Darknight Yuusha Model

Darknight Yuusha Model is a ideology that is economically left-wing, culturally variable, Civically Moderate, specifically center-statist, and nationalistic ideology, belonging to =Ideals= = Economics =

Mode of production
My type would be that of socialism, market socialism in particular, combined with elements of social corporatism and social distributism, where within the workplaces of cooperatives and enterprises, there will be a partnership in which the workers will have primary control over in the means of production, being given the ability to hold democratic decisions within the workplace, to have their rights enforced, and to reduce power of owners that dare harm them out of genuine exploitation, with that said, the owners will still have a small, yet crucial niche, within the workplace, and that they will serve as watchmen within the democratic workplace to help in negotiations as to ensure satisfaction between the workers and owners and to prevent corruption that can seriously disorganized the workplace if left unchecked, in addition to prevent shady dealings and abuse, thus, they will be at least be given a rather small, yet notable level of control, as for the state's role, in smaller and medium enterprises, the state would only serve a rather minimal role akin to a watchman, doing some small scale supervision to ensure minimalization of exploitation, but on large enterprises, the state will play a more significant role and will play a part in the publicization of said large enterprises as large enterprises in general aren't trustworthy when privatized due to the tendency of significant presence of monopolization and exploitation done by large private businesses

As for class issues, whilst such a mode of production does indeed show that I am an advocate for class collaboration, as of the current situation, it's nearly impossible to be useful as a means considering how many elites have a grip of power in this world, and that the current status quo is geared towards their greed, thus, for the current moment, I support class struggle so that once the exploitative elites have been purged and only the fair, contributive, and legitimate within the upper classes remain, class collaboration can truly be in it's ideal state.

An economy under the common good
My economic system has pro-market stances, being against the idea of a primarily centrally planned economy where sluggishness and stagnation is present due to the over-reliability towards the government in dealing with goods, but is also against the idea of a neoliberal/laissez-faire capitalist system, and because the systems of neoliberalism and laissez-faire capitalism are festered with inhumane, exploitative, and elitist practices within their systems, there should be a market system under regulations and a strong safety net so that not only shall they ensure minimalization exploitation, protecting workers and consumers alike, but also the vitality of the competitive spirit(although cooperation should also be encouraged instead of the Darwinian methodology of survival of the fittest or similar principles) as the market is a vital factor in driving innovation.

For the prices of products, there will be several diverse factors that shall prove detrimental to acceptable pricing, such as quality and category, but generally, products may be sold within the acceptable price range, but local planning will still be done to a degree, even if the local governments have a low degree of control(particularly on small enterprises), they remain crucial in managing regional economic affairs, helping regions make economic decisions of their own, nonetheless, nationwide laws and regulations should still be followed to ensure crackdown and prevention of economic exploitation and injustice within regions.

To answer why decentralized planning is preferred over centralized planning, as some might define planning's role as done under the whole of society, as centralized planning puts the basis of planning under bureaucrats, the problem is revealed as the nature of central planning would be similar to that of the frequently oligarchical tendencies of capitalism but instead of plutocrats, it would be bureaucrats having the control, furthermore, decentral planning has superior damage control compared to central planning, as under a central command economy, should one region suffer economic deficiency, then a catastrophic domino effect would occur and the entire economy would fall into chaos, decentral planning however doesn't suffer this domino effect.

Anti-trust laws shall be also put into effect in order to crack down on monopolies in order to ensure fairness within the market and prevent lesser enterprises from being trampled, the same notion shall be implemented into guilds, as one guild should not become too powerful and that greater guilds shan't trample over lesser ones.

Property matters
A mix of private and public property shall be within an economic system like this, acknowledging the benefits and the necessities of both playing a role in society, some things like small and medium enterprises shall be private, others like large enterprises, energy, and essential services shall be public, and to things like housing, education, and healthcare, there would be a mix between both although with the latter two leaning more towards publicization.

as much as the existence of private property is acknowledged, it must be widespread in order to prevent it from falling into the hands of the greedy and powerful elites, a similar reason can be said for the aforementioned examples on why those are collective property, and that is to prevent the elites from having a grip in the economy and direct it to serve their never-ending greed in which that shall hinder society, the people's livelihood, and development for the common good of the nation and community as a whole.

Enterprises, Guilds, and Unions
As mentioned before, there shall be a mix of a private sector comprised of small and medium enterprises, and a collective sector of large enterprises and essential services, and with these organizations, there shall be a democratic guild system, jointly owned by the workers and owners, each formed and organized to their own category of Profession, Industry, and position in which they are most fit, harkening back to the medieval guild system

As for Unions themselves, they will be promoted alongside cooperatives due to the genuinely glamorous benefits they can bring on the table, as for one, they are useful to help workers fight for their rights, especially considering the current economic situation as in many parts of the world, workers suffer exploitation day in and day out, two, the general emphasis of their role as blood cells of the nation, further emphasized and encouraged through hard work strengthened through organized labor, which can be helpful in potentially increasing production, as workers will be incentivized to work with their needs satisfied, although even with the generally glamorous benefits, there are still some drawbacks, mainly that a union can potentially fall under corruption, and that there might be a bit of potential unemployment increased, however, those drawbacks can be mitigated through the owner's role as a watchman for the former and the addition of labor market policies (eg: vocational training, job search assistance, public works programs) for the latter

And to answer the question of union busting, it shall be recognized as unconstitutional and even illegal under most cases, especially when workers strike out of genuine oppression committed against them, as well as striking out of dissatisfaction, speaking of such cases, the state will openly support the strike for the former case, and for the latter case, there shall be negotiations held instead to ensure a compromise, the only time it would be ever legal is when an individual union is committing acts done out of greed, corruption, or exploitation, but even then, only the individuals responsible for such would be punished, whilst the other workers innocent within said union would remain unharmed.

Cooperative Endorsement
Cooperatives are to be endorsed and promoted greatly as their use to increase the presence of workplace democracy, strengthen the rights of workers, and bring in a basis of promoting an economy under the common good, and because of the aforementioned value cooperatives bring, in a similar fashion seen in Vietnam, Cooperatives will be brought in many benefits traditional businesses do not, and such benefits will be given so long as anything exploitative/shady isn't done, furthermore, with the reasons mentioned alongside the benefits given to cooperatives, in the long run, cooperatives will become a strong basis for the economy whilst they phase out traditional business models(although traditional businesses won't be illegal).

Healthcare and education
As for healthcare, as mentioned before, there shall be a mix of private and public healthcare, covered by the state they shall be, nevertheless, private healthcare facilities shall be subject to regulation(eg: following anti-abortion laws, medicines shall be sold at a set price), and those shall be part of guilds, organized at the local level

The same case can be said for education, there shall be a mix of private and public schools, and that private schools shall be subject to set regulations and rules for the education system, those private schools shall be integrated into guilds as well

Welfare and social programs
There shall be a wide variety of social programs such as infrastructure and rural development, scientific advancement, housing, education, environmental protection, those shall be supported for the sake of improving the socioeconomic conditions and livelihood of the people, especially towards those struggling in an economic fashion, taxpayer money would also be directed towards such all, with the same reason on why they are directed towards those programs.

as for the welfare state, there shall be a strong welfare state alongside a social safety net to provide for the people, however, one must put effort and labor in order to receive and retain welfare benefits, as Lenin once said, he who does not work shall not eat, as laziness is undesirable in a society and so is one leeching of those very benefits whilst not contributing to the nation, additionally, as it's purpose is to help those struggling, welfare shall be mainly directed towards the lower classes and the disabled, with welfare directed to corporations and upper class citizens being discouraged significantly or abolished entirely.

even with the significant presence of a strong welfare state, private charities won't be discouraged as a method for helping the poor, they would be encouraged instead but they must follow regulations in order to ensure their legitimacy, and if such charities turn out to be scams, they will be dismantled

Banks and credit unions
I advocate the need of a central bank, on the regional level however, banks are to become democratically-held mutual savings banks/credit unions as to prevent monopolization of credit and further reduce economic exploitation, said democratic mutual savings banks and credit unions also turn out to outperform capitalist banks, as they are safer during recessions and that consumers have greater confidence in democratic banks than in capitalist ones

Taxation and Wealth
undergoing a rework

The minimum wage
Ideally, wages shall be based on the hours of labor an individual worked for but not in position, as position shall be given based on merit, so overall on average, the lowest a minimum wage would be is 15$, and based on the sector and job worked on, it will be changed, so some jobs in general will have higher pay, although jobs shouldn't be insufficient to provide the person a right to live sufficiently

Trade and tariffs
I consider calling myself as a mutual protectionist, usually leaning towards protectionism for my economic nationalism and believing the use of trade to help nations gain resources they're unable to produce by themselves and not much beyond that, wanting a fair trade policy where I wish to strike a balance between free trade and protectionism, as I not only understand how cross-national trade can benefit the nation and help the economy flourish if dealt with correctly, but also acknowledge the importance of economic sovereignty and self-reliance and that foreign economic dominance is an act of subjugation and therefore sinful, I also acknowledge how both free trade and autarky are flawed to their cores, as the respective problems I just mentioned are prevalent in such trading systems, the former lacking the necessary protection against economic imperialism done by major powers which allows exploitative practices to happen and forcefully indebt the nation, and the latter for it's fanatical isolation and economic stagnation due to the lack of cross-national economic dialogue, both of these problems mentioned would serve to harm and degrade the socioeconomic conditions and livelihood of the people.

Foreign investors, whilst sometimes beneficial, can also be a major hindrance due to the threat of monopolization that can very much leave very few jobs left to the citizens of the nations faltering economic independence and causing massive potential economic injustice, so when dealing with them, there shall be a policy of skepticism where should there be any usefulness for some foreign investors, they will be allowed to come, but should also follow relatively strict laws to prevent the effects of monopolization and job displacement, otherwise any deals made by them are passed over if there isn't anything significantly useful found.

The Energy Question
As the economy shall be based on the common good, and shall provide for the common good, so too shall energy, in which it shall be publicized and distributed in a more widespread manner to ease the accessibility, in addition to that, the resulting non-green economic energy sectors shall begin a transition to adopt environment-friendly policies and measures, such as the implementation of a carbon tax, the incentivization of worker-cooperatives within workplaces in economic energy sectors, and more especially the general transformation of fossil-fuel factories into more environmental-friendly industries and workplaces, mainly under nuclear

Economic Regionalism
As each region has differing situations and differing material conditions, there shall be slight adjustments(leftward or rightward depending on the situation) to the economic system so that it shall achieve the goals of economic justice, prosperity, equity, and fairness in said country, rightward examples of such are Poland and Singapore, where the former had disdain towards it's communist past and the latter being an island country lacking the resources in it's home to produce for itself, leftward examples of such are most of the third world, where such is to a home of great economic prosperity and equity only stopped in it's tracks by the economic injustice committed by the ruling elites of the third world and the imperialist elites of major powers.

= Civically =

Dynamics of The state and the people
There should be a delicate balance of power between the people and the state as to ensure that the people have the power to retain their liberties when society is under peacetime, and that the state is able to safeguard the people and fight against criminals and/or terrorists that dare threaten society in addition to protecting the nation from imperialists and foreign invaders in addition to that, exposing and fighting corruption(eg: whistleblowing) will be a necessity in order to keep the delicate balance in check, such delicate balance of power will also be a key in playing a part in a concept of a dual-failsafe between both the state and the people, in which should either of the two entities fail(the state/people) suffer inefficiency within a situation, the other will be given the ability to deal with the problem the struggling entity is dealing with, for example, if the police force is unable to protect the citizens from criminals, then the citizens themselves will be able to protect themselves thanks to gun rights, another example will be if the people are struggling to fight off terrorists, then the state in addition to the military's strength will counter them, to answer where I am in the civic spectrum, I'm civically moderate, particularly statist in summary.

The question of Vanguardism
Vanguardism, to my eyes, is high-risk and high-reward, as a strong guiding hand, if utilized correctly, can bring the nation to prosperity and quell threats that dare slow or even halt the progress of development entirely, however, the guiding vanguard can also become a threat in of itself if it ever falls into corruption and ends up being a self-serving elite class, and because of that, it's only usable in a niche under situations where a country is faced with threats such as instability, division, terrorism, imperialism, and etc, and due to how I wish for a government under the rule of the common good, the vanguard party will ultimately step down from power once the country has reached significant development and is on a good enough shape that a democracy can thrive.

Democratic Function
The government's very purpose is to serve the people, and to achieve this purpose is better said than done through a democracy, a true democracy through direct sovereign participatory rule of citizens, the mere concept of representatives fail to reach a goal of true democracy as representatives themselves have very much at best, induce minimal changes that affect citizens better and at worst, outright become an oligarchical bureaucratic nightmare with the citizens lacking power, and very much has this resulted in a worse case more often than not, since true rule of the people can be achieved only through direct rule of citizens, a participatory democracy shall be utilized where citizens at the age of 18 and above(16 on the regional level) can participate in a popular assembly of citizens ranging from the smallest towns to the national level, in which the citizens themselves do the decisions in a direct manner, during which the democratic process strives to achieve a consensus amongst the people, partisanship will virtually cease for all levels except the national and possibly the state level.

On the issue of voting, ranked voting would be the systematic method of processing votes, since unlike first past the post, which is a failed system that greatly limits the freedom of decision to a situation akin to where there is no other choices between yes and no, ranked voting allows the voter to make decisions under much greater freedom, virtually eliminating the dictatorial and oligarchical political polarization apparent under FTPF

Federalization
Federalism would be considered as the ideal system in the central-decentral government spectrum as it allows regions to represent their people and culture better within the nation through stronger separate regional laws within each regional government, however, despite the call for federalization, the need of social cohesion is a must in society as to prevent chaos and disunity amongst the country, thus it is a necessity for regional governments to be subject to follow national laws and the constitution

on the occasions where a country is small and homogenous however, a unitarian government is more effective, as it doesn't really make sense to decentralize a country that is rather uncertain to suffer the potential hindrances of a unitarian governmental system due to it's small area and homogenic composition.

Law and the police force
As the very threat of crime can result in criminals causing havoc within society, in which the lives of people can be ruined as a result of this, the police force is a necessity to ensure the protection of lives and the enforcement of law, to ensure this, there shall a competent and potent police force in addition to funding said police force as to ensure that the cops are to be as efficient in dealing with crimes

despite such support, I am also opposed to police brutality and corruption, and because of this, there shall be regulations to ensure that the police won't be corrupted by an overflow of power and that they will not commit acts of abuse against the people they serve to protect, in addition, whilst I support funding for the police, I don't want said spending to go overboard, and that such spending is not meant to transform the police into a tyrannical and corrupt bureaucratic organization, but rather to ensure that the police are to fulfill the role of serving and protecting the people through efficient and benevolent methodological management of power

Penalties for crimes
Generally, I would use a mix of rehabilitative and punitive justice when punishing criminals, as there would be at least some form of rehabilitation when punishing crimes whether minor or major, and it's generally more prevalent on minor crimes, though as crimes get more severe, punitive means would be more often used, and as for the death penalty, it will be instated, but this will only be reserved under the condition of the criminal being guilty of a heinous crime beyond any shadow of doubt

as for fining, whilst I do understand that punishments shouldn't be too harsh, fining is also prone to corruption as it could result in the criminal refusing to stop committing crimes and buying one's way out of justice, because of this, fining will only be used once on the very first time a crime is committed, after this, if repeated for a 2nd time and onwards, community service would be used instead as punishment

News and Media
With the ever growing dangers of polarized media, regardless if private or under the state, resulting in bias, slander, and misinformation, further bolstered by manufactured consent, bringing in a harmful generation of conformist illiteracy, it is a must that the fairness doctrine should be implemented in order to prevent this, as under the power of the fairness doctrine, opposing viewpoints will be represented equally and fairly when serious/controversial matters are discussed in media, which will serve to curb the performative activism omnipresent in the current times.

Freedom of speech
Very much a Staunch supporter of freedom of speech and the free marketplace of ideals, in addition to acknowledging that humans indeed have free will, I am opposed to censorship against ideals most of the time even rather vile ones, not only is it rather immoral to strip the rights to freedom of speech of a person just for views, but also when it comes to countering the aforementioned vile ideologies like wokeness and alt-right, it's very much ineffective due to the risk of legitimizing said movement, all of this is also a major factor in playing a role within the dual-failsafe of the state and the people.

The Paradox of tolerance, whilst decent theoretically as a measure to protect the free marketplace of ideals, has become awful in practice most of the time ever since it has been effectively ruined by several people who use it as a justification to silence all other opinions they oppose, speaking of censorship and protection of the free marketplace of ideals, while I genuinely oppose the former for the most part, it may still be utilized under the following conditions as to fulfill the importance of the latter. if only one of those conditions are met, then social ostracization through popular support against such threats would be ideally better as to reduce their power and foothold whilst not running the risk of legitimizing those threats through censorship
 * Condition 1:The threat and it's proponents has gained a significant foothold in the political realm
 * Condition 2:Said proponents are going to dismantle the free marketplace of ideals and silence anyone who dares disagree with them.

As I also oppose censorship for the most part, I'm also a strong opponent of hate speech laws, alongside the aforementioned reasons why I'm generally opposed to censorship usually, hate speech laws can also have a very discriminatory nature, as very often said laws are meant to protect certain people of certain groups from harm, certain individuals that are willing to harm others and get off unpunished for their crimes will abuse those laws to achieve that, while the advocates of those laws argue that it's a good measure to prevent toxicity, those laws only serve the contrary as they outright deny the free will humans have by forcing a conformist aura to the people to nullify any differing opinions of significance, and such is only proven further through supplementation by all of the aforementioned reasons.

To reform or to revolt
The ever growing lust of power of the elite classes which results in reforms becoming overturned or turned into meaningless victories/mere concessions that strengthen their position, in addition to a huge majority the current systems in countries being generally corrupt and/or elitist institutions that corrupts those that participate in them to bring in change, further compounded with the elites and the system spreading divisive political trends favoring the elite system that created as a tool to divide the people and further alienate those who oppose the system has brought the conclusion that reform has been a lost cause and an unviable option to bring in meaningful change for the better, and that revolution is the way to bring in meaningful change to defeat the elites and serve the people, however, for the most part, revolutions would be bloodless, generally resembling forms like civil disobedience, however, should violence be done against those who peacefully revolt, then a revolution of violence will be inevitable, though violence against innocent civilians should be prevented as much as possible in either case

= Culturally/Socially =

Progressivism or Conservatism
I consider myself as a progressive-conservative in a way, infusing both progressive and conservative elements to my societal ideals, another thing to take account is that the terms "progressive" and "conservative" are broad and ultimately arbitrary in meaning and context within my eyes in addition to acknowledging that the politics regarding culture/society aren't one dimensional, and that the situations and material conditions of each separate country should be also taken to account for such, and because of such reasons, I have leanings depending on how developed an area is, being more conservative on very developed areas and more progressive on underdeveloped ones, for example, in the case of the west, a highly developed region, I am culturally right, as the west has progressed enough in culture to potentially achieve a prosperous state of being, but many progressives in the west want to rid such potential by ridding the beneficial traditions kept and replacing them with inclusive idpol and decadent cultural liberalism, so it's a necessity to conserve the beneficial traditions and cultural values that help western society flourish, on the flip side, in the case of many third world countries, several of which are underdeveloped, I'm culturally left, seeing how many backward customs such as gender inequality, racial divide, caste systems, rule of the clergy, and literal slavery still exist within them, it doesn't make sense to be a conservative in that issue as third world societies currently are infested with such detrimental customs that it's a necessity that those societies must significantly progress to a point where only the beneficial traditions remain and the detrimental customs phased out and abolished(ofc without the inclusive idpol and cultural liberal materialism bullshit)

Anti-Abortionism
Taking a pro-life stance, I endorse the ban of abortion in virtually every case except under the mother's life/health being at risk, as abortion violates the right to life for infants, on the cases of rape/incest, whilst such a crime is horrible in of itself, the infant still deserves the right to life as the punishment should go to the rapist, not the baby, and that alternatives should be provided for recovery like caretaking the baby itself, or if the mother isn't ready to have such a responsibility, putting it up for adoptions will available, unlike other social issues, he will not leave this issue to be solved up to by the states itself and that he believes that those pro-life stances should be a national law.

what makes me stand out amongst other pro-lifers is my endorsement to utilize comprehensive sex education and contraception to prevent unwanted abortions, furthermore, I believes that welfare and social programs should be used to assist mothers in caretaking the newborn children, calling out other pro-lifers for their lack of support for these sorts of policies in addition to despising their defense of rape/incest alongside their refusal to recognize the threat of health/life risks, as to those who call themselves pro-lifers have no right to call themselves pro-life at all as they have no concern for the mother's well-being.

Gender Fairness
Men and women in the end are fundamentally equal to each other, and thus, there must be equal treatment under the law, equal benefits, equal punishments, equal pay, and equal rights, with that in mind, I support the first wave of feminism completely as well as the second wave for the most part(excluding the pro-abortion), however, from the third wave and onwards, will be opposed due to the heavy amount of infectious idpol and how those waves promote individualistic degeneracy that can serve to break the balance of men and women in addition to inflicting harm to women as well, one particular example is their promotion of sex work in general, in which it has a history of harmful exploitation against women.

Gender roles, whilst they shouldn't be abolished with the presence of people willing to fulfill those roles under their consent, shouldn't be strict either, in a sense, I utterly oppose the amount of modern feminists and "red-pilled" masculists whining about the patriarchy/matriarchy in the areas it ceased to exist, but at the same time, oppose the notion of the patriarchy/matriarchy as those concepts serve to prevent gender egalitarianism and create a realm where one gender oppresses the other through a Darwinian hedonist fashion, and in areas that such things exist, there will be a fight to abolish those concepts.

Racial egalitarianism
All men, regardless of race, are fundamentally human, and thus must be treated equally in rights, punishments, and benefits, alongside being given the ability to participate within democratic decision making, whilst a significant portion of the world has progressed on the issue of race, the problem of a significant portion of races having poor living standards still remains, in which it is still a certain issue, however, those issues can't be solved through identitarianism and racial guilt, as these solutions only serve to further racial tensions, but rather through solidarity, as the greatest cause of these problems is socioeconomic injustice, and to defeat the root cause is to unite the masses to defeat it, as lower class people even coming from different races that are struggling socioeconomically are still fundamentally the same people who suffer economic injustice, to quote Fred Hampton, "We say you don't fight racism with racism. We're gonna fight racism with solidarity. We say you don't fight capitalism with no black capitalism; you fight capitalism with socialism.".

The LGBT dilemma
Leaning against it due to the nature of most LGBT movements to obsess themselves with intersectional Idpol and flamboyance, and thus is opposed to concepts like genderfluidity and polyamory, to LGBT individuals however, they will remain unharmed so long as they remain respectful to others and display no flamboyance, on the issue of gay marriage, whilst generally leaning opposed to it due to my support for traditional marriage for the reasons that a child needs both a mother and father figure for healthy grow up, the status of it's legalization will be left up to the regional governments

to address the issue of transgender matters, whilst I'll recognize them by their gender, there will be conditions if one would have that sort of recognition, one, a person must have genuine gender dysphoria, two, one must not be flamboyant, three, one must be 18+ in age, and four, one must not abuse their gender dysphoria/status as trans as fodder to justify a barbaric display of behavior towards others.

Religious matters
A generally secular law in regards to religion is preferred, as religion, whilst being good to provide for the first footsteps and frameworks of several laws and morals, should generally stay out of the government for the most part, tolerating Christian/Islamic/Insert Religion here Democracy at most, as it has been constantly used as a tool by theocratic clergymen to alienate and manipulate people into doing things out of their own self-interest, in addition to those very clergymen using religion as a justification to commit their own atrocities and suppress the power of the people, in spite of this, there should also be freedom of religion as one still has the right to believe or not to believe in a religion so long as one respects others, as state atheism is merely an irreligious theocracy in function, as anti-theistic bureaucrats do the same thing clergymen do, and that they use atheism as a tool to fulfill their own greedy ends.

Drug laws
Overall leaning more anti-drug than pro-drug, as the effects of hard drugs have resulted in driving the mentality of people to a point where it harms both the user and the others around, thus, selling hard drugs will be banned(but not possession, this is discouraged however)and that there will be a strong crackdown against drug dealing, however, drug users should be rehabilitated instead of punished as drug users aren't the root cause of drug abuse, merely victims of it, drug dealers on the other hand should be severely punished since they're the main cause of the spread of drug abuse, and as for soft drugs, ideally they should be legal, but not encouraged(unless for medical purposes) and regulated, though that issue can be complicated so the law for soft drugs would vary in regions.

Right to firearms
The right to bear firearms can prove to be a strong benefit, with an armed people readily defensive and worthily responsible, firearms prove to be useful in playing a part in the dual failsafe of the state and the people, further benefits include significantly greater resistance against imperialists that dare ever threaten to subjugate or conquer the nation, although guns rights can prove to bring great benefits, there comes it's problems of unnecessary violence at the wrong hands, even so, this still doesn't justify a strong gun ban, as the reasons why such unnecessary violence happens has more to do with the mentality of the shooters and not the guns themselves, as guns are inanimate and thus cannot have the sentience to shoot by their own.

With that being said to prevent such violence from happening, there will be background and health checks every year to find out if a firearm wielder is eligible to retain the rights to bear those firearms or not, having a one/two strike policy as punishment should there be failure, furthermore, one must gain a license through a test to prove one's worthiness in addition to those with firearms being recommended to ensure that their guns wouldn't be robbed by irresponsible criminals, to top it all off, certain firearms far too dangerous for one to wield like flamethrowers will be banned.

Environmental protection
The environment and the many ecosystems have been proven to be a crucial necessity to facilitate the earth's health, in which the earth's health has also become an extremely crucial factor to maintaining quality conditions for human society, as without clean air and resources all thanks to nature's providence, virtually all of us will face at best, serious degradation of societal conditions to a point of collapse, and at worst, total extinction, this is further proven with the threat of climate change, pollution, and ecosystem destruction, thus, meaningful actions must be taken to prevent a devastating era of catastrophe from happening.

The following plans are examples of environmental action:
 * begin transitioning to green energy for already industrialized nations, for industrializing ones, if there isn't a green alternative, continue industrializing(though there will still be some environmental regulations) and then switch to green energy
 * set up a punishment system for anti-environmental acts, minor punishments will be set for more minor punishments like littering, and more severe punishments will be set for major crimes like ecosystem destruction, poaching, deforestation, and maritime pollution
 * implementation of a carbon tax that gradually increases based on the level of carbon content
 * begin phasing out non-eco friendly products in favor of eco-friendly ones and punish any greedy capitalist or anti-environmentalist in general that dares slow down this process or even prevent/halt it outright
 * investment of research into eco-friendly vehicles and technology in general, having them mass produced alongside phasing and banning out fossil-fuel vehicles as soon as possible.
 * enact anti-plastic pollution laws, requiring plastic products to be composed of 50%reusable/biodegradable material, otherwise illegal if the requirement is not met, all plastics not meeting the requirement shall be phased out as soon as possible
 * taxation rates lowered for renewable energy sources and eco-friendly power plants
 * begin a strong tree-planting program in addition to encouraging other air-purifying plants to be planted, with the intent of having more than 5 billion trees planted
 * creation of eco-friendly jobs and cooperatives in environmental energy sectors
 * place harsh environmental sanctions against industrialized countries committing anti-environmental acts, in addition to monitoring industrializing countries

Technological Advancement
From using several inventive ways to improve the lives of humans to ensuring that society develops and progresses to ensure the certainty of survival, the advancement of technology has proven to be an overall force of good for humanity as a whole, thus I am considered a technological progressive, as technological advancement can be very useful when solving many of our problems, green technology and space technology especially will be of great help when countering environmental issues and pollution as well as further help in space exploration respectively, both of which will help humanity survive in the long run.

However, whilst technology can be a force of good, there can come it's downsides, one of them is the notion of machines replacing humans in the workplace, which can cause serious unemployment problems, although machines themselves can assist human workers on points where they fall short of efficiency, as for transhumanism, whilst beneficial if done in moderation, as it can rid of disabilities for some and even potentially save lives for those who suffer fatal conditions, shouldn't go to a point where humanity is erased or extremely altered.

Communitarian Focus
= Foreign = =Personality= Usually of calm and cool character, generally tolerant towards and cool towards several differing ideologies, to pink ideologies however, he holds strong disdain for almost all of them with the exception of a few like LGBT conservatism and Transmedicalism, he also has his fair share of disdain towards ideologies like imperialism, anarchism, totalitarianism, the cultural extremes, most liberals, and elitists, despite such disdain however, he maintains his honor and respect towards others so long as they too remain respectful to him, and because of his regard with the value of dignity, the ones he has disdain for the most are hedonists because of their profound lack of remorse towards their wrongs and a value of selfishness, having very little to no respect towards many of them.

=How to draw= =Relations=
 * -| ideologies =

Regional
Note: this is entirely based off the ideology itself, not the person itself
 * -| self-inserts =

Negative
=Gallery=

=Navigation=