Lolbertarians seem to think that the only way to freedom is to have a central government with as little power as possible. This simply leads to actual power being put outside the purview of elected offices and ending up in the hands of unelected bureaucrat, finance capital, NGOs, global organizations, etc. The correct path is to have a powerful executive figure who simply, by convention, does not often exercise his power. And when he does so, it should be to eliminate challenges to our rights and liberties as listed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights. A non-hierarchical governing structure goes against human nature - monarchy is perhaps the most natural form of government. Companies and militaries all emulate this. Democracy only works on a small scale, there's a reason our founders rejected it in favor of Republic/electoral college. Counties and perhaps states should have elections, and their representatives should decide things from there, but there needs to be one person where the buck stops, if only so when things go south we know who to lay the blame on.
>>13760465I'd include carve-outs for religious schools in the education policy, also you'll need to think more about monetary policy. A gold or silver standard is nice, but you'd still be putting the ability to manipulate it into the hands of the international bullion market. I've come to think that a properly manage fiat with sufficient bullion reserves to maintain solvency might be a better approach.
