Let's stop shitposting for 30 whole minutes and read this article instead: https://jacobitemag.com/2017/08/04/why-liechtenstein-works-self-determination-and-market-governance/
It presents a summary of the Liechtenstein system of governance, which is a not-so-strange mix of a monarchy, parliament direct democracy, and a great amount of local governance. The sovereign, Prince Hans-Adam II, wrote The State in the Third Millenium, which advances his views on government as a service and the right to self-determination as a counter-balance to keep them competitive. The people have the right to secede, crown a new prince, or dissolve the monarchy entirely, but choose not to; the relationship between the crown and the people is strong. The princely family continues to support Austrian economics and limited governance, leaving the vast majority of decisions to be made at the local level.
I especially like this passage at the very end, as it states a lot of ideas that have been on my mind:
>Finally, let me recap with 7 recommendations for a better libertarian activist.
>Half of political progress is about semantics. I believe that we must improve the image of our movement by no longer publicly opposing the concept of democracy, but instead speaking favorably of the word, while pushing for a Misesian-Liechtenstein redefinition of the concept.
>Secondly, we should stop focusing on policy reform, and we should become more agnostic towards levels of regulation or tax. By neither supporting nor opposing increased regulation or tax levels, we can focus on what truly matters, the only thing that can truly make us free, which is the right of self-determination. Once we succeed in abolishing the state and introducing the free market to the governance industry, levels of regulation and taxation will naturally and predictably reach their minimal levels as their acceptance will now depend on individual, voluntary decisions.
>This shift of focus allows us to become attractive as a movement to regular people of almost all sides of the political and personality spectrum. The evils of monopoly are after all considered common sense to even the least economically enlightened members of society – the evils of government, not so much. In other words, we should stop being anti-government, and stick to being anti-state. We would no longer come across as antagonists, and instead we might influence members of other political movements to also demand a competitive government, whatever the origin of their motivations to do so.
>Third, I said before that half of political progress was about semantics; the other half of political progress is about aesthetics. To be blunt, our movement cannot be known for degeneracy and cultural destruction, for the success of our ideas fundamentally will depend on our low time preference derived from traditional values. This cannot be overlooked as a fundamental pillar of liberty, for high time preference always does lead back to statism. We must present ourselves to the world as brave, sophisticated and yet modest gentlemen and gentlewomen who present rational ideas with a calm disposition. In other words, the word libertarian must become a contrast to the word libertine, and no longer can the two be seen as compatible in the eyes of the average political spectator.
>Next, and this is a subtle one, we must position ourselves in favor of self-determination, but not necessarily put ourselves too quickly in favor of secession. Self-determination can refer to the decision to stay within a government, and not just the decision to leave it. We should be respectful of all voluntary choices even if we find them distasteful.
(cont'd)