What makes for good government (government that interferes with/steals from its citizens the least)?
We tried constitutional government...and it didn't work over time. The interests of the agents in power (Envy) are at odds with the structure...eventually the structure gives.
Many of the formalists assume that greed is the dominant force in power-hungry bastards...and so a system that aligns the greed of a strong-powered monarch with the prosperity of the country is the best available option. Long term prosperity for all makes the king the richest guy ever.
Others of us believe that ENVY, not greed is the dominant force in power-hungry bastards, and so a strong powered monarch's best long-term interest is to widen the gap between himself and his subjects...which is best done by impoverishing them. This fits the historical record rather well.
The formalists believe that violence is the important power-dynamic. He who has the guns makes the rules.
Others of us believe that economic/cultural power has trumped military power over time in every civilization in history. Without crypto-locks, econ/culture wins over the violent ones.
The formalists believe that they can construct a system in which the normal elites do not have the power to corrupt the system to serve their ends at the expense of others' ends (like putting up tariffs, which mostly force everyone to buy their stuff, instead of other folks stuff, but don't bring in much revenue).
Others of us believe that the normal elites have coopted/corrupted every system yet known to man. It is highly unlikely that some dude at a computer, building a meta-system once, will outwit them and their very-well-paying co-opting skills.
The formalists appear to believe that there is some path from here through collapse to a formalist-like system.
Others of us believe that the power-players are in at the ground floor, because this is an old system that's being rebooted, not a new system. To the extent that a formalist system fails to give (envy) privilege to the elites...it cannot be adopted. To the extent that the formalist system does give (envy) privilege to the elites, it seeds its own destruction.
Those of us who don't believe in system-creation as a viable option tend to be of one of two opinions.
First...that all top-down systems inherently suck...but that some bottom up ones don't.
Second ... that no set of internal constraints can constrain elites...but that external constraints might: The meaningful ability for citizens to exit (to a potentially better place) is the only real constraint that we can have on governments. All governments should be expected to be oppressive, and increasingly so over time, to the extent of their abilities. However, to the extent that citizens have a choice between governments, the governments will be required to act as producers of goods, rather than as mafias. And that it is ONLY the presence of competition, and the threat of all/most of its citizenry leaving that can make a government behave in a civilized fashion.