Neo Social Libertarianism

Neo Social Libertarianism is a Libertarian, Culturally Progressive, Semi-Transhumanist, and Interventionist ideology. It was founded by User YellingYowie in Los Angeles, California in March of 2021. Neo Social Libertarianism mainly combines most aspects of Social Libertarianism with Interventionism and the principle of greater liberty from Neo-Libertarianism. It also takes Ideas from Eco-Transhumanism eg. Industries must be moved to space however this is to a lesser extreme than Eco-Trans.

[[File:Neobert.png]] Government [[File:Socliber.png]]
I abide by a philosophy of maximum liberty. You may be wondering why I am not an anarchist then. I have come to the conclusion that Anarchy is Anti Liberty because though it embraces Negative Liberty and in some cases (such as Anarcho-Communism) Positive Liberty, it utterly rejects the third principle of Liberty known as greater liberty. Greater liberty is essentially the freedom of security, the freedom to be safe. Only one ideology has successfully acknowledged this version and combined it Negative Liberty. I hope to expand on this model with the inclusion of Positive Liberty so that the most disadvantaged in society will not suffer.

[[File:Dem.png]] Democracy [[File:Semidirect.png]]
Democracy has often been called the least worst system which is true but also a very complicated way of saying democracy is the best system. Democracy is the best way of getting stuff done. Violence is justified if it is against an anti-democratic government. If you want a "revolution" to undermine a democratic system but then restore democracy but only for ((enter group here)) then you are a Fascist with a very poor mask on. I believe the best system to be Semi-Direct Democracy. It emphasizes efficiency with control from the people. It prevents the "tyranny of the majority" that comes with Direct Democracy but also the oligarchic corruption that comes with Representative Democracy.

[[File:Nordmodel.png]] Economy [[File:Socliber.png]]
If we take a look at the world and History as a whole we can see what works at what does not. Communism did not work and Socialism also did not work. You may say "those countries that tried communism/socialism are not Communist/Socialist, they're state capitalist. That wasn't real communism." If that is indeed the case then does that not show the failure of communism. Maybe communism will ALWAYS devolve into state capitalism. Western Imperialism might also be blamed but I would think that rather shows a critical flaw in communist society's lasting power. The examples provided for successful Socialist and Communist societies are, ,, and. The Rojavan government has close connections to the PKK a terrorist group in southern turkey that employes child Labour. Admittedly having close connections to shady groups is nothing new for countries but the region has been a point of complaint among human rights groups for years. Anarchist Catalonia was only a paradise when compared to Franco's regime. It brutally punished deserters and burned down countless churches. Freedom of Religion is important to Society less we become like some of the   Yugoslavia was very successful for many years...if you were Serbian. Yugoslavia's success came at the expense of the other ethnic groups, especially the Albanians. Everything collapsed once Tito died and I don't want to live in a society completely hinging on one dictator. Chile under Allende is often pointed out to be the best representation of Socialism and I could not agree more. It started out looking good but eventually saw the end of democracy and Fascists take control in a power vacuum led by foreign powers, the inevitable fate of all Socialist Societies. The final flaw in Socialism comes from its denial of liberty. Finally, In a socialist society if a workplace democratically decides that they want to be paid wages this is not allowed. The needs of the working class are therefore ignored. We have now successfully ruled out Socialism as an option, so what are we left with? Distrubitsm denies public property (a thing I personally like very much) while Georgism has the opposite problem. Why not Capitalism then. Capitalism has successfully not only survived the gauntlet of History but emerged victorious with the highest quality of life ever. The most successful countries in the world I would argue are those of the Nordic Region + Germany and Switzerland. What all these countries have in common is a Welfarist Capitalist economic system that we can further expand on. Universal Basic Income is not only feasible but prepares for an increasingly approaching problem of mass unemployment due to automation. We can't stop automation but we can work with and around it. Many American Socialists claim we are living in late-stage Capitalism. This is untrue, late-stage capitalism does not exist. Late-Stage Neoliberalism (or just normal neoliberalism) does however and I believe that to be our current problem. One which we can solve through compassionate forward-thinking Capitalism.

[[File:Progress.png]] Civil Rights [[File:Prgess.png]]
Progress is inevitable. Throughout history, we have continued to progress even if we had many challenges and "rough spots" we have nonetheless continued to progress civil rights. Civil Rights should not even be an issue anymore. We have made a clear distinction between gender and sex, I don't think it's so complicated that maybe people like people of different genders, and the idea that maybe Racism still exists is not that complicated. Sidenote: Affirmative Action should be taken on a case by case basis.

[[File:World.png]] Foreign Policy [[File:3way.png]]
I am a globalist. I believe that only through the world working together can we achieve the best possible future. That said some places are unfortunately not democratic and thus we have a problem. The solution is an alliance of democratic states working together to counterbalance the authoritarian states in the world. Ultatimley as long as Authoritarian countries exist, I will not support for it could bring disastrous consequences. Now for my most controversial opinions. I think military foreign intervention is justified when used against an authoritarian regime. For my first example, I point to WW2. I would hope you would agree that the Axis powers were an evil force in the world who needed to be stopped as soon as possible. Yet for years we sat back and watched as Germany and Japan grabbed even more land. WW2 could have been ended earlier but instead, every country waited, hoping for a false peace that would not come. Many will say the problem with modern foreign intervention is ultimately boiled down to 3 problems which I will now address.

1: Foreign Intervention by Western Powers is only used to gain oil: The only country in which the US intervened because of oil is Iraq. Oil might have been an enticing factor to intervene in other countries but was not the overwhelming reason. The invasion of Iraq is still justified, (even if I think it was handled beyond awfully) because Saddam Hussein was a dictator, he killed up to 1/4th of the entire casualties of the Iraq war in only a week with the Al-Anfal campaign, and he was selling oil to China. We often forget that if we do not act on the world stage then other powers will. I admittedly wish that the US had eventually gone into Iraq based on his previous war crimes and not just oil but it is certainly justifiable. Conclusion: It's upsetting that the US government is so motivated by money but ultimately a dictator was overthrown. Intervention was not the problem in this situation but rather the people in charge.

2: Countries don't want to be democracies, they should be able to choose their own form of governance: Countries don't have feelings people do. People should choose their own form of governance and there is a word for that. It's democracy.

3: Foreign Intervention is purely motivated by racism: This statement is just blatantly false. We are not living in the 1800s. Wars these days (at least mostly) are about geopolitical manoeuvering.

I am not a "hawk". I believe we should get out of countries such as Pakistan. I don't support declaring war on just any country. I believe the Iraq war was handled poorly and The US should have not intervened directly in any more countries until it was sure Afghanistan was all wrapped up. I do not support the exchange of a socialist dictator for a Capitalist one. If a war crime happens of course I will condemn it. I actually quite like peace and I usually think violence is not the answer. That said I think it would not be wrong to keep our options open. If a terrorist runs a plane into a building you go find the terrorist and make sure that they are not a threat anymore. That is not an act of hate that is basic national security.