James, I can just hear the objections: "A man who has killed?!" But our presidents do kill, by giving orders from their desks. Wouldn't it be better if that man had the perspective that comes from committing the act with his own hands? James, your requirements for a fit ruler are consistent with the idea that a just society can only be a small society. Our massive global order must suppress the individual humanity of its subjects or it will crumble.

-Lynn

Lynn, tribal societies can confederate up, maintain a decent society on the local level and elect a Commander in Chief who only has war powers, such as the Irish did to break the Vikings at Clontarf under King Brian Boru in 1014, a battle in which a king did everything a king should do, including dying in the defense of his nation.

The king is by definition a confederated tribal leader. Until gunpowder technology rendered multiethnic armies [with each tribe bringing a troop type specialty to build a combined arms team] obsolete, permitting military formations to be "mono-cropped" [something that had been very hard for the Romans to achieve in the era of muscle-powered weapons] kings were best served, in terms of military needs, by having unique and diverse contingents under their rule. With the industrialization of warfare, army building could be conducted as the management of interchangeable units, much like a modern economy.

The moral component is key, that the king has fought and killed. This is why proxy wars are so nasty and why queens wage war far more often than kings, which is ultimately tied to the higher level of aggression by females in managerial positions and behind the wheels of vehicles, as human females are maladapted to the possession of lethal force.

What Kind of Societal Figurehead Fits a Tribal, Masculine and Transcendent Worldview? Written with the thoughts on a just society, as ex...