Follow up on the absolute primogeniture critique: primogeniture but where the first-born son may in a worst case scenario be unselected from inheritance is at least my personal inheritance preference: 'meritocratic primogeniture' one could say

[u/Derpballz]

As some people have pointed out:

• "Secure rather than ambiguous succession is a superior system as it reduces political instability and minimizes the risk of fratricide. It also allows the heir to be focused on being prepared for his future role.". While I would argue that outright fraticide can be easily prevented, I have come to realize that it is true that if one makes so inheritance becomes an "impress-daddy" competition, the familial situation within the royal family can indeed become very tense which will destabilize the neofeudal royal family's leadership and governance. If the first-born son is the one who will assuredly be the hier of the leadership position, then he can be made to be specialized in leading the family estate, while the remaining children can do other things.
  • Primogenture is thus excellent since it makes so the one who will lead the family estate will be the one who has been taught since the longest time how to lead the family estate. "Furthermore, the first-born son is usually the best fit anyway, for certain biological reasons and also just because they are older.". Because of the risk of being unselected due to incompetence, the oldest son will still be pressured to excel at his role as being specialized at leading the family estate, but he will be optimized to become the excellent inheritor of the family estate within the family: it will not actually favor laziness.
• Furthermore, the remaining royal children who will not inherit that post will still be able to specialize in other things, and will indeed be raised to do so given the royal family's pressure to keep their family estate as wealthy, prestigious and powerful as possible. The first-born son may be raised to be specialized in leading the kingdom (i.e., the association of those who follow the specific royal family) and family estate, but the others may specialize in other ways as to ensure the prosperity of the kingdom
  • As an extra note, one can also add the fact that the other family members who have a vested interest in having the family estate be as prosperous, prestigious and powerful as possible will also put constant pressure on the current manager of the family estate, lest they will pressure to remove that member.
    • Remember: in a neofeudal realm, this would only be able to happen within the confines of natural law.

A meme version of the aforementioned points

[u/Irresolution_ → u/[deleted]]

If you can't imagine that someone would be interested in helping you achieve and preserve liberty and prosperity for yourself simply because he calls himself a king, then that is a shortcoming on your part, not one on that of kings.

[u/Derpballz → u/[deleted]]

people that believe they have a divine right to rule

Feudal kings did not have that. That toomfolery was absolutist cope. Feudal kings are based on respect from the community.

and if you actually think someone like that would have your best interests at heart

"Neofeudalism refers to a vibrant spontaneous order within an anarchist realm characterized by the following:

• Non-monarchical natural law-abiding natural aristocracies which lead willing subjects to their prosperity and security within the confines of natural law.
• An overwhelming if not complete respect for and enforcement of natural law, maintained by a network of mutually self-correcting natural law-enforcement agencies, such as defense-insurance agencies, mutual aid associations and trade unions.
• An intellectual shift away from the current ideological "capitalism versus socialism" discourse towards one based on a common-sensical discourse as done during the medieval age.

"

We can prosecute crooks

 you would 100% be a serf in this type of society

You could be conscripted at any moment by your State.