The Capitalism of Tomorrow: Private Government

Part 2

Neocameralism and Anarcho-Monarchism

“There is only one right-wing idea, and that is private government. The rest is detail.”  — Nick Land [1]

The simplest way to describe my quintessential political model is “Austrian economic theory applied to feudal power structures and hierarchy”. Through this it is implied, above all, the idea of private government, but furthermore the ideas of localism and the estates of the realm. The issue is these very concepts are incompatible with the modernist notions of ‘nation’ and ‘regime’, so I must first ask you to forget everything you know about government and imagine the ideal political body as nothing more than a corporation whose service is the provision of statecraft.

Private property is the only legitimate source of political power. Property rights are not absolute until every man is an absolute monarch over his respective estate. For this to seem plausible, one must first understand the burden of property:

“Property is a liability. A burden of sorts that requires time, money, and personal investment. Contrary to the unfortunately widespread socialist belief that it is inherently beneficial or lucrative, property ownership is constrained by many things, primarily costs, liabilities, and responsibilities.” [2]

From that, one must assimilate that capital ownership is not inherently desirable, and thus one may very well choose to accredit the burden of property to a third party. And that is how we arrive at the idea of private government: a band of estates whose liabilities have been voluntarily delegated to a ruler, who in return charges for the maintenance of the political body and, of course, his own living. The similarities between this theoretical model and (especially early) European feudal monarchies are many which led to the emergence of the term “Anarcho-Monarchism”, but the concept is also similar to Moldbug’s Neocameralist model:

“Let’s start with my ideal world—the world of thousands, preferably even tens of thousands, of neocameralist city-states and ministates, or neostates. The organizations which own and operate these neostates are for-profit sovereign corporations, or sovcorps.” [3]

How that monarch chooses to run his kingdom is, however, an entirely different matter, as there is no social or economic policy attached to this political model. By applying Austrian economic theory to the idea of private government (with a special emphasis on its Darwinistic aspects discussed in the previous chapter), we can conclude that through decentralization only the best regimes would survive. As Moldbug himself explains in the aforementioned quoted essay, the sovcorp’s primary goal would be to deter aggression (both internal and external), and those efficient at such would be revered within the market.

Taming the Beast

Personally (and that’s what this series is all about), I believe the power structure of a sovcorp should be as simple as possible, as to reduce cost. It’s been established that I don’t plan on economic interventionism, so little is needed beyond social policy and finance (i.e. the management of money and expenses, not banking). Nonetheless, the utmost responsibility of the political body would be to eliminate threats to its own foundational principles, upon which its very existence is justified and assured by its financers.

“In a covenant concluded among proprietor and community tenants for the purpose of protecting their private property, no such thing as a right to free (unlimited) speech exists, not even to unlimited speech on one’s own tenant-property. One may say innumerable things and promote almost any idea under the sun, but naturally no one is permitted to advocate ideas contrary to the very purpose of the covenant of preserving and protecting private property, such as democracy and communism. There can be no tolerance toward democrats and communists in a libertarian social order. They will have to be physically separated and expelled from society. Likewise, in a covenant founded for the purpose of protecting family and kin, there can be no tolerance toward those habitually promoting lifestyles incompatible with this goal. They – the advocates of alternative, non-family and kin-centered lifestyles such as, for instance, individual hedonism, parasitism, nature-environment worship, homosexuality, or communism – will have to be physically removed from society, too, if one is to maintain a libertarian order.” [4]

This is a notoriously infamous concept in libertarian circles, expectedly. Yet, it is a mere description of what every lasting regime throughout history has done: eliminating dissent. Nowadays, this is seen as an abhorrent authoritarian idea – which is especially funny since our existing regimes still practice it, albeit more discreetly – but it has always been among the highest priorities of rulers from Alexander the Great to Joseph Stalin.

In order to transpose this concept to the realm of economics, I would like to address a comment left by Brett Stevens of on an Outside In post [5]:

“What I like about extreme capitalism is that it severs the need for any individual citizen to pay anything for any other. Zero welfare, entitlements, etc. This encourages self-reliance and removes parasites.

What bothers me about capitalism is McDonald’s, Walmart, etc. People make bad choices, and in big organizations, they tend to become calcified at the same time they have unprecedented economic power.”

Physical removal is the simplest and most efficient solution to that. Praxeology dictates that humans engage in purposeful behavior (as opposed to merely reflexive and unintentional behavior), which means that their economic endeavors might dissent from the sociocultural order. In one way, that is exactly what brings about progress, in another, it is what brings about subversion. Accordingly, the political body would be responsible for removing economic entities who manifested incompatible ideals such as those described by Hoppe.

McDonald’s and Walmart are not evil because of the goods they provide, but rather because of the illegitimate and criminal regime they help maintain and expand. Physical removal is legitimized by the notion that an ideological threat to our social order is an indirect violation of property. It must be emphasized that these are reactions to an imminent political threat (they are not, in nature, economic), which differs them from the initiative interventions of socialist and corporatist models. Without elections and with each citizen contributing an equal amount to the maintenance of the political body, there is no leeway left for it to be finagled by any other entities.


  1. Nick Land (Outsideness),, June 18, 2020. Tweet.
  2. Gravelord, “Statecraft as a Service”, The Hoppean, (accessed July 30, 2020).
  3. Mencius Moldbug, “Neocameralism and the Escalator of Massarchy”, Unqualified Reservations, (accessed July 30, 2020).
  4. Hans-Hermann Hoppe, Democracy: The God That Failed, pp. 216–218
  5. Nick Land, “#HRx”, Outside In, (accessed July 30, 2020).


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Post comment