“Racial Socialism” ? Well I’ve never heard apartheid called that before.
And democracy is totalitarian is it? So by that score Barack Obama is a totalitarian?
It all sounds pretty dangerous talk to me. It sounds like you aren’t interested in liberty at all but you are interested in preserving your property rights. The key to the difference between real libertarianism and proprietarianism, a much better description for most so-called American libertarians, hinges on the question of authority vs. freedom. Proprietarians deny it–or are in denial about it–but their system is based on the same sources for authority as feudalism.
Under feudalism there is no, or very limited, democracy. There is no way a king can be voted off his throne. He’s got the power and the wealth and there is no shifting him unless by violent revolution. How would it be any different under your system. You’d have a minority of people who would be super rich who would be, if they aren’t already, the new aristocracy with wealth and power being passed down from generation to generation.
Of course it is desirable that there should be sufficient incentive for people to do well and achieve something by their own efforts and democracy doesn’t prevent that. However it should recognise that usually wealth is inherited just like an Earldom or a Dukedom would be. Gina Rinehart is Australia’s richest woman worth some $30 billion dollars, purely because she happens to be the daughter of Lang Hancock. We aren’t supposed to have an aristocracy in Australia, or America, but that’s not really true. Is it? But at least both countries do have a democracy to counteract that to some extent.