Anarchism or Lolbertarianisn should only be used as the starting point to build a political system, not as the end.
If we are going to begin with lolbertarianism and then move onto the policies, we should then add to it to make it a functional society.
Just remember that we are going for long-term value of stability, not the short-term value of safety.
So, starting from NWS Minarchism with NAP for it's laws.
It goes without saying that I hold to the lolbertarian ideals that property and people must be physical to be legitimate, we should not recognize intellectual property nor corporate personhood.
First, remove the legislature and legislative powers, political leaders should be overseers who enforce the laws as they were written at the nation's founding, not those who make changes to the laws.
Second, make all the banks into a branch of the government, we print our own money, and we prohibit practices like issuing currency backed by fiat, lending on a fractional reserve system, and of course charging interest at any rate.
Third, taxes, they will be charged in the following forms:
- A flat percentage on every transaction using the national currency with an additional percentage for such transactions occurring across national borders.
- An annual flat percentage of the value of landholdings at the time when they were acquired by their current owners.
- A flat lump sum charge for crossing the national borders, both entry and exit.
Fourth, the most important stuff:
The laws only apply to those who fit into five requirements of "PersonHood", each defined in the strictest biological sense :
- They must be Alive.
- They must be Adult.
- They must be Male.
- They must be Human.
and
- They must be White.
Anyone who falls short of even one of these requirements for "personhood" is a DeJure outlaw and a DeFacto slave:
- They are outside of the law, lacking any rights, they have none of the law's protections, and have no accountability to law's rules.
- They're legal status is equal to that of an inanimate object without sentience, meaning they fall into the category of ownable property for White Men, so any protections the law affords them would come to them second-hand from the property rights of their Masters, nothing may be done with them that their owner does not consent to.
- Naturally, White boys will become their own masters once they reach biological adulthood and become White Men.
- White girls will most likely begin their lives as belonging to their fathers, and later on to their husbands, who are the White Men to whom their fathers would transfer ownership of her over to.
Voting and elections are unnecessary, I prefer the idea of a hereditary monarchy with only Male leaders in succession, appointing a cabinet of ministers under them, who would in turn appoint those who serve under them.
I'd make it illegal for any White Man to be a recipient of anal penetration by male genitalia, they may hold most power in society but I would not permit them to be made a woman of.
I am quite inspired by the civilizations of the ancient world, European culture originated there, and by extension, the greater west. Things were a lot better back then, when Men were of crueler hearts, back before the faggot philosophers of the enlightenment led us to where we are today.
Instead of just talking shit about libertarianism, how about you step up to scrutiny like a Man, and tell us what you propose our nations should be?
I desire an Empire, one that takes over the world in a new age of conquest wherein great legends are written and heroes are born.
The White Man should have complete dominance over the planet and over all that live upon it.
Give me your blueprint for a country, tell me what your government would be like, ow your political system would function, and what laws or policies you'd have.
Ideologies are useful only to summarize a commonly understood set of concepts that could be looked up, to save time and characters length when describing the way you'd run a nation.[Expand Post]
But if you just stop at the ideological label, you likely haven't thought enough about the kind of civilization you'd want to have.
People who'd care about civ-building would start with an political label "X", and then begin listing the deviations they'd make from that ideology, "X, with the following changes..."
If you disagree with me, don;t tell me what you disagree with, tell me what you'd replace the part you dislike with. If you can tell me what you don't like, but not what you'd do instead, I don't think you deserve to have a place in political discussions. I want /pol/ to have anons with ideas.
To /pol/:
If you just want a carbon-copy of the 3rd German Reich that's fine, I'll prefer almost anything to what we have now, but the only thing I ask is for you to be able to describe what that would entail.
If you want National Socialism but cannot tell me what National Socialism even is, I cannot take you seriously.