I don’t think such an all satisfying circumstance exists even in theory.

Take the poor libertarian, a true libertarian must be content to live under a none libertarian system because their countrymen don’t want libertarianism and it’s anti libertarian to make non libertarians live in a libertarian system.

Libertarianism is trapped in a paradox and can’t win, which is why it never has.

Similarly anarchocapitalism lacks the organising structures necessary to protect its anarchocapitalism state from any emergent government. Anarchocapitalism is extremely vulnerable to any kind of emergent government, it is to submit all the necessary tools to defeat the one thing you seek to defeat. It’s another paradox and again is why anarchy never lasts long. Someone always fills the vacuum even if by accident.

These are just two examples, but communism too has its own paradoxes that make it unattainable. Communism with no democracy and no free market has no means whatsoever of determining the desires or the will of the people it purposes to represent so perfectly. A paradox that makes functional communism unattainable.

Monarchy actually does what it says, as do dictatorships, whereas democracies usually morph into stable oligopolies which sounds bad but is probably the cleanest dirty shirt.

For me the structure of government and the policies and strategies of a government are two completely different things. These are just various structures and in theory they could all implement the same policies.