I am ideally an individualist anarchist with a more modern view of economics. Spooner (Indvidualist Anarchist), Tucker (Mutualist/Market-Socialist), and Friedrich Bastiat (Classical Liberal) are current authors that I have been reading, however they all had issues with economics which could be described as "classical shortsights." My views on property rights and economics in general fall somewhere in between Austrians and the prior examples, with some level of empiricism thrown in (which they all contested.) 

I believe that "politics" should not exist. It is a system by which people force their views on others. I don't believe quality views need to be forced, so therefore its the shitty ones that make politics necessary.  

 I don't believe that the geographical region in which one lives in determines the associations one must have.

But within a more pragmatic context I am a "right"-libertarian/minarchist (I view it as a stepping stone to reach anarchy.) 

What is my "prediction" of what anarchy would look like? 

For starters: many things are decided through arbitration. When people want to settle disputes they get to agree on who will be the judge and jury in such a dispute and agree to his/her/their decisions. For that matter, the issue of "rights", particularly property rights, could be a little bit less strict depending on the location you live and with whom you associate, but very rigid and strict in another context. It depends on the person/people whom you mutually trust. That is okay, diversity is nice and people can resolve disputes without a one-size fit all conception/monopoly on law. It is how we do it in everyday situations, even now. In such a situation, the law is much more fluid and personal. While in many areas there would likely be a sort of "common law" or "common laws" in other disputes it might be a unique situation. Examples of relatively complex, long-lasting societies that did things this way were: Medivial Iceland and Colonial America. 

For pragmatic political views, in the current context, I view this areas as very important:

1. School Choice - right now the state disincentivizes parents choosing where their kids can go to school (in the U.S.) I view this as the major issue of the American Education system. Allow people to choose their schools and to specialize. Do this by either giving them tax returns (if they do not attend a public school) or just using a voucher system. You can keep the public infrastructure for certain circumstances. Competition needs to be introduced to education. ]

2. Welfare-Warfare State Spending and Fiat Money - These two go hand in hand. The state can use money without any huge problems because it has fiat money, it needs fiat money because it must fund the Welfare-Warfare state. It should be considered fraud if the amount of money in your hand doesn't represent some predictable value. Additionally, it is only through the state that massive warfare occurs at the level it does. It was government that funded and created half the weapon arsenal (through contracts), including the Nuclear bomb. Furthermore, almost every conflict between peoples of two countries is with regards to a state, not populace matter. Society and the state need to be decoupled and a non-inteverventionaist practice should occur. As for welfare, it is nice to help people, but it really needs to be voluntary. Redistribution through theft is not goal we should have and we should attempt to reach egalitarian wealth distributions through voluntary means. If that is the ultimate goal. Standards of living can rise without the wealth distribution being egalitarian (it isn't a zero-sum game.) 

I'm right-wing on immigration but slightly left on almost every other issue (though I am quite left on environment).

In terms of parties, I hate the tories (I want those smarmy gits gone from politics forever), dislike UKIP but am fine with labour, lib dems and the Greens.

I am libertarian with strong conservative influence, but there are a few issues I'm kinda off the wall on.

Healthcare: Pass a law mandating each state to create a local single-payer system or a referendum saying "no, thank you, that's not for us." Everyone under a single system is a very high-risk situation. More options increases the likelihood of someone doing something clever, and--if you add buying insurance across state lines--reduces the risk of a broken system becoming a disaster.

Taxation and Wealthfare: 30% sales tax on everything, refund the taxes for $30,000 USD of purchases regardless of how much a person actually spent. There, no need for an unemployment program now, either.

National Defense: Make the Star Wars missile shield already and sell it to other nations via the UN. We will make a killing selling shields.

Abortion: The problem is that raising a child costs $250,000. Treat the cause, not the symptom.

Climate Change: Invest in researching the Thorium fuel cycle and a railgun to shoot wastes into the Sun. Well, at least out of Earth orbit. Make incentives for farmers to grow crops in greenhouses, which use less water, will require less pesticide or herbicide, provide more crops, cause less chemical runoff, and use less arable land.

Education: Vouchers. Vouchers for everyone. Vouchers covering any school the parents want, even if it's religious private school out of state, so long as it's accredited. Also, get rid of standardized testing. Instead, give the student an essay prompt with a topic involving finance, science, or something else requiring the use of numbers, then ship those tests out of state for another school to grade. Use that to grade the school as much as the kid.

I support anything that brings me closer to freedom.

I don't vote, I don't donate to any political party, politician, or political organisation. I do what I can to reduce my tax bill and I try to live independently.

you made it easy on me.

Everything you said but the opposite (almost).

I agree with what you say in theory, however, like most liberals you dont think about a means of execution when you state theory that is good on paper.

For instance. No Countries, sounds wonderful, haver you ever thought through how that might work? Do you have a plan of action to reach this endstate. Of course not. Your a liberal.

That said I believe in what you say, but without a way to make it happen effectively they are all bad ideas. Present me with a plan to make this happen and I will happily jump on your bandwagon.

1. maslow's basic and safety needs should be the lowest level social security barrier that nobody should be allowed to fall beneath. global state (tax funded) responsibility.
2. private economies responsibility would be to make sure that people aren't satisfied with a basic need lifestyle by providing (none basic) goods that people want and therefore have to do something beneficial for the global community (work) for.
sidenote: global population has to be kept in check if it becomes a threat to the natural environment.

i'm supporting political movements that lead in that direction.

Well, I'm not from the U.S. and South American left is so radical and makes American Left look tame.

If only we could get a left-wing like Obama.

Social liberalism.

european liberal.

aka social liberal.

i want to life in a free society that catches the people who fall in a social net.
because thats the only way the majority of people can life free and without fear.