>>403
The line between libertarianism and fascism is slim indeed.
Imagine the scenario of anarchi capitalism or nws minarchism. In both cases the laws are derived from the principle of non-aggression.
From there to transition to fascism lay in the simple question of "who/what does the nap apply to?", the anawer is obviously not "everyone/everything" because we must suspend it extending to criminals in order to enforce those laws, and we'd be foolish to extend it to all forms of life, say, to a tree or microscopic organism.
We must draw the lines on who qualifies for the protections of the law (along with the accountability to the laws that comes with it's protection) and who does not.
So the lines must be drawn, and if we were smart we'd draw them with the intention of producing the ideal results for ourselves. That would be making it so that the nap applies exclusively to white men, restricting the non-living, non-humans, non-whites, non-males, and non-adults from having the inherent right to the protections of the law, and having the inherent responsibility of being accountable to it.
As they are dejure outlaws, cadavers/robots, animals/plants, coloreds/ethnic minorities (like jews), women/girls, and prepubescent boys all become the property of white men, defacto making them into their chattel slaves.
For white boys this legal state is temporary, and they gain the full rights of a white man upon reaching sexual maturity at the average age of 12 or 13. Yes, human rights come to them when their bodies developed the potential capability of biological fatherhood. (If there be any eubuchs, they receive their full rights upon their 12th birthdays as that is the average age of biological adulthood for white males).
For everyone/everything else, slavery is their only option, by choice or not, since they are legally objects in the eyes of the law they may be claimed as property by those who possess rights (white men), this has the benefit in that as his property, they gain legal protections under the nap by virtue of his rights of ownership, no other white man may do anything to or with them without the consent of the white man who owns them, meaning many may even seek out white men to claim ownership of them and to become their masters.
But on the other hand, they lack all legal protections from their owners and anything that their owners do consent to happen to them.
They may also be traded as commodities, where the ownership of them is transferred from one white man to another.
I expect that this is the form that marriage would take, where ownership of a girl or woman is transferred from her father (or whoever else the firet white man to possess her was) to her husband (the whire man who would take ownership of her from that point on).
There may even be a price paid by the groom for purchasing the bride from her father, or in the reverse, a dowry paid to the husband by the father as a way of convincing him to accept the bride as his property and responsibility.
Which brings us to the downsides of owning a slave, in that since they do not have accountability to the law for their actions, their master must assume responsibility in their place.
This can be used as a way of incentivizing masters to not offend their slaves too terribly, or as an incentive to them to maintain strict control over the behaviors of their slaves. Though of the two options, the former is much less of a sacrifice on the master's part.
Slavery works where equality doesnt, we had a much more stable and prosperous society when only one select demographic had rights. The more unequal the society was, the better off it was, and granting equality to other groups beyond that demographic was where things had begun to turn towards the worst for most of these civilizations.
Just as freedom and limited government have proven themselves as long term winners for stable and successful societies, so too has the supremacy of only a small club of people that make up the national stock of the civilization.
Here, we have the foundations of national capitalism, or libertarian fascism, whatever you call it, it is the product of early 4chan and the patented ideology of the alt-right, combining freedom authoritarianism in just the right places for an imperium that towers above all other countries that were established in the past.
Note that these previous civilizations were all not established in a kind nor peaceful manner.
Violence (most often mainifesting in the threat thereof) is the foundation of all human organization and all human interactions throughout history.
It is violence what gives substance to the abstract concepts of laws and rights, which do not exist as most perceive them (neoplatonic forms which have a real and objective existence to them in some way).
Rights are simply a set of boundaries to the conduct of others towards yourself that would give you just cause for violence towards them if they were to be violated by them.
Understanding the everpresent role of violence in the world is necessary to having the capacity to make political changes effectively, rather than wasting your efforts on how you think things should be, rather than how they are.
You would then comprehend the harsh reality that those with the greater capacity for violence can do as they please, and this explains why so many rules are broken right before your eyes by the rich and powerful with zero real consequences faced by them for their crimes.
So yeah, inequality is awesome is slavery is the best form it can take, short of simply annihilating the other, which for women, children, and animals, may not be an option (but for other races and ethnicities it most certainly is on the table of "things we can do"). Theres no greater inequality than that between the living and the dead.
I want what's best for myself and those like me, which are straight white men. I'd ban sexual relations between white males if it involves any white males who are under the age of 25 as a "grey law" thats technically on the books, but never actually enforced (like jaywalking).
It would only be present in the cultural zeitgeist as being taboo or seen as inappropriate. This iant a ban on the practice, more of a discouragement, and thered be no issue with other forms of male-male sexual conduct.
Also I'd want the governemnt to havr a branch that runs banking at all levels in their countries, they should be printing their own national currency at the very least, but I'd further want the state banks to have prohibitions on issuing currency backed solely by fiat, lending on a fractional reserve basis, and charging interest on loans.
Bring back the gold standard, and with it the honest banking practices that do not create an ever growing cancer of unresolvable debt that kills the economy.
This is one duty that I beleive the state could be entrusted to do better with than private individuals would.
A last pro-fascist point is that we should have overseers instead of lawmakers, we already know the perfect government and perfect set of laws, so giving political leaders the power to change those can only serve tk fuck things up.
Our leaders can enforce the laws as they are written without the legislative power to make any changes to them.
They can also comand the ranks among law enforcement and national defense, or set the rates of taxation as are needed to fund the aformentioned duties of the state.
Taxes should be collected as a percentage of all transactions that use the national currency as a tax on sales and services, and optionally add an additional percentage charge for those transactions that occur across national borders as a tariff.
We could also collect a percentage of the price paid for land holdings by the landowners who presently posses them at regular intervals of time since the first purchases of land were made by the landholders being taxed.
The national state banks would also collect a fraction of the deposits entrusted to them as their banking fees.
On top of all this, we could also charge a flat lump sum toll on those who cross the borders of the nation.
I beleive all these to be fair, they are able to be justified and they are always able to be paid by those they are being levied against.
Btw, i want there to be no such thing as "public land", i want only "privately owned land" and "unclaimed land", land where governemt buldings/structures stand for use in governemnt functionings should be the only ones owned by the state. The government should bear no claim to the used lands within their borders against their own citizenry.
I fully support the rugged pioneering spirit of the homesteaders and squatters. The best solution to the homeless problem is having them be able to go innawoods and build a home for themselves using the resources of the land that they find there. Then they could go directly from homeless to homeowners by virtue of their own efforts, and out of that we can see the founding of new towns and neighborhoods, that could all generate more capital for the national economy.
I prefer to provide people the means to aid themselves rather than to provide aid to them.