Autocratic Libertarian Fascism: A Manifesto
THE MANIFESTO OF THE SCAZARIST MOVEMENT
Or
THE BEST LAWS FOR COMMONWEALTH
Or
THE PRICIPLES OF AUTOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN FACISM
Transcribed, Compiled and Completed by the Senior Adviser of the Commonwealth, in the 2003rd year of the Common Era.
PREFACE:
We, the human race, stand upon a tightrope. To one side lies the pitfalls of over-liberalization, the abandonment of morality and the likes; to the other side lies the way of pain, torture, overbearing authoritative societies concerned about a wealthy ruling class—not the people.
So what are we, the human race to do? We are unable to stand any longer on this tightrope, and surely the gloomy crater below awaits us—the ultimate fate being the complete destruction of the human race. These are the waning days of mankind; surely, we are soon to go the way so much of the planet's life has.
Must this come to pass? Can there be a government that is a true commonwealth? Not one concerned with one class or another, or only temporary stability, or profit?
There have been many attempts; but then the Scazar introduced his program, refining it with the help of those who would become his trusted associates, during many longs nights at the turn of the millennium. The Scazar devoted himself in the utmost to his political movement, believing it truly was the best form of commonwealth. He did away with morality and palatability in the name of rationality, justice and success.
THE NEED FOR SCAZARISM
THE SHORTFALL OF CIVILIZATION:
Plato, in his Republic, knew full well that democracy did not lead to a successful society. As individual liberty became overextended, he expected people, craving order, would create tyranny. He did not expect the oligarchic and timocratic governments that exist within the “democracy” we have now, and have had for some time.
So what does this lead to? Unlike Plato’s predictions, this might not only lead to tyranny, but also to anarchy. Neither is good for the populace. Neither is good for the people. Neither is good for the human race.
So what is good for the human race? Religion—how could it be? Morality—something so subjective? Liberty—but wouldn’t this lead to anarchy? It seems that all the political strains of our society have been in vain—save one: absolute reason. Though reason may seem cold, inhuman, even horrible, society is not human—it is not subject to the rules of individuals. Plato’s flaw was to model his society on the individual, and the individual on his society. Society is a completely different beast from the individual and must take humans where they must go—whether they like it or not—for the good of the species.
Thus, without any rational direction, civilizations—Western, Eastern, and of all other varieties—have constantly fallen to demagogues, tyrants, opportunists, and liars. We are a boat tossed about in the turbulent sea of politick; there is so much that civilization to date has failed to provide us with.
Thus Scazarism came to be.
EARLY ATTEMPTS AT SCAZARISM:
Mankind realized early upon his entrance into consciousness that rationalism was the only means by which he could survive. The justice code of Hammurabi is the first move towards rationalism over individuals in civilization, and we shortly see its progression to attempts at moral objectification by the Hebrews. Of course, any rationalist will note the flaws in this system, since there can be no objective morality.
Plato, mentioned earlier, also tried to understand the difficult concept of justice, but focused too much on individuals and morality to make a full drive to the Scazarist movement. He did bring up the concept of the state being more important than the individual—and therein we see the first seeds of fascism arise.
The concept of fascism, a vital one to the movement, becomes expounded upon in ancient Rome. It is, more or less, the concept that the individual is unimportant compared to the state, and that society must always take precedence over the rights of the individual. However, fascism never took hold in Rome because of the corruption of the leadership.
Relatively little political development occurred for sometime towards Scazarism, save the beginnings of collective communistic societies by the Hebrews and Christians; societies based on creating the best for everyone, rather than individual centered states.
The next steps toward Scazarism are seen in the important works of Niccolo Machiavelli and Sir Thomas More. Machiavelli set down rules for leadership in The Prince —one of the most important principles he established being: it is best for a ruler to be both feared and loved, but if one of the two is lacking, it is far better to be feared. Machiavelli, of course, was a supporter of republics, though most people in his time were yet unaware of what they actually lead to. However, this tenet is a vital one to the movement. It introduces the concept of having a ruler who need not have the adoration of his public; rather, he seeks to possess their respect. The leader must not pander to the people, but must rise above them in order to guide them beyond their current existence into a new world.
More’s work, Utopia, is also based upon a communistic society where the state is more important than the individual. However, his land is much more moral than rational; a great deal of liberty still exists in some aspects of the inhabitant’s lives, relative to Renaissance Europe. Indeed, he defies many of the rational (if cruel) rules of Machiavelli. While important, the work is not essential to the movement’s history.
History continued, and for a time saw the Age of Reason. This was a short period in which rationalism was, for the first time, accepted over morality. Reason was essential to everything, and people tried to make it a success. Unfortunately, this did not work out very well. Humanity, while always ready to accept rationality, was still bound to a civilization that was attempting, through ties to the church, to maintain the status quo, to preserve things as they always had been, even to regress. Works like Voltaire’s Candide tried their best to make some points on the superiority of reason and the errors with society, but ultimately failed in the face of the crushing force of Western Civilization.
The period is shortly followed by a regression. Works such as The Wealth of Nations advocate the theory of capitalism, a new force rising in face of the world’s weakening empires. Capitalism advocates competition and in that respect, advances society. While it does create a fantastic stimulation to productivity, ingenuity, and other factors for a time, it falls short because it forces people to fight and force others to regress. People are to attempt to improve only themselves, which is harmful for civilization as a whole.
Nearly a century later, Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels made another stab at collectivist, communist theory in their work the Communist Manifesto (Manifesto of the Communist Party). Of course, their system was idealistic; it relied on people being not only willing, but naturally inclined to work together. Communism also has the failing that it, lacking any competition or ingenuity, fails to create new and wondrous things. This was seen during the actual implementation of the system between 1917 and 1991. The progress of the Soviet Union, fantastic while competing with the United States, failed within its own system. Communism is too perfect in placement of individuals to allow for creativity or ingenuity.
Fascism, an essential concept in the Scazarist Movement, received a poor image during the first half of the 20th Century. Benito Mussolini, Adolf Hitler and Francisco Franco all claimed to create fascist states, but in fact created repressive totalitarian dictatorships that worked against the improvement of humankind and against reason. The name fascism became tainted by the blood of millions, a wound that has not healed, even to this day. It even acquired a new meaning—one of tyranny, pain and war. This is not the one used in Scazarism.
Mankind arrived near the end of the 20th Centruy little better off than a thousand years prior in terms of having stable civilization for all peoples. There were, as always, patches better than others: Western Europe, the United States, Canada, Australia, and Hong Kong, but most of the world was still dragging itself up by its worn and broken bootstraps.
ETHICS, MORALITY, AND RELIGION:
For most of history, humans have hampered themselves with the irrational burdens of ethics, morality, and religion. These are irrational laws devised at some point by a select group of nobles or semi-nobles for the purpose of establishing a solid hierarchical and sustainable society. Little were they aware that in the creation of their new world order, they would damn themselves for eternity.
Ethics, morality, and religion have little or no reason or rationale behind them, but were set forth for a limited select purpose: to preserve the status quo—or even cause the regression of mankind to a simpler state. This seems perverse to the entire concept of Darwinism (which while not brought up above, should be mentioned as an essential aide for the nature of the movement). If society refuses to advance, where can it go? The most logical answer would be “nowhere good.”
Of course, a defense for the status quo lies in its safety—with it, at least we will not go extinct.
Prior to the mid 20th Century, this assumption may have been true.
Mankind has no choice but to move forward, and the irrational aspects of ethics, morality and religion have held us back from proper advancement, as well as the evil of electoral democracies.
A prime—if more or less socially irrelevant—topic would be the issue of sodomy and homosexuality. There exist no rational arguments against this act and lifestyle. Many claim homosexuality defies nature, or denies mammalian heritage. This is irrational; all species of mammals have been observed to engage in homosexual relations. Thus, all the argument that remains is that it is “immoral” or does not allow for reproduction. Societally speaking, this is groundless. Humans have propagated like vermin to every remotely habitable corner of the planet. The few who do not reproduce, even the ten percent of the world population estimated to be homosexual (repressed or otherwise) are far from necessary to reproduction, and science already knows ways around it.
Furthermore, homosexuality is a natural state. It causes no actual harm to society, and harms no individuals either. Allowing it will make those who are naturally inclined to it happier, more productive and, overall, more beneficial to society.
There are, similarly, no rational arguments against legalized (though heavily regulated) prostitution or consensual polygamy. Of course, there are rational arguments against pedophilia, incest and bestiality, but we stray off topic.
Furthermore, morality and ethics are subjective. To Hitler and Stalin, it was ethical—no, necessary—to kill millions of their own citizens based upon some factor of their personal lives—something that harmed no one but themselves. We cannot deny that Hitler and Stalin believe they were acting morally, though much of the world disagrees. Here we can see there is no objectivity in morality or ethics. The jihads committed by the Christians against the Muslims known as the Crusades—and those that have continued ever since—should provide ample evidence that religion is not an objective means for maintaining society; neither are morality or ethics.
ELECTORAL DEMOCRACY:
One of the greatest masquerading evils of our age is electoral democracy. Advocated since the days of ancient Greece by many (notably not by Plato, who believed in aristocratic democracy—or rule by the best for the good of society), it managed to find its way onto the world stage in the republican attempts of France (the Parliament of Paris being the first democracy of the post-Roman empire world) and the English Civil War; however, neither lasted for long. It was in the foundation of the United States that electoral democracy truly came into its own.
Even early on, with the creation of a bipartisan system, did democracy being to see its death. Government, as always, became about opportunism and finances. It continued struggling against itself and its own inherently contradictory principles for another two centuries and beyond. Most reading this will have experienced the shortcomings of the electoral democracy; combined with this in our society are timocracy (military control of the government) and oligarchy (rule based on financial class). Thus, I conclude with two basic principles of civilization:
1) Political Inertia – No government, nation, or civilization has ever resolved itself of its own volition, no matter how incapable or incompetent it may become. It can only be toppled by violent revolution.
2) Idiocy of the Masses – The masses, even the most enlightened ones, are always too ignorant, idiotic, self-interested or disagreeable to ever actually decide on the route that is best for society. Thus, only absolute rule can truly move society where it must go.
RATIONALISM:
Humanity, as we can see, has entrenched itself in a comfortable rut. We live out our lives using many irrational means and, ultimately, change nothing. We are riding on a downward spiral to the very pit of a personal Cocytus, toward tyranny, anarchy, or extinction. Can we, in any way, protect ourselves from some inevitable fate of anarchy or torment? The answer, of course, is reason.
Reason, despite the arguments of many moralists, is absolute. It is objective. All lines of reason and rationale follow an absolute logical sequence that must—regardless of individual morals—be acceptable to any person. Logic is a derivation of mathematics which, when used properly, is also free of bias. Thus, true reason is the only way to truly operate a society in such a way that is best for all citizens. Only when reason is accepted to the highest level will society truly be able to advance to its limit, and take humankind beyond its wildest dreams.
SCAZARISM or AUTOCRATIC LIBERTARIAN FACISM
INTRODUCTION TO THE MOVEMENT:
A conscious human has, historically, been an unhappy human, longing for the animalistic days when he did not have to think or to reason, when humans were subject to the whims of nature, and could not truly be held accountable for their own actions.
The core theme of Scazarism is that individuals must not only act in a rational and reasonable manner, using the universal methods of reason, but must then accept responsibility for irrational actions, or those reasoned wrongly. This is an essential element to the philosophy of the movement. Human beings, individuals, can be granted as many rights as possible; however, they have to accept rational responsibility for all actions.
The Liberalism in the Scazarist movement comes from this: the individual can have any rights so long as they treat them responsibly.
So what does this mean?
It means, more or less, a person can do anything, so long as it does not affect anyone but themselves, or their performance to the rest of the world. For example, a person could use drugs privately and alone. They could not do so around someone who did not want that done around them, they could not do it around children, they could not go out in public under the effects of the drug, and they could not become addicted. They could not use it to the extent it would harm their mental facilities either. Thus, it would be rational and logical to avoid most drugs; however, it is not the philosophy of Scazarism to ban activities that, when used rationally, are not harmful.
DISPELLING MISCONCEPTIONS:
It is here that we must take a short aside to dispel a few misconceptions with the movement.
The first two deal with the name: Autocratic Libertarian Fascism. Libertarianism must be discussed in greater depth than fascism, which has already been summed up.
Libertarianism, rather, individual liberalism, is the philosophy that people should basically be allowed to do whatever they want—the idea being this will lead to the best possible civilization. As we ought to note, we listed Marx and Engles’ theory of Communism as a forebear of Scazarism; however, Marx was vehemently opposed to liberal individualism. In fact, it is more or less a capitalist principle. However, Scazarism is about rationally combining the best of all viewpoints.
The idea behind the libertarian aspects is that the state has no right to deny a person the right to do whatever they want; of course, there are the added stipulations that the individual’s actions must not harm or influence society, anyone else, or the individual’s own abilities to make decisions. A person could get drunk, yes, but if they could not drink around their children, or go to work drunk.
Nex,t is the issue of fascism. After World War II, fascism adopted the meaning of corrupt totalitarianism, based on how it was employed by Mussolini and Hitler. Of course, they were never truly Fascists. Both followed their own interests, not those of the state—the true intent of fascism. The meaning comes from the Latin “the face;” the state which is supported by the people. The history of democracy has repeatedly shown that people are not capable of making decisions for the best in the long-term. Thus, fascism is based on the idea that people must be given leadership that will take them where they need to go. The state looks out for its own best interests which are, logically, the best interests of the people, in the long run.
The next misconception might be that a Scazarist state would be nothing more than a classic oppressivist state. This is not accurate. A Scazarist state, as explained, is highly liberal in the area of personal freedom; however, it prevents anyone from violating the laws and principles of maintaining a good state. Thus, it is harsh, but not exactly oppressive.
Furthermore, democracy has never worked entirely. It could only work under ideal circumstances, like all forms of government. Human beings are too factionalistic, too ignorant (see Principle of Idiocy of the Masses), and too short-sighted to actual effectively maintain a democracy. Thus, an autocratic regime, to support the claims of Hobbes in the Leviathan, must exist for the best interests of the people. Of course, the leaders must always keep in mind the rational best interests of the state if the system is to work; the people, too, must be willing to only tolerate leaders who know what they are doing.
RATIONALISM AND RESPONSIBILITY:
Rationalism and responsibility are the concepts at the core of the Scazarist Movement. Without them, the theory would be no better than any of the other governments that mankind has concocted to date. Indeed, it might be even worse. However, granted these two absolute pillars, the nation transcends the failures of its predecessors.
The concept behind the rationalism of the state is simple. There is no such thing as an absolute, canonical morality—though religions might suggest otherwise. Morality cannot be codified. Hitler believed what he did to so many people in Europe was morally justified, and no one else in Western Civilization, though we may impose our morals onto his action (our right as the victors of war) can truly claim he did not think he acted morally.
Rationalism transcends that. Rationalism accepts the cold, unpleasant truth that all things must be evaluated rationally, and that the gangrenous limbs that plague Western Civilization can not be kept for what value they once retained; rather, they should be cast off for the harm they cause to the state as a whole.
Rationalism is, more or less, that you must act in a sensible manner. Violent crime is irrational, and it is uncalled for. Reason is absolute; only false-rationalizations lead to justifications of violence. The only laws the state puts in place, thus, are those which forbid irrational behavior when it damages others or the state. To use cocaine nightly in absolute privacy may be irrational to the self, but it will not (for a time at least) harm the state. To succumb to addition, though, is a level at which the lines cross; the personal life becomes so irrational, it must be punished.
Reason is the only way to determine what is best for the nation, though false-rationalists and moralists may claim otherwise. They merely do not wish for their own system to be replaced by one they consider to be invalid. Indeed, whether they like it or not, so long as one reasons accurately and adheres to true logic, there will be no faltering.
This is, of course, cold and heartless. Should it be necessary to kill 10,000 people for the chance to kill an enemy of the state, it must, rationally, be taken; the state is that important. Indeed, even killing that 10,000 to prevent the death of a number only slightly more than itself is still rational, and is still the policy of the nation.
Responsibility, of course, also enters into this. All citizens—all humans—choose to act rationally or irrationally, and must accept responsibility for their own actions. Humans are, always have been, and always will be responsible for our own actions. Though many might try to avoid responsibility, it is essential in Scazarism. You must not only act rationally and responsibility for your own personal well-being, but also for the sake of the entire nation. Indeed, Scazarism rests, as do all governments, on the shoulders of all of it citizens. Western Civilization lost its way, abandoning reason and responsibility, and so it is failing.
These two principles do not forbid the right for two people to choose to act irrationally in falling in love, it only forbids letting that act affect their decision making. It does not forbid morality; indeed, there are many morals with a rational basis. It does not even forbid religion, so long as it stays separated from the state, and is not used against others.
A major problem, however, occurs in the misconception of rationalism as the enemy of morality. For example, Richard Rubenstien, in his book The Cunning of History, attributes the rise of Nazism as a natural occurrence of rationalism over morality. Of course, it was not rationalism. It is not rational to kill people for no rational reason; indeed, Nazism, while it may have had rational roots, was wholly irrational in its leadership.
Scazarism does not try to deny all morals, because so long as a moral has rational roots it is still valuable. Immoral acts without any rational roots are similarly forbidden. We find that most acts which are immoral in our modern era tend to not be rational either, save a few exceptions.
CRIME, PUNISHMENT AND REHABILITATION:
Since a Scazarist state relies on responsibility and rationalism to accompany the actions of it citizens, so does it upon itself. It is only when these are violated that action must be taken, and any violation of rationalism and responsibility that impacts another or the state is a serious crime.
Among these crimes are violence, addiction, use of potentially harmful substances around children, religious oppression, impaired decision-making in public, active harm to the state (treason), and a sundry of other, similar crimes. Repercussions of all crimes would follow the same proceedings.
The first time, a chance is given. Everyone may commit a crime once. They are offered rehabilitation and help from the state.
The second time any citizen breaks a law, a death sentence (pending review from the Scazar himself) awaits them.
The punishment for the first breaking of a law is the deprivation of civil liberties. You are robbed of all rights that you were once guaranteed. Thus, it is much easier to commit a second violation, since the very return to any act you abused is a return to the criminal life, and thus follows execution.
But why execution and not imprisonment?
The Scazarist state, more or less, is a lenient state, so long as you have self-control, and will spare no expense in the rehabilitation of any citizen after committing a criminal act; thus, the state’s exhibits its concern for its citizenry. No state can stand without a firm base of citizenry; thus, the more healthy citizens, the healthier the state. The citizen here has been given far more of a chance to be healthy than in any previous incarnation of society.
Thus, when citizens abuse the rationality and benevolence of such a state, they are a definite detriment to the state. When something becomes detrimental to a state, especially a fascist state, it must be removed before it spreads through the populace. With all they have relied on the state for before now, any more effort to keep them separate from society would be a usage of funds that could not be rationally justified. As cruel as it is, it is the only solution we have. For the sake of the entire state, the worst offenders must be eliminated.
But is this not contradictory with the non-violent policies expected of the populace?
As stated, this is truly only a last resort, when the individual becomes more detrimental to the state than contributive—even if all they contribute is support of the masses. Every case of capital punishment would be reviewed by the absolute ruler of the state, and thus is subject to the absolute largest amount of contemplation possible. Should the violation be minor, the death penalty might not be invoked. The state tries to be as rational about everything as it expects the citizenry to be. Of course, morality does not enter into these decisions, only reason.
To moral people, this may seem reprehensible; to a rational person, it is entirely reasonable.
What about odd cases? Suppose a gentleman was on the way to discovering a cure to the AIDS-retrovirus, yet was also addicted to heroin—and on his second chance? The state, in this instance, would have to do the most rational thing and allow him to complete his cure research as much as possible. Then and only then, when he can no longer contribute, is he eliminated for hurting the state.
POPULATION CONTROL:
For the greater part of civilized history, humankind has had to combat problems of ever-expanding population, often dealt with through colonization, war, genocide and—on more “fortunate” occasions—plague.
However, most societies save the Hebrew and many Buddhist and Hindu societies—did not practice any form of birth control. Indeed, many of the incarnations of the entity that would become western civilization itself—the Christian church—forbade birth control. This was to some extent practical; disease was widespread and infant death common, but it was partly to develop a massive army of devout believers—a plan that failed.
Indeed, as we pass through the 20th century, we discover that medicine at last overcame the natural factors that had been inhibiting population growth and population boomed. In only a few generations, it grew from over a billion to six billion. In the developing world, missionaries destroyed the old practices of birth control even when the religions were left intact. The dreaded Malthusian Catastrophe looms just over the horizon—though capitalist policy is already putting that into effect.
Thus, abstinence became the policy in the west, despite widespread availability of birth control, and was largely unsuccessful. Humans cannot resist their natural sexual desires. The same morality that promotes abstinence considers it less of a sin to have passionate sex outside of marriage than safe, pre-congnized sex.
Even when abstinence did work, society still encouraged married people to have more children than was practical. Thus, Western Civilization was destroying itself and the rest of the world.
Scazarism had to present a practical solution: reversible sterilization.
The concept is simple, even if the scientific techniques are as of yet nonexistent. All citizens would be, at birth or early childhood, sterilized in a way that could be reversed later in life. Then, during the education process, parenting classes would be required. Those who passed would be on the first step to having their sterilization reversed, though certainly other steps would follow.
Thus, only those people deemed by the state as fit for raising healthy children (healthy children make healthy citizens who make healthy society) would be allowed to breed, and then in limited amounts. In only a few generations many, many problems of civilization would have been solved merely through the prevention mass breeding and the existence of people who are not competent parents.
This simple initiative would probably generate a much better, much more sustainable society, one highly conducive to Scazarism.
LIFE UNDER SCAZARISM:
Should two people have been fortunate enough to have been deemed good and rational parents, they will be granted the right to raise children, but what then?
The education system is a major core of the nation. Education is one of the most important elements of life, and Scazarism would include a very comprehensive education course that year-round from ages three to fifteen.
This education process would be far more in depth and productive than that of modern civilization since it is so important to the nation’s future. Doubtlessly, the curriculum would range from all varieties of sciences and mathematics, ancient languages, and a wide variety of literature—some in support of Scazarism and others that defy it so it might be understood why this system is the best. No other system has actually tried this because it has been aware it is not the best, and thus has been unwilling to expose the citizenry to potentially dangerous literature.
Scazarism’s high emphasis on education will span all areas of learning and, at age fifteen, the next major stage of life will begin. All students will have the opportunity to choose between furthering their education and specializing a career, or joining the military.
The education system is, simply put, four-year college institutions like we have in our own world. They provide all the same areas of education. Graduates then go forth and provide society with the fruits of their academic labors. Advanced degrees may be pursued if the government sees fit, and anyone can go back for another round of 4-year education, but the government will not fund it.
The military would have new structure. While the essential divide of enlisted-man and officer would still exist, there would no longer be the present system of the elitist officer. All officers would have had to pass through being enlisted men—all persons in the military would have had to pass through every rank the military has to reach their final position—to ensure only the best rise to the top. The promotion system would be carefully reviewed.
In James Jones’ From Here to Eternity, we see clear corruption in the military’s structure, “jock-strap” outfits, promotion from familiarity or heredity. This could not exist in a reasonable military, where people would be judged on individual merit, not on their friends’ merits, their non-military capabilities, or relatives’ abilities. This would, ideally, make the military a much improved organization.
Furthermore, the population of officers would be drastically reduced. To increase their level of responsibility and rational action, all officers, save for generals and possibly colonels, would be forced to be on the front lines with the men they command. Ideally, this would prevent the needless wasting of life we saw in the closing days of both World Wars.
After a tour in the military, anyone would have the option to re-enlist, or move into the work force (job training would, of course, be provided by the military). They could enter into any career they were suited for, though most likely policing or manual labor.
One of the basic cores of the civilization is that after college or the military, all able citizens will be full employable; thus, they will work and provide for society. Anyone without a job would be provided one by the government. All able citizens would be employed, helping out the whole of civilization. Those who had attended college would work in more intellectual or complicated fields and those who had been in the military would most likely be in simpler fields like manual labor and policing. Of course, to encourage supporting society in these career fields, they would receive high pay.
As for those with disabilities, every effort would be made to provide them a job they could happily be employed in. Only in extreme cases, like with some psychological disabilities, would people be placed in specialized homes. However, as long as a disabled person can provide meaningful labor that will keep them happy, why not allow them to do it?
This might seem a bit exploitative of the mentally retarded and physically handicapped, but is it? Might they not receive more enjoyment from life with employment then just being thrown into a virtual prison, having done nothing wrong? The disabled can still aid civilization, and, in many cases, they would probably be glad to have something to occupy their time and entertain them.
What of those who refuse college or the military—or those who went AWOL? The government’s top head, the Scazar, the same who reviews all cases of the death penalty, would review each case of a citizen who violated these laws to see what actions should be taken against the person—whether rehabilitation, or outright execution.
Retirement would ultimately follow at such an age as appropriate for the average lifespan with a state-provided pension to keep citizens at the same level of living as they had always been used too—even a little better in some cases, depending on the career and the individual.
In the end, families would chose whatever religious rights for the burial of those relatives who received the great honor of having lived their years out as productive members of Scazarist civilization. Cremation, for the sake of land, would be mandatory, but, otherwise, funeral rites would be up to the family. The government would fund the funerals of its subjects.
THE GOVERNMENT AND ECONOMY:
Scazarism, as was stated in the name, is an autocracy—one absolute ruler. Only the true Scazar, the founder, could really stay true to his own principles, and research would be heavily invested into keeping him alive, well, and in his proper mental state.
The rest of the government would consist of hand-picked individuals who are believed by the Scazar to uphold the principles of the government—the people have no decisions. Civilization is being driven for them—but at least it is doing so honestly.
Democracy is almost non-existent, it exists only in that the government acts in the best interests of the people. Beyond that, it is all autocracy.
For the economy, Scazarism would retain as many market aspects of economy as would be possible, but a large amount of government restrictions and price controls would be introduced into the economy. It would be a market system existing within a control system. The backing of these systems need not be elaborated on here—there is enough literature to date on both systems—and the combination can be logically derived by the informed reader.
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by Exarch
Rep+
