User:Coindorni

Coindornism is an Argentine culturally right-wing,  economically Laissez-Faire, and civically  Anarchist ideology. It is Coindorni's political beliefs. Mainly Austrolibertarianism,  Anarcho-Capitalism, and  Traditionalism. It is at the absolute bottom-right of the political compass, on the Libertarian Right quadrant.

[[File:Property.png]] Property
Coindornism believes that there are no right without the fundamental right to own property, starting, of course, with the right to own ourselves. It suscribes to the Lockean conception of human rights; these being the rights to life, liberty, and property, and also to the Neo-Lockean homestead principle. This, lead to its logical end, means that Coindornism is an Anarcho-Capitalist ideology, since it sees the existence of the state as a human rights violation in on itself.

[[File:Markets.png]] Market
It supports a Laissez-Faire market economy. It sees the free market as a result of the right to claim and own property; since you can't trade that which you do not own. Property is necessary for trade, and trade always appears under the existence of it since it serves to increase one's prosperity. Furthermore, since it sees the right to one's own property as absolute, it also sees the right to trade said property as absolute.

[[File:Cap.png]] Economics
It's mainly based on the Austrian school of economics. Related to the previous 2 points, it sees the free enterprise system as both the most efficient system and the one that leads to the most prosperity, as well as the only ethical system. It believes that property rights and free markets is the only way a society can realistically prosper, and that a society lacking the right to own capital, i.e. a Socialist society, is doomed to failure, inevitably. It, thus, is intellectually opposed to Socialism, since it sees it as economically unworkable, but it only opposes Socialism completely if it is enforced, that is to say, it's put in practice non-voluntarily (people don't freely get to participate, or not to, on the system). Coindornism is, however, not opposed to workers co-ops, at least not fundamentally. It sees them as possible within Anarcho-Capitalism but not viable competitors of traditional businesses or joint-stock corporations.

[[File:Krit.png]] Rules and law
As stated before, Coindornism believes on the complete elimination of the state, but it doesn't simply believe on a  chaotic, ruleless society. It sees order as something desirable, and it does not see the state as the only entity which may violate the rights of others, but also other individuals can tread upon the rights of their equals, thus order is necessary for the existence of liberty. Coindornism separates the concept of government and state, the government being an entity which sets and enforces rules, while the state is the monopoly of force in a given territory. Governing should be a matter of private house-keeping, one does not govern anything but their property, and as such, owners have incentive to keep order within their property, or hire firms to do said job. This would likely lead to the creation of associations of households, with agreed upon terms and rules to protect each other, signed voluntarily in a non-coercive manner. You could call this a private-law society,  private system of governance, or  covenant community. Coindornism sees private law as possible and desirable. It believes in Polycentric law. Individuals hire crime insurance companies (CIC, for short) to represent them and defend them in the courts (rights enforcement agencies or REAs for short). They, in order, arrange with each other the courts where they'll carry out their conflicts. These CICs are bound to follow the decisions taken in court by the threat of profitable relationships with other CICs being broken. People would need to hire one of these or else they're basically outlaws. These would insure you in case you committed a crime and help you with the resolution of the conflict, thus people without an insurance would be generally seen as suspicious and not dealt with since they aren't vouched for nor insured by anyone else. Law can also be thought to be produced in two ways, either people make themselves subject to rules chosen by CICs, thus you only abide by their rules which you consent to from the CIC you hire, or either the CIC only defends you in court, while rules are purely created via contract with other individuals. Either are viable options. Even in a Libertarian social order, it's desirable to have a jailing system, or an analog, where criminals who cannot simply be stopped with fines and/or higher premiums can be put into custody. But how can such system be compatible with Libertarian ethics and conception of natural rights. There's no singular way it could work, it could vary from area to area, culture to culture, community to community, etc... and it might be radically different between each of them, but Coindornism adheres to Robert P. Murphy's ideas of how it would most likely work in practice. People, as stated before, would hire firms to help them in case they have a legal conflict and/or have to pay some kind of remmuneration to the other party. These would be paid via premiums, so criminals, who of course aren't as trusted to be peaceful as people who haven't commmitted a crime before, would pay higher premiums since they're most likely to need to pay fines. But what would happen in the case of a murderer, someone who wouldn't even be allowed to hire an CIC and would be a de facto outlaw? Someone who wouldn't be allowed anywhere since private property owners don't want criminals on their property to begin with. The only way a CIC would ever vouch for a murderer is in case they were certain they wouldn't commit more crime, that is, if they were locked away, and the criminal doesn't want to be excluded by property owners into living in the ocean, so the criminal's best option is to choose a prison, which would compete with each other to attract these kinds of people. They would have to work from there, money which they would spend to pay for their stay in the prison and for their premiums for the insurance (which would cover for whatever remuneration is given to the family of the victims). That way you achieve a jail system mostly based on rehabilitative justice where no undue cruelty is dealt (since in that case, the prisoner can move to another prison, after all, as long as its secure the CIC doesn't care which prison they're in), and which also serves to lock away people who might cause harm to others.
 * [[File:Krit.png]] Law
 * [[File:Sec.png]] Jail system

[[File:Hoppef.png]] Communities
Coindornism believes that, to maintain a stable Libertarian order, societies needs to organize itself in (somewhat) homogeneous communities. Either by standards of culture, ethnicity, race, or sexuality, and also exclude Democracy and  Socialism advocators. This is to avoid infighting within different groups within different communities. It also believes in somewhat strong borders, to maintain said homogeneity. These communities, would, in order, could work similarly to how gated communities do nowadays or simply via covenants built into the deeds of the lots in order to conserve the values of the community. The system would, for the most part, be a complex relation of formal and informal communities; defined as whether there's a legal agreement, a covenant, which binds the community together, or if it's simply an aggrupation of similar people; and more diverse cities, with their own intricate pattern of physical and functional integration and separation, and great variety of jurisdictions, judges, arbitrators and enforcement agencies in addition to self-defense and private protection. It would, in general, be a system where human cooperation based, on one hand, on integrated family-households and, on the other, on separated households, villages, tribes, nations, races, etc... would flourish and wherein man's natural biological attractions and repulsions for and against one another are transformed into mutually beneficial collaboration, finally leading to a furthering of division of labor and its benefits on standards of living, population growth, etc...

[[File:Trad.png]] Culture
Coindornism, as said before, is a (somewhat) traditionalist ideology. It believes on many things commonly associated with traditionalism, such as support for religion (although it, itself, is not religious), the  traditional (nuclear) family, and (somewhat)  clossed borders, being  anti-abortion, etc... however, it does disagree on many instances as well, such as support for death penalty, racism, and its almost blind support for social authority. Expanding on the topic of family, it believes that bourgeois life-style was the most successful way of social organization, leading to the highest standards of living and accumulation of capital goods; and, on the topic of immigration, it agrees with Hoppe that closed borders and  free trade aren't mutually contradictory, but they actually complement each other out.

[[File:Cultural Nationalism.png]] Nationalism [[File:Natcon.png]]
This might seem contradictory considering that Coindornism does not believe on the concept a nation-state per se, however, it believes in Cultural Nationalism, which is focused on the pride for one's heritage, history, culture, and traditions, etc... which is not uncompatible with a  stateless community. Its type of nationalism doesn't give much care to ethnicity and/or  race, neither does it care about the concept of  nationality. It's purely focused on common cultural values and heritage. Coindornism sees the preservation of certain traditions as possitive, while not blindly believing every tradition is inherently good; however, it sees the acknowledgement of one's heritage and its history as inherently possitive in every way, not every act from the past should be cherished, but acknowledging them, and not forgetting, or re-writing, history, is always possitive.

[[File:Dem.png]] Democracy
Coindornism is largely against Democracy, since it sees it as inherently a cause of political mismanagement. However, this doesn't mean Coindornism is a monarchist, since Monarchs can be as bad as Democratically elected leaders, but sees Monarchy as a big chance of mismanagement while it sees this possibility under Democracy as basically unavoidable. This is for two reasons. For one, due to Monarchs seeing themselves as the owners of their whole realm, they seek to maintain its "capital value", while the democratically elected leader tends to work more like a leasee, who has as incentives to take advantage of a country and sack it off as much resources before its limited term ends. And second off, Democracy leads to smart bad people getting to the top by dividing the people and promising policies which affect a group over another and hurt the nation in the long term but will allow them to further their goals in the short-term; while a Monarch, speaking simply by chance, might happen not to be a bad person. For the former it's basically assured that it will happen while for the later there are chances it won't.

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBT+
Coindornism is against the LGBT+ movement and the lifestyle they promote, believing instead on the institution of the traditional (mostly hierarchical) family. It doesn't support these "alternative lifestyles" being banned via legislation, but sees ostracism and its ban within communities in a contractual manner as both compatible with (and possible under) Anarcho-Capitalism but also dessirable. They're people and should be treated as people from a moral standpoint (they're a priori deserving of the same moral unalienable rights to life, liberty, and property), which doesn't exclude the possibility of their discrimination as long as its compatible with these principles.

[[File:Trans.png]] Gender reassigment surgery, puberty blockers, and hormone therapy
Coindornism, although it does not see legislation taking place in order to ban it as legitimate in any way, it is still against it from other standpoints. People, over 18, shouldn't be forced not to take these decisions, but they should be socially discouraged via the hardest of ostracism.

[[File:Gero.png]] Child rights and ageism
Child rights within Libertarian circles (especially the more  radical ones) have been a somewhat divided topic, and very controversial one. For Coindornism, children aren't rightless, or anything of the kind, but they certainly can't be said to have developed full self-ownership (homestead themselves) either. Until that point, defined classically as adulthood, in order also defined as the age of 18 and above, they remain under their guardians' custody, whom at the same time aren't morally allowed to do as they please with them (that is, for example, dispose of them and/or abandon them) since they owe the child reparations for bringing them to life unwillingly, which might sound like an odd concept a priori but makes sense if we analyze the situation through the lenses of property titles. People, when they marry, should state their responsibilities (which, from a point of view of property relationships can be also be seen as the previously called reparations, which should include the provision of shelter, nourishment, health, etc...) to the raising of their children, and parents who aren't able to take care of their children should give (or sell) these responsibilities to someone else who is willing to do so. Moving onto ageism (defined in this case as legal and/or social disparities between people based on age); Coindornism supports certain amounts of it, and sees them as naturally spawning from a Libertarian social order, albeit in a different way as in an un-Libertarian one, since it doesn't spawn from legislation but from incentives and property relationships. These small dosis of ageism would be age of consent (defined as the age of adulthood, in order defined as the age of 18 and above), enforced both by their parents as by a community (which might ban it contractually altogether), and through ostracism. This could also include, but not be limited to, a minimum age to drink alcoholic beverages/consume drugs, getting driving licenses, etc...

Prostitution
It believes prostitution is like any kind of job. They provide certain service while charging a certain something else as remmuneration or some other kind of payment, so it should be allowed as long as it isn't directly forced. He disagrees that prostitutes are "forced" to do said job. Barely anybody works because they want to; it's almost always a matter of need, few people can afford not to ever work. In case of this argument coming from someone who follows Capitalism it makes even less sense, because there's no reason why providing this service in order to make a living is wrong but other workers who receive low payments, such as fast food workers or waiters, aren't "forced" into said jobs. However, that doesn't make Coindornism support prostitution, only believing it shouldn't be banned by legislation, while supporting and encouraging its ban within communities via contracts and ostracism (both towards consumers and producers of the prostitution industry).

Intellectual property (IP)
Coindornism supports the abolition of intellectual property. It sees intellectual property "rights" as privileges that simply confer upon their beneficiaries the prerogative to coercively prohibit others from using or arranging their rightful personal property in otherwise peaceful and permissible ways. Furthermore, going away from an argument based on property rights and moving into a more utilitarian one, it's no weird thing to say that IP has a very negative effect on modern life; the biggest example being medicine, specifically the giants of the pharmaceutical industry, who benefit greatly from the establishment of IP, which essentially gives them a monopoly over certain drugs, at the expense of regular producers and consumers, who would be able to get these drugs and medicine for much cheaper had an unnatural monopoly not been given by the state. Thus intellectual property fails to be considered property rights both by economic considerations (the economic case for private property is based on scarcity), and for ethical considerations (to enforce copyright laws and the like is to prevent people from making peaceful use of the information they possess.)

Personality
Basically shares a 1:1 personality with Coindorni for obvious reasons. It is that of the stereotypical Right-wing Fedposter. It spends much of its time (online) larping as a reactionary on Discord servers, and sometimes on Twitter, and Fedposting, especially regarding  transgender and  homosexual people.



How to draw

 * 1) Draw a ball
 * 2) Draw a line from top to bottom with dark blue passing through the center of the ball
 * 3) Draw a line from left to right with dark blue passing through the center of the ball
 * 4) Draw a yellow cross at the center
 * 5) Leave a white space on the sides of the lines of half the size of the lines
 * 6) Fill the rest of the ball with yellow
 * 7) Draw a white circle
 * 8) Draw the eyes
 * 9) (Optionally) draw a medieval helmet or a crown