Jesus as Lord - why is this appealing to so many?

[RoadRunner79]

---

I would agree, that all forms of government have rules,  even the local authority here at AF have restrictions that need to be abided by, and not everything goes (just ask Zen Classic). 
I also agree, that the discussion/complaint  is not specific to talking about God.   If one is arguing about all government, then I don't see a reason to single out dictatorships or Monarchy, which the only real difference required is the structure or ultimate authority.  

Are you proposing anarchy?   I think that even in that you will that someone is going to impose what they want onto others (there's just no centralized body responsible).  I don't think that anarchy is good.


Personally, I would rather have a good monarchy over a bad democracy.   I think that a good government is always to be preferred to a bad one.  It seems kind of silly to make a case for the bad government over the good.  The main benefit in a democracy is when you have a bad government, not a good one.

---

I'm not arguing all government is bad. Definitely not. I figured I wouldn't have to explain the level of control a dictatorship or monarchy has over the individual in comparison to a democracy.  My point is the liberal democratic republic I live in restricts too heavily in my opinion, but the point was dumb because clearly you must understand how an individuals rights fare under a dictatorship or monarchy... 'm taken aback by how casually you accept the idea of those systems. And obviously you can't just throw around things like "good government" and "bad government" without a definition. Any system that so tightly controls or restricts the populous is bad IMO.

"The only real difference is the structure or ultimate suthority." What? That's like.... the biggest difference possible.

Perhaps the definitions that I am thinking of are simpler, but what I am seeing concerning a monarchy or a dictatorship doesn't dictate anything about a level of control which is required to fit that description. The definitions that I see mostly seem to require a single person at the top. I think that perhaps just the word "dictator" is creating more of an emotional response; which would explain, why I'm seeing more exasperation rather than mental perspiration in regards to expounding on what the issue is. I agree, it depends on what one means by "good" and "bad" governments. I would consider a good government to be one that protects and promotes the welfare of it's people, one that is both fair and just. A bad government is self serving, corrupt, one that doesn't care about the people. I'm sure that we could expand on this more, but it's a start.

You had said that "Any system that so tightly controls or restricts the populous is bad IMO". This is difficult, because it is quite subjective. What one person considers too tight of control, another may consider too loose. Because it is a vague and subjective statement, there's not really much for me to comment on. Although I don't really think that the definitions of monarchy or dictator require any particular level of control at all. You could have a lazy king, who doesn't usurp any real control, and is a bad governor because of that. On the other end, he could be so oppressive, that he is bad as well.