[bksenior]

Your using logic to answer a question that is normally one of emotion.

A single non elected ruler is going to make decisions on whim not process. As long as there is one unchecked person, you can basically be assured that unpredictability will be the norm.

[colechristensen]

I think both the freedom of kings and the accountability of elected officials are being exaggerated. Both are constrained by the game they're playing and both have much freedom to make bad decisions. Government power, regardless of the type of government, only exists as a result of the consent of the people. Any kind of government uses much of that power to manipulate that consent into whatever their desires may be and they all have great but limited success.

[bksenior]

The statement is self defeating. Absolute power is playing far less "a game" for the continuted hold of power than is elected. You're right that people generally do whatever it is they think they can get away with, but simply put a king doesnt asnwer to anyone so he is more likely to act in self interest than someone who needs to please others.

[Iv]

KSA leaders have been more predictable than American presidents.

International rules are set up so that people have incentives to follow them.

Any leader, elected or not, may decide to nationalize and confiscate assets in his country. There are consequences to that and they are pretty serious.

If you own assets that get confiscated in KSA, depending on how your organization is set up, you can get judges to seize KSA assets in another country.

It does happen: https://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-fund-elliott-capital-m...

[mrmuagi]

> A single non elected ruler is going to make decisions on whim not process.

power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely