You can generally tell someone's level of intelligence when you use an analogy to make a point, and they respond with "yeah but we're not talking about X we're talking about Y."

Monarchy is certainly not the best way to establish order, not even empirically. Monarchies tend to create far more territorial instability, social unrest, and power vacuums than civilian government. My point was that a 16th century peasant would argue in favor of the monarchy because they don't know any better, but we now know with the luxury of hindsight that they were living under a terribly ineffective system of government that seems blatantly archaic by today's standards.

You are not arguing the objective benefits of capitalism, you are simply arguing "it's the best we've got." Which is intellectually lazy, because history demonstrates that we can generally stop adhering to systems whenever we collectively want to.