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

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