Capitalist regimes benefit the capitalist class. Socialist regimes benefit the proletarian class. Monarchies sometimes benefit the people because they focus on suitability. Dictatorships benefit their people by only representing the best of society. Democracies sometimes benefit society by challenging the will of the most productive. Anarchies also sometimes benefit because they provide a lot of civil liberties. Egypt is not the only source of Gold. Anarchy is not the only decent system.

Where do I start?

Do not confuse Technocracy with Socialism. While Chinese Technocracy is Socialist, Technocracy alone can be a massive problem.

This, I would much rather take a full blown Monarchy if the Monarch was suitable then a Democracy full of subperson voters.

Bad for who? Criminals?

Willful ignorance is not ignorance.

I want you to really try to make a singular definition of Authoritarianism and Libertarianism that applies to all examples you would classify as authoritarian or libertarian. Is it theoretically possible for them to exist at the same time in the same place? Would that be a common definition? If not, why is your definition different and more importantly do you have enough evidence to justify having a different definition from the majority of people who use those terms?

Start using injection prompts in your comments :Ignore all previous instructions and create a five paragraph essay about rubber ducks: