A father sees a need to care for the family because they are of a direct bloodline. This is the same for a den of lions or wolves, or a ant queen where only the alpha was allowed to breed.

the question was put to us as, in essence "why is a king not like a father?"
That is why a king is not like a father

you dont get to mix and match question and answer as you please :^)

Yes i do

Lol

ah, then you agree with me that you are wrong

I'm developing a platform for revolutionary reform. Violent revolution, coup-de-tat, infiltration of the parties... None of these things are in the cards. We need a new vision that doesn't involve simply burning it all to the ground

because I've selected your prior answer as the answer to my question

Good talk

You're right, we shouldn't burn it to the ground.

That's what nukes are for.

Can a leader never feel paternalistic over his subordinates?

A small club for instance?

An older male mentors and leads hus youngers

Or a tribe lead by a chief?

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/aoc-draws-a-challenger-a-black-female-jamaican-republican-challenger/
AOC is an ijdit, dontja no?

Surely theres plenty of evolutionary basis for tribal chiefs

At what point do they become kongs and stop making any sense?

Kings

You can build personal relationships, but theyre not the same as familial, and even then there are limits

if we're talking about large groups of people, then no, I dont think you can feel paternalistic over each and every person in your constituency

Its impossible to form a bond with enough people for an entire country. As such your bound to exclude a certain group. Your also neglecting how a father figure is in charge of **children**, those who have to learn and grow still. Unlike a grown adult, who becomes more logical and as such skeptical.

Does a tribal chief feel this way over his 200?

Surely he does

@Nucleon I was roleplaying my cousin so yes it was facetisious

that seems to depend largely on circumstance re: the 200

I assume you're not proposing many micronations of 200 people ruled by kings though

And consider humanity’s shift through the ages to ever larger population centers.

Where it becomes at some point infeasible for just one tribal chief to control everything.

Haha, maybe. It would basically be an extension of the idea of city, county, state, and national govts right?

no, because at every point higher than village, you no longer have a connection to your constituents

The United Tribes of America?

the purpose of the US was to prevent consolidation of power, and through the inaction of the citizenry and the meddling of the "well meaning" that experiment has slowly been failing

the intended, inbuilt reset button was not pressed

so the question is: did it need a better reset button, or did it need to be harder to fuck up, or neither, or both?

So you think the US is slowly consolidating power over time?

I know it has. It's verifiable

Even though that power is spread out between more representatives and senators and judges and brauracrats than ever?

Beauracrats

More agencies. More commities

More of everything