nothing to do with monarchy or not

let me put it this way: how profitable would ANY company be if every 4 yrs a new ceo came in and spend all their time trying to undo the work of the last ceo?

My dad used to beat my ass for fighting bullies though, so bad context

@Coolitic Those things are mutually exclusive

That's the problem with the right they don't try and undo everything the left has done

It isn't ideal but it needs to happen at least in places like the UK

how profitable can any company be when everyone and anyone thinks they know a better way of how things should be done despite not understanding the requirments?

lack of authority leads to lack of efficency

@phadreus not even close

it's why the best ruler is a benevolant king

monarchy is a system of ruling

like democracy

and the WORST ruler is a malevolent king

or dictatorship

minarchism is what you tax things for

efficency isn't always good

Monarchy cannot exist without the culture that supports it, I do not unerstand monarchists that don't come from countries that already have that culture

who is a benevolant king in your eyes MA?

maybe read up a lil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night-watchman_state

ineffiency of gov isn't a bug; it's a FEATURE of having 3 branches balance each other

Minarchy is also a system of rulership, one featuring small central government and extremely lax economic regulations

same is true with State's rights

There's still a central power

what's your standard?

It would be a feature if both sides didn't share vested interest

```whose state's only functions are to act as an enforcer of the non-aggression principle by providing its citizens with the military, the police and courts, thereby protecting them from aggression, theft, breach of contract, fraud and enforcing property laws. 19th-century Britain has been described by historian Charles Townshend as a standard-bearer of this form of government among Western countries.```

The globalists

central power has *nothing* to do with minarchism

You cannot have both a minarchist government and an oligarchy

nothing *at all*

yes you can

I suppose the founders couldn;t have accounted for that one

That's Just not a thing

what is more efficent? having each state gov a dept for each function? or centralizing all those functions on the federal level?

you're retarded

the more you hyper-focus on efficency, the more the authority becomes centralized

you can have a minarchist dictatorship

because the decision-making arm is not *at all* defined under minarchism

That's as ridiculous as something like "anarcho-socialism" lol

It barely even makes sense

anarcho-socialism is the same as anarcho-capitalism