Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The "King for a Week" System

anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/21/2013 11:15:30 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd like to share with you all an amazing concept that was given birth to yesterday by my cousin while he and I were discussing socioeconomic. It is still in VERY early development and is completely unrealistic, but is still a very entertaining thought experiment.

The system is this; every registered adult in the country is part of a lottery. The system would combine things like registered voters, tax-payers and so on to ensure as complete a registry as possible. The lottery is completely random. The prize for winning this lottery is that you get to be 'King' (which in this case is non-specific regarding gender). As King, you receive $1 per person within the country as your payment for being King for a week, which would be around 300 million dollars if you were King of the United States. You are flown to the Capital, where the previous King passes over the crown to you and remain the King for a week, living in the King's Castle (a luxury resort for the winner and their family).
As King you can make any declarations you want. You can create as many new laws and taxes as you like. You can abolish any existing laws. You can modify any law. You can hire and fire as many public servants as are required to maintain the King's law. You are completely in control. HOWEVER, no declaration you make begins until your reign is over.

Some preemptive responses to criticisms I think might arise:

"What stops the King from causing some kind of disaster with his declarations?"
Well, the King has no power over the state while he is in charge, only the laws of the State after his reign is over. If King John the Ridiculous (5th of his name) declares that everyone must wear purple hats at punishment of death, his law won't take power until the next King is crowned and that King has the power to overturn any laws made by any previous King. Furthermore, people must carry out these laws. Now in my hypothetical society, everyone agrees to be a part of this system (as much as anyone agrees to be part of any system, from parliamentary democracy to religious dictatorship) and will go about their business much like they do now in relation to Government mandate.

"What stops the King receiving a kagillion dollars from some evil corporation to pass an evil law of evil?"
Well, we kind of have that problem now, with politicians. The difference is that bureaucracy is impotent. These 3 and 4 year terms are basically:
-Make promises to get elected
-Get elected
-Break promises on some 'previously unknown precident'
-Waste time and money
-Make promises to stay elected

EVIL Corp would have to pay each successive King a kagillion dollars to keep that law in place. Throw in people with some moral character. Throw in the fact that when you're elected King you're given a tax-free payment of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, undermining bribes. EVIL Corp aren't going to get their way for long.

-Follow up question
"What stops someone getting in power and making a kagillion laws at once, with laws hidden amongst them that a small group would only benefit from"
Let's say King Gary the Fast-Talker gets into power and does that. He wants to make some law that benefits the financial industry, so they can further exploit people. So he makes hundreds of changes with the aforementioned law thrown in amongst them all, so it won't be noticed. King Barry the Blunt gets in next and says "King Gary, my predecessor was a muppet and I begin my reign by undoing all changes he made, renewing the law as King Harry the Reasonable left it.

"What if I don't want to be King?"
You don't have a choice, like conscription or jury duty. You don't have to make any declarations. You can accept your crown and payment, make the declaration that you don't want to change anything and go back to your life, millions of dollars richer. If you really, really didn't want any part of the system, you could live off the grid I suppose. I don't see any problem with making people take millions of dollars. If you don't want the money, donate it to charity.

"What stops the King from wasting tax dollars on stupid things like giant water slides and alpaca-chariots made from gold?"
The King doesn't spend any money while he is in power. He can begin spending his payment immediately, but that is it.

The whole point of this system is that over a few hundred generations of Kings (only a few years) good laws will prevail. Even if King Tyrone the Stupid gets in and changes every law, he has no power to make sure those changes stay in place. Apart from the rapidly changing leadership, the society would function much like it does now. Of course the country would be subject to rapidly changing policy. But the most important factor is that the King doesn't have any power over the state while he is power. There are very few tasks carried out by a Government that can be started and finished in a week. You would need successive Kings to agree on things before they got done. Also, you introduce lobby groups. Non-for-profit organisations who speak to the public regarding changes they would like to see made. Lobby groups who would otherwise never get any chance to make real change suddenly have a chance if a few successive Kings agreed with their policies.

So, let's hear it. Would you want to live in my King for a Week society?
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:20:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is there some sort of balance for funding (i.e. king would have to pass bills in pairs, with one of the bills giving the method for funding) and would there be some sort of constitution to be put in place to check the powers of the new kings?
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
ClassicRobert
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:21:48 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Also, could there be some sort of limit on who could win the lottery, at least to the point where most jobs make a cutoff? Maybe only those who have had a college education or have management experience are eligible, etc.
Debate me: Economic decision theory should be adjusted to include higher-order preferences for non-normative purposes http://www.debate.org...

Do you really believe that? Or not? If you believe it, you should man up and defend it in a debate. -RoyLatham

My Pet Fish is such a Douche- NiamC

It's an app to meet friends and stuff, sort of like an adult club penguin- Thett3, describing Tinder
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 7:29:58 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 11:15:30 PM, anomalous wrote:
I'd like to share with you all an amazing concept that was given birth to yesterday by my cousin while he and I were discussing socioeconomic. It is still in VERY early development and is completely unrealistic, but is still a very entertaining thought experiment.

The system is this; every registered adult in the country is part of a lottery. The system would combine things like registered voters, tax-payers and so on to ensure as complete a registry as possible. The lottery is completely random. The prize for winning this lottery is that you get to be 'King' (which in this case is non-specific regarding gender). As King, you receive $1 per person within the country as your payment for being King for a week, which would be around 300 million dollars if you were King of the United States. You are flown to the Capital, where the previous King passes over the crown to you and remain the King for a week, living in the King's Castle (a luxury resort for the winner and their family).
As King you can make any declarations you want. You can create as many new laws and taxes as you like. You can abolish any existing laws. You can modify any law. You can hire and fire as many public servants as are required to maintain the King's law. You are completely in control. HOWEVER, no declaration you make begins until your reign is over.

Some preemptive responses to criticisms I think might arise:

"What stops the King from causing some kind of disaster with his declarations?"
Well, the King has no power over the state while he is in charge, only the laws of the State after his reign is over. If King John the Ridiculous (5th of his name) declares that everyone must wear purple hats at punishment of death, his law won't take power until the next King is crowned and that King has the power to overturn any laws made by any previous King. Furthermore, people must carry out these laws. Now in my hypothetical society, everyone agrees to be a part of this system (as much as anyone agrees to be part of any system, from parliamentary democracy to religious dictatorship) and will go about their business much like they do now in relation to Government mandate.

"What stops the King receiving a kagillion dollars from some evil corporation to pass an evil law of evil?"
Well, we kind of have that problem now, with politicians. The difference is that bureaucracy is impotent. These 3 and 4 year terms are basically:
-Make promises to get elected
-Get elected
-Break promises on some 'previously unknown precident'
-Waste time and money
-Make promises to stay elected

EVIL Corp would have to pay each successive King a kagillion dollars to keep that law in place. Throw in people with some moral character. Throw in the fact that when you're elected King you're given a tax-free payment of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, undermining bribes. EVIL Corp aren't going to get their way for long.

-Follow up question
"What stops someone getting in power and making a kagillion laws at once, with laws hidden amongst them that a small group would only benefit from"
Let's say King Gary the Fast-Talker gets into power and does that. He wants to make some law that benefits the financial industry, so they can further exploit people. So he makes hundreds of changes with the aforementioned law thrown in amongst them all, so it won't be noticed. King Barry the Blunt gets in next and says "King Gary, my predecessor was a muppet and I begin my reign by undoing all changes he made, renewing the law as King Harry the Reasonable left it.

"What if I don't want to be King?"
You don't have a choice, like conscription or jury duty. You don't have to make any declarations. You can accept your crown and payment, make the declaration that you don't want to change anything and go back to your life, millions of dollars richer. If you really, really didn't want any part of the system, you could live off the grid I suppose. I don't see any problem with making people take millions of dollars. If you don't want the money, donate it to charity.

"What stops the King from wasting tax dollars on stupid things like giant water slides and alpaca-chariots made from gold?"
The King doesn't spend any money while he is in power. He can begin spending his payment immediately, but that is it.

The whole point of this system is that over a few hundred generations of Kings (only a few years) good laws will prevail. Even if King Tyrone the Stupid gets in and changes every law, he has no power to make sure those changes stay in place. Apart from the rapidly changing leadership, the society would function much like it does now. Of course the country would be subject to rapidly changing policy. But the most important factor is that the King doesn't have any power over the state while he is power. There are very few tasks carried out by a Government that can be started and finished in a week. You would need successive Kings to agree on things before they got done. Also, you introduce lobby groups. Non-for-profit organisations who speak to the public regarding changes they would like to see made. Lobby groups who would otherwise never get any chance to make real change suddenly have a chance if a few successive Kings agreed with their policies.

So, let's hear it. Would you want to live in my King for a Week society?

My law is to abolish the King for a Week system and to make me King for Life.
imabench
Posts: 21,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:51:01 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 11:15:30 PM, anomalous wrote:
I'd like to share with you all an amazing concept that was given birth to yesterday by my cousin while he and I were discussing socioeconomic. It is still in VERY early development and is completely unrealistic, but is still a very entertaining thought experiment.

The system is this; every registered adult in the country is part of a lottery. The system would combine things like registered voters, tax-payers and so on to ensure as complete a registry as possible. The lottery is completely random. The prize for winning this lottery is that you get to be 'King' (which in this case is non-specific regarding gender). As King, you receive $1 per person within the country as your payment for being King for a week, which would be around 300 million dollars if you were King of the United States. You are flown to the Capital, where the previous King passes over the crown to you and remain the King for a week, living in the King's Castle (a luxury resort for the winner and their family).
As King you can make any declarations you want. You can create as many new laws and taxes as you like. You can abolish any existing laws. You can modify any law. You can hire and fire as many public servants as are required to maintain the King's law. You are completely in control. HOWEVER, no declaration you make begins until your reign is over.

Some preemptive responses to criticisms I think might arise:

"What stops the King from causing some kind of disaster with his declarations?"
Well, the King has no power over the state while he is in charge, only the laws of the State after his reign is over. If King John the Ridiculous (5th of his name) declares that everyone must wear purple hats at punishment of death, his law won't take power until the next King is crowned and that King has the power to overturn any laws made by any previous King. Furthermore, people must carry out these laws. Now in my hypothetical society, everyone agrees to be a part of this system (as much as anyone agrees to be part of any system, from parliamentary democracy to religious dictatorship) and will go about their business much like they do now in relation to Government mandate.

"What stops the King receiving a kagillion dollars from some evil corporation to pass an evil law of evil?"
Well, we kind of have that problem now, with politicians. The difference is that bureaucracy is impotent. These 3 and 4 year terms are basically:
-Make promises to get elected
-Get elected
-Break promises on some 'previously unknown precident'
-Waste time and money
-Make promises to stay elected

EVIL Corp would have to pay each successive King a kagillion dollars to keep that law in place. Throw in people with some moral character. Throw in the fact that when you're elected King you're given a tax-free payment of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, undermining bribes. EVIL Corp aren't going to get their way for long.

-Follow up question
"What stops someone getting in power and making a kagillion laws at once, with laws hidden amongst them that a small group would only benefit from"
Let's say King Gary the Fast-Talker gets into power and does that. He wants to make some law that benefits the financial industry, so they can further exploit people. So he makes hundreds of changes with the aforementioned law thrown in amongst them all, so it won't be noticed. King Barry the Blunt gets in next and says "King Gary, my predecessor was a muppet and I begin my reign by undoing all changes he made, renewing the law as King Harry the Reasonable left it.

"What if I don't want to be King?"
You don't have a choice, like conscription or jury duty. You don't have to make any declarations. You can accept your crown and payment, make the declaration that you don't want to change anything and go back to your life, millions of dollars richer. If you really, really didn't want any part of the system, you could live off the grid I suppose. I don't see any problem with making people take millions of dollars. If you don't want the money, donate it to charity.

"What stops the King from wasting tax dollars on stupid things like giant water slides and alpaca-chariots made from gold?"
The King doesn't spend any money while he is in power. He can begin spending his payment immediately, but that is it.

The whole point of this system is that over a few hundred generations of Kings (only a few years) good laws will prevail. Even if King Tyrone the Stupid gets in and changes every law, he has no power to make sure those changes stay in place. Apart from the rapidly changing leadership, the society would function much like it does now. Of course the country would be subject to rapidly changing policy. But the most important factor is that the King doesn't have any power over the state while he is power. There are very few tasks carried out by a Government that can be started and finished in a week. You would need successive Kings to agree on things before they got done. Also, you introduce lobby groups. Non-for-profit organisations who speak to the public regarding changes they would like to see made. Lobby groups who would otherwise never get any chance to make real change suddenly have a chance if a few successive Kings agreed with their policies.

So, let's hear it. Would you want to live in my King for a Week society?

Id rather tear off my d*ck and throw it in a river then live in a system like that.....
Kevin24018 : "He's just so mean it makes me want to ball up my fists and stamp on the ground"

7/14/16 = The Presidency Dies

DDO: THE MOVIE = http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org...

VP of DDO from Dec 14th 2014 to Jan 1st 2015
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:52:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
This pretty much kills long term calculation on the part of businesses. When you don't know what taxes will be and when, what regulations will exist and what you can/can't do other than a week in advance you can't really hire or build either. No one is going to start building that new factory if the next two kings agree that you must destroy it immediately for environmental reasons
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:58:35 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The advantage to a monarchy over a democracy is that since the kings empire is his personal property he has every incentive to keep it prosperous. It's also more stable as barring a tragedy or overthrow it's usually well known who will run the country next.

The major advantage of a democracy is that the people get to collectively decide who they want to lead them based on who better matches their interests and ideological ideals.

This system takes the worst of both worlds with only one safeguard
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 10:10:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 8:58:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
The advantage to a monarchy over a democracy is that since the kings empire is his personal property he has every incentive to keep it prosperous. It's also more stable as barring a tragedy or overthrow it's usually well known who will run the country next.

The problem is when national prosperity conflicts with individual prosperity. So the question is, who is the advantageous for? The king? That's not in dispute. The people? Eh, not so much.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 10:21:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Hmm, I just wonder what will happen to new laws that imprison people for longer then a week.

Let's say a (Insert Racist/Sexist/etc, etc) Here makes a law banning (Something), discriminating against other people.

IF the people have to go to prison for say, 1 month, will then just go then get let go?

Seems Impractical.

Also, what if laws are made to keep a king in power, or nullify the power of another king?

If your only balance is another king, that could be a very dangerous problem.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 10:57:46 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/22/2013 10:10:45 AM, drafterman wrote:
At 10/22/2013 8:58:35 AM, thett3 wrote:
The advantage to a monarchy over a democracy is that since the kings empire is his personal property he has every incentive to keep it prosperous. It's also more stable as barring a tragedy or overthrow it's usually well known who will run the country next.

The problem is when national prosperity conflicts with individual prosperity. So the question is, who is the advantageous for? The king? That's not in dispute. The people? Eh, not so much.

I'm all drugged up on medicine so I'm not exactly sure what you're arguing, but if you're saying that sometimes the kings economic interests are in conflict with the greater national interest of course that's a problem in a monarchy...and in the king for a week system. I was just trying to say that this system doesn't get the best parts of either system of governance
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 5:03:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
1) Unless you're saying that laws can be overturned instantly, while to enact takes a week, then I'd still have a week in power
2) If put in charge, I'd just abolish the system to impose tyranny
3) There would be no consistent economic system and so no investment or setting up of business.
4) The bribery of the whole system would be easier to pull off.
5) No government system would ever be able to operate as they'd change so often.
6) There'd be no consent or legitimacy, apart from your hypothetical "there just is".
7) It abandons the marketplace of ideas which makes liberalism work.
8) It abandons limitations on power.
9) Your rebuttal of economic interests is a Tu Quoque, except it fallaciously claims our current system is wholly and entirely corrupt.

I can go on.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
CarefulNow
Posts: 780
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/22/2013 8:12:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
The uncertainty would be problematic, but I don't see why people who apologize for unplanned economics are criticizing that aspect. I'm more curious about the compulsory aspect, as you didn't really give a reason for it. The reason I ask is that I had a similar idea some years ago (like yours, it wasn't serious). I called it the cooperative random ballot. Each voter could give any number of candidates, including himself, a rating (as in range voting), and the computer would simulate vote trading until the range ballots became simple random ballots. For example, if you simply voted for yourself, no trading could be done, and you would simply have a 1/300 million chance of becoming president. But if you instead gave yourself a 10 and Obama a 6, and somebody else did the same, the computer would automatically turn both your votes into Obama votes, because 6*2>10.
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 5:47:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I think some of you may not have understood my rambles and I've had an additional "king for a week' session with my cousin, we've established the rules of the system a bit more.

Here's how it works:

A king is chosen as has already been described. All citizens over 18 are eligible for kingship and every Friday afternoon (to match the work week of the majority of people and allow them to organise being away for the next week) any citizen may be chosen at random. That person is immediately found and taken to the castle as soon as possible (this is reasonable, but unless extenuating circumstances are proven, the person must immediately stop what they're doing and leave.)
Bear in mind that everyone is part of this system and is aware of it.
If the person chosen has a power of attorney and is dependant on someone for care (like the mentally disabled) the person will be passed.
If the person cannot come and serve as King for personal reasons, that person will be passed.
No-one currently serving jail time may serve as King (this is still not certain as a definite rule)
If the King cannot be found within 48 hours, they will be passed.
(The laws regarding the King are still in development as there are certain to be scenarios we haven't thought of)

I will define these words so as to avoid confusion:

King: The person currently selected for Kingly duties.
Law: Any change, big or small, to the laws, taxes, expenditure of tax and regulations of the country which is currently in place or has yet to be suggested.
Law-in-play: A Law created by a previous king which has not yet been passed.
Agency of the King(AOK): This is the sole Government agency, who act completely transparently. Their purpose is to ensure the King is selected according to the random computer system, locate and contact that person and provide the King with the necessary resources to carry out his duties.

RULE NUMBER 1)
The King cannot change any law regarding the King. He may only call for a public census on whether a law should be change.

RULE NUMBER 2)
A Law made by the King must be agreed upon by the following 3 successive Kings before it is passed.

RULE NUMBER 3)
A King may only introduce 4 Laws in one reign.
(NOTE: I'm concerned about the exponential growth of the number of Laws-in-play and may consider some sort of limit on the number of them that can exist at the same time.

RULE NUMBER 4)
If I King does not wish to address a Law-in-play, that King's default position is for the law, tax or regulation in question remain the same, that is if it called for the abolishing of a law, the law would remain in place while if the law-in-play called for the creation of a new law or a change to an existing one, the law would not be created or changed. A King may choose not to address any issues.

RULE NUMBER 5)
If a King is passed for any reason, the Law and the Laws-in-play remain as they are, as though that King had not been called for Kingly duty. The King still receives their payment for Kingly duties, unless circumstances prevent the payment from being delivered to the King and any family.

RULE NUMBER 6)
A Kingly fee is paid for each King's duties while they serve. That fee is equal to one dollar per citizen of legal age. This money is made available to the King immediately upon being crowned.

RULE NUMBER 7)
After the King has left with the Agency of the King, they must stay in Castle. The Castle is the equivalent of a 5-star resort, where the King is able to consider the Law carefully and peacefully.

RULE NUMBER 8)
While undertaking his duties, the King is able to do whatever he chooses so long as it doesn't infringe upon the personal rights of other people (take drugs, kill himself, have sex with prostitutes.) If he breaks the law and infringes upon the rights of another person, he is subject to the punishments saved for that law.

The idea is to apply the wisdom of the crowd principle to achieve order.
Eventually, over hundreds of Kings, laws that are sensible will be passed and laws that are divisive will remain divisive. People would be interested in the system because they may be selected any week to become King. They would be more aware of the issues, as you'd have King-related news, monitoring the law changes.
TheAntidoter
Posts: 4,323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 9:49:34 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Becomes King.

Rejects all other laws.

Nobody can make new laws for a month.

#Success.
Affinity: Fire
Class: Human
Abilities: ????

Nac.

WOAH, COLORED FONT!
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 11:30:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
I'd make a law saying "all kings and those who used to rule get a salary of x million a year" and some offer stuff in the clauses of this regulation and 'boom' instant success.

Also, your system lacks consent, rights, guarantees of liberty, a lack of stability, a lack of equality, begs for class conflict, begs for totalitarianism... It offends every political philosophy. When we are constructing perfect worlds, I'd rather live in the most flawed ones we've tried over this pseudo-utopia.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 3:57:39 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 11:30:25 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'd make a law saying "all kings and those who used to rule get a salary of x million a year" and some offer stuff in the clauses of this regulation and 'boom' instant success.

Rule number one prevents this.

Also, your system lacks consent, rights, guarantees of liberty, a lack of stability, a lack of equality, begs for class conflict, begs for totalitarianism... It offends every political philosophy. When we are constructing perfect worlds, I'd rather live in the most flawed ones we've tried over this pseudo-utopia.

You can throw all those words around, but they don't make themselves true.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 5:06:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
My law would be that, starting next week, I retroactively choose who will be king regardless of who is currently in power.

And before you say what you want to say, answer the question "Who staffs the lottery and decides what the drawing rules are?"

Unless you want to create a separate branch of power which can nullify the king's orders regarding the lottery, he can undermine it quite easily.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 5:50:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/21/2013 11:15:30 PM, anomalous wrote:
I'd like to share with you all an amazing concept that was given birth to yesterday by my cousin while he and I were discussing socioeconomic. It is still in VERY early development and is completely unrealistic, but is still a very entertaining thought experiment.

The system is this; every registered adult in the country is part of a lottery. The system would combine things like registered voters, tax-payers and so on to ensure as complete a registry as possible. The lottery is completely random. The prize for winning this lottery is that you get to be 'King' (which in this case is non-specific regarding gender). As King, you receive $1 per person within the country as your payment for being King for a week, which would be around 300 million dollars if you were King of the United States. You are flown to the Capital, where the previous King passes over the crown to you and remain the King for a week, living in the King's Castle (a luxury resort for the winner and their family).
As King you can make any declarations you want. You can create as many new laws and taxes as you like. You can abolish any existing laws. You can modify any law. You can hire and fire as many public servants as are required to maintain the King's law. You are completely in control. HOWEVER, no declaration you make begins until your reign is over.

Some preemptive responses to criticisms I think might arise:

"What stops the King from causing some kind of disaster with his declarations?"
Well, the King has no power over the state while he is in charge, only the laws of the State after his reign is over. If King John the Ridiculous (5th of his name) declares that everyone must wear purple hats at punishment of death, his law won't take power until the next King is crowned and that King has the power to overturn any laws made by any previous King. Furthermore, people must carry out these laws. Now in my hypothetical society, everyone agrees to be a part of this system (as much as anyone agrees to be part of any system, from parliamentary democracy to religious dictatorship) and will go about their business much like they do now in relation to Government mandate.

"What stops the King receiving a kagillion dollars from some evil corporation to pass an evil law of evil?"
Well, we kind of have that problem now, with politicians. The difference is that bureaucracy is impotent. These 3 and 4 year terms are basically:
-Make promises to get elected
-Get elected
-Break promises on some 'previously unknown precident'
-Waste time and money
-Make promises to stay elected

EVIL Corp would have to pay each successive King a kagillion dollars to keep that law in place. Throw in people with some moral character. Throw in the fact that when you're elected King you're given a tax-free payment of tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars, undermining bribes. EVIL Corp aren't going to get their way for long.

Well, you can never be too rich. $300 million might not be enough for some people, so I don't know if this would undermine bribes. And you won't always have people with moral character.

-Follow up question
"What stops someone getting in power and making a kagillion laws at once, with laws hidden amongst them that a small group would only benefit from"
Let's say King Gary the Fast-Talker gets into power and does that. He wants to make some law that benefits the financial industry, so they can further exploit people. So he makes hundreds of changes with the aforementioned law thrown in amongst them all, so it won't be noticed. King Barry the Blunt gets in next and says "King Gary, my predecessor was a muppet and I begin my reign by undoing all changes he made, renewing the law as King Harry the Reasonable left it.

What if King Barry the Blunt pays no attention to politics and is unaware of these laws? Then the whole point of the system would be wrecked. I could become King and write a million laws and hope that King Derek the Dumbass doesn't pay attention to politics. Next thing you know, King Derek the Dumbass will either take a million hours looking at the laws or just let them go through out of laziness or ignorance.

"What if I don't want to be King?"
You don't have a choice, like conscription or jury duty. You don't have to make any declarations. You can accept your crown and payment, make the declaration that you don't want to change anything and go back to your life, millions of dollars richer. If you really, really didn't want any part of the system, you could live off the grid I suppose. I don't see any problem with making people take millions of dollars. If you don't want the money, donate it to charity.

Jury duty is a little different then ruling one of the most powerful countries in the world. Maybe someone doesn't want to take on the role of King for fear that they might be corrupted within a week, which is very possible if they suddenly throw $300 million at you and you get to rule America. Personally, I don't know if I would want to be King.

"What stops the King from wasting tax dollars on stupid things like giant water slides and alpaca-chariots made from gold?"
The King doesn't spend any money while he is in power. He can begin spending his payment immediately, but that is it.

What if the next King likes the previous King's idea of a giant water slide? That is very unlikely, but it could happen. There are a lot of idiots in the world, having two be King back to back would not be good.

The whole point of this system is that over a few hundred generations of Kings (only a few years) good laws will prevail. Even if King Tyrone the Stupid gets in and changes every law, he has no power to make sure those changes stay in place. Apart from the rapidly changing leadership, the society would function much like it does now. Of course the country would be subject to rapidly changing policy. But the most important factor is that the King doesn't have any power over the state while he is power. There are very few tasks carried out by a Government that can be started and finished in a week. You would need successive Kings to agree on things before they got done. Also, you introduce lobby groups. Non-for-profit organisations who speak to the public regarding changes they would like to see made. Lobby groups who would otherwise never get any chance to make real change suddenly have a chance if a few successive Kings agreed with their policies.

So, let's hear it. Would you want to live in my King for a Week society?

It could be possible if everyone paid attention to politics and laws, but that would never happen. People have busy lives, and knowing every single law just in case they are picked King will eat half of it up.

Some sort of constitution would have to be written to establish the basis for this system, giving rights to the people and laws to the government. For example, the King can do nothing to affect the power of him or any future King. Therefore, he will remain a king for only a week, and not the rest of his life.
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:31:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 5:06:07 PM, Wnope wrote:
My law would be that, starting next week, I retroactively choose who will be king regardless of who is currently in power.

Rule number 1 prevents this.

And before you say what you want to say, answer the question "Who staffs the lottery and decides what the drawing rules are?"

Unless you want to create a separate branch of power which can nullify the king's orders regarding the lottery, he can undermine it quite easily.

There is such an agency, called the Agency of the King.
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:34:33 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Please ensure you've read my second post before responding. Iron maiden, I had the same issues and I've now formulated some rules that apply to the king in terms of what they can and can't do.
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 6:39:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 9:49:34 AM, TheAntidoter wrote:
Becomes King.

Rejects all other laws.

Nobody can make new laws for a month.

#Success.

Bear in mind that this is a transparent system. You are publicly known as king. While it is well within your kingly right to veto all laws in play and introduce none of your own, you have to put yourself in the mindset of someone in this system. Do you want to be known as someone who cares so little about society that you delayed progress by a month out of sheer laziness or apathy? So be it.
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:19:13 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 6:34:33 PM, anomalous wrote:
Please ensure you've read my second post before responding. Iron maiden, I had the same issues and I've now formulated some rules that apply to the king in terms of what they can and can't do.

Yes, I apologize. I was in school all day and therefore posted my response without seeing your revisions.

One thing I would like to ask--who would declare war if push came to shove? Would that be the King's responsibility, or a different branch, or both?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
anomalous
Posts: 118
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:32:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:19:13 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
At 10/24/2013 6:34:33 PM, anomalous wrote:
Please ensure you've read my second post before responding. Iron maiden, I had the same issues and I've now formulated some rules that apply to the king in terms of what they can and can't do.

Yes, I apologize. I was in school all day and therefore posted my response without seeing your revisions.

One thing I would like to ask--who would declare war if push came to shove? Would that be the King's responsibility, or a different branch, or both?

I think acts of aggression to others may have to be taken to a public census, so as to minimise the chance it could be carried out lightly. If 4 successive Kings want to invade Syria, it is still a long term action that may take years to resolve, so a majority of citizens would have to agree to it as well as the King. I'm not sure.
Of course acts of defence would be handled differently; if a threat needs to be addressed immediately... Well I'll have to discuss this with my cousin...
ironmaiden
Posts: 456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/24/2013 7:56:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 7:32:14 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 10/24/2013 7:19:13 PM, ironmaiden wrote:
One thing I would like to ask--who would declare war if push came to shove? Would that be the King's responsibility, or a different branch, or both?

I think acts of aggression to others may have to be taken to a public census, so as to minimise the chance it could be carried out lightly. If 4 successive Kings want to invade Syria, it is still a long term action that may take years to resolve, so a majority of citizens would have to agree to it as well as the King. I'm not sure.
Of course acts of defence would be handled differently; if a threat needs to be addressed immediately... Well I'll have to discuss this with my cousin...

Ok. Maybe if the public and the government both have a majority vote in favor of a war declaration, then the king could have authority, or something. I thought of situations like the atom bomb in WW2. If something that serious was to happen during King Adam the Awesome's reign, would King Adam the Awesome have the authority to pull the trigger at all?
"I know what you're thinking. 'Did he fire six shots or only five?' Well, to tell you the truth, in all this excitement I kinda lost track myself. But being that his is a .44 Magnum, the most powerful handgun in the world and will blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself a question. 'Do I feel lucky?' Well, do ya, punk?"
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 3:42:55 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 3:57:39 PM, anomalous wrote:
At 10/24/2013 11:30:25 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
I'd make a law saying "all kings and those who used to rule get a salary of x million a year" and some offer stuff in the clauses of this regulation and 'boom' instant success.

Rule number one prevents this.

Change it to retirement fund, and ex-kings. My point specifically was you can get past any rule. Another case:

"Anyone whose name matches that of one of the previous kings gets X million a year"

However, what this highlights is that any reformation to any constitutional problem is impossible. Thus, while I imagine your solution is going to be to reform one of the rules, you cannot do that: that would contradict rule one.

Also, your system lacks consent, rights, guarantees of liberty, a lack of stability, a lack of equality, begs for class conflict, begs for totalitarianism... It offends every political philosophy. When we are constructing perfect worlds, I'd rather live in the most flawed ones we've tried over this pseudo-utopia.

You can throw all those words around, but they don't make themselves true.

It's hardly a disputed point: as everyone has pointed out, there is no virtue which your system promotes. Indeed, I've already stated numerous examples or reasons why it would be unjust:

1) Unless you're saying that laws can be overturned instantly, while to enact takes a week, then I'd still have a week in power
2) If put in charge, I'd just abolish the system to impose tyranny
3) There would be no consistent economic system and so no investment or setting up of business - massive nationalisation or privatisation could occur within the month, and the threat of it within the week.
4) The bribery of the whole system would be easier to pull off - bribe a rule into place, then I'd only need to bribe once every time a morally weaker king gets into power when a previous king tries to correct the system.
5) No government system would ever be able to operate as they'd change so often.
6) There'd be no consent or legitimacy, apart from your hypothetical "there just is".
7) It abandons the marketplace of ideas which makes liberalism work.
8) It abandons limitations on power.
9) Your rebuttal of economic interests is a Tu Quoque, except it fallaciously claims our current system is wholly and entirely corrupt.
10) Any long-term problems are impossible to be reasonably resolved, as the next king can easily overthrow the rules.
11) The lottery lets the stupidest people in charge.
12) The King has no reason to keep the land prosperous, contrary to thett: the King is only King for a week, so he only has interest to maintain the land for the week.
13) There is no reason why any of the laws would be maintained by a king with absolute power, except your hypothetical just-because.
14) There is not only no reason why stupid laws would be removed over time, but there is a certainty that they would be constantly added. When the vast majority of people are just not that smart, and the vast majority again are ideological, then all of politics becomes ideological back-and-forths with no consistency or safeguards.
15) Equality goes out the window, as nepotism and jingoism is just being begged to occur when the king can hire and fire who he wants.
16) There is no rule of law, when the king can circumvent it at any possible moment.

Again, I could go on, but the point becomes obvious: each virtue that a political ideology praises goes out the window, and is replaced with anarchic totalitarianism: a lack of any social order, yet one big bully to make everyone dance to their tune.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 2:10:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/24/2013 5:47:05 AM, anomalous wrote:
I think some of you may not have understood my rambles and I've had an additional "king for a week' session with my cousin, we've established the rules of the system a bit more.

Here's how it works:

A king is chosen as has already been described. All citizens over 18 are eligible for kingship and every Friday afternoon (to match the work week of the majority of people and allow them to organise being away for the next week) any citizen may be chosen at random. That person is immediately found and taken to the castle as soon as possible (this is reasonable, but unless extenuating circumstances are proven, the person must immediately stop what they're doing and leave.)
Bear in mind that everyone is part of this system and is aware of it.
If the person chosen has a power of attorney and is dependant on someone for care (like the mentally disabled) the person will be passed.
If the person cannot come and serve as King for personal reasons, that person will be passed.
No-one currently serving jail time may serve as King (this is still not certain as a definite rule)
If the King cannot be found within 48 hours, they will be passed.
(The laws regarding the King are still in development as there are certain to be scenarios we haven't thought of)

I will define these words so as to avoid confusion:

King: The person currently selected for Kingly duties.
Law: Any change, big or small, to the laws, taxes, expenditure of tax and regulations of the country which is currently in place or has yet to be suggested.
Law-in-play: A Law created by a previous king which has not yet been passed.
Agency of the King(AOK): This is the sole Government agency, who act completely transparently. Their purpose is to ensure the King is selected according to the random computer system, locate and contact that person and provide the King with the necessary resources to carry out his duties.

RULE NUMBER 1)
The King cannot change any law regarding the King. He may only call for a public census on whether a law should be change.

RULE NUMBER 2)
A Law made by the King must be agreed upon by the following 3 successive Kings before it is passed.

RULE NUMBER 3)
A King may only introduce 4 Laws in one reign.
(NOTE: I'm concerned about the exponential growth of the number of Laws-in-play and may consider some sort of limit on the number of them that can exist at the same time.

RULE NUMBER 4)
If I King does not wish to address a Law-in-play, that King's default position is for the law, tax or regulation in question remain the same, that is if it called for the abolishing of a law, the law would remain in place while if the law-in-play called for the creation of a new law or a change to an existing one, the law would not be created or changed. A King may choose not to address any issues.

RULE NUMBER 5)
If a King is passed for any reason, the Law and the Laws-in-play remain as they are, as though that King had not been called for Kingly duty. The King still receives their payment for Kingly duties, unless circumstances prevent the payment from being delivered to the King and any family.

RULE NUMBER 6)
A Kingly fee is paid for each King's duties while they serve. That fee is equal to one dollar per citizen of legal age. This money is made available to the King immediately upon being crowned.

RULE NUMBER 7)
After the King has left with the Agency of the King, they must stay in Castle. The Castle is the equivalent of a 5-star resort, where the King is able to consider the Law carefully and peacefully.

RULE NUMBER 8)
While undertaking his duties, the King is able to do whatever he chooses so long as it doesn't infringe upon the personal rights of other people (take drugs, kill himself, have sex with prostitutes.) If he breaks the law and infringes upon the rights of another person, he is subject to the punishments saved for that law.

The idea is to apply the wisdom of the crowd principle to achieve order.
Eventually, over hundreds of Kings, laws that are sensible will be passed and laws that are divisive will remain divisive. People would be interested in the system because they may be selected any week to become King. They would be more aware of the issues, as you'd have King-related news, monitoring the law changes.

Just so you know, this isn't a king. Or a monarchy.

Not even a constitutional monarchy.

So it's quite misleading to call this "king for a week."
AnDoctuir
Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/25/2013 2:29:53 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 10/25/2013 6:25:33 AM, anomalous wrote:
Stephen_Hawkins, you are a muppet.

Someone tell me who the f*ck this dude is

I'm all for criticism, but at least briefly read my posts before responding.