How to Enter a City Like a King

Biblical allusion and models of kingship

• The “enter like a king” line is read as an allusion to Jesus entering Jerusalem on a donkey: humility, service over dominance.
• Some note that such humility didn’t “work” politically—he was killed soon after—raising why later rulers didn’t copy the model.
• A side debate erupts over the historical Jesus: one commenter asserts an armed, revolutionary Jesus; others strongly contest this as poorly sourced and historically unsupported.

Risk and mortality of monarchs

• Multiple comments stress how dangerous kingship historically was.
• Roman emperors and European monarchs are cited as having high rates of violent or “bloody” deaths (assassination, battle, execution).
• A Shakespeare passage is quoted to illustrate the fragility and illusion of royal power.

Republicanism and rejecting royal trappings

• George Washington is cited as a counter‑model: declining a crown, rejecting hereditary rule, and setting a two‑term norm.
• There is factual pushback about whether he consistently refused the title “Your Excellency”; the correction itself is then corrected, highlighting how easily myths form around “anti‑kingly” figures.

Succession, cities, and social structure

• One commenter asks about literature on adding powerful individuals to groups or cities; another replies this particular historical case was simple succession after a monarch’s death.
• Discussion notes that under hereditary nobility, “wealth” attaches to families/dynasties, making mobility and structural change difficult.
• A brief joke references the failed Gunpowder Plot as evidence not “everyone” celebrated the new king.

Labor, “frivolity,” and economic complexity

• A long subthread reflects on how much human labor is devoted to non‑essential or “frivolous” work now vs. the past (e.g., coronation spectacles vs. marketing and ads).
• Several argue we can’t reliably separate “useful” from “frivolous” ex ante: seemingly pointless work (advertising, flower arranging, entertainment) is deeply entangled with investment, risk‑taking, and innovation.
• Others emphasize how modern energy use and technology mean each person effectively commands many “human equivalents” of work, enabling most of us to do non‑survival tasks.

Advertising, socialism, and waste

• Disagreement over advertising’s economic share and value:
  • One view: advertising consumes a huge chunk of GDP and mostly makes life worse.
  • Others: raw ad spend is small as a percentage of GDP; broader “ad‑driven” activity figures are mostly reallocation, not net new output.
  • There’s also a defense that ads are how people learn what products exist, countered by complaints that most ads convey no useful information.
• Socialist systems with single brands are cited as saving on advertising but losing productivity and competitiveness, with a few exceptions (e.g., certain weapons, specialized goods).

Freedom, needs, and purpose

• Debate over how much labor must go to bare survival (food, energy, medicine, logistics) vs. “nonsense.”
• Some say almost all of us do non‑survival work; others stress complex supply chains, health systems, and technology blur the line.
• A recurring theme: people want more than food and shelter—they want freedom, struggle, and self‑direction. Being merely “kept” is seen as demeaning by some, though others object that this isn’t universal.
• Several comments veer into existential territory:
  • Is everything “bullshit” absent a higher purpose?
  • One side leans toward radical skepticism; another argues we can still construct and refine shared values (growth, learning, exploration).

Culture, leisure, and consumerism

• A substantial reflection contrasts earlier cultures that devoted surplus labor to cathedrals, monuments, and festivals with today’s “consumerist culture.”
• Argument: true culture arises from leisure understood as non‑instrumental, contemplative, or celebratory activity, not mere recreation or entertainment.
• Modern society is described as “total work”: we work to work, with no widely shared transcendent aim; this allegedly hollows out art, architecture, and public life, creating boredom and distraction instead of heroism or lasting achievements.

Productivity, freedom, and the role of the state

• One stance: the most productive societies maximize individual freedom; heavy regimentation and taxation reduce productivity.
• Counterpoint: productivity is not equivalent to health, beauty, justice, or happiness; “work for work’s sake” is empty.
• Some suggest the right question isn’t to ban “frivolous” pursuits but to ensure government robustly funds the commons—care for the vulnerable, monuments, environmental protection—so a society can sustain both serious public goods and private frivolity.

Ritual, architecture, and dignity

• Light tangents note ceremonial limits on British monarchy (ritual “asking permission” to enter Parliament) as a symbolic check on royal authority.
• A quote about old Penn Station vs. modern replacements is used to argue that architecture expresses how much a culture values human dignity; ugly, cramped spaces are seen as treating people “like rats,” revealing a diminished view of citizens.