Neocameralism functions as a reminder that all things can and should be bought and sold. If you don't want to run your own country, hire someone to run it for you. You genuinely don't want to run your own country. It's a huge pain in the neck. You even keep power because revenge is sour. "Do this or I'll fire you." Your will be done.
You do have to be careful about making sure they don't steal the country while you're not looking, though.
Functionally no king can secure a whole country. One man vs. everyone else. That's just not how security works. Except apparently it does, which is the unsolved problem. Why do security forces agree to let a king continue to own things?
[Lies] is not the right answer. Lies have been tried and reliably lead to the security forces choosing not to let the king continue to own things. Get usurpers and that's only the beginning.
A well-run country is one where the king can continue to own it without doing any work. It should remain owned automatically.
A country becomes poorly run when the king has to turn to corruption to retain control. When he has to pay someone off to remain in power, then it's typically already over. First, if they can fire you, they're your boss. The main "supporter" is in fact the king. Wormtongue+. Second, there's no incentive for "supporters" not to spread the franchise. If you're not smart enough to formally seize sovereign power, why not make all your kids also critical supporters? Why not buy off the guilds by getting them into the action? This is a parasite class, not a leader class. It will choke out the host sooner or later.
Don't forget Exit is the only valid political formula. The king can own the country if and only if his subjects choose not to leave. Subjecthood must be a formal contract which can reasonably be broken the same way you break a cable TV contract. The monarch's power is limited by what he can get his subjects to agree to.
E.g. imagine a voter could get a lifetime exemption from taxes by suing the government for violating the constitution. Now imagine they don't even have to sue, because consent must be bilateral. They give up being able to vote, but what if they're willing to pay that price? (That price lol)
If you can't easily break the contract, you're not a subject, you're a slave. Slave countries aren't civilized. They're rotting zombie countries. "My zombie is stronger than your zombie" is not a counter-argument.
P.S. Everyone hates crypto-locks, which is prima facie evidence they're a good idea. Naturally nobody brought up the genuine sticking point, which has to do with the fact death interrupts security. If your lock owner can die unexpectedly, if they suffer from mortality, then the locks need to be hackable. Deliberately introducing weaknesses in security is a tricky business. Maybe make the change-over slow? Use a dead man's switch of some kind, in a particularly literal sense?The objections that were in fact raised were so bad they don't even deserve a response.