>The means of production and capital should be (privately) owned as widely as possible. >Businesses should be primarily made up of cooperatives and partnerships. >Very tough anti-trust laws to prevent monopolies and break up overly-large predatory businesses. >The family is the basic unit of society. >Businesses should come together to form guilds where they educate, govern, and regulate their respective industries. >Natural monopolies such as utilities and energy would be nationalized as well as healthcare.
Political Structure:
>Constitutional monarchy. The hierarchy would go; God, King, Prime minister, Premiers, Mayors. >The monarch would be head of the military, be able to open and close parliament, give assent to laws, and appoint senators as well as knight/ennoble people (who would then be eligible to sit in the senate). >The legislative branch would be bicameral, consisting of the house of commons (Made up of elected MPs), and the senate (made up of members appointed y the monarch as well as clergymen). >People would vote for the members of parliament for their constituency who come up with bills, the bill would then move to the senate for approval and editing, finally it would go to the monarch for assent at which point it would pass into law. >The country would be split up into provinces, and then into municipalities. The province would have a mini version of the federal governmental system just with an appointed governor general instead of the monarch. Municipalities would be governed by elected city councils headed by the mayor. >The government would follow the principles of subsidiarity: Issues should only rise to the lowest level of government necessary. This way the people would be as connected to and involved in their government as possible.
Any government outside of American Constitutional Nationalist Capitalism is utter and absolute failure.
Evan Long
jew
Logan Kelly
Why?
Wyatt Carter
>constituionalism gay
Isaac Bell
As opposed to what?
Tyler Williams
Who influenced your lines of thought? Any specific countries/historical periods that you think tried to implement these ideas?
Liam Kelly
>catholic
how the hell do you manage to stay christian with all the anti-christian spamming on here?
Noah Cooper
The writings of G.K Chesterton and the Catholic church influenced my beliefs in distributism. I think that distributism captures the best of capitalism (private ownership, free enterprise) and socialism (social safety net), whilst having minimized the downsides. I like the Norwegian and Canadian economic models, and the British political system so this is them sort of smashed together in a way I think makes sense.
Ian Davis
Jesus said that people will hate you for following him. The anti-Catholic sentiment is insanely strong here though and I considered not posting this.
Jackson Jones
I like those Ideas. I'm assuming you mean the political system of the romans with the culture and social system of the medieval/renaissance.
I am kind of pro-expansionism. I don't think people should be subjugated or that unnecessary wars should be fought, but if a country wants to join a stronger country why should we stop them.
Could you elaborate on the caesarian-style empire. DO you want an elected senate with a strong leader for life? or perhaps someone with a similar amount of power but with a hard term limit?
Liam Bennett
Thanks. I need to read more Chesterton, I’ve only read a few essays.
I like your write up. Don’t really have much more to add to the discussion, but hope some of the faggots here find it and say some interesting shit.
Levi Harris
Your ideology promotes too much conformism, things like Any Forums could not exist in a world like that. Don't get me wrong, I love Jesus but I'm not a christian person. I basically want a Any Forums ethnostate to keep the normies out, Jesus would be welcome because Jesus is beyond the power of the normies and isn't a normie himself.
Zachary Morris
Quoi? Any Forums ethnostate? Sounds like hell on earth to me
Austin Watson
Are you me user? Seriously though this is pretty much what I’d like to see. I’d put more emphasis on nobility instead of mayors. They would be directly responsible for their subjects well being. Any monarch or noble knows that the point is to ensure the continuity of their line and their realm, so it is their best interest to keep their subjects happy. I think this can be compatible in the democratic system you outlined. Look up prince Hans Adams writing on anarcho-monarchism. I’d also have a tricameral legislature, Church, Nobility, Commons, all under the king. The courts would all be tribunals, a bishop, a lord, and a lay judge.
I agree with the mayors being nobility. I think it would create a sense of community and continuity within local government. I also agree with the tricameral system, it would solve the issue of trying to shoehorn the church into the senate, it would make a lot more sense just to make another house specifically for the church. The house of commons would be elected by the people, the senate would be nobility, and the third house would be the church. I'll definitely look into Hans Adams.
Nathaniel Gomez
nothing too wrong with god and all that shit but, holy fuck guys, you have yourself one feminist outbreak and the men avoid wanting to call it what it is so hard that you just say you want to put things back to how they were before?
ofc it would be nice if that was the case, what i just layed out, but unfortunately its worse. they actually cant figure out what the issue is! thats why they strive to simply make it back to how it was - because it seems like things worked under that system. well, great. but im here to tell you the problem is simple: womens rights. simple. fucking. as.
Hans Adam is the prince of leitchenstien, he’s actually super ancap, but an example of how a true monarchy should function. It would be cool to write a novel based around a country that has your political system.
Levi Sullivan
Could you explain further? I don't agree with any of that feminist nonsense.
Ethan Lewis
seriously? well id love to but, theres all kinds of materials that get thrown around Any Forums all the time. youre not just memeing or something? how have you not seen it before?
Elijah Martinez
I mean there's levels to this. Are you just anti feminist? Do you think women should vote? Be in the workplace?
Ryan Long
a ton of levels. based on how you worded your initial question, it didnt seem like youre that deep at all, so sorry if i come off as condescending.
definitely they should not be working or voting, and as you say, there are so many levels of why this is true, its almost sad. the economic point of view, the actually-having-functioning-families point of view... i dont have an exhaustive list in my brains RAM or anything. but before you even get to the things that actually sound misogynistic, but arent, like that women have a slightly lower iq in general and emotion debilitating them, you already see that its a bad idea. they shouldnt be in the military either ofc, literal clown world.
then you get into evolutionary biology, dating strategy etc. and it gets even worse. you start to understand that "equality," the way it would work ideally anyway, will never EVER work. it just wont. essentially, one sex absolutely must be at the behest of the other. and unfortunately for women, it makes absolutely no sense for them to "lead," if what they attempted to do could even be graced with such a word
