>Begin with the night-watchman state, the absolute minimal government you need to remain stable (sorry ancaps, but anarchy of any kind lack stability).
>Remove the legislative branch and all legislative powers from government, we have the non-aggression principle, we don't need to make any changes to the laws. Our government would be composed of overseers, not lawmakers, they would only be able to enforce the laws as they were written at the time of the nation's founding. Ownership of Intellectual property will not be recognized by law, neither would the "personhood" of corporate entities/institutions (these two policies caused a lot of issues for our countries down the line, didn't they? and in retrospect, they were flat out retarded, just as bad as welfare/social-security/pensions).
>In it's place put the national banking system, it will operate in all kinds of banking, and be regulated by law to adhere to a policy of full monetary reform (no charging interest, no fiat currency, no fractional reserve, etc.). For any country to maintain it's sovereignty it must maintain full and exclusive control over it's money.
>Instead of sentencing them to a set duration of time in prison, criminals will be punished by sending the convicted to rehabilitation, to be released only upon expert determination that they are reasonably unlikely to reoffend. Those who are unable to be reformed may be sent to a prison for permanent incarceration, exiled to a penal colony to the same effect, or simply executed by the state. Victims of crimes will be financially compensated by the state, as it is the defining role of the government to prevent crime.
>Taxes are necessary for state functioning, but with limited services provided by the government (just enough to enforce the law, defend the nation, and run their financial system) taxes need not be collected in an unfair way. A percentage will be taken out of every domestic transaction that uses the national currency, an additional percentage may be taken out of transactions using the national currency that occur across borders, a tax will be taken annually from all landowners in the form of a percentage of the value the land holdings had at the time of their acquisition, crossing the borders will cost a sum to be paid for each person crossing. In addition to the percentage taken out of every account with the national bank, and the shares of the profits purchased by the bank in enterprises, this should be more than sufficient to fund the operations of the government.
>If you want there to be a more fascist libertarianism, limit the NAP to apply only to living adult male humans of white race. Anything/Everyone else would lack personhood and rights, becoming a defacto outlaw and dejure slave. Their only protections under the law would come from being the property of someone who does fit the criteria, and it would only protect them from anything their owner doesn't consent to. The owner would also assume legal accountability for the actions of their property.
We could also institute a policy that requires military/police service or land ownership for participation in the electoral process (voting or running), assuming we even had an electoral system. Perhaps we could require a term of service to own land, and landholding to participate in the political process. BTW, if we did have elections, I'd like them to be conducted through a system that does not fail all the standards of arrow's theorem, and also meets the condorcet standard as well (it's possible), we could add an additional tweak to make elections even more difficult to meddle with by adding the detail of the minority rule, or having the basis of selection be lowest amount of votes rather than the greatest number of them.
>I'm basically taking ideas from all over for this, but one thing I'd like to to have an empire, for whatever nation implements these policies to conquer the world and unite them under this system.
>Two last details, first as a pre-emptive response to the "flashlight dilemma" with regards to the NAP, I believe that the consistent physical effect of the flashlight vs lazerbeam on someone's house well establishes the criteria for determining if the NAP has been violated by an act, and in such a manner that does not include the concept of harm being done by words or images.
>The solution to the "bad neighbor" is the concept of nested laws. In it's simplest form, the government owns all the land within it's borders, and as such it can institute a broad set of laws to regulate the behavior of the people within those boundaries, these are the laws of the NAP and are the most essential laws to maintain social-political-economic stability.
>Of the land within those borders, some may be owned by a private citizen, who may open the land to those willing to live on it, and if they do, h may impose upon them another set of rules to regulate their conduct, and the only limitation is that his rules may not conflict with those of the government, the government will enforce those rules along with their own laws.
>Now, someone who purchases a home on this privately owned land owns the specific property they paid for, and they get to set the rules for what happens within that space, imposing a third set of rules on any guest who stays there for a time.
>The laws of the government, laws of the landlord, and laws of the tenant, the guest must follow all three, and each in the chain must obey the rules of those on the level above themselves. Each set of rules may com with a penalty, to break the highest and least limiting set of laws may get your into the criminal justice system, breaking the second set may get you evicted from that land, even if you had a home there, the landlord takes it back, braking the third set gets you evicted from the home of the homeowner, you might still be permitted to stay within the area around the home, perhaps within a home that you own or another that would take you in as a guest, but you may not trespass upon the home you got kicked out of. The government will enforce every set of rules at the behest of the ones who instituted them.
>How does this solve the "bad neighbor" issue? Because I predict conflicts such as those will result in people living on lands tat are owned like apartments are, and these will come with rules that must be followed by those who live in these places, rules that were made by the owner of that land.