INeutralicA

iNeutralicA is an ideology of the user Neutralic. They are economicaly far left, socialist ideology. Ideology is culturally ranging from left to far left depending on issue. This ideology is usually slightly libertarian and have spot in  the libleft quadrant, but somewhat close to centre-left.

= Economic believes =

Worker Ownership
iNeutralica believes, that capitalism causes oppression of workers and severe income inequality and because of the profit motive of capitalism and private ownership they think that capitalism cannot be reformed to solve these issues. Because this, they believe that transition to socialism is needed. iNeutralica don’t like the  ways of ownership,  because it require a very strong state and it can limit our liberties. Because of that iNeutralica advocates for workers owning of the means of production and supports worker cooperatives. They believe that worker cooperatives would eliminate the hierarchical structure of capitalism (at best you would have no boss, at worst you will elect your boss). The profits of the coop will be redistributed among all workers (some is needed ensure its stability and wouldn’t be redistributed). It will also allow for shorter working hours (if some of the work become automated).

Private property vs. Personal property
iNeutralicA believes in distinction between private and personal property. They believe that personal property are things for personal usage such as your car which don’t employ workers. You can own those things under iNeutralicA. Employing workers for your personal gain would be illegal. You can still own unnecessary and luxury stuff for example multiple houses, but these things would be taxed way higher than ordinary stuff.

Democratic planning
An interesting question is, if socialism is better with market or planned economy. They believe, that centrally planned economy is not a good way of planning the economy, because it will increase the power of the state and it may be dangerous to civil rights, if the state turns authoritarian. It also doesn’t participate people in it. Then market economy should be used, right? No, iNeutralicA believe that market economy would not solve the problem without severe regulations in place and this might require a strong state. There will still be competition: winners and losers and some coops will fail which would lead to inequality and welfare might be needed to drag the workers out of poverty. With worker ownership, it might predict the preferences of the consumers better, than the centrally planned economy, but it still wouldn’t be ideal. It will also lead to waste and wouldn’t be eco-friendly. But what next? They prefer some form of democratic participatory planning with some changes. The coops would be more independent than in actual participatory economy: the wages would be democratically set by individual coops instead of the worker councils because that may reduce arguing and rudeness between the coops, and they might cooperate better. They might also use same form of E-democracy or voting (in the case of consumer preferences) for at least some reduction in bureaucracy. This system still is not ideal, but it will be a step up from free market capitalism.

Taxes
iNeutralica believes, that taxes are needed to finance welfare program an taxation is not a theft, like some  argue. There would be some types of taxes needed.
 * [[File:Georgist.png]]Land value tax (LVT) - Land value tax would be one of the essential taxes. There will be quite a high LVT especially privately own land especially unused land. The goal would be to make most of the land public and allow more housing to be built on unused land.
 * Intheritance tax - Progressive inheritance tax will make the social environment more equal. This tax may be slowly phased out. The top rate of this tax might be quite high.
 * Income tax - Another tax would be progressive income tax. Some form of brackets will be used.
 * Capital gains tax - would be taxed the same as income.
 * Carbon tax and other eco taxes - to support environmentally friendly policies
 * Excise tax - There will not be traditional sales tax. Only some products will be taxed (alcohol, cigarettes, drugs, gas and very expensive things for example)

International trade
This part will be rewritten in the next update. = Government =

Federal or unitary
They believe that government should be at least federal or in the best scenario even confederal. They believe that in unitary government would cause central government to be too powerful and may damage freedom of the people. Unitary government also tend to overlook priorities of the people at local level and also is bad for minorities.

Government structure
Their government structure would be similar to. There would be multiple levels of councils united by confederal government. This would be all done by direct democracy and all would be done via referendum (except the one highest confederal level - even though the representatives still could be voted off if they don’t listen to their people and this function would have term limits). There still would be some ethnicity and gender quotas like in rojava, at least at some levels of the government. No private donations would be allowed to ensure fair conditions for every candidate and give every candidate a chance to win (make elections more fair). = Personal liberties =

Drugs
iNeutralica believe in legalization of all drugs. There will be regulations to the drug market though, especially in the case of hard drugs. They believe, that education should teach the dangers of drugs, but people still should be free to consume drugs if they really want. There will also be age restriction on buying the drugs, but nothing extreme.

Guns
iNeutralicA is kind of mixed on guns. They don’t describe themselves as either pro-gun or anti-gun. They do not want to bun civilian owned firearms, but they think, that some regulations are needed in place, especially safety regulations. They support licensing and training. Reason wouldn’t be needed to obtain a firearm and the licensing should be free or cheap at worst. Sometimes there would be mental health test and checks, but not always (would depend on the gun). With the right licencing all guns would be obtainable for a regular person. They don’t want other gun control (carry regulations, waiting periods - would be only the one necessary to provide a background check, assault weapon ban).

Gambling, smoking and alcohol
iNeutralicA believe, that people should be free to do gambling if they want. Gambling industry would need to be regulated and there also would be age limits. It would be same sport betting. They want to teach people the dangers of gambling, so not that many people would gamble. They want to discourage people from it even by other ways (ads), just not full bans. Same would be with alcohol. There would be age limit of 18 and quite high alcohol tax (excise tax), but not other regulations. Drinking would be discouraged though. Same with smoking. It would be legal, but there would be age restrictions, high taxes and there also would be smoking bans in some public spaces (schools, hospitals and so on). In other places, smoking would not be banned.

Euthanasia
They believe that euthanasia should be legal. There would be some restrictions though. Euthanasia would be used quite rarely (would be discouraged when not necessary). Medical care will be still preferred to prevent ableism.

Freedom of speech and its restrictions
Freedom of speech is one of the most important rights and that needs to be acknowledged but there are some restrictions which are needed to be in place. Generally, those ones are direct threat of violence or incitement of physical violence or false emergency threads (those which can lead to harm.

Hate speech
The topic of hate speech is really controversial for them. They are not on any side of this conflict. INeutralicA would define hate speech as offensive speech based on inherent characteristic such as racem gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, work and status, class, religion and so on. Although they think, that hate speech laws have good intentions, the way in which most progressive want them is kind of anti-freedom and cruel for them. But unlike conservatives, they think hate speech should be combated. They think that major focus on education. Education should focus on teaching how to combat fascist and b*goted arguments and also how to spot a fascist. There would be anti-hate speech rhetoric, but everything would be done outside of a government range. They propose building several facilities which would be focused on talking with those people and rehabilitation (they view fascist and b*goted views as something which can be changed back, and they want to treat this as some personal problem and not as a criminal offence). This would rely on community reports - every person would be encouraged to report an accusation of hate speech and potential fascist to the community (workplace, school, neighbourhood meeting or even a person alone with the victim) and the person would be sent to those facilities where they will talk about it and try to rehabilitate. Ideally, the reporter would report if the person stop being like that or not. Even though there could be some consequences like those state above for hate speech, it would not be criminally punished by government in any way and government even would not have a say in it. On internet, hate speech laws should be set by the lowest authorities (not by companies). Even though they would be recommended, they understand that controlling internet by the government would result in mass censorship and they do not want this. Hate crimes would still exist, but for a crime to be classified as hate crime it must include other unlawful actions such as violent actions (hate speech alone is not enough. iNeutralicA know, that these laws will not work today, but after a change of society these might work (for now similar laws just without that self-policing would be the best for them).

Political correctness
Unlike other more conservative leftist ideologies, iNeutralicA supports political correctness, but they are still against enforced political correctness. They think that politicall correctness should be taught in schools, but political incorrectness should be just frowned upon by society and just be cause for a debate (especially if it is not hate speech) and not punished by any law.

Freedom of press
Freedom of press is also one of the most important freedoms. Press would largely not be censored but some restrictions like false advertisements and those in the free speech category would exist

Privacy
Internet surveillance is a big problem of the modern world caused by major tech corporations. iNeutralicA want to destroy this state and this might be possible under socialism with anti-censorship laws. There could be surveillance cameras, but government would put them only on government institutions. There could be put elsewhere, but government cannot access the data from them, except if allowed by the owner of a camera after crime.

Intellectual property
Intellectual property is one of the things in modern world which is really problematic. They believe that patents should be abolished to avoid capitalist elitism. It may also largely benefit developing countries. Copyright on creative property would be also reformed, there would be maybe government funding of the artists (compensation for reformed copyright law) - some would still stay, but just the trivial ones (for example you still wouldn´t be able to publish someone else’s work without giving at least credit to the author).

Sex work and pornography
iNeutralicA wants to legalize prostitution but some regulations will be made, and it would be taxed. They will be largely focused on providing other jobs than sex work to assure that sex workers really want to do this job. Another thing needed would be sex worker protections (sex worker would have more say about what will be done with them) to make these hard jobs more comfortable for sex workers. Most needed would be culture changes in culture of buying sex. Same would be with pornography. It would stay legal, but they want to change pornography culture (especially male pornography). Working conditions of pornography actors should be improved too. Only case when pornography can be banned is nonfictional child pornography.

Nudity
iNeutralicA thinks that nudity is not natural. Nudity still should not be banned if it doesn’t harm anyone.

Vacxines and COVID
iNeutralicA believe, that mandatory could only be vaccines, which are given to the people only up to a certain age (when the children are able to choose for themselves), or only if the disease is very major. There should be very strict tests on vaccines and their safety and only vaccines which pass them could be mandated. Mandatory child vaccination can prevent a lot of diseases. But this doesn´t apply to the COVID vaccine, you get this vaccine at older age so it should not be mandatory. It should be highly encouraged though, but not by violence and propaganda. They are relatively okay COVID lockdowns, lockdowns could be used, but only in the needed times. Same would be with mask mandates, and they would be only in indoor places (government institutions, hospitals, public transit, schools, workplaces if voted about it democratically).

Age restrictions
iNeutralica agree that some age restrictions are needed in place. These are the ones they would have = Social issues = iNeutralicA believes, that true social equality can be achieved only under socialism so these believes are quite connected with economic believes and they think that when socialism will be achieved, some of this social stuff would be way easier to change unlike nowadays
 * Age of consent would be 14.
 * They would reduce the voting age to 15
 * Working age would be 15 too (between 15 and 18 with restrictions)
 * Drinking age, driving age, other age restrictions and age of majority would be 18.

Race and ethnicity
Racism is one of the biggest problems in modern society. Especially systematic racism. Laws should be largely redone to not be racist. Ideal society would be largely colorblind and ethnoblind. Education system should teach people about the wrongness of racism and ethnocentrism and also should teach students how to treat people equally and with empathy. Same with ethnicity. No one is superior to anybody, and this should be evident in the laws. All races and ethnicities should have same rights.

Gender
iNeutralicA strongly support gender equality. They believe that gender norms and patriarchy are oppressive and should be ended in favor of equality. After some time, the best idea is to abolish gender and its norms completely. Schools should have sex education to teach about this and they also should teach about r*pe and other sexual crimes (they are a big problem in the modern society in addition to toxic masculinity). They also largely support paid parental leave.

Abortion
iNeutralica is pro-choice. They believe that banning abortion would be enforcing your moral code into others. Abortion should be allowed in all cases. Abortion could easily improve the safety of the mother (it should be the number one priority to reduce number of unsafe abortions). We still should try to reduce the number of abortions and do it via sex education and frequent use of contraception.

Polyamory
Polyamory should be made legal and valid with consent of all of the people involved. It will not depend on gender in any way.

LGBT
They support all sexualities and there should be equality between them. They also support transgender and nonbinary people and all other genders; all would be recognized. Even though they do not encourage xenogenders and neopronouns, they see them as perfectly valid gender identity and would be recognized. Child adoption should be also legal. Everyone should be able to transition after the age of 16 by choice without need for gender dysphoria (they oppose transmedicalism and find it intolerant). They think that homophobia and transphobia are big problems in today’s society and should be looked down upon. They will also use education to inform people about these problems. Every person should have same rights. Pride parades will be allowed (they don’t like the fact that pride month is abused by corporations and capitalism, this should be ended), but INeutralicA are not a big fan of them, they prefer some solidarity parades for all, not just one specific group.

About the nuclear family
An interesting idea is about the nuclear family vs. more cooperative community child raising. Ideally there would be some form of a combination. They have mixed opinions about the nuclear family, sometimes it can be a nice environment to raise children. Nuclear family has also its problems though especially nowadays with gender roles (it is often an oppressive and patriarchal structure), so they want to provide more opportunities to people and for example try community raising as well, but still not phase out of the family, just change the structures to not be patriarchal.

Neurodivergency
This is more of an personal thing because the user themselves are neurodivergent. They feel like our society doesn´t talk about autism enough. They believe, that neurodivergence cannot be "cured" and we shouldn’t even try to (i do think that that our society is trying to justify the intolerance to a people that are different). They think that a person should choose, if they try to blend into society or don’t, the most important thing for them is that we should respect and tolerate each other no matter the differences so we all can and peacefully coexist.

Multiculturalism
One of the most important values of iNeutralicA is multiculturalism. They believe that all cultures should peacefully coexist, and everyone should be accepting different or foreign culture. No culture assimilation should be needed. Even language assimilation would not be needed. There should be one language uniting the world which should be taught all around the world (ideally some neutral one). Culture groups still could speak their own languages (and communicate with the world with the world language). All these minority languages should be accepted by the government (but all governments should speak in the world language, at least in the international level) No culture is better than other.

History and tradition
Even though they are generally not a traditionalist. They are not against harmless traditions (it is up to the people) and actually find some traditions good. Every tradition is worth preservation if there are people who want to practice it and is not harmful to other people. They support protecting the historical creations of all cultures and not replacing them. Same thing for historical sites, they are very in favor of preservation. = Revolution or reform = iNeutralicA can be both reformist and revolutionary, depending on situation. They usually try reformism at first, because is not violent and easier (if reformism already haven’t been tried). If reformism fail than they became revolutionary. They think that even liberal elections can say a lot about popularity of an ideology or make it more visible and appealing to the general population. Even making the ideology popular would be a success at this stage. This would be helpful to time the revolution, if the revolution will be needed. We should wait when problems with capitalism will occur or can reduce backlash for the revolution and maybe engage more people into these ideas. The revolution will be just in a form of massive nonviolent strikes at first. If impossible to do other way, then violence in a revolution is justified. Even though after the revolution the situation might be unstable at first, there still should be many people put into office (ideally elect the people if possible), to avoid authoritarian regime. = Religion =

Separation of the church and state
They think that separation of the church and state is needed to achieve fair society - they believe in secularism. Without this it will be hard to achieve real justice (being equal to every religion). Unlike some other leftist ideologies, they oppose laicism though. They believe that laicism limit religious freedom (also in practice, the bans usually target some regions such as Islam more than others, which they see as absolutely discriminatory).

Religious tolerance
One of the key pillars of iNeutralicA is religious tolerance. They believe that the goal is not to phase out religion, but to be tolerant to all views. They oppose both theocracies and state atheism and view them as close minded. The most important should be to respect each other and coexist peacefully no matter the religion you are. The freedom to practice religious faith would be also essential. These values would be taught at school. Only practices violating human rights could ever be banned. Schools will be still secular (but they advocate for more choice of religious subjects). Religious marriages still would be legal.

Religion and spirituality in society
iNeutralicA is quite unique for a progressive leftist ideology because they think thant spirituality has a place in society. It some cases they believe that is possible to push people to left-wing politics through religion and spirituality (it may not be incompatible). In some cases religion and spirituality can be really helpful to find meaning and values in your lives and lead to better mental health and prevent nihilism. That still don’t mean that they don’t support atheists and nonreligious people just they tolerate religion. Because of these believes, they can be considered religious. = Technology =

Technological progress
iNeutralica is for technological progress. They believe that technology can help humanity in many ways (more knowledge about the world, in healthcare to cure medical diseases, to make our work easier and faster, to travel and so on). They believe that with technology, there exists a world of infinite possibility and this can make our lives better. Even though technology can make positive effect on our society, it can be also dangerous (weapons) and iNeutralicA acknowledges this. Because of these risks, a level of carefulness is still needed with technology.

Transhumanism
iNeutralicA thinks that transhumanism can be beneficial to our society, but also very dangerous. They generally support transhumanism but with these characteristics, if some of these are not met, they will not support transhumanism:
 * Transhumanism is not a main priority of iNeutralicA. They generally care more about the people and their quality of life than technology. Because of that, transhumanism will need pretty long time to establish under iNeutralicA.
 * There will be very strict safety regulations and testing of the technology to prevent some fails.
 * They support transhumanism ONLY under socialism. They think that transhumanism under capitalism can led to increase of gaps between rich and poor (in the worst-case scenario the rich will become immortal while the poor will be starving).
 * Because of the reasons stated above technology enhancements would need to be free for all people.
 * All enhancements will also be voluntary, so people who do not want them would be free to not have them.
 * Also no enhancements which could cause increase of violence (mostly big enhancements to human strength - if not programmed in the way that hitting others with it would be impossible). But i don’t know if this would be even possible
 * Also no enhancements which can fully undermine humanity (brain for example) or changing human behaviour. Technology should be used to improve humanity not to destroy it.

Automation
Automation is a highly controversial topic for many ideologies. iNeutralica is surprisingly pro automation. Even though they support automation, it should be done mostly under socialism because under capitalism with not great wealth redistribution, it can cause hoarding wealth at the top, massive unemployment and generally bad living conditions for most people. Good wealth redistribution is a key for them when introducing automation. They believe that automation can reduce working hours of workers (maybe with a debate in the workplace). Ideally after long long time, almost nobody would have to work and post-scarcity economy would be the ultimate goal. They know that this is quite utopian, but they hope, that one day it would be possible to reach it or be close to it.

Space exploration
Even though they support more space exploration, space exploration is for them just a secondary priority. Caring for their own people is more important to them.

Genetical research and GMOs
When it comes to genetical research, you can se a lot of ideological contradictions. Even though they want genetical research to continue, they want for example experiments on animals to be banned or at least reduced it to the fewest possible and treat those animals as ethical as possible. They see this as animal cruelty. They believe that maybe in some day computer simulations may help with this and we should especially try to find ways to prevent these practices and find alternatives. In the case of GMOs they support it when regulated and ethical. They are okay with genetically modified food as long as it’s marked for consumers and pass all the strict safety tests. = Enviroment = = Foreign policy =

Anti-Imperialism
One of the key believes is Anti-imperialism. They think that many superpowers in this world are power hungry, and this should be resisted. They also are opposed to colonialism. They think that colonialism and imperialism are interconnected in several ways, and we should try to stop them (but this will require big societal changes maybe even revolutions all over the world). They support many separatist anti-colonial movements because of that.

The idea behind Nationalism
iNeutralicA does not mind nationalism as a concept but they think that nationalism can invoke xenophobia or even racism in some cases and is maybe one of the main causers of xenophobia. Because of that they think that government should discourage nationalism. They have nothing against patriotism if it does not go to the extreme though. They are not overall nationalistic, and they believe that history should be taught in more neutral anti-colonial perspective.

About world federalism
Another idea they have mixed opinion about is world federalism. They think that world federalist have good intentions and want to change world to the better (more global unity, less unnecessary nationalism), but they have some problems with it too. World federal government is that it can turn imperialist if not implemented right. The main issue they have with it is that it can destroy some cultures especially indigenous - by not caring about local interests (maybe an extensive decentralized bureaucratic structure can solve this - but this might be tricky). Because of that, they support world federalism only in some scenarios and they think that society should be cautious when trying to achieve this.

Interventionism vs. Non-Interventionism
When it comes to military and economics, iNeutralicA is against foreign interventionism and they think that all of these interventions are just a feature of colonialism and imperialism. But when it comes to foreign aid and other partnerships, iNeutralicA has no problems with this and actually support this (but as a mutual friendship not forced and not one sided). Only way they may intervene in foreign affairs is as a mediator.

Military
iNeutralicA is a strong pacifist so they support a reduction of the military and ideally even abolition of the military (but now i do not think that is possible). If military would be there, it should be used ONLY for self-defence. They generally want to use diplomacy every time if possible.

Internationalism
They think that people should cooperate together in the issues such as the environment, human rights and workers’ rights even though they have different cultures. On the other hand, no one should be forced to assimilate (like said in the multiculturalism chapter). They support alter-globalization in this issue.

Immigration
They favour quite relaxed immigration policy (you can become citizen by working and living here for some time so it will not be immediately). All nationalities would be treated the same in this scenario, no need for history test or assimilation (only thing that will be taught to immigrants is the one world language if the person does not know the language). Otherwise, they support open borders and abolishment of visas for tourists.

Their opinion about the world
Disclaimer: All things iNeutralicA are critiquing are about the government. INeutralicA do not hate people of any nationality, just some national governments. They think that people and government should be separated, and this is very important to them

The west
INeutralicA do not like policy of the west much like many other leftists. This is mostly because of imperialism and neocolonialism.

IMF, WTO, other free trade organizations
One thing they especially don´t like about the west some organizations like IMF and WTO and many others because they continue neocolonialism by free-trade agreements with third world countries. The west profits greatly of that, by forcing other countries to sign it for the benefits of western billionaires. If this continue, the environment will also be inevitably destroyed just for some profits of western billionaires. Third world countries get also even poorer by extracting money to the west. Because of that, they think that these organizations should be ended immediately. But they are wary, that even after without ending capitalism new organizations like this can arise.

NATO
Ah, yes, another western imperialists and this should stop too. These are the main problems with NATO
 * NATO does not even try to stop conflicts sometimes they got even worse because of it
 * NATO is not only a defensive organization but also offensive (interventions in Iraq for example - again just money for western billionaires)
 * It is very ideological (promoting capitalism)
 * And yes, US monopoly

How should defense organization look
Unlike some other leftists, iNeutralicA do not completely oppose having a defense organization (at least in today´s world stage), but the defense organization they would support looks very different from NATO today. These are the key elements of this organization.
 * No ideology in it (only working for a common goal of making world peaceful, so not promoting capitalism, but not promoting socialism either)
 * Equal representation of all participants
 * The organization will have a clear goal of ending militaries in far future
 * Actual trying to get peace, not monopoly on violence
 * Will be a defensive organization (so if you are attacked by a foreign power, you should expect help like in NATO)
 * Will be worldwide not just western (trying to cooperate with third world countries and be more inclusive)
 * No offenses and foreign interventions (the organization will be ONLY for defense)
 * No lobbing inside

United States
US is an imperialist power which is trying not to bring democracy to the world (or only secondary focus), but US friendly right-wing capitalist governments. US shows will free-market capitalism end, in a corporatocracy in the near future. At least I can see that people are trying to change this. Also, it is kind of interesting that they have two economically right wing parties (those massive corporate donations to politicians explain this). They hope that people will overthrow the government in the future, but they see it as unlikely. They think that no country deserves corporatocracy or a dictatorship.

The EU
Even though they see EU still as a capitalist organization, the EU did some good with preventing Poland and Hungary to be even worse than they are now.

Israel
They think that they are close of being an US puppet. Even though it is somewhat "democratic", it has many problems (more about it in the Israel-Palestine conflict section in the future)

The east
With iNeutralicA do not liking policies of the west, you may think they will like the east, but this is not the case. iNeutralica do not like the east maybe even more than the west, but for different reasons (although imperialism they have in common). They would ideally like the end of all the eastern powers in the future (they see this as very optimistic though)

Russia
Putin is a far-right capitalist oligarch and also a dictator. Also, Russian attacks on Ukraine and Georgia are unjustified acts of imperialism (and ultranationalism).

Belarus
Too close to Russia for my liking (also Lukashenko is a dictator too in their opinion).

Cuba, Venezuela and other "Socialist" states
Too authoritarian for their liking and dictatorships. They think that ending these dictatorships (ideally in democratic socialism although they do not think it will be possible because of the west) is a necessity for iNeutralicA to succeed (iNeutralicA do not like being compared with them and is not close to marxism-leninism in any way). Also, marxist-leninist economy in practice is dangerously close to state capitalism.

China
State capitalist economy and also genocidal and authoritarian government.

Iran
An Islamic dictatorship and very militarily focused, which oppress everybody who does not think like them.

Syria
Bashar is a dictator. They fully support Rojava.

Israel vs. Palestine
Even though they actually support the idea of a Jewish state, they think that the situation in Israeli government nowadays is abysmal and nowadays Israel is ethnonationalist and maybe even genocidal especially against Palestinians. Even though Palestine is not much better in some scenarios, at least they fight against Israeli oppression and discrimination, so they support Palestine over Israel (but just slightly). They would ideally see some democratic multicultural federation between Israel and Palestine, in the worst case scenario two state solution.

PRC vs. ROC
Even though they see Taiwan as somewhat capitalist and too pro-western, they still support it over China and CCP and would like to see ROC becoming independent.

Russia vs. Ukraine
They think that the Ukraine war is a fully fault of Russia (even though they do not like enlarging of NATO either). This is an act of eastern imperialism. They see problems with NATO help though because this war can justify western imperialism and NATO enlarging. They are not against independent help though even in the case of military help and actually support this. = Transport = = Law and order = One of the important characteristics of iNeutralicA is rehabilitative justice. They want a justice reform. They see punitive justice and some punishments such as death penalty as inhumane and inherently immoral and sometimes even inadequate.

Prisons and their abolition
One of the most radical ideas of iNeutralica is prison abolition. They think that modern prisons are inhumane, conditions inside them are horrible and can be ineffective. They don’t think that punishment and prisons even reduce recidivism, maybe even increase. Because of that, they think modern day prisons should be abolished. Some government surveillance would be still here after some serious crimes such as murder, but it will look much differently than in today’s prisons. This system would generally have close to probation. Those people would be allowed to work as normal and generally live social lives as normal (but would be controlled when they go out). They will live in rooms (they would have some privacy from other criminals, but they would be pretty close). iNeutralicA wants to create community between those people, make them actually close to each other and prepare them for normal social life. There would be people controlling those criminals, but there would be effort to bring those people and criminals together and create a community if possible.

Police
Unlike prisons, they think that police should stay. This still does not mean that current day police is perfect. They think that police should be disarmed and some differences in their training should be made to avoid unnecessary violence. They think that even though police should be funded by the state, it should be managed by the community. One of the important characteristics of iNeutralicA is rehabilitative justice. They want a justice reform. They see punitive justice and some punishments such as death penalty as inhumane and inherently immoral and sometimes even inadequate. = Personality = = Relations = Real life ideologies = Outdated, will be changed soon.

Best Friends

 * [[File:Prog.png]] - Good takes. I just don’t want your fans to be directed by [[File:SJW.png]] Those.

Cool Ideologies

 * [[File:Luxem.png]] - I like your progressive and socialist believes. You are one of the best Marxists. I also agree that revolution is mostly needed to achieve socialism. I just like violence in revolution generally, but i accept it if it isn’t possible to do it otherwise.
 * [[File:Anpacf.png]] - Cool anarchist.
 * [[File:Anfem.png]] - Another cool anarchist.
 * [[File:Aneco.png]] - You too.
 * [[File:Anqueer.png]] - And you too.
 * [[File:Xenofeminism.png]] - You are quite cool and have interesting ideas, but i don’t think it will work that easily. You are still quite extreme

Neutral

 * [[File:SJW.png]] SJW - I like some your social takes, but please, be tolerant to other views and stop with cancelling.
 * [[File:Socdem.png]] - I like your compassion to the weak and democracy, but I don’t think capitalism can be reformed.
 * [[File:Soclib.png]] - SocDem, just little bit worse. Still good in some areas though.
 * [[File:Marketsoc.png]] - Usually great, but the competition.
 * [[File:Reform.png]] - It would be great to achieve socialism by electoralism, but it is too utopian even for my standards.
 * [[File:Liberalsoc.png]] - I really like your socialist and progressive believes, but please, stop supporting these [[File:Necon.png]]
 * [[File:Gamer.png]] Gamerism - Gaming is okay i guess. I don’t like the gaming culture though.

Not a fan

 * [[File:Patcon.png]] - Worse version of SocDem, but you are still tolerable, especially for a conservative
 * [[File:Libertarian.png]] - I like some of your social policy, but for me, [[File:PCB-Libsoc.png]]  - will be the only true libertarian.
 * [[File:Progconf.png]] - Not good but tolerable.
 * [[File:Conservative.png]] - I personally do not like your policies, especially some of you supporting [[File:Neolib.png]]  and [[File:Necon.png]]

WHY!
Self-Inserts =
 * [[File:Altr.png]] - Please, stop with this intolerance. I know that some of your followers don’t even have a clue about this intolerance and follow this accidently. But you are rude even to my standards.
 * [[File:Altl.png]] - Same as above. At least you are not white nationalist and that is good.
 * [[File:Demos.png]] Demosism - NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! PLEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAAASE, STOP!
 * [[File:Comb.png]] - The worst form of government. I can’t look at this violence. I just can´t
 * [[File:Nazi.png]] - War, antisemitism and discrimination are not great.
 * [[File:Fash.png]] - Same as above.
 * [[File:Nazbol.png]] - Same as above, but a communist
 * [[File:Statecap.png]] - You are a fall of [[File:Statesoc.png]]  and your leaders are as greedy like those capitalists.
 * [[File:ML.png]] - Aren’t you just another version of [[File:Statecap.png]].
 * [[File:Plcn2.png]] - Don’t be racist, please.
 * [[File:Trump.png]] - I am sorry to say, but you won’t make America great.
 * [[File:Necon.png]] - Neo-imperialism.
 * [[File:3way.png]] - Too moderate and capitalist for me, but still tolerable economic policies. I have big problems with you supporting the neo-imperialists above you.
 * [[File:Stalin.png]] - Too authoritarian for me.
 * [[File:Putin.png]] - Imperialist.
 * [[File:Baath.png]] - [[File:Demcon.png]]  are way better than you are.
 * [[File:Neolib.png]], [[File:Libcon.png]] - The status quo shall be ended.
 * [[File:Statesoc.png]] - Even though you are a socialist, I do not like central planning and your existence make even [[File:PCB-Libsoc.png]]  unpopular and you also make socialism harder to achieve.

Best Friends

 * ([[File:Green Party (US).png]]/[[File:Demsocstar.png]]/[[File:Prog-u.png]]) - I have nothing to say against your ideology. It is awesome. Only things I am not a big fan of are being too friendly to liberalism, socdems and sometimes capitalists and being too pro-market. Very Good!
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]] O'Langism ([[File:Syndmut.png]]/[[File:Zapa.png]]/[[File:Socan2.png]]/[[File:Synthesisanarchy.png]]) - I agree with you in everything besides the anarchism. Gift economy is also quite idealistic in my opinion, and I do not like nihilism but overall, very good!
 * ([[File:Socan2.png]]/[[File:Aneco.png]]/[[File:AntiNation.png]]) - Even though I am not an anarchist and I see you as somewhat idealistic, I still agree with you most of the times and your core believes are awesome.
 * [[File:Neorock.png]] Neo-Rocksism ([[File:Synthesisanarchy.png]]/[[File:Socan2.png]]/[[File:Indlibsoc.png]]/[[File:Bckchn.png]]) - Evwn though you are now an anarchist which I am not a big fan of, your ideology still seems really solid.
 * [[File:TAM_icon.png]] Third Aquarian Model ([[File:Ecosoc.png]]/[[File:Luxem.png]]/[[File:MarxistHumanism.png]]/[[File:Councom.png]]) - Really based. I agree with everything on your page. I like especially the decentralized planning. Also we have some similar values.
 * [[File:LibMarxBall.png]] ([[File:Libmarx.png]]/[[File:Ultraprogressivism.png]]/[[File:Globnat.png]]/[[File:Civlibert.png]] - Seems really solid, you might be more revolutionary with progressivism and more transhumanist but everything other is fine. Also, you are too friendly with MLs and other authoritarians (fortunately not Stalinism) which is quite concerning. Otherwise, I do not see any problems. I really like the decentralized planning.
 * [[File:Neospart_(1).png]] Neo-Spartacism - I really like your ideology even though you seem to have different personal values than me. We are weirdly similar in almost every political issue but our philosophies and moralities are almost opposite. I do not like the vanguardism present there and we have some different views on religion and spirituality. I am also sceptical of your overrationalism (don´t get me wrong, some degree of rationalism is needed but this seems too much for me) and materialism and i feel like you don’t focus on non-material needs of society enough (especially the main values of society). Also too much cold utilitarian morality for my liking. Overall, really based!

Cool Ideologies

 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoeism ([[File:Minmut.png]]/[[File:Liberalsoc.png]]/[[File:Neotech.png]]) - I like your economical believes and your cultural believes are quite decent too. You are maybe too nationalist for my standards but that’s okay. The main problem i have with the technocracy. I feel like it is quite unfair. I know it has good motives, but I never liked intelligence tests and even the concept of them. They are too narrow focused for me and very subjective. And they are quite unfair. Overall great.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism ([[File:SocDist.png]]/[[File:Unimon.png]]) - I like the economics. Social issues are also good, but too conservative on some issues. I don’t like the monarchy and when it comes to foreign policy, it feels really decent, I am somewhat less protectionist (but also sceptical of economic globalization) and more sceptical to world federalism (but still supporting it if implemented right), but very similar core. Overall, really decent
 * [[File:Atronism-icon.png]] Atronism ([[File:CPUSA(PCBA).png]]/[[File:Ormarxf.png]]) - Even though our ideologies are quite similar, we have very different moral values. I agree with your economy, but I am still just an non market socialist, not a Marxist and I am even not a communist. You seem progressive and that is good. Also, I like that you don’t believing in death penalty anymore, but your punishments still seem kind of harsh, people can change. Also, some of your hate speech policies are really unforgiving (overlooking the motives). But you are still really close, and your ideology is generally good.
 * [[File:Iconfloofel.png]] Floofel's Thought ([[File:Farm.png]]/[[File:Thar.png]]/[[File:Anticommunism.png]]/[[File:Radenv.png]]) - Seems quite solid. Even though i am not an anarchist and not the biggest fan of agrarianism, your believes seem otherwise quite agreeable and you seem quite nice too. Your morals are more individualist than mine but that’s OK.
 * ([[File:Nordmodel.png]]/[[File:ProgressiveInternationalismIcon.png]]) - You seem generally quite cool especially with the social believes, only a little to moderate. You seem little more conservative and nationalist, but i don’t see a big problem with it. Some other believes like environmentalism are also very solid. I think the biggest difference between us is in economics, I am not a fan of markets and especially capitalism, at least you like workplace democracy. But for a capitalist, you seem overall really good.

Not a fan

 * [[File:DoesntExist.png]] Nonexistism ([[File:Statesoc.png]]/[[File:Technocracy.png]]/[[File:Consocf.png]]/[[File:Guildsoc.png]]) - Used to be marxist leninist and now ultranationalist and even Juche looking. So, you went from tolerable to bad. Especially the ultranationalism and hate of internationalism is cringe. Also too authoritarian, at least not a capitalist. Too friendly to fascists. Overall, it seems to me just like an average big North Korea fan, sorry.

WHY!
= Comments = Glencoe- looks decently based add me plz - Hello there, would you mind adding me to your relations? - Looks cool! :) Add me? Nice! Add me?
 * [[File:Ineut2.png]] NeutraliC - Done
 * [[File:Ineut2.png]] NeutraliC - Okay
 * [[File:Ineut2.png]] NeutraliC - Thank you. I added you
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism- Not bad! Add me maybe?
 * - Add me.
 * [[File:Atronism-icon.png]] Atronism - addeth plz :D
 * [[File:Ineut2.png]] NeutraliC - Added all.
 * ?em ddA - msinortA [[File:Atronism-icon.png]]

O'Langism - My ideology kinda changed. Update relations?
 * [[File:Ineut2.png]] NeutraliC - Looked at it, updated (only small changes

Pantheonism - What's weird about my foreign policy?
 * [[File:Ineut2.png]] NeutraliC - This is an interesting question. For me, I was just confused with you calling yourself a globalist and opposing economic globalization - only confused with how you identify not anything weird with your policies (just your identification and found it quite unusual (that is maybe just my confusion and bad understanding of globalism - I am still not the most politically literate, i am sure you are more politically literate than me. I’m sorry if you view this as an insult, I did not want to do it, I will try to explain my opinions on some self-inserts a little better and also do some changes in relation soon a rewrite the parts which are unclear or badly written. Also sorry for my long hiatus.