Foreword: I have APSD, or psychopathy, and struggle with morality and emotion. A year or so back, I came up with a system that disregards conventional morality and focuses on stability and what would be the most logical way to run a government. I am working to construct a new me that is moral, friendly, and overall a chill guy, but that's still a work in progress. I thought it might be interesting to post this here and see what people think of my work from a while back. Note: I will defend this, but I don't believe that this system should be put into effect, and I fully acknowledge that it is not moral by Western standards. I will acknowledge logical and practical arguments against it, but any morality claims will probably be ignored, as I already know this is pretty immoral (to most).



SECURISM

My views
Economy. Government structure. Policies. Ideals. I have studied these things but have yet to really decide my view on them. Now I will write down what I view to be the best balance of these strategies and support them with historical and factual information. I will point out the flaws in existing systems, and explain how my system either lessens or nullifies said flaws. I have no evidence that they will work, only evidence of why others don't and why mine should be superior.

Economy
Throughout history, it has been proven time and time again that an economy flourishes most when capitalistic in nature. Humans are inherently selfish, and will always work toward what is best for themselves. In a socialist or communist economy, there is no incentive to work. Working hard will get you the same payoff as not working at all. This leads to the talented not wanting to utilize their talent and the average worker not working. The simplest way to overcome this lack of drive is to replace the incentive of self-gain with something else. The best example of this is to replace it with religion, as in Iran or North Korea, or to replace it with patriotism, as in the Soviet Union and Vietnam. The problem is that Patriotism and Religious fervor fade with time, and eventually, people will begin to question why they are working while others are not. It is inevitable, and part of human nature to then fall back into having no drive to work. In a capitalist or free market system, however, people are encouraged to work hard and put their talents to use, as it will directly correlate with them being better off and a better life for those they choose to care about. If you do not work, you will fail and starve, but if you work hard, you'll grow and strive. It is undeniably a better system in terms of productivity and economic success. The biggest problem with Capitalism is the centralization of power that it results in. Starting on equal footing, the strong and talented who work hard will rise above the rest, and give their offspring a better start than they had. However, the more money the rich have, the less money there is to go around for everyone else. This process repeats itself until the rich have all the power, owning towering monopolies and using their vast resources to corrupt and control the media and the government. This centralization of wealth and power is the main argument of socialists and communists, where they claim it is better to forcibly make everyone equal, to prevent these monopolies and corruptions. Both the Socialist and the Capitalist system have their flaws, but the Capitalist system works better in terms of production and freedom. Now, if Capitalism causes individuals to rise to such power that they can circumvent the law and/or directly influence the government in their favor, it is not a valid economic structure for a government that wants to remain in power without violating its core values it took upon its creation. Socialism does prevent these powerful individuals from rising via economic means (it just makes everyone poor in practice, as in the Soviet Union), but in the past, an individual grabbed the support of the people and entered the political ring and took control that way (we will cover this later, in the Policies section). So I believe the best Economic system is capitalism at the base, incentivizing people to work hard and grow, but socialism at the highest levels, preventing any one individual from gaining too much power. Essentially, economic freedom up to a certain point where the government has to step in to check an individual's power. Now, people will work hard, and be productive for their own benefit, but monopolies and law-skirting businesses will not be possible, as the government will have intervened long before they ever reached the power threshold of power to pull such devious actions off. You could limit individuals to making no more than 200% of the GDP per capita, or you could simply put a limit on how large paychecks can be, while also putting a minimum on it as well. Anyone who makes more than the set amount could have that extra money taken (which I wouldn't recommend, as it can limit incentive), or you could place obscene taxes on the extra cash flow, making it possible but normally not worth it to go over the limit. This both increases civilian production and increases cash flow into the government. Both the productivity issue of Socialism and the centralization issue of Capitalism are solved by this system.

Government Structure
Before tackling the issue of how a government should manage its citizens, we must first establish what kind of government it will be. Before we say what the government's ideals are and how the government will use its power, we need to clarify how the government is structured. Again, history provides us with a myriad of options, most of which are flawed or outright failures. You could do as the USA does, assigning independent governments to manage different provinces (states), while a central government has strong influence but not ultimate power. You can do as in China, where provinces have their own governments, but the central government has its hands in everyone and has the ultimate say in any decisions. You could do as many others have and simply have one government that decides all major decisions, and leave the smaller, localized decisions to a locally elected governor. You could do as the British did and simply have many branches of government united under one banner. The point is that there are a lot of ways to structure a government, and there is no good proof of what works best. I wish for a structure that can adapt to local pressures and problems while also following and kneeling before an inviolable central government. The way I would do this is simple. Mostly. Firstly, the territory under your control must be split into geographical sections, as it would be impractical to rule from an entire continent, god forbid a world, away from your citizens. Each geographical section will be split even further into provinces (smaller than states), which will be managed by a locally assigned council and a locally elected leader, who can take care of and understand the plights of the people they represent. The geographical regions will be assigned a council made up of 2 branches. One branch will be appointed by the central government and is assigned to look out for the benefits of the state. The other branch will consist of the various governors that manage the provinces within the region, to maintain a balance between the state's needs and the needs of the people. The two branches will be equal in numbers, and equal in voting power, and will use said voting power to make decisions for the region as a whole. Of course, the central government can still step in and force a decision if necessary. Within the provinces, settlements and cities will have their own local government and law enforcement, which will make decisions for the settlement, but must answer to the command of the province manager, who in turn must answer to the will of the council he is a part of. This system allows for local representation and management, while also allowing the state to protect its best interests. And if for some reason the system is found to be corrupt, the central government can step in and purge the offending chain of law. The regions will next answer to a global council, which will consist of representatives elected by the regional councils and an equal number of government-appointed representatives. This again has the benefit of local representation and adaptability, while also protecting the interests of the government. This council will then in turn be managed directly by the government, whether that in itself is a dictatorship or a democracy doesn't matter. All answer to the call of the central government, which has the final say in all matters of state. If for some reason the system becomes corrupt or antagonistic to the state, the state has the power to purge the offending branch. Some may argue that this gives too much power to the state, but this level of control is necessary to maintain a stable government. So long as the person(s) leading the nation have good intentions, the system will be an overall positive experience for the citizens, and prevent corruption and uprising, while still allowing locals some representation. A flexible but rigid structure, infallible but caring, all-powerful but just. Of course, if the person leading does not want to adjust for their citizens, they can do that, but it is not recommended as that will severely drop public opinion and support for the government.

Policies
If what I have said so far has seemed offensive or controversial so far, I'm afraid to say that this section will only exacerbate the problem. I have been told my views on this stuff are "immoral” or "evil”, though I simply view them as the best path for a government to take. I will go through various topics that tend to be points of contention in modern and past governments and explain my view on how they should be handled. My sense of morals may be skewed, but I will try not to involve morals here at all, and simply speak facts as to what will be the most effective interpretation and application of the following policies.
1) Freedom of speech.
Freedom of speech is upheld in the Western world as a good thing, while places such as China, Russia, and Germany do have varying degrees of freedom on what you can and cannot say. Individual freedoms tend to be a good thing and lead to many positive outcomes and discoveries. However, it is my opinion that speech should be limited. If a government wishes to remain in power, the government should not allow any speech undermining its influence or the public opinion of its systems. This does not mean that the government should restrict all speech, or only allow speech it agrees with. I mean to say that the government should make slander or criticizing the government openly and publicly illegal. Punishable at the government's discretion. I feel that opinions on race, sexuality, gender, and various other group rights should not be enforced by law, but I suppose that again falls to the discretion of those in power.
2) Rules of engagement.
War is a constant of mankind, and, inevitably, one government will eventually be opposed by another, either for resources or ideological reasons. In the 21st century, the justification of war is very opaque. So what makes it "justified” to attack and annex a sovereign state? Most people would say if they are a threat, or if they have something you need. Some would say that there is no possible justification that makes war OK. It is my opinion that the justification of war is as simple as want. You don't need a good reason to go to war with a Nation, you just need to decide whether or not you want to. For example: I want humanity to be united, therefore I will annex all states who do not join me willingly, or; I think the Swiss Alps are pretty, so I will take them for myself. War is justified simply by your desiring it to be so, there is no need for complex rules on what's allowed and what's not.
3) Right to privacy.
Privacy is another heavily debated topic in today's world. On one hand, people are entitled to at least some amount of privacy, and no one wants their soul bared to the world. However, privacy is the enemy of security. What the government can't see, the government can't prepare for or stop in time. To ensure the safety of the citizens of the state, not to mention the state itself, all matters outside of homes should be monitored by the government. Workplaces, streets, strip clubs, hotels, and all non-private property should be monitored by the government at all times to prevent any terrorist or unlawful activities in these areas. The question then comes to houses. Should the inside of one's home be monitored as well? It would increase security, but would anyone feel comfortable having intercourse, or going to the bathroom when you are constantly being recorded? One way to assuage the concerns is to use AI to monitor homes and bathrooms (and everything else), and only bring the recordings to human eyes if it flags something dangerous. I would recommend using media to make this seem no more malicious than a prostate check at the doctor's, make sure they know it's for the good of the people. Storing that much footage also takes up a lot of storage, so perhaps use loop recordings, which will again ease privacy concerns, and only store stuff flagged as important. This would be the true death of privacy, but a new age in terms of domestic security.
4) Legislature.
How laws are decided is very important, as they make up the basic constituents of society and civilization. In democratic countries, laws are decided by the people. In dictatorships, they are decided by those in power. The problem with authoritarian law is that it can conflict with cultural beliefs, in which case either the law or the culture needs to go. To ensure that the state does not waver from its intended purpose, it will not be the law that goes. Laws will be decided and approved by those in charge of the government, saying what is allowed, and what isn't. What isn't said in the laws of the Capital can be decided by local councils, with province managers overruling city governors, regional councils overruling province managers, and so on up the chain. This allows for some locality of laws, allowing some cultures to decide for themselves what is allowed and what isn't, based on their beliefs. However, as mentioned earlier, they can not go against the laws passed by someone higher up the chain. Those laws are undeniable and unchangeable, except by those who made their superiors. I would recommend that capital laws be structural stuff to push humanity forward, keep the citizens safe, and preserve the government's control. Leave the morality and cultural laws up to those lower down the chain, so long as they do not completely clash with what you believe is right.
5) Justice system.
Hand in hand with laws is how said laws are enforced. The USA uses a justice system where one person hires a lawyer to represent them, and the other side hires a lawyer to do the same for them. This is a dumb system. It favors those with more money and is based on who can manipulate the jury more. I would use a simpler system, where the "jury” is a board of professionals who know the laws inside and out, and the defendants must represent themselves to prove that they are innocent. This way, if the individual truly seems innocent and there is no evidence against them, they go free, but if the evidence is against them, there is no one to twist it to manipulate and trick the jury as to its meaning. This is both more fair and more likely to catch and punish criminals. The punishment will be decided by the jury, who can choose from a range between a minimum punishment to a maximum, based on the severity of the crime as they see it. Court cases will also be just about crimes. There will be no suing and no prosecutors. Either someone committed a crime or they didn't, if they did, they will be punished, if not, they go free. Financial compensation for victims of the crime will not be a part of the system, as situations can get too nuanced for things like that. Perhaps allow some kind of criminal victim insurance company to exist. Any crimes reported will be immediately investigated by the police, and if the accused is found innocent, a fee will be added to the accuser's tax audit. As for punishments themselves, that is again up to the discretion of the ruling government. I recommend a system where repeat offenders are exiled or executed, while 1 or 2-time offenders will be allowed to stay. Privatized prisons are easily corruptible, while the government shouldn't have to pay money to house and feed criminals. Instead, use a financial-based punishment, such as the government taking ⅓ or ½ even of their yearly income, with the amount taken and the duration of the punishment being decided based on the crime.
6) Military / Police force.
Adding on to how laws are enforced is how you find and apprehend criminals. There will be various levels of police, covering different scales of crimes. Local police will deal within cities, provincial police will deal with multi-city problems, and regional police will deal with problems that span over more than one province. This, of course, keeps scaling until you reach state-wide police, who deal with serious, large-scale domestic threats. The police have the authority to do whatever, though they can still be investigated and tried if they are reported to have committed a crime, even while on duty. This should cover most criminal and domestic conflicts. For external threats, such as neighboring nations, pirates, or enemies of the state seeking refuge outside of your state, use an external military. I'd recommend keeping your military at least as strong as your strongest neighbor, even if they are an ally. Military structure is a complex and versatile thing, so it will not be covered here. Volunteer militaries tend to have higher morale and better fighting spirit, so I recommend not drafting anyone unless your state is in terminal danger or you're completely failing the propaganda game.
7) Immigration / Emigration.
Immigration should 100% be allowed. Citizenship should be as simple as wanting to be a citizen, and it should be as easy as possible to enter your nation while still keeping track of everyone who enters. With internal security already so high, having more people is only a boon to your productivity and nation, so there is no reason for not letting someone in (unless they are deemed to be an enemy of the state). Emigration is both simple and tricky. On one hand, those who want to leave the country should be allowed to, though it is best not to encourage it. An issue may arise in the fact that those who left your nation might be brought back under your control after expansion, meaning you can keep letting them go or, if there is nowhere else to go, either force them to behave or… deal with them. I would use propaganda to discourage people from leaving and make leaving state territory so difficult it is not worth the trouble to travel unless it is so unbearable that they will do anything to escape, in which case it is better to let them go peacefully. Also, forcefully integrating a hostile population may be hard, in which case you can either reinforce your police forces or you could… deal with those who refuse to cooperate.
8) Trade and foreign policy.
All trade with external nations should be dealt with exclusively by the government, as your people interacting with free peoples could cause trouble that can be easily avoided. While self-reliance is an option, it generally does not work out, and sometimes it is necessary to source resources from another power. The government should handle all imports and exports, sell the imports at a buying price to their citizens, and buy the exports from the citizens to then export them at a higher price. This generates a bit of cash flow for the government, and while the government could drive up prices of necessary items, it would be shortsighted and harm the state in the long run. All while avoiding the troubles of companies within your state branching out into other places, reducing your control over them, or losing them entirely.
9) Subsidization of basic needs.
Basic life needs, such as water, shelter, food, electricity, and healthcare should be subsidized by the state, though it should be the bare minimum, as to keep the poorer folk healthy while also being uncomfortable, driving them to work harder and gain more benefits and comfort. However, those deemed to not be contributing anything to society, not working and yet taking resources, should be given notice to fix their behavior, and if nothing changes they should be expelled from the nation, or again, if there is no place to go… deal with them. This means that everyone will work to achieve more comfort, those who are less talented will still be able to live without getting screwed over, and you prevent the bottom feeders who drag your nation down from getting free stuff from you. Simply put, those who work, even if it's not a lot, will be able to live without fear of starvation or death, those who work harder will get better stuff, and those who don't work at all will not be a worry for your state.
10) Disability / Retirement checks.
Some people are born disadvantaged, with disabilities that inhibit their ability to work or contribute to society. If they manage to overcome that disability and contribute anyway, there are no problems, but for those who are unable to overcome their issues and cannot contribute, there are two options. The first option is to find someone else who is capable of contributing to help them, most likely family, friends, or charity. The second option is to kick them out of the country. It sounds harsh, but if no one will help them, they are nothing but a drag on society, and the government will not lend aid or checks to those who are unable to contribute (no more than anyone else gets, that is). As for people who grow too old to work or wish to retire, it is the same. The government will not pay an individual to not work, and they will not be given any leniencies anyone else wouldn't get. If society desires the ability to retire, a good business for someone to run would be one where someone pays a small part of their income their whole life, and then this money is slowly fed back to them after they retire. This way, the government is not dragged down by those who cannot work, there are options for those who cannot work to continue to be safe and citizens of the nation.

Ideals
The fundamental difference between two governments is that they uphold different ideals. It is what prevents the peaceful unification of cultures, countries, and peoples. A government's ideals vary extremely throughout the world, with no two systems upholding the same purpose. The system I have described so far in this document is how to have a stable and infallible government. This structure I have put forth can be applied to any set of ideals, no matter how varied. It could be used to commit genocide, oppress the people, and stall humanity's progress for the benefit of those in charge. Or it can be used to help people, promote equality, and urge humanity forward into the vast cosmos. This next part is not about what you should do, or what is most effective. It is about what I would do, and what my ideals for this type of government would be. This is not an argument or a theory, it is simply what I believe, and it needs no evidence to back it up other than me saying it. Without further ado, let me explain my ideas. My goal would be to equalize and unite all of the cultures of the world, be that through integration or elimination. Gender roles, the idea of uniqueness based on skin tone, and hate simply because of locational origin are pointless, and via my power, I would seek to eliminate them. They have formed under the harsh hand of nature, which I seek to remove from humanities affairs. My goal would be to maintain the happiness of the people, not their freedom. I will allow as much freedom as I see fit, and intervene on subjects that incite anger or concern in the public. I have no qualms about using lies or propaganda to influence the masses, just as I have no qualms about killing a few to ensure the good of the whole. My goal is not fairness, it is happiness. I cannot be perfect in my pursuit of what I view as best for humanity, no one can, but so long as humankind trends forward, into a world with more comfort and stability than today, I am accomplishing what I desire. My goal is to preserve humanity, and let it grow without the need to worry about war, famine, disease, overpopulation, or environmental catastrophes. My goal is for there to be peace, progress, and prosperity for all peoples, discriminating against none, so long as they are a boon to society. While others could use this power to enforce racial hierarchies, sexism, and discrimination against minorities, or even majorities, I will not. While I may seek to terminate philosophies and religions that are antagonistic to my goals, I will allow things I do not agree with, so long as they do not hinder humanity's growth. Again, this is no argument for why this is "better", and there is no reason for others to follow or believe in my ideologies. This is merely my goals and aspirations, and how I would apply these strategies and structures. I won't argue whether or not this is morally right or wrong, that is a subject for somewhere else. This document is not here for morality. It is to showcase what I think will work and why, and then tell what I would do with my creation.

Afterword
This has been a compendium of my thoughts, proofs, and opinions. I do believe in what is written here, if we ignore morals, which, trust me, is something you want me to ignore. I have named it Securism as it is not a government designed for the good of the people, the benefit of the ruler, or any specific ideals. It is designed to be a flexible, unbreakable, strong government that can enforce any ideals. It is designed not around any specific morals or beliefs, it is simply designed to be a secure and stable government, and its use is at the discretion of the ruling party. I hope nothing here has offended my readers too much, and if it has? I truly don't care. There may be flaws in this system, but I believe that there are not many, (or at least no major ones) as I have thought this out thoroughly. My writing style cares not for formality, it's sole purpose is to convey my ideas in the simplest way possible, with no unnecessary fluff in places that don't need it. My ideas are not normal, they are not conventional, and it can be argued that they are not moral as well. But they don't need to be. They simply need to be true.