Very helpful

@Jeremy-Retard why would we want a defense against the next Hitler?

Its usually near the beginning

Otherwise I dunno what to tell u

so the fundamental issue is that any system that allows reconfiguration of the core system seems to inevitably move back to consolidated power, but the only way to prevent this would be to, in some way, consolidate power. Arguably, you could fracture things to the point where it would become painfully difficult to do so, but I think at that point you might dip back into wars of conquest
Once that power is consolidated, it's only a matter of time until someone inadequate takes the wheel

Actually the next Hitler is already here, and she's a woman of color.

Why is fractured power preferable to consolidated power?

Because humans abuse power.

who do you trust with consolidated power?

@Jeremy-Retard and?

I think we've found a kinky one :^)

Abuse of power is the best method of amplification of human evil.

Power == Control

If you can't get enough power to abuse it, you can't do greater evil than you would without power.

Because all humans are flawed and try and push their own beliefs.

Do fathers generally abuse their power in their homes?

Don't fathers have a genetic interest in seeing their children succeed and their wife to love them?

Good ones do i believe yes

are you comparing being an owner or even co-owner of family resources and raising children to being in control of a full military and legislative body?

Evolution demands that they do.

The Father isn’t in control of an entire country, try having one father in a similar control situation as controlling an entire nation.

If they didn't pair-bonding wouldn't exist.

Same might be true for good kings or emperors though right?

no, there is no evolutionary basis for king-subject bonding. You're not even interacting with the vast majority of your subjects. It would be impossible to have a personal relationship with them

and with indirect relationships, the dynamic changes. Theres no way it cant

No, because a King doesn’t have a personal attachment to every single person in the empire so they would in turn not see the need all the time to necessarily care about them.

Let's go back to a Monarchy!

Is there an evolutionary basis for democratic republics?

https://pjmedia.com/vodkapundit/millennial-writer-cries-for-mother-at-work-when-editor-corrects-her-spelling/

who said anything about democratic republics? We're talking about how fatherhood is not a monarchy

Well it's not a democracy, the big steak is mine.

There is no evolutionary basis because no other species thinks like a human does, and doesn’t necessarily have the free will we have.

Beeman said there's no evolutionary basis for kings. Why should that matter?

you compared it to fatherhood

Ok but there also isnt any evolutionary basis for our current form of govt right? And that is what you guys prefer?

the biological impetus for familial bonds is not the same as the relationship between a king and their subjects

the biological basis only matters because you drew the comparison

Hitler and Gandhi were friends

@Goose thanks goose. I'll make sure to remember that

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