• Sovarchy is the way forward

Sovarchy can be described in multiple ways. Stateless Authoritarianism is one of my favorites so long as we are using the Rothbardian version of the word State. But since I want to adapt terminology to be more friendly to common people who want to understand politics or my ideas I should be more explicit in my description. I believe that property owners have a right to form nations by consent and that in these propertarian nations, they have the right to enforce agreements. Lots of libertarians and anarchists will usually say that nobody would agree to authoritarian rules. Well look where we are and still yet when you tell some statists of our condition they say they are more than happy to keep it this very way! So since there are naturally groups of people who want to be governed and find it entirely tedious or impossible to govern themselves then there must be nations where people are ruled by a propertarian sovereign but still willingly submit themselves because they are not in favor of the alternative which would be orderless death or blind self-destructive liberalism. And I would like to note that when I say liberalism I am not spitting on the classical liberals who have had some part in making me aware of certain things, I am rather spitting on antinomian beliefs. Antinomian meaning the sort of hatred for all rules, customs, and orders that do not satisfy their most carnal desires rather than long-term salvation and survival.

Why don't I call myself an anarcho-capitalist, voluntarist, anarcho-monarchist, or anarcho-fascist? Well because I find the prefix anarcho to be nonsensical for any systems regardless of whether they are even the closest to pure lawlessness like egoism or not. Because even egoism isn't the lack of leadership or rule, it is the rule of the ego. So there is no system where nobody at all rules. The origin of anarchism was meant to describe Britain during their civil war as a whole. Who rules Britain at the time as a whole? Monarchy? Democracy? Republic? No, anarchy. Why say anarchy in relation to this? Because the nation's governance has multiple personality disorder and they are all fighting for a central place in the nation to rule everything. So as a whole, it cannot be described as one system or another. Now would you say that a property governed by its board of directors keeping stability is anarcho-anything? No, because they clearly are ruled and in a way which could easily be described. As a plutocratic aristocracy or republic perhaps. So you understand my issues with the anarcho ordeal so then why not call myself a voluntarist? Well I would reject that term too because the ideology around them has been more geared to thinking that absolutely everything must be voluntary at all times. I have even heard it said that parents could not discipline their own children because that would contradict the principles of voluntarism.

So where do we get the term Sovarchy from? Well, it comes from combining Sov from sovereign and Archy meaning rule. So it literally means the rule of sovereigns. It is also a useful distinctive from Monarchy because our ideology encompasses all sorts of sovereignty. I believe you have the right to rule if you are a rightful sovereign over something. The way you become a rightful sovereign over land is through homesteading or buying the land from its rightful owner. Also multiple people can be sovarchs over a property so long as they have agreed upon it. This is advised against I would say but it can still be rightful and efficient enough. So what is our intellectual tradition?

Our intellectual tradition comes out of the NRx or Dark Enlightenment, Paleolibertarians, and Hans Hoppe. Foundationally I of course align more with the Paleolibertarians on how a nation should be formed but as for governance and structure, I believe that the NRx movement is incredibly intelligent in describing complex processes and how a nation operates. The one benefit that the NRx movement has is that they were able to entirely skip the "well how do we have order" question. Lots of ancaps and voluntarists argue on whether we should have covenants or insurance companies or some sort of polyarchy or whatever, but the NRx is just able to say we want an anti-democratic system which is usually monarchy but sometimes aristocratic. I believe in a system where I rule the nation of Contradvania as its sovereign authority not because I unjustly conquered you or because I want to force you to do what I want but because you see the utility in nomian society and that I am a good leader. You will believe in me because I will show results and I will show character. I don't want disobedient units or patricians because they just slow down the dream in mind. I would prefer they not even be a part of the nation. Every good leader should think that way because when you try to rule over those who don't want your rule they tend to ruin your legacy. Look at the history of any group which has tried to rule over unwilling participants. So this is why you want to have a strong justification for subjugation, consent to subjugation, or just absolutely no subjugation. In the Bible, Israel was told to free their Israelite slaves every 7 years however, the Israelite could decide to stay if he wanted to. So even if some group or individual has to be subjugated we should still remove their subjugation within a decade. Why is that? Every cell of our body is replaced in about 7 years. However, why was it just for the Israelites? Well, it is because these people understood the rights of property and of sovereignty. However, the non-Israelites at the time were mostly savage but they also had rights to be freed and protected as I mentioned earlier.

I want to take a moment to point out that we believe in natural self-ownership at a certain age of accountability, we believe in the cathedral, the trichotomy, passivism, inner party outer party, formalism, and the red pill of politics. All of this being combined turns into a form of stateless, authoritarian, but decentralized ruling.