Egregoros

Not sure if you've come across it, but that distinction is mostly described as "positive" vs. "negative" rights. A positive right is a right which requires someone to take action on your behalf (like provide you with services or material goods). A negative right is requires them to avoid doing some action or behaviour (like trying to silence your speech or prevent you from owning guns).

The concern you have with limiting wealth is a marxist concept called "capital accumulation." It's the idea that a wealthy person can use their wealth to gain more wealth and inevitably the wealthiest in society will only ever become more wealthy until they own everything and everyone else is their slaves.

This is true under some circumstances, but usually only where there's a government powerful enough to intercede on their behalf and protect them from competition. I can't think of any circumstances where plutocrats "pulled themselves up by their bootstraps" rather than bribing officials and sidestepping the market. For the most part competition and freedom of association are enough to stop any one person or family from becoming economic dictators.

Agreed about voluntary funding. If you look back at most of our social services and civic projects they all used to be voluntarily funded and it worked pretty well. I don't think military service is an exception to this, think of all the gun nuts and gearheads out there who voluntarily buy guns and cars and boats just because they think they're cool, even though they'll probably never have a practical use for them. Now imagine they're in a militia and they get to actually blow shit up with the stuff they're buying. That's how things used to work in the classical world and it was very effective. Wealthy men used to buy warships just so they could be the one to drive it into the enemy when the opportunity came up. Even in highly centrally planned wars like WW2 there's all kinds of examples of groups of guys who dropped out of the system and innovated their own weapons and tactics, usually very effectively.

I think individual property rights are an important foundation for society in that they're a good final line in the sand against tyranny, but I agree that it'd be foolish to stop there: No one wants a building that's all foundations and no walls, and foundations are rarely the most interesting part of a building anyhow.

Bottom line... extreme authoritarianism is unnecessary and inefficient when it comes to whites. Whites are already pretty good at wanting to do the right thing and figuring out how to do it. Small governments can be useful to get people moving in the same direction but any more than that and they just get in the way.

It depends what you consider left of course, but I do like libertarianisms ideological purity. Personally I still consider myself a libertarian but I don't like to use the term because it's a thoroughly poisoned well at this point.

The most consistant definition of left vs. right I've seen so far is "equality vs. excellence." Most movements called "left wing" focus on promising equality in at least some metric, whereas "right wing" movements throw equality out the window and focus on making everyone as good as they can be.

By that metric I'd say right wing philosophy is more grounded in reality, and left wing ideas are self-defeating.

As for where libertarian ideas fit into that... depends on the flavour, could go either way. Bastiat would probably be right wing by that metric.