I was thinking of starting my own political party just for fun and I can't seem to come up with a name. Thinking about it, I'm not sure what sort of label properly even captures my political beliefs. I'm open to suggestions:
- Dictatorship/Absolute Monarch > Democracy/Republic
- Market Economy > Planned Economy
- Private Property Ownership > Public Property Ownership
- Strict Objective Moral Values Enforced by Government > No Moral Values Enforced by Government
- Racial homogeny > diversity.
- Elitist > Egalitarian
- Patriarchy > Equality
- Military Class Rule > Merchant Class Rule
- Taxes as close to 0% to still maintain society > high taxes
- No welfare state whatsoever > any welfare state
What would you call such politics if you wanted to give it a catchy label?
The early Roman Empire?
Run by Caesar? Absolutely. It would be an honor to be led by the greatest of all gigachads.
I mean that's just a monarchy, albeit very economically free.
Should call it the Serf Party.
You should have an ideology that you'd want if you don't get to choose what your place is.
Dictatorship/military rule is great if you're the dictator or you agree with them on literally everything. Otherwise not so much.
Merchant class does not rule, the priest class does (we are always ruled by warriors or priests).
Anyway, congrats, you're a Neo-Reactionary (NRx). Likely the hottest underground ideology of the last decade, will probably hit mainstream in the next decade. "Your kids are going to love it."
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2022/04/inside-the-new-right-where-peter-thiel-is-placing-his-biggest-bets
https://graymirror.substack.com/
https://radishmag.wordpress.com/
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/
https://blog.reaction.la/
The merchant class should not rule but I believe that's one of the reasons things are as bad as they are today. The merchant class does indeed rule.
They don't though. If the merchant class ruled, we wouldn't have Disney pouring billions into unwatchable sermons. Companies would not be spending themselves into debt to hire priestly commissars; HR would not rule over the CEO. Only priests do that.
I have personally been in the room with rich trust fund managers who spent their money to hire a black diversity consultant who proceeded to lecture them all what horrible racist pieces of shit they were, and all the ways they had to 'atone' for it. Priests.
Probably more fair to say the merchant class enforces rather than rules.
Just like a law making sense has no bearing on whether or not a cop enforces it, Disney losing money enforcing Regime ideology has no bearing on whether or not Disney enforces it. But you are correct that Disney didn't originate that ideology.
But I think somewhere we have this intuition that the merchant class shouldn't be enforcers either. They're supposed to provide what their customers want (within the bounds of the law) and succeed or fail on that basis and not based on how well they enforce Regime ideology.
The new priesthood is gay and lame.
You may have a point. The merchants did take over in the 1800s-1900s but now the priest of the merchants are taking over.
Congratulations, you just described the Military Junta in Thailand.
I love Thailand.
It's impossible not to.
Pretty Close to Objectivism
It sounds like National Socialism is the best fit to me... But I'm struggling to think of a new label for it that doesn't have such a publicly negative stigma attached to it... Auto-Imperialist? (being Autarky + Monarchy)
Can't you invent a new label for it that could come into its own?
Yeah, this seems about accurate. Basically, needs to be some new label more-or-less. I'm not even sure what the them is. Fascism was justice which is a good theme. Communism was common people.
I don't want monarchy to be the focus of mine because that's unimportant. As long as the people in power aren't subject to any binding elections, that's good enough. Dictator, monarchy, military supreme leader, whatever. Doesn't matter. And authoritarianism hardly tells anyone what kind of leadership the authority will be.
National Capitalism is pretty close but capitalism carries such a bad connotation among lots of people. Authoritative Moral National Free Enterprise is kind of it but that's not catchy at all lol.
Might just to research ancient symbols and make something up like you say.
this is actually quite hard to come up with
a simple one or two-word label to explain an idea... that doesn't come off as a loaded term or that will trigger a hostile programmed response from most people... bloody hell.
maybe something like a "kingdom" but not quite, i.e. the -dom(domain) suffix sounds like it encompasses a good chunk of what you want to convey: rule, moral values, racial homogeneity, elitist, patriarchical, militaristic, room to allow some form of taxes but no wellfare. just missing something on market economy and private property ownership to tie it together.
Military Class rule like the book Starship Troopers where you have to have served to vote?
Just curious how he envisioned that
Ohhhh. Now I get it
No votes. Absolute monarchy.
Gotcha
And I believe a flat tax on land is the correct way to fund the government. National security vital industries like farming and mining having the land taxes deferred for individuals, paid for out of the military budget, and recouped when the property is transferred to non-family members or repurposed for non-vital use.
tariffs have frequently been used for cronyism, diplomacy, and punishing political enemies, but that doesn't mean a future benevolent monarch couldn't use them for the express purpose of strengthening national sovereignty
I did not say NO taxes, I said as close to 0 as possible to still maintain things. I've worked out the numbers before and I think I could easily maintain a very effective government with a 5% Consumption tax and tariffs on imports/exports set to maximize international competition while maintaining a healthy domestic production industry.
Ok but what if you want to buy a new yacht every year? Might as well raise it to 8%.
I don't want to buy a new yacht every year though.
You don't NOW but if there's something you want in the future there's nothing stopping you from raising taxes.
I disagree. The idea that power corrupts absolutely is just something corrupt people say as an excuse to the masses so the masses don't think to change corrupt leaders. I would lead benevolently.
I always contradict this when I hear it and amend it with "Power only reveals corruption that was lying beneath." I wholly disparage the notion that 'being in charge' is some type of magic debuff that turns you into a crazy person. This is what morals are for. It's the premise of superheroes like Superman. Essentially immortal and unstoppable, but raised right and with a good moral compass so he doesn't do more harm than good, if he ever harms at all.
The concept of "you will always turn evil if you're in charge of enough stuff" sounds both like an attempt to discourage otherwise good people from risking their goodness to try to be in charge, and also just defend the corrupt ones already in power from being besieged by too many at once when trying to root them out.
If being a leader automatically corrupted people, the corrupt people wouldn’t have had to assassinate so many leaders.
I agree that "power reveals corruption" rather than power corrupts, but I wholeheartedly disagree with his/your insinuation that raising taxes from 5% to 8% to fund an annual yacht regalia or whatever fun thing he wants is corruption.
If u/RaceCreatesCulture is the absolute monarch, then he owns everything and it is his God-given right to raise funds for his kingdom's needs or wants - and he is the preeminent citizen of that kingdom. After all, a happy king = happy subjects. The only "morality" of concern here is practicality - raising the taxes too high would obviously reduce the subjects happiness and damage the kingdom's finances long-term.
Sounds a lot like a military Islamic dictatorship under Sharia Law.
||
I can't give it an accurate label because the top beliefs are at odds with the bottom beliefs. I'm not certain if it's ever been tried exactly historically, but this is either monarchy with a strangely relaxed economic policy, or hilariously, the current state of China but low taxes and actually being able to keep one's assets...
I also don't see how strict rule enforcement would work with minimal taxation, as maintaining grunts isn't cheap. And I doubt a royal or dictator is going to respect individual rights to land for long, as we've seen in the past. Maybe you could have this work for one or two generations but I would bet it'll fall apart or shift quickly.
King's Republic?
What about my beliefs is republic like though? I don't want the public to have power or think their opinion matters.
Separate powers ruled by a magistrate.