Tiberius Thought

Braun Spencer Thought is the economically right-wing, culturally left-wing, and authoritarian ideology of the Reddit user and blogger Braun Spencer. It calls for a regulated market economy, accelerating human evolution, an interventionist foreign policy, and reinforcing liberal hegemony.

Civics
My ideal political system combines authoritarian liberal democracy with  technocracy. Basically a powerful, but democratically elected  federal government with supremacy over most national affairs; but some responsibilities would be delegated to the states. The federal government should do whatever it can to destroy threats to its power at home and abroad, keep the peace between states, and to direct commerce towards optimizing prestige and prosperity. Executive agencies, which are technocratic in most instances, will have more autonomy, being able to carry out more objectives outside the slow democratic process.

But even if I didn't want it, we're heading that direction. As executive agencies like the FDA and OSHA have more of their functions automated, and therefore will become de facto governed by machines with less easily-corruptible, overly-emotional human input, they will be able to enact policies better than democratically elected or approved of officials. Any liberal democracy which refuses to reform institutions according to this will die out. So no matter what, liberal democracies will become more authoritarian and technocratic as time goes on.

Capitalism
I advocate for a free-market economy with  dirigiste characteristics.

A free-market system elevates the most adroit, ruthless, and gifted individuals, willing to realize their true potential as beings, to positions of economic power. By empowering mankind's natural aristocracy, even as they pursue their selfish desires, they have spawned more wealth and beauty than any other system before it. Industrialization has also given us so many benefits that humans have become hopelessly dependent on it, with no hope of ever escaping it. For example, in the First World capitalism has effectively abolished food insecurity; to be poor in countries like the  United States is to be obese.

That said, I don't support complete To maintain a well-oiled labor force,  technocratic organizations must protect consumers and workers from unnecessary hazards. The FDA, for all its flaws, is a necessary evil; cancer-causing placebos and dangerous food adulteration would become abundant without it. OSHA also keeps workplaces safer, which minimizes the "need" for trade unions. State-owned enterprises and public research both accelerate growth. Sovereign wealth funds are fantastic revenue-generators, and many products we take for granted today originated in the public sector (e.g., touch-screen technology started in the military industrial complex).

Welfare
I support a welfare state. For two reasons:
 * 1) Free markets produce optimal outcomes, but the gains are not always equitbly distributed. In fact, they can displace people in the short-term, which can empower [[File:React.png]] reactionary forces (see the [[File:Ludd.png]] Luddites and the recent [[File:Trump.png]] populist wave).
 * 2) [[File:Markets.png]] Markets are driven by demand more than anything else. Subsidizing consumption, which is ultimately what the welfare state achieves, ensures there's always enough demand to keep the economy growing.

In the first case, safety nets can minimize reactionary tendencies; buying off the proles who would otherwise undermine or destroy what is otherwise the best system we got. In the United States the  Cathedral, currently embodied in the  Democratic Party, uses welfare programs to sustain the  black vote (a demographic that's otherwise right-wing on sociocultural matters). It's just good politics. (I half-jokingly call it the Bismarck pill.) And on the second, the welfare state is simply a basic measure to accelerate capital while keeping the system stable, as  Keynes realized nearly a century ago.

Welfare programs I support include:
 * Mass social housing to keep shelter costs low or affordable.
 * Public works to address structural unemployment.
 * Generous unemployment insurance.
 * Supplemental nutrition programs.
 * A monthly negative income tax and child tax credit.
 * Mandatory private health insurance with a public option.

Unions
Although originally supportive of trade unions, Braun Spencer Thought now dislikes them. In his home country, the United States, unions were a source of  class warfare and  corruption. Unions also have the ability to hold important industries hostage—condemning everyone else to hardship—for petty wage increases. This actually turned public opinion against trade unions in the 40s. For example, if the railroad workers went on strike tomorrow, people will starve as it will further destabilize supply chains. This is unacceptable, regardless of how great unions are for individual workers. While he doesn't support completely outlawing trade unions, he's for keeping them on a leash and outlawing their most destructive tools (like industrial strikes). The aforementioned technocratic regulatory organizations should take on the role unions once did.

Environment
Braun Spencer Thought believes climate change is irreversible at this point for the following reasons:
 * 1) Climate change is a trade off. People got effective medicine, food security, and other revolutionary advances in exchange for decaying ecology.
 * 2) Because of 1, the only realistic way to stop climate change at this point is to force everyone back into [[File:Antiurban.png]] pre-industrial [[File:Farm.png]] agriculture through [[File:Polpot.png]] coercive measures on a global scale. Basically a global [[File:Agsoc.png]] agrarian socialist dictatorship with [[File:Stalinism.png]] Stalinist characteristics. This will never happen; even if it did, the amount of people it will kill would be the same as the number climate change will claim.
 * 3) Nuclear energy, the only real competitor to oil and natural gas—renewable energy being a scam, despite being politically effective—is politically infeasible. It's also inefficient, as it mandates constant [[File:Statism.png]] state intervention to the point of nationalization just to cover all short-term and long-term costs.
 * 4) And, sorry [[File:Marketsoc.png]] market socialists, but worker co-ops, just as unions do now, will likely be just as hostile to "green" measures as private companies today (if not more so).

Anything we do at this point is too little, too late. Capital, the source of all revolutionary change for 10,000 years, is an inherently progressive force. If the planet must die for capital to flourish, then it's inevitable. Climate change ensures capital is free from human resistance. And few people are willing to return to the days of hunter-gathering societies for the sake of surviving as a species.

The only way to deal with climate change now is harm reduction. We must invest in infrastructure at home and abroad to minimize the harms associated with climate change (e.g., sea walls to mitigate floods, better buildings to resist tornadoes, water systems to preserve H2O, and cramped apartments with AC). We can also implement carbon taxes and finance slightly greener alternatives (like electric cars) to just barely reduce the future effects of climate change.

Society
Braun Spencer Thought embraces sociocultural progress, seeing the rapid change that comes with  capitalism leaks into every other aspect of society.

[[File:3WF2.png]] Sex Education
It's beyond question we need comprehensive sex education. In high school I've seen first hand the consequences of young people having unsafe sex, ranging from pregnancy to STDs. Many lives are ruined because two teens had a bad one-night stand. And if teenage pregnancy rates in the 1950s are anything to go off, even in the most socially conservative society teenagers are going to have sex. What habits or ideas they form during this time will also influence them in adulthood, destroying even more lives. On the federal level we should educate children on everything from basic biology to LGBT matters to  fetishes to minimize harm (esp. teenage pregnancy and STDs).

[[File:Eugen.png]] Eugenics
I support eugenics. In the short-term, it sees the need to promote healthy breeding habits to improve quality of life. In the long-term, Braun Spencer Thought hopes to replace eugenics with bio-engineering, so we can remove deformities, behavioral traits, and other features from the gene pool. It doesn't support race-based eugenics. Most measures Braun Spencer Thought advocates are voluntary.

[[File:Pro-Choice1.png]] Pro-Choice
I'm strongly pro-choice. Agreeing with Margaret Sanger that we must "discourage the over-fertility of the mentally and physically defective"—and understanding that  capitalism necessitates an underclass, but that their fertility must be low as a form of harm reduction—I favor abortion on demand. It also desire the  Icelandic model, where the government pays females to get abortions in cases of disability (e.g., Down syndrome).

[[File:Nourishism.png]] Euthanasia
I want euthanasia completely legal across the board. Full stop. It should be as easy as seeking a doctor who provides it, them agreeing to it, and then putting the patient to sleep. This will be tremendously beneficial to the body politic. Not only will it relieve the suffering of the middle-aged and elderly, who often live with extreme pain that cannot be cured, but it has a eugenic effect as many mental conditions (e.g., clinical depression) correlate strongly with genetics. It would favor copying Canada's recent developments in the  United States.

[[File:Health_and_Safetyf.png]] Sterilization
In some cases, expanding upon the Icelandic model, Braun Spencer Thought would support subsidizing sterilization. For example, reducing prison sentences for felons in exchange for sterilization (e.g., vasectomy and chemical castration).

[[File:Sixlib.png]] Breeding
Braun Spencer Thought supports keeping fertility rates among those of low socioeconomic status small, but wants to raise them among those of high socioeconomic status. The best way to do this is through socioeconomic measures to ensure living costs reflect wages. Some examples:
 * Mass social housing. This keeps housing costs across the board low, which means having children becomes more affordable. Fertility rates skyrocketed in the 50s when housing was a commodity.
 * Taxing contraception, but only middle- and upper-class people would pay it. The poor would get the money back as a tax return. This encourages contraception use among the lower classes, but discourages it among the upper classes.
 * Making the child tax credit monthly instead of annual, as that creates a profit incentive to breed.

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBT
Braun Spencer Thought's founder is bisexual, so its position is biased. Nevertheless, it sees as necessary towards the greater abolition of gender and sex.

International
I support liberal internationalism. I believe the United States, my country, should prioritize its economic and national security interests in the short-term. Using global institutions like the United Nations to help achieve those aims is also fine, as one of the purposes of international law is offshore balancing. We should strive for a a  global federation of  capitalist states.

US interventions I support include:
 * [[File:Cball-South_Korea.png]] The Korean War (1950-53)
 * [[File:CommunistPartyVietnam.png]] The Vietnam War (1955-1975)
 * [[File:Cball-Panama.png]] Operation Just Cause (1991)
 * [[File:Cball-Kuwait.png]] The Gulf War (1992)
 * [[File:Cball-Iraq.png]] The Iraq War (2003-2012)

Based

 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - You're seeing the [[File:Libhawk.png]] light, my friend. Most excellent.
 * - Based philosophically and overall interesting ideology.
 * - We're have rather similar policy platforms and you seem nice as a person.
 * - A lovely friend I share a lot of common ground with.
 * [[File:NSL.png]] - I like your ideology, but if you embraced [[File:Neobert.png]]  on top of everything else you believe that'd be epic.
 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]] - I've moderated my views a bit since we last spoke, but I remain sympathetic to your beliefs.
 * - HUEY LONG GANG!
 * [[File:NeoArctoismIcon.png]] - I think we have more in common than in differences now, albeit with some strong philosophical contentions.
 * [[File:Floofelsballicon.png]] Fluffy Thought - A wonderful friend who's basically what I was earlier this year.
 * - We might be drifting apart ideologically, but I consider you a good friend.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe - Not bad.
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - You seem chill. I still have a soft spot for democratic socialism.

Bringe

 * - Uh...
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Ideologically meh...
 * [[File:Fixed_autocrates.png]] Autocrateism - Sorry, but capitalism requires a strong state to minimize net harm. [[File:Minarchist.png]] Minarchism can only work in an [[File:Farm.png]] agrarian society.
 * [[File:ProtTheo.png]] Reginald thought - Your views are tolerable, but your views on climate change are naïve at best.
 * - A rather nice person although I'm not as friendly to anarchism as I used to be...

Cringe

 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism - We may have vague similarities economically, but I'm not a fan of your reactionary tendencies.
 * [[File:Nazcapf.png]] Lanceism - Your solutions to current problems (like outlawing abortion) would make them worse. Please moderate your views and, while you're at it, get your own art and icon.
 * - I don't know why, but you give me bad vibes. Initiating Directive 7395: Destroy all communists!

Positive
- Embrace LDP and  LKY economic models and you're basically me.

Mixed
- Good socioeconomic and civic policies— Lee Kuan Yew was based—but please embrace the progressive nature inherent to capital.

Negative
W.I.P.

Comments
Will clear every once in a while. I LOVE CIVIL LIBERTIES I LOVE CIVIL LIBERTIES I LOVE CIVIL LIBERTIES - Why exactly did you turn to interventionism?
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism -
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] - Time for internment camps!
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Literally 1984 !
 * - May you add me ? I have already added you.
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] - I will.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Wait how can people raise 2 or more children when they have to live in cramped apartments?
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] - The idea is that in the Third World—which is already overpopulated—will need cramped, AC-cooled apartments to protect people from the burning hot climate.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Look, I support apartments over typical houses as they can house more people and can be helpful in solving housing crises (ex. [[File:Cball-USSR.png]] Soviet Union and other Warsaw Pact Countries) but why the hell must they be cramped? I still think that they need to have some space so that they can raise at least 1/2 children. Not none or just 1 child. And can we really rely on AC, like, with temperatures soaring to say 3 degrees above pre-industrial levels, wouldn't it be very costly to run AC?
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] - These countries need cramped apartments because they're overpopulated, which necessitates denser housing. While it's true that AC is expensive, what's even more expensive is millions of people pouring into cooler countries because their own become too hot. It's a trade off. We give them freezing-cold apartments, and in turn we get less of them causing instability.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Let's say outside it is 45 degrees in the summer. (In African countries obviously.) And you want AC that keeps their houses at 20 degrees, aka not as cold and you want to implement this at a continental level. Let's say this costs as a conservative estimate 5,000$/household. That would mean, based on the overpopulation of Africa which would be around 5 billion people by 2100, would be 25 trillion $ to install. Slightly bigger than the [[File:Cball-USA.png]] American GDP. And, they would also have a cost to keep the heating to this level, so that's more billions/trillions. Your harm reduction solutions should at most be temporary until actual solutions that don't just put band aid on the damage but rather remove the source of the damage are found.
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] - I can tell you aren't American because you used the metric system instead of imperial one. What I'm talking about is 120 degrees Fahrenheit, which can lead to heat exhaustion, draught, etc. And the apartments would keep these apartments at around 70 degrees, so it's at least normal temperatures for their inhabitants. Is that expensive, sure. But it's the only way as people will never surrender the hedonistic benefits of capital for the sake of saving the planet; we are too hopelessly dependent on the system to reduce our living standards so drastically. Harm reduction and accelerating our evolution is the only way.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes, I know, I am not American, I am European, so I do not really use American measurements, but 120 degrees F isn't like 48 degrees and 70 degrees F 21 degrees? It is still pretty similar to my estimate. And things like sea walls, AC, better buildings etc. will be pretty expensive, so your way of harm reduction will probably cost a hefty amount. Assuming that you want to do these on an international level. Also, shouldn't we move this convo somewhere else?
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] - Where?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Idk, but its kind of taking up space. It is your desire really.