are asked, a discussion cannot and will not progress.

The same goes with repeating your arguments as though they were not addressed.

Let's try again.

Absolute power corrupts, absolutely.

Ok, and?

What's your point?

How do you get rid of s bad Monarch?

A bad king will eventually die, leaving the possibility that the next king, be it his son or someone else, will be good.

On the other hand, a democracy, republic, et al, once established, does not die easily, if at all, and when it becomes exceedingly wicked, will only continue to become more wicked. This is evidenced by America's current government.

Eider, perhaps you could explain, just roughly, how one would go about turning a wicked democracy/republic into a good one.

A minimum of laws is hardly God's word,

Fill in the blank:

God originally gave Adam (and Eve) only ____ (number) laws to follow.

And by "originally," I mean before the Fall of man.

leaving out the ceremonial and sacrificial laws there are 507 others. Why would you neglect so many?

Not needed.

At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.

Eider, why do you think that laws other than the ones given are needed for a government?

-----

Now to address your latest post:

An execution and flogging system, eh?

Capital punishment, corporal punishment, and restitution.

Within the 'original' laws

The "original laws"?

Which ones are those? The ones given to Moses? The ones given to Noah? Or the ones given to Adam (and Eve)?

scores of other laws have been inserted

Specifically?

and hundreds discarded at whim, it seems

Opinion noted.

And yet, a corrupt King can live on, carrying on, until death.

Yes, and when he dies, there is the possibility of having a good king take his place.

Please explain how the same thing is possible in a democracy or republic.

Neither humane, wholesome nor Holy imo.

By whose standard? Yours?

 

[eider]

When you don't discuss the points being made and answer the questions you are asked, a discussion cannot and will not progress.

The same goes with repeating your arguments as though they were not addressed.

Let's try again.



Ok, and?

What's your point?



A bad king will eventually die, leaving the possibility that the next king, be it his son or someone else, will be good.

On the other hand, a democracy, republic, et al, once established, does not die easily, if at all, and when it becomes exceedingly wicked, will only continue to become more wicked. This is evidenced by America's current government.

Eider, perhaps you could explain, just roughly, how one would go about turning a wicked democracy/republic into a good one.



Fill in the blank:

God originally gave Adam (and Eve) only ____ (number) laws to follow.

And by "originally," I mean before the Fall of man.



Not needed.

At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.

Eider, why do you think that laws other than the ones given are needed for a government?

-----

Now to address your latest post:



Capital punishment, corporal punishment, and restitution.



The "original laws"?

Which ones are those? The ones given to Moses? The ones given to Noah? Or the ones given to Adam (and Eve)?



Specifically?



Opinion noted.



Yes, and when he dies, there is the possibility of having a good king take his place.

Please explain how the same thing is possible in a democracy or republic.



By whose standard? Yours?

I'm on a mobile and so cannot break down your post

For now let me enlarge upon power-corrupts.
Monarchs have had a tendency to become totally corrupted, and the likelihood of this is just too high for true justice. Only a Monarch controlled by representatives of the people has worked reasonably well.

But the officials of your system would soon descend in to a system of horror and oppression.

I acknowledge your point that some present systems of democracy are a mess, but such systems can correct themselves in time, just as a bad Monarch can die.

I also wonder who selected the lists of offences in this system, with their vicious punishments. I am reminded of the Royal Navy circa 18th century, where it's articles of war carried the lash, the cane, the noose and the firing squad but even that system provided protection for the very young and the disabled.

There was no provision for the disabled on this monarchy, it seems.

If you read Marx's system of communism it looks ideal and that deteriorated in to a disgusting system of oppression withing a couple of decades. How do you think this idea could do any better?

 

[eider]

When you don't discuss the points being made and answer the questions you are asked, a discussion cannot and will not progress.

The same goes with repeating your arguments as though they were not addressed.

Let's try again.



Ok, and?

What's your point?



A bad king will eventually die, leaving the possibility that the next king, be it his son or someone else, will be good.

On the other hand, a democracy, republic, et al, once established, does not die easily, if at all, and when it becomes exceedingly wicked, will only continue to become more wicked. This is evidenced by America's current government.

Eider, perhaps you could explain, just roughly, how one would go about turning a wicked democracy/republic into a good one.



Fill in the blank:

God originally gave Adam (and Eve) only ____ (number) laws to follow.

And by "originally," I mean before the Fall of man.



Not needed.

At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.

Eider, why do you think that laws other than the ones given are needed for a government?

-----

Now to address your latest post:



Capital punishment, corporal punishment, and restitution.



The "original laws"?

Which ones are those? The ones given to Moses? The ones given to Noah? Or the ones given to Adam (and Eve)?



Specifically?



Opinion noted.



Yes, and when he dies, there is the possibility of having a good king take his place.

Please explain how the same thing is possible in a democracy or republic.



By whose standard? Yours?

On the side.,.......
this system...... It is nothing to do with Paul's ideas about Christianity or Christian churches. True?

 

[eider]

A bad king will eventually die, leaving the possibility that the next king, be it his son or someone else, will be good.

On the other hand, a democracy, republic, et al, once established, does not die easily, if at all, and when it becomes exceedingly wicked, will only continue to become more wicked. This is evidenced by America's current government.

The US system is not wicked....... the people can correct past mistakes.

Fill in the blank:

God originally gave Adam (and Eve) only ____ (number) laws to follow.

Not needed.

But this system does not rely upon God's laws given to Adam and Eve. It chooses from many other systems and laws as well. I read the linked description.

At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.

.... because the system has added so many others!

 

[eider]

............................
At http://kgov.com/criminal-code there is a list of five laws. Perhaps you could explain why you think any more than those five laws are needed to govern a nation.
Eider, why do you think that laws other than the ones given are needed for a government?

A Monarchy is a government. And the list of laws quoted are as shown in order in Mt Enyart's prosal, and they come far and wide from just the laws given to Adam and Eve, and they have been chosen, presumably by Mr Enyart?

The "original laws"?
Which ones are those? The ones given to Moses? The ones given to Noah? Or the ones given to Adam (and Eve)?
Specifically?

The following in correct order, as shown in Mr Enyart's proposal.
Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21, 31; Deut. 19:11-13; 1Ki. 18:22, 39-40; 1 Tim. 1:8-10 Ex. 21:22-23 Ex. 21:18-19 Lev. 24:19-20 Deut. 25:1-3; Lev. 24:19-20; 19:16-21; 1 Pet. 2:20 Deut. 19:4 Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8 Num. 35:26-27 Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16bLev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21 Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13 Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7 Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14vDeut. 25:1‑3 Ex. 22:4, 7-9; 20:15 vEx. 22:1 Prov. 6:30-31 Lev. 6:1-7 Ex. 21:32-36; Lev. 24:18 Deut. 19:16-21; 2 Sam. 1:15-16; Ex. 20:16 Deut. 17:12-13 22:22-27 Pro. 17:15 James 5:12, Mat. 5:34-37; 2 Cor. 1:17 Deut. 13:9; 17:7 Num. 35:31; Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30- 31). Ex. 20:17)..

Yes, and when he dies, there is the possibility of having a good king take his place.
Please explain how the same thing is possible in a democracy or republic.
By whose standard? Yours?

We are discussing My Enyart's proposal for a kind of Monarchy.
I don't know how these Kings are chosen, and I don't know how they live, and pay their Judges, Officials, Officers, soldiers and other administrative folks. There seems to be no provision for these people or their families.
Can you give guidance as to how the money is raised to keep this Monacjy ??

 

[JudgeRightly]

I'm on a mobile and so cannot break down your post

Use the open [QUOTE]and close [/QUOTE] tags.

For now let me enlarge upon power-corrupts.
Monarchs have had a tendency to become totally corrupted,

Not necessarily.

and the likelihood of this is just too high for true justice.

So would you say that God is corrupt, because He had absolute power for eternity past, and because of that, no longer just?

Only a Monarch controlled

Sorry, but if the Monarch is the highest power in the land, having someone control him would render him just a figure head.

The proposed constitution in the OP of this thread sets up a proper monarchy, with authority flowing downhill, not uphill, as you seem to suggest.

by representatives of the people

Have you never read Numbers 16? I recommend you do.

has worked reasonably well.

Not really.

But the officials of your system would soon descend in to a system of horror and oppression.

How so?

I acknowledge your point that some present systems of democracy are a mess, but such systems can correct themselves in time, just as a bad Monarch can die.

Could you name one nation which, under democracy, brought itself back from the brink of destruction? Because I can't think of any... :idunno:

I also wonder who selected the lists of offences in this system, with their vicious punishments.

Have you ever read Exodus 20? Ever heard of the 10 commandments? The laws in the proposed criminal code come from that.

I am reminded of the Royal Navy circa 18th century, where it's articles of war carried the lash, the cane, the noose and the firing squad but even that system provided protection for the very young and the disabled.

:yawn:

There was no provision for the disabled on this monarchy, it seems.

Why should there be?

If you read Marx's system of communism it looks ideal and that deteriorated in to a disgusting system of oppression withing a couple of decades. How do you think this idea could do any better?

Marx based his system upon a misunderstanding of a temporary system in the Bible that was not intended to last for long periods of time.

The system the proposed constitution is based on was intended to last for hundreds of years, if not thousands, and in fact did last for several hundred years.

On the side.,.......
this system...... It is nothing to do with Paul's ideas about Christianity or Christian churches. True?

No. This is a governmental system, not an organism.

The US system is not wicked.......

According to whose standard? Yours?

Because according to God's standard, it is exceedingly wicked.

the people can correct past mistakes.

While individuals often repent and turn toward God, the masses rarely do, especially not of their own leading.

Why base a government on the slim possibility that the masses will repent, where you can base it on the greater possibility that an individual will repent?

But this system does not rely upon God's laws given to Adam and Eve.

The question I asked you was asking you about the quantity of laws used, not which laws were used.

Could you answer the question please?

How many laws did God give Adam (and Eve) before the Fall?

It chooses from many other systems and laws as well. I read the linked description.

On the contrary, it does not.

Did you notice that the laws in each of the five paragraphs are simply extensions of the first sentence?

Laws relating to physical crimes
Laws relating to sexual crimes
Laws relating to property crimes
Laws dealing with bearing false witness
Law to determine intent in court

.... because the system has added so many others!

Rather, it has not. See above.

A Monarchy is a government.

Yes, and?

And the list of laws quoted are as shown in order in Mt Enyart's prosal[sic], and they come far and wide

Rather, they come from the Law (the collection of books in the Hebrew text).

They don't come from "far and wide."

from just the laws given to Adam and Eve, and they have been chosen, presumably by Mr Enyart?

Did you have a point to make?

The following in correct order, as shown in Mr Enyart's proposal.
Gen. 9:6; Ex. 21:12-14; 20:13; Lev. 24:17, 21; Num. 35:16-21, 31; Deut. 19:11-13; 1Ki. 18:22, 39-40; 1 Tim. 1:8-10 Ex. 21:22-23 Ex. 21:18-19 Lev. 24:19-20 Deut. 25:1-3; Lev. 24:19-20; 19:16-21; 1 Pet. 2:20 Deut. 19:4 Ex. 21:28-30; Deut. 22:8 Num. 35:26-27 Ex. 22:19; Lev. 20:15-16bLev. 11-12, 14-15, 17, 19-21 Lev. 18:22, 29; 20:13 Ex. 21:15-16; Deut. 22:25-27; 24:7 Lev. 20:10; Deut. 22:22; Ex. 20:14vDeut. 25:1‑3 Ex. 22:4, 7-9; 20:15 vEx. 22:1 Prov. 6:30-31 Lev. 6:1-7 Ex. 21:32-36; Lev. 24:18 Deut. 19:16-21; 2 Sam. 1:15-16; Ex. 20:16 Deut. 17:12-13 22:22-27 Pro. 17:15 James 5:12, Mat. 5:34-37; 2 Cor. 1:17 Deut. 13:9; 17:7 Num. 35:31; Deut. 19:13, 21; Pro. 6:30- 31). Ex. 20:17)..

I was asking what you meant by "original laws".

Did you have any specific laws in mind that you call "original laws"?

We are discussing My Enyart's proposal for a kind of Monarchy.

A constitutional monarchy, to be precise.

I don't know how these Kings are chosen, and I don't know how they live, and pay their Judges, Officials, Officers, soldiers and other administrative folks.

Perhaps you should read the proposed constitution, that way you know what you're arguing against, instead of having to guess.

There seems to be no provision for these people or their families.

It's called getting a job.

Can you give guidance as to how the money is raised to keep this Monacjy[sic]??

To fund the government?

I'm going to recommend (again) that you read the proposed constitution in the OP of this thread.