Kings are a great way to avoid the mess. One guy in charge means one set of idiosyncrasies trickled down evenly throughout. None of this compromise or competition. Do what I say. It is much harder and messier to work from below, to create something on changing foundations. Adjusting leadership and vision. Debate and disagreement. A shift in tradition. Oh now we build with stone. Place it on top of the previous wooden building. Well, unless the wood doesn’t support the weight of the stone. Good point, yes, then continue to use wood. But wouldn’t that just mean that we’ll always have to build with wood? We should build with stone only from now on, as a principle. Ok, but your principle is ignoring the material conditions of the buildings before us, and besides, you don’t mean principle you mean rule. Don’t get semantical with me, I just mean that we should embrace the technology we have and not be beholden to sentiment. (I’m just here to say semantics are important.) I agree that stone is the way of the future and any building that wouldn’t support the weight of stone should be destroyed, why hold onto the past? I’m not holding onto the past, this is the present and I presently live there. Should we not think of the future and how much harder it will be for them to build if we keep using wood? Will we not sacrifice for the future generations? It’s so easy at this point to argue for a king. Just make sure you’re ready to debate.