>>3473 Oh no I mean to change /monarchy/ to /liberty/, well this is a post that applies to both boards so it's OK. The main problem with libertarianism is that the reality that capital concentrates—causing libertarianism to eventually transform into plutocracy. Having a Monarch as the last court of appeal in the case of broken contracts—and as someone powerful enough to break up monopolies and act in the public interest...is a solution nya~

>>3473 I like this idea and I'd be all for it despite some things that I'm paranoid about. If we assume that complete and total ancap is impossible or undesireable, then a libertarian monarchy is a very good alternative, but assuming I had a choice, I would still pick complete ancap over a libertarian monarchy, as I do know with absolute certainty that it is both possible and very desireable, but at this point I'd accept anything that would halt Judeo-Chinese global enslavement at least for a century, nya~ >>3474 Well I'm sure you've already heard from libertarians circles that free markets break monopolies instead of forming them, and getting the government (a monopoly) to break up another monopoly would be a bad idea, because you're basically taking power from a small and temporary monopoly to a bigger more permanent one, so that's something I'm really worried about. If we can make sure that the constitution prevents political scheming and government meddling in the economy, then that would be great, but if there will be loopholes for the government to abuse, then it might be better to establish a good old feudal monarchy right off the bat so that the state doesn't end up in the hands of (((clerks))) and (((bureaucrats))), nya~

>>3477 See, the thing is, I don't see how ancap resists the centralisation of capital and plutocracy. Hence my proposal nya~ >free markets break monopolies instead of forming them How is a free market maintained when apex capital doesn't like them? The biggest corporations simply become the government. How does a free market break Amazon/Facebook/Google? Most of their revenue doesn't actually come from subsidies and government contracts... and when they have enough power, why permit competition nya~? The problem I see with libertarianism/ancap is that they fear political monopoly, but ignore how economic monopoly can form even from a fresh libertarian start—and they become political monopoly through buying out the the political system nya~

>>3477 Of course, I left out banks, who in actually control the world right now as the apex authority. How would libertarianism deal with powerful banks that concentrate capital and rule through contract? Ultimately there needs to be someone at the top who technically owns everything. This person is public and cannot be bought... at least through money. This person is the final arbiter of justice in a society and responsible for enforcing the NAP nya~

Of course, 'inverted feudalism' is perhaps an alternative to people who still believe that power ultimately resides with the people, rather than through WILL/MIGHT. Tiered Democracy—Immune to most corruption as people personally know their politician nya~ 10 citizens elect 1 tier 1 representative 10 tier 1 representatives elect 1 tier 2 representative 10 tier 2 representatives elect 1 tier 3 representative 10 tier 3 representatives elect 1 tier 4 representative 10 tier 4 representatives elect 1 tier 5 representative ect, until you reach the President. Such a system doesn't need to follow any ideology however, all that would need to be defined is how/when elections are held and voting is done nya~