I imagine a word where we have about as many monarchies as we have counties in the USA. But globally. Tax would be more voluntary with such small geographic landscapes. Freedom of movement exists. People will organize naturally. Those monarchies that opress their people will fall in short order.  

 Why bother having a monarchy at all, then?  

 A shared moral compass of your people, shared goals.  

 You don't need government for that. At all. In fact, government will hinder people from naturally organizing.  

 That's close enough to anarchy that I don't see any point in making a distinction. Anarchy would just be that, but on an even smaller scale. It doesn't work without property, and if you can own a few miles and pass it on to your kids, then you might as well invent some titles and call it a monarchy. 

 Not counties. Smaller. Households and companies would in "anarchy" be their own fully soverign monarchies. 

 monarchy seems great... if you're the monarch
i don't quite understand who anyone else would voluntarily go along in such a system of government though
like im not sure "benevolent monarchy" is a less juvenile world view than thinking anarchism would work, both are different strains of romanticism 

 People have freedom of movement. People will always have a natural organization of hierarchies. I stack sats so I can be the monarch. Or at least a noble.  

 where does this freedom of movement come from, what prevents the monarch from locking you up if you want to leave? or why would another let you in?

i dunno, but imo if you're going to be idealistic about people's behavior, anarchy and self-sovereignty seems a better tree to bark up to, at least it's based on your own responsibility 

 The monarchs that opress their people will fall in short order due to their inability to compete in a free market.  

 Wear a sweater, chicken neck