https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cVTVF6ioaYI sort of like these stories.
Gengish Khan is a very successful leader. Good government? Well, no. Successful. Yea.
And, in ancient time, being libertarian isn't really a good option. We have Jin dinasty in China paying one mongols to kill another. It's killed or be killed. The Chinese also mass murder mongols much latter. So it's killed or be killed. If Gengish Khan is libertarian, he wouldn't be able to recruit enough thugs into his army. Other leaders would recruit those and kill him.
Now, the Jin dinasty is like US. Just like the "wise" Jin ensures that the mongols are killing each other (and latter, their descendants mass murder the mongols). The US ensures that the arabs are busy killing each other. Arabs' religion makes it easy.
Some of Gengish Khan reform sounds like a good business strategy. However, it leads to a very unlibertarian solutions.
When looting a village/capturing market share, he doesn't let all his troops/sub bizs to "max out profit and let productivity maxed out". No. He won the war first, collect the loot and distribute it according to preformed deals. That sounds like "command economy"
When one of his soldiers die, the state would take care of the family. That sounds like, "welfare". That keeps his risk avert soldiers morale high. Gengish Khan pretty much pay them "life insurance". I suppose US government says that as long as you obey our laws, if you messed up, we take care of you. And that keeps the country stable.
The difference is that Gengish Khan need people. Lots of people. There is virtually no unemployed people in Gengish Khan. US government have useless cradle to grave welfare recipients that it can't even conscript. Also our advance technology means that unskilled people are getting more and more useless.
Gengish Khan' "industry" is very unlibertarian. He loots other countries. However, we need to remember that those other countries are not exactly paragon of libertarianism either. However, the math structure is similar with any other industry. Those that are more efficient will capture the whole market share. Those who don't die.
In Gengish Khan's campaign, the main victim is the nobels of opposing troops. Gengish Khan, seeing no use of them, slaughter them all. In business nowadays the main victims are not customers, but old businesses that lost their market share to technological start up.
Gengish Khan's reform includes aristocracy deletion. Aristocracy means that you become powerful because your dad is "beneficial". That sounds a lot like inheritance. Gengish Khan abolish aristocracy. This sounds like "communism".
Gengish Khan mixed members of different tribes into the same unit. This lower units' loyalty to his tribe and make them more loyal to him. This sounds like "diversity". It's not as "diverse" as modern day US though. The mongols mainly shoot from horses and the engineers are chinese. However, latter, the mongols would have persians ruling the chinese and some other groups ruling other ethnics. This ensures that the governors are loyal to the state and not to the people.
However, Gengish Khan himself, remains the only "aristocrat". Everything else is chosen by merit. So Gengish Khan is like Chinese dynasty. All governments' post up to prime minister, is done through merit. The emperor alone is the only hereditary role. This is surpassed latter by United States, where even the president is chosen by "merit".
That's kind of ironic. We see how communist politician tell people to hate "businessmen". It turns out, those on top are the ultimate businessmen with all the money they got through corruption. Is those politician "lying". Sort of. In a sense no. The majority of Gengish Khan's followers are profited. The same way, the majority peasants could reasonably expect profit looting the rich through tax.
Whether that actually happens or not do not change whether something is a fraud or not or depends on what counts as fraud in your definition. After all, we generally do not consider someone predicting something that turns out to be false as lying.
All successful businessmen are like successful politicians. You don't let your subordinate pursue their own interests. Businesses are governed more like states, rather than through anarchy
