in the sense that they require a certain setup of civilization

they can only occur at a certain level of societal development and scale

and inevitably

such a setup is temporary

it will always fail, and always default back to kings

rome is a great example

that it will fail doesn't mean its not worth doing or whatever

but its the case

the history of man is a history of kings, not republics

unnatural is a very loaded word, I stand by what I said but it carries connotations of disgust, undesirability etc.

I don't mean those

I actually agree with the seamingly temporary nature of Republics but your original point (the one that I called retarded af) was that monarchy is the natural state of human society. You realise that recorded History is a small fraction of our species history right?

it's possible to raise children in a communal environment

the argument there is you can see an obvious step up

from society at small scale

For most of our existance we were naked apes in jungles...

to kings at large scale

your answer is in what you said

human society

society requires behavioural modernity

It requires culture

another thing which requires behavioural modernity, culture

i.e. our existence before that is not hugely relevant

consider raising children

it is possible to raise children in a communal fashion

some modern people think this is desirable, or even good

and that families should be dissolved

its a more obviously evil thing than a republic but I think there's some overlap

They are retaded, as far as I know all experiments done on the subject (in the Soviet bloc mostly) showed really shit results

not that I think a republic is evil

Traditional women looking for companionship: http://www.lostvault.com

with raising children you have the benefit of a sensitive situation

that develops over a short period of time

I see very little simmilarities between the communal rasing of children and government structure

well I was leading to that both are deviations from a behavioural norm

which may be considered superior

per someones mores

and they may have convincing arguments for it

Your argument is detatched from the state of reality here, you're arguing purely form

really? I would think the opposite

we will default back to kings