lolberts and socialists are practically indistinguishable

You should define what you mean by lolberts, because it's a vague made up epithet for an already vague set of ideas held by a broad spectrum of people. But libertarians - except for the fringe "I just want big government to legalize all drugs and guns and shield me from social responsibility" - are individualists, while socialists are collectivists. They may be Liberals, but they couldn't be indistinguishable unless you ignored that most important dimension.

Most people never felt any effect on their lives from the king. Crazy kings mostly terrorized their court, while good kings uplifted the nation.

Assinine beyond words considering how Feudal systems worked. When you had peasants pledging their children's children to their direct lords, who were forced by feudal order to pledge their absolute loyalty to barons, and then to kings; and kings had literally unlimited scope and power to make law by decree; the idea that people just didn't feel the effect of kings is laughably insane. Not to mention the Guild system which was aligned entirely with the monarchy's control over the economy.

The Magna Carta was built as a kind of threat to the power of an English King who was literally imprisoning people at will. Oliver Cromwell fucking banned Christmas and the English made a protest song about it. Being caught with this song's lyrics was a death sentence. Hell, during the Hundred Years War, the English troops burned and pillaged through French villages, murdering with impunity, in order to demonstrate that the French King couldn't protect them, in order to recruit the population into swearing allegiance to the English king. We can also talk about the English Crown's courts that were set up to impose the King's power over the general population in the "Star Chamber".

And all that is from England, which by all respect had one of the least repressive, violent, murderous, and freedom loving of monarchies that I'm aware of. You try any dissent with the French, Austrians, Hungarians, Spanish, or Portuguese; they'll kill your whole family.

That's to say nothing of non-European civilizations of other eras. We can talk of the first Totalitarian state: Ancient Egypt. We can talk about how Caesar's ascent to power relied on manipulating grain and land re-distribution schemes. We can talk about the Spartan king's control over pregnancies by killing daughters with infanticide. We can talk about how Tokugawa in Japan made northern forests sacred in order to secure the wood supply of the country, and regularly executed people seen attempting to cut trees. He also exterminated the Portuguese. And fuck, do I really have to explain why Vlad The Impaler was an absolute autocrat who terrified the absolute bejesus out of everyone in Wallachia at all times? Or are we going to pretend that impaling 300,000 people just doesn't have an impact on anyone. Oh yeah, I forgot the Ottomans. I'm sure the Ottomans and their Janissaries made of stolen subjugated children didn't effect anyone either.

Seriously, where the fuck do you get this idea that a monarch basically doesn't effect his own people? Even by your standard, the concept of the sovereign is that he shouldn't betray his own subjects because he effectively owns them and wants them to improve. It's not true, but that should be your argument. Not that they are unrelated. By the very nature of "having the right to destroy subversion", a King gives himself the unrestrained right to control all aspects of the lives of his subjects.

Both are seeking to liberate the individual from any responsibilities, which is characterized as oppression.

Daft idiocy. The entire concept of a Liberal Philosophy is that a man is his own sovereign, and therefore his responsibilities are his own mandate to fulfill. Not that he doesn't have them. Your ignorance of Liberalism doesn't mean that it's the same as Leftism, which is inherently anti-Liberal.

For all of that, he was a man whom they understood perfectly, in whose conversation they could share, at whose table, be it in a humbler station, they often sat, and with whom they sometimes got drunk.

And literally no part of that stops anyone from being a violent, bloodthirsty, savage. In fact, all it does is allow the subordinates to make excuse for it, and continue institutionalizing slaughter.

The Feudal Ages repeatedly show both the general population and subordinate barons lamenting the rise of bad kings which no one can do anything to stop for multiple decades at a time. The wrong king gets into power, sorry: but you're just gonna have to deal with arbitrary beheadings for the next 40 years.