Jason Kuznicki has decided to declare an "opposite day", wherein he defends an idea he disagrees with and attempts to do so without making a parody of that position. He chose to defend the divine right of kings, an idea that is anathema to his libertarian mindset. I was asked to give it a shot as well, but to try and make the strongest argument I can for ID, while an ID advocate would make the strongest argument against it that he can. I have too much on my plate at this point to devote the time to that project, but I might take him up on that offer sometime in the future.
Sure does sound like parody to me. Interesting idea, but he still makes the argument to a 17th century audience.
Its well written and I think the "opposite day" idea is fantastic, but I would have preffered seeing an argument for absolutism that was not grounded upon belief in God. I got a few lines in and I had already dismissed the argument because it rested upon something I believe does not exist.
Considering today's atmosphere, learning to counter such arguments in their strongest form may prove invaluable.
I agree that it is a good idea, if for no other reason than to further one's understanding of one's own beliefs. I also agree that the argument should have been for some sort of dictatorship rather than "devine right of kings," since that rests on an assumption that there is a divinity. It's hard to make a rational argument for an unprovable belief, as we all know.