Tiberius Thought

Braun Spencer Thought is the  Center-AuthLeft ideology of u/BraunSpencer. He is a  and a supporter of ,  ,  , and. Friends of his have described him as a "Classical Progressive" or  "Old-School Non-Marxist Social Democrat."

Metaphysics
I'm a subjective idealist. Reality is dependent on the mind; nothing is independent of it. And we can only verify our own souls and minds. Objectivity does not truly exist, only individual perception. So I'm in league with anti-realists and  moral nihilists. That is not to say observations in these areas are not invalid—I have personal preferences myself, as will be discussed later. I accept the soul-body distinction; my favorite argument for it is philosophical zombies.

Negative Utilitarianism
My personal moral preference is negative utilitarianism. I believe that our end-goal should be to minimize net suffering in the long-term. But unlike other negative utilitarians, I look at suffering from an Epicurean hedonist perspective—that a  materialistic lifestyle which emphasizes wealth and consumption induces suffering; enslavement of the soul to posessions. Pleasure is not only the absence of suffering, but also moderation, community, and pursuit of knowledge. If we are to maximize pleasure, we should encourage through public policy education, meaningful work, financial autonomy, simple living, and small, tight communities. The ends also justify the means.

Political Philosophy
A reason for my ideological shift is this: The Hamiltonian ideal of a  heavily industrialized,  top-down society triumphed at the Civil War's conclusion. The second the Confederacy surrendered to the  Union,  Classical Liberalism as a strong ideological influence in the US perished. The Jeffersonian and  Jacksonian ideal of a  decentralized,  agrarian society perished alongside it.

By the 1890s those ideals which formed the basis of the original American left became irrelevant as even rural areas adopted industry. Industrialization is like soma; it's god awful in innumerable ways, but the high you get from its "finer" aspects never ends. That's why trade unions in the 19th century never espoused  de-industrialization; though they wanted to improve their working lives, like cutting working hours in half, they wanted to keep the apparent benefits of industrialization. People don't want to give up those conveniences.

The more we industrialized, the more complex America has become as a nation. The greater the complexity, the greater the need for centralization. It's easy to have a heavily decentralized government in an agrarian society. But when industry demands thousands of economic transactions every waking minute—from person-to-person, town-to-town, city-to-city, country-to-country—we need a powerful central authority to regulate it.

And yet Classical Liberalism's espoused values are desirable. People who agreed with the movement's principles like John Dewey and Isiah Berlin realized that the goals of the Enlightenment are worth striving towards. Ideals that cannot be maintained as workers are hopelessly exploited and society becomes more plutocratic. But in a modern context, we have to accept industry as a necessary evil. We need to strive for political equality, equality of opportunity, and class collaboration using a top-down approach.

Instead of accepting Hamilton's notion of a society which worships landlords and wealthy industrialists—as exhibited through his property restrictions on voting—we should instead use his industrialized and centralized system to promote Classical Liberal's core values. (Yes, I still view Hamilton in a negative light.) That and the promotion of positive liberty: a man stranded in the desert has maximum negative liberty, but is not truly free since he doesn't have the means to act on it. We must give everyone a minimum standard of living in order for people to function as humans, not cogs in a machine.

The TL;DR of all this is that I've embraced pragmatism. Hamiltonian means, Jeffersonian ends.

Summary
My basic economic views include: On economics I favor:
 * The promotion of [[File:Markets.png]] small- and medium-sized businesses, alongside:
 * [[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]] Wealth caps.
 * [[File:Soccorp.png]] Trade unions.
 * [[File:Trustbust.png]] Anti-trust legislation.
 * [[File:Regulationism.png]] Fair competition regulation.
 * [[File:Protect.png]] Shielding local industries from foreign competition and become more self-sufficient.
 * A minimum standard of living through a generous [[File:Welf.png]] welfare state—social assistance, national health insurance, etc.
 * State guidance or state ownership of essential industries (like [[File:Envi.png]] energy and [[File:Mil.png]] military).
 * A strong [[File:Farm.png]] agriculture sector with the aim of greater self-reliance in food production.

I believe in reviving the middle class, abolishing poverty by sharing the wealth, suppression of big business in favor of small-medium enterprises, innovation driven by constant competition, and institutionalized collective bargaining.

Wealth Inequality
I see large concentrations in property as an existential threat our institutions and dignity. The big businesses which fuel such inequality are a source of stagnation. Once they achieve a certain size they only do the bare minimum to maintain their market share. An example of this is Big Tech companies spending more on patent enforcement, stifling competition, than on research and development. Big Pharma does something similar by spending more on marketing than creating new drugs. And to the extent Big Pharma does create new drugs, they're rushed, mediocre, and/or dangerous—often doing shady things like covering up negative clinical trial data to deceive patients and doctors. And big businesses eventually become central planners, as demonstrated by the socialist Leigh Phillips in "The People's Republic of Walmart"; and all the inefficiencies seen in Soviet-style economic systems apply.

More than this, wealth inequality corrupts our institutions. Two ways this is done:
 * [[File:CronyCap.png]] By lobbying politicians. Basically, big businesses donate money to political campaigns which best reflect their policy preferences. That means candidates with the most campaign finances get the most advertisements on television, billboards, etc. This sort of manufacturing consent ensures that candidates most aligned with the rich get the most attention, and therefore the most votes. The wealthy have the loudest voices.
 * [[File:Regulationism.png]] By regulatory capture. Regulatory agencies meant to protect the common man against dangerous products and working conditions become bedfellows with the wealthiest firms in their respective sectors. A great example of this is nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from the biggest pharmaceutical companies; and this results in the FDA becoming complacent with the industry's unforgivable corruption.

To avoid firms becoming too big—and to prevent the avarice that naturally comes with excess capital accumulation—we need to stop outsourcing, put a cap on profits, limit cutthroat competition, and subsidize SMEs.

[[File:Sec.png]] Federal Trust-Busting Agency
A federal regulatory agency I would support propping up would dedicate itself exclusively to enforcing anti-trust and pro-competition policies. It would have state and local offices to ensure compliance in the most efficient manner conceivable. Ideal priorities would include:
 * Enforcing a prohibition on vertical integration, preventing businesses from growing through mergers and buy-outs.
 * Breaking up business conglomerates, trusts, and cartels whenever they arise or are discovered (e.g. Amazon, Google, and Disney).
 * Charging fines for cutthroat competition (esp. predatory pricing).

In the meantime, enforcing current anti-trust legislation and expanding them will do nicely.

[[File:Soccap.png]] Small-Medium Enterprises (SMEs)
I love SMEs. And we as a society should actively promote them while suppressing BMEs (big-multinational enterprises).

What is a SME?
Before I can even begin to advocate for SMEs over BMEs, we must define the four categories.
 * A small business satisfies local or equivalent demand relative to their industry.
 * A medium business satisfies regional or equivalent demand relative to their industry.
 * A big business satisfies national or equivalent demand relative to their industry.
 * A multinational business satisfies global demand relative to their industry.

So what is a SME or BME does depend heavily on industry.
 * A pizza buffet with arcade machines that's owned by a father trying to provide for his family is a SME. Because the business is likely a single entity that focuses on satisfying local consumer and labor market demand. This type of restaurant is the most common form. In comparison, McDonalds is a fast food chain that operates internationally; with franchises in every continent. Despite the pizza buffet and McDonalds both being restaurants, the latter is a BME relative to its industry.
 * If you've been to a small town in the [[File:Cball-US.png]] United States, you've seen the small salons. Usually they're marked by poles attached to walls with a swirl color pattern. These are the most prevalent form of salons. But then you have Great Clips, which has over 4,000 franchises across the United States and [[File:Cball-Canada.png]]. Relative to their industry, Great Clips is a BME.
 * A steel plant in a rural community which hires 400 workers yet distributes products globally is a SME. Because any steel-related firm will see their products sold at least nationally (if not globally), but the firm itself satisfies local labor market demand and sticks to the small town it was created within. So relative to that industry a steel plant is a SME.

Market share and employees hired are also mutually dependent yet mutually exclusive factors when determining business size. The more profitable a business is, the greater their market share and the amount of people they can employ for labor. But in my view a firm with only 20 employees that controls 50% of a market is still bad.

Benefits of SMEs?
I favor SMEs for:
 * Being more innovative—generating 14-16 times more patents than bigger firms.
 * Greener, as they take steps to respond to an increasingly anxious consumer base.
 * Are better responsive to price signals in general, making them more efficient.
 * Being better for workers.
 * A sole proprietorship down the street is more accountable than anonymous shareholders 1,000 miles away.
 * Small business employees report higher job satisfaction, happiness, and commitment; and feel their concerns are listened to and addressed by leadership.
 * And in abundance small businesses will compete for the best working conditions and pay possible. This, combined with LVT and prohibiting usury, will inhibit surplus-value extraction as well.
 * Empowering and autonomizing small communities.
 * Buying locally generates more local wealth and jobs, making small communities like towns and villages more self-sufficient (local multiplier effect).
 * Small businesses foster a sense of community (e.g. a family-owned arcade sponsoring the kid's baseball team and donating heavily to local causes).
 * And empowering ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual minorities—giving them more financial independence.

These facts lead me to believe an economy dominated by SMEs would foster more innovation, creativity, beauty, and solidarity than the empty, stagnant, and alienating neoliberal order.

What of Worker Co-Ops?
Most worker co-ops are SMEs and I'm a big fan of them. The average one hires only 20 worker-owners on average. It's axiomatic that the benefits of SMEs below apply to worker-owned firms. In Italy the towns with the most worker-owned firms had better health and educational outcomes, lower crime rates, and a sense of optimism and solidarity. In that same country they also had a higher three-year survival rate (87%) than traditional firms (48%). Worker co-ops encourage more local consumption and production since they prioritize their member's well-being over growth. (Which is why they're almost always small-scale.)

There are also reasons to believe co-ops would be more prevalent in an economy which elevates SMEs, protects trade unions, and suppresses big businesses.
 * If large firms are no longer the end-goal, then society as a whole will start preferring a high-time preference when it comes to economic management; the fact business owners feel they must become as big as giants like Amazon (low-time preference) inhibits workplace democracy.
 * It will be easier for citizens to start their own SMBs and SOHOs (small office/home office).
 * It will therefore be less problematic that worker co-ops tend to not hire more worker-owners, since people can easily start their own businesses.


 * Worker-owned firms will show their strengths in an economy with increased competition and a policy preference for smaller firms. In many cases they easily outcompete traditional firms as seen above.
 * Trade unions can also negotiate more democratic decision making with employers, eventually shifting to ESOP-type models.
 * And in the absence of free trade, tax breaks, third-party limited liability, well-funded legal departments, and other means of offsetting or socializing costs and crushing competition, small firms usually outcompete bigger ones.

[[File:Farm.png]] Agriculture
Consistent with my belief we should be as self-sufficient as possible and my preference for countryside living, I believe we need a strong agriculture sector. One which encourages self-sufficient independent farmers but also incentivizes  collective farming. The former because the freest individual is a self-reliant farmer. The latter for pragmatic reasons, as collective farms enjoy the same benefits as co-ops in the agriculture sector—higher pay, better conditions, accountable (democratic) management, etc. In other words, collective farming will also promote the rights of agricultural workers while maintaining some benefits of mass production.

We definitely need greener practices in farming. Like reducing the amount of cows we mass produce, since beef leaves a massive carbon footprint (not to mention methane emissions, the primary source of greenhouse gas emissions in agriculture). Investing in greener transportation—like electric tractors and railways—and organic farming practices in general will also make agriculture eco-friendly and optimal. Despite what I imply below, I do support a methane tax and consider red meat a luxury that should subject to a high consumption tax.

I'm also a strong advocate of agricultural subsidies. Subsidies for raw poultry, fruits, and vegetables should be high to make them dirt cheap while stabilizing prices in the face of tariffs. Not just for big farms, but for small farms too. Through tax incentives we should encourage small farmers to donate surplus crops to local markets, further reducing food prices. In the end, our agriculture sector should be stronger than it is now. If I were dictator for a day I would boost the number of individual farmers and agricultural workers.

[[File:Yellsoc.png]] Trade Unions
I support federal protections and mandates for trade unions. While I believe an economy dominated by SMEs would have so much competition that worker's rights improve, unions are still a net positive for filling in gaps, determining minimum standards, collectively bargaining with bigger SMEs, and holding business owners in general more accountable to workers. Strengthening or creating a spiritual successor to the National Labor Relations Act would be a step in the right direction. This is also a situation where the federal government has to take action to overcome state-level barriers to unionization like so-called "Right to Work" laws. We could also invest in government-run institutions which bring employees, employers, and governments together to set regulations.

[[File:Statecap.png]] SOEs
I'm usually a fan of local-level production and SMEs, but natural monopolies are a real phenomena; where it is more efficient to have one or a few producers instead of many. There are also some industries particularly susceptible to profit-incentivized corruption and oligopolization. Examples of these sort of industries and natural monopolies include:
 * Tap water
 * Electricity grids
 * Gas networks
 * Transportation infrastructure
 * Railways
 * Roads
 * Highways
 * Sewer infrastructure
 * Operating systems
 * Pharmaceutical/biotech industry
 * Military industry
 * Aerospace manufacturing
 * Tank production
 * APC production

And in those cases you can't promote worker-owned businesses. Because they might make the problems worse, as workers will not only have a monopoly on a given product but they will raise prices ad infinitum to give themselves decadent benefits. Perverse incentives will arise at the expense of consumers and the national health.

The best solution is to have these industries be ran by for-profit state-owned enterprises (SOEs). Ideally on the municipal or provincial level for most natural monopolies; on the federal level for country-wide infrastructure, military affairs, and anything else which (debatably) concerns the nation as a whole. The profits these SOEs generate would go towards healthcare, education, infrastructure, safety nets, and whatnot.

You maintain the benefits of private natural monopolies (like lower prices), a profit motive in improving the national defence, and reducing costs in vital aspects of the economy without the nasty side effects (like worsening inequality); and in doing so you improve the lives on everyone by utilizing the new revenue streams. A win-win!

Maximum Wage
I support a maximum wage as argued for by Sam Pizzigati. Basically the highest-paid member of a firm cannot have an income thirty times greater than the lowest paid employee (1:30). Every penny which crosses that threshold will be taxed away. This is to ensure businesses cannot accumulate enough capital to cause serious harm; but it also ties the profits of a business to the well-being of bottom-end employees.

Housing
There are two sides to my views on housing.
 * 1) Housing is a human right, as our psychological and physical welfare depends on adequate shelter.
 * 2) The freest person in the world possesses and maintains their own [[File:Property.png]] home without subversion. Y

As such, I feel universal home ownership is the ideal. Having as many Americans home owners as possible. Yet I know not every person wants to be a home owner; and some, for strange reasons, don't want the responsibliity of stewardship—preferring rent. And until we can solve overpopulation we need housing that can store multiple people; especially within the inner-cities. So a compromise is necessary. I'll focus on how I'd expand home ownership first, and in the welfare section how to help those who are left behind.

Zoning for denser housing probably won't solve the housing crisis. And since the majority of Americans live in the suburbs, YIMBY platforms will never win at the ballot box. Even if you did win on a YIMBY platform, there would be mass resistance. We will never, without Chinese-level intervention, turn the United States into a massive city. (And ghost cities are far from efficient.)

Reducing the demand for urban housing would go a long way. Improving infrastructure, public services, and access to high-paying in non-urban areas will not only drive up home ownership (as seen in the mid-20th century) but will decrease the need for people to live within or near cities. To achieve this we need revive  local industry, construct more railways to connect towns and cities, build pedesterian- and cyclist-friendly infrastructure, expand public bussing in suburbs, convert abandoned buildings into offices, invest in greener forms of transportation (e.g, electric vehicles), etc.

[[File:Welf.png]] Welfarism
I support a welfare state. It's good public policy. It reduces poverty, buys the vote of reactionary minorities, increases living standards, curtails revolutionary and radical tendencies, reduces economic inequality, and overall fosters societal stability. Even for strictly selfish reasons I would like something to fall back on if I fall on hard times. Every man a king!

I believe already-existing programs should be improved and expanded on, with an employment guarantee.

Safety Nets
We should improve safety nets. Particularly unemployment insurance (UI) and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Millions of children today grow up in poverty. Most of them can't access healthy nutrition; nearly half live in financially struggling households. Contrary to GOP propaganda, most people can't live off unemployment insurance alone. We should expand investment into and modernize such safety nets. This should include removing work requirements (which don't, you know, work), automatic triggers in cases of shock, and pouring more money into the program.

[[File:Postkeynes.png]] Federal Jobs Guarantee
Work is a human right. Unemployment is degrading as there's a certain dignity to labor; decent work gives people meaning and fulfillment. There's a reason suicide rates are disproportionately high among the unemployed. Protectionist measures will revive local manufacturing—and thereby creating more high-paying jobs—will do wonders. But what we should also implement a federal jobs guarantee (FJG) to ensure not one person who wants a job is out of work. A job that not only benefits the community but pays a living wage and good benefits. This would have the added benefit of forcing most private sector firms to adopt higher standards since they now must compete with a public option. The FJG should be:
 * Infrastructure
 * Roads
 * Bridges
 * Water
 * Rail
 * Housing
 * Childhood care (e.g., daycare)
 * Elderly care (aging population)

Minimum Wage
Ideally, trade unions,  businesses, and the  government would set minimum standards via collective bargaining institutions. (Countries like Sweden and  have no legal minimum wage because of this  class collaboration.)  Competition, which there would be more of after  breaking up monopolies and oligopolies, would handle the rest. However, we don't have this ideal system and likely won't happen in the near future. As of now, monopsony power—low labor market elasticity—is abundant in most industries. To counter this market failure we should raise the minimum wage to $18 an hour ($15/hour four years ago adjusted for inflation). While low-skill workers having less access to entry-level jobs is a valid concern, I feel the federal jobs guarantee would solve that.

CTC and EITC
The child tax credit (CTC) and earned income tax credit (EITC) are the [https://www.taxpolicycenter.org/briefing-book/how-does-earned-income-tax-credit-affect-poor-families#:~:text=The%20EITC%20is%20the%20single,employment%20for%20low%2Dincome%20workers. most effective] anti-poverty programs in the United States. They not only encourage work, but increase the purchasing power of low-income people. To further reduce poverty we should:
 * Make the CTC fully refundable
 * Increase CTC amount.
 * CTC should be monthly, not annual.
 * Include single workers in the EITC.
 * Remove unnecessary barriers to both.

[[File:Bism.png]] National Health Insurance
While I'm fine with private healthcare suppliers—in fact, I support increasing safe internal competition, like expanding licensing to include low-level medical workers like housewives—we should nationalize the demand. By that, I feel the government should foot the bill for most, if not all, healthcare consumption. With a progressive consumption tax to decrease burdens on such a system. In other words, I want Elizabeth Warren's Medicare For All (M4A). But I'm willing to compromise and settle for a public option in health insurance to drive down prices (via competition with private insurers).

Public Housing
As I admitted before, individual home ownership for all, while a goal worth striving towards, is not completely possible. We must have a public option in housing. We should construct more low-income housing (Section 8) and subsidize charity organizations (like homeless shelters). Those who cannot afford their own home will still have a roof over their head paid for mostly or entirely by the government. Of course, a major cause of homelessness isn't economic but psychological. Mental health should be fully covered by a national insurance scheme.

Summary
A good fit for my sociocultural views is progressive communitarianism. I support social evolution—in terms of expanding  civil rights,  LGBT rights, and  positive (read: not guided by Robber Barons like Bourla and Bezos) medical, scientific, and technological progress—in the context of sustaining cohesive institutions and positive rights. A compromise between individualism and  collectivism. When the individual flourishes, so does the collective; and vice versa. Not only does this shape a lot of my economic views, but also my takes on social and cultural matters.

[[File:Antiurban.png]] Anti-City
Before I go into why I'm hostile to urbanization, I should clarify I'm not opposed to the mere existence of cities. Some cities have beautiful architecture; land is used efficiently without ugly oceans of apartment buildings; are packed by small businesses; and have heavy forestry within. Charleston, South Carolina is an example of a city I can get behind. Los Angeles in the 1940s and 50s was also good—just see Hollywood Blvd at the time; dominated by small businesses below small-medium apartments. Cities which sustain that "small-town feel" are ideal.

What I'm opposed to is mega-cities like New York City. Over-crowded, crime-ridden, ugly-architecture-filled crapholes dominated by corporate interests. No matter how much wealth these kind of cities generate, the crowding and sensory overload alone outweighs any sort of positive GDP growth impact. Big cities foster the conditions for over-socialization as the lack of privacy demands conformity. This is also negative for democratic institutions since people cannot speak their minds freely without social consequences; big cities, in other words, are perfect breeding grounds for hive minds. As Karl Marx rightfully pointed out, urbanization is a product of hyper-exploitation; product of rakish inequality.

But most of all, historically urbanization is a sign of decline. Assuming technological equality, rural populations outcompete urban ones in war. Why is that? Decadence. For city life enables over-indulgence. By first century AD Ancient Rome urbanized thanks to trade policies and the Grain Dole; since that time the average Roman citizen enjoyed overly luxurious lifestyles, at the expense of their slaves, embracing ancient consumerism. Today we see the same thing as urbanization makes it impossible for humans to carry out what is necessary for personal development. People resort to consumption to make up for the lack of community, lack of independence, lack of privacy, etc. Just as urbanization—and thus decadence—destroyed Indian,  Italian, and  Chinese civilization, so too will it destroy  European civilization.

We must change course in order to preserve the benefits of civilization.

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBT Rights
I'm an advocate of LGBT rights. But I admit to bias since I'm openly bisexual. But I befriended many transgender and  non-binary people over the years, which has influenced my views on this topic. The recent surge in persecution of LGBT people in the United States—from the  "Don't Say Gay Bill" to  hate crimes skyrocketing under Trump—justifies arming LGBT citizens to the teeth. More widespread distribution of wealth-generating property would also empower LGBT people, enabling their financial independence. Same can be said for / racial/ethnic minorities.

Anti-Consumerism
Consistent with my opposition to decadence, I'm opposed to consumerism. Filling our lives with consumption, even in the face of urban decay, only intensifies psychological suffering. It also breeds inflation by increasing the demand for luxuries, and therefore accelerates prices across the board. Consumerism also enables excess capital accumulation, getting people hooked on social media, junk food, and other addictive products. An addicted customer is a loyal one. To counter our destructive consumer culture I support a progressive consumption tax. Raw foods will have next to no taxes; processed items will have a medium tax; and luxuries like yachts will have a high tax.

Marriage
I used to be pro-polyamory for eugenic reasons. Because by allowing people to have multiple partners, women will choose the best men—thereby producing valuable offspring. The problem is, as seen in China with their demographic decline, this can be a source of instability;  men who are isolated from the sexual market will be radicalized against the system. Unless you have an invasive security apparatus to deal with that, or you fully subsidize physician-assisted suicide without limits, we have to pursue other avenues of achieving a eugenic effect for the sake of social cohesion.

Monogamy is a source of stability in society. It should therefore be incentivized. We must also create the material conditions for marriages to thrive. Divorce rates are lower in states with low economic inequality. The primary reason for most divorces are financial. Returning to the days where one income stream was enough to feed a family of four is worth striving towards. While there are some valid criticisms of no-fault divorce, outlawing it again would only make domestic violence difficult to escape.

I'm a strong supporter of same-sex marriage too. The fact is that STDs are high among LGBT people because of their culture of regular casual sex and multiple partners. More recently monkeypox has replaced HIV/AIDS as the so-called "gay disease." We should make more of an effort to encourage homosexual and bisexual people to marry, even if their partner is of the same sex, to improve public health.

Gun Rights
Unlike many other progressives—although he's not a tiny minority by any means—Braun is a strong supporter of  gun rights. As said earlier he believes transgender people should own firearms to defend themselves against a  reactionary population. Especially in states with the trans-panic defence. Everyone should be armed by mandate. (Yes, even for convicted felons; if people fear you're going to abuse gun rights once released from prison, you shouldn't have been released.) If you don't want to be mugged, robbed, or killed, you don't just invest in socioeconomic programs which reduce those crimes—you must arm yourself for the occasional screw-up. The police won't save you; you must save yourself. You have the right to defend yourself and your property. He'd also pass a national stand-your-ground law.

Police Reform
W.I.P.

Prostitution
Braun is mostly indifferent to sex work. But he sees value in legalizing prostitution. Namely as a source of stability given the rise in inceldom, a source of income for women in poverty, and as a source of revenue as sex is almost an infinite resource so long as humans have drives. Keeping it criminal makes it difficult for prostitutes to report abuse; outlawing the purchasing of it will only drive it further into the black market. Criminalizing it also doesn't get to the root of the problem. Only a minority of prostitutes actually enjoy their work. Most of them do it for survival, as in some cases, due to monopsony power, prostitution is either a superior alternative to most minimum wage jobs in terms of compensation or is an effective side hustle.

Braun's solution is to confine prostitution to state-owned brothels (SOBs). All prostitutes working in these brothels must be adults and licensed to do that sort of work. They must undergo regular check-ups for psychiatric problems and sexually-transmitted diseases. Contraception use would be mandatory for both parties. Cameras would be installed as well to catch johns. The profits these SOBs generate would go towards reducing the need for anybody to go into the world's oldest profession—safety nets especially. Eventually the only people who would work for SOBs are the minority of those who actually like the work.

Prison Reform
Braun is a strong supporter of rehabilitative justice. He believes everyone, even the most heinous of criminals, deserve a second chance at life if they do the time while also being actively treated by psychiatrists. Punitive justice comes with a high recidivism rate. Braun believes this is because the long-term effects of incarceration—adapting to prison culture, being shunned by society, greater difficulty integrating back into society, and whatnot—make it so former convicts have nothing to lose and return. Oscar Wilde is a major influence on Braun's views on this subject.

Abortion
Braun is strongly pro-choice. His bloodline is filled with drug addictis, alcoholics, mental illness, and poverty. His personal experience shaped his belief that society benefits from sustaining stable population growth and keeping the birth rates of people born with inheritable, anguishing conditions low.

Access to abortion is what drove crime rates since the 70s. Furthermore, there's an originalist for the pro-choice position—the drafters of the 14th Amendment would've understood abortion was protected by the right to privacy (at least until the quickening, 15-18 weeks into pregnancy).

That being said, Braun also thinks we can drastically reduce the need for abortions by providing birth control, sex education, and other programs which reduce unwanted pregnancies.

Summary
I prioritize domestic policy for the most part. Because if a citizenry feels neglected, why would they sacrifice their lives for the body politic? If you grow up with crumbling infrastructure (from dirty tap water to terribly maintained roads), poor access to nutrition, corrupt police, crippling yet unavoidable personal debt, etc., why would you take up arms and fight for that? The most effective foreign policy requires a patriotic population. Otherwise people feel their country isn't worth dying for, and therefore will, sometimes violently as seen with the Vietnam War, protest even the most standard national security measures. We must create a country that's worth fighting for if we can even dream of carrying out other vital state functions.

That said, national security—particularly foreign policy—has always been of interest to me. And something that drives some many of my domestic policy views is my belief that my country, the United States, should pursue its rational self-interest across the globe while promoting strong cohesive and republican institutions across the planet. My long-term goal would resemble a global federation with my country at the forefront. But the national interest—like access to natural resources given my protectionist stance and maintaining the balance of power—being critical in the short-term. My NatSec views have been described as neoconservative.

[[File:Cball-Ukraine.png]] Russo-Ukraine War
I thus far approve of Joe Biden's handling of the Russo-Ukraine War. Russia is an aggressor nation, seeking Eurasian hegemony to the benefit of  Putin's  criminal empire and his  plutocratic friends. Russia's attempt to achieve this fantasy of restoring and expanding the Soviet Union's (or for that matter  tsarist Russia's) former glory should be stopped at all costs. Anything short of a clear victory in Ukraine—and if not a victory, making the Russian occupiers suffer by sponsoring guerrilla fighters—should be dismissed.

[[File:Cball-China.png]] On China
One of the biggest mistakes my country made in hindsight was continuing friendly relations with China after the  Soviet Union's collapse. Working with China against a common threat was a brilliant strategy I can abide. But working with a country that's still ideologically or aesthetically committed to Tankie principles after that was bound to fail. We foolishly suspected China would embrace liberal democracy by pursuing free trade with them. All free trade did was economically empower the totalitarian regime. And now they have us by the balls. Just look at John Cena's pathetic apology to the CPC in Mandarin—Hollywood has been infiltrated by the Red Menace. China is a bigger threat to American sovereignty than the Soviet Union at this point. To counter this threat we should:
 * Embrace [[File:Protect.png]] protectionism and reduce our dependency on China and their neighboring countries.
 * Set up strong military relationships with [[File:Cball-India.png]] India and other neighboring countries in case of future escalation.
 * Make military commitments to [[File:Cball-Taiwan.png]] Taiwan, [[File:Cball-Singapore.png]] Singapore, [[File:Cball-Indonesia.png]] Indonesia, and other countries bordering on the South China Sea.
 * Support [[File:Dem.png]] democratic governments and [[File:Liberty.png]] human rights in the Third World, as the Chinese have cozy relationships with corrupt dictators in those countries.

The Iraq War
I support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Bush Sr. refused to overthrow Saddam Hussein during Operation Desert Storm for a valid reason: To be a counter against  Iran. But Saddam was an irrational actor; he was a delusional, malignant narcissist who sought to revive the Second Babylonian Empire. No really, he considered himself the reincarnation of Nebuchadnezzar. To achieve this delusional fantasy he turned Iraq into an aggressor nation. He launched a full-scale invasion of Iran in the 1980s. When that failed he invaded to control their oil supply. In both cases Saddam was seeking regional hegemony and control over global energy markets.

Bush Sr. in the 1990s had a solution—sanctions. Similar to FDR's oil embargo on  Japan, in an effort to curtail the Empire's foreign policy objectives, Bush hoped to stop Saddam from pursuing his ego-driven hegemonic aspirations. (Without actually removing the check on Iran.) This of course crushed Iraq's economy and subsequently the locals. The United Nations hoped to make up for this through the Food-For-Food program. But all this did was economically empower Saddam himself, who re-directed the money towards sustaining a cult of personality. And after calling bluff Bill Clinton's Operation Desert Fox (1998), Saddam, in all his recklessness:
 * Removed all Gulf War-related UNSC fro Iraqi law—including UNSCR 687 which mandated Iraq remain militarily weak (disarmament).
 * Sought to build up Iraq's military and WMD capabilities—with the latter he employed scientists to design destructive missiles.
 * Between 1996 and 1998 he accelerated delivery system development and missile programs.
 * From 1999 to 2003 he further accelerated rearmament, suggesting to anyone with enough brain cells he was gearing up for war.
 * He worked with international black markets to get past those sanctions in pursuit of rearmament via Iraqi intelligence.
 * Actively promoted terrorism against neighbors and [[File:Cball-US.png]] America's allies, including subsidies for the families of slain [[File:Cball-Palestine.png]] Palestinian terrorists.

In other words, the Bush-era sanctions failed and anybody with a brain cell at the time could tell:
 * 1) Saddam Hussein was gearing up for further wars of aggression in the pursuit of regional hegemony.
 * 2) That this included the creation of biological and chemical weapons, some of which he could supply to [[File:Terrorist.png]] proxies.

And contrary to popular belief, we did find WMDs in Iraq into the 2010s. But even if there were no WMDs at all, Saddam, being the injudicious moron he was, convinced us that he did; and therefore he brought the war on himself. There's nobody to blame for the Iraq War but Saddam. Period. To embrace a pacifistic approach to that Ba'athist regime at this point is to be pro-Fascism. While there are valid criticisms of the occupation itself and there's short-term instability (which comes with many revolutions, including the French Revolution), Iraq in the long-term will be a thriving  democracy.

Climate Change
Although this could be considered an economic issue, climate change is a global predicament. That means we need global cooperation on the matter. But China is the world's biggest polluter. Even if the United States went completely green tomorrow, China would likely still continue their lax pollution measures to encourage foreign investment. So while we should do our part to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, we must apply severe economic pressure to countries which refuse to comply. Especially China and Russia. International treaties dedicated to reducing greenhouse gas emissions would also do the world a favor.

Influences
In no particular order. A I read more I'll expand this list.


 * [[File:LaFollete.png]] Robert La Follette [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Ricardosoc.png]] David Ricardo [[File:Cball-UK.png]]
 * [[File:Anin.png]] Benjamin Tucker [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Ormarxf.png]] Karl Marx [[File:Cball-Germany.png]]
 * [[File:Plcn2.png]] Whatifalthist [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Hedonism-cloud.png]] Epicurus [[File:Cball-Greece.png]]
 * [[File:Diogenes.png]] Diogenes [[File:Cball-Greece.png]]
 * [[File:Physiocracypix.png]] François Quesnay [[File:Cball-France.png]]
 * [[File:LeftRothbardianismPix.png]] Roderick T. Long [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Distributist.png]] John C. Médaille [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Protect.png]] Ian Fletcher [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Clib.png]] Hebert Spencer [[File:Cball-UK.png]]
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Henry George [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Indlibsoc.png]] Oscar Wilde [[File:Cball-Ireland.png]]
 * [[File:Woodrow.png]] Richard Spencer [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Hedonism-cloud.png]] Henry David Thoreau [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Republicanismpix.png]] James Madison [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Christy.png]] Richard Swinburne [[File:Cball-UK.png]]
 * [[File:Clib.png]] Jean-Jacques Rousseau [[File:Cball-France.png]]
 * [[File:Liberalsoc.png]] John Rawls [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Clib.png]] John S. Mill [[File:Cball-UK.png]]
 * [[File:GE.png]] Peter Kropotkin [[File:Cball-Russia.png]]
 * [[File:Neolud.png]] Theodore Kaczynski [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Republicanismpix.png]] Thomas Jefferson [[File:Cball-US.png]]
 * [[File:Radlib.png]] Thomas Paine [[File:Cball-US.png]]

Based

 * - Based philosophically and overall interesting ideology.
 * - We're have rather similar policy platforms and you seem nice as a person.
 * - Weak on many cultural issues and too authoritarian, but you helped rural pill me and I liked the few talks we had.
 * - Not bad. Not bad at all.
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - You're pretty based, but pls drop the monarchism.
 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]] - Epic.
 * - HUEY LONG GANG!
 * [[File:Floofelsballicon.png]] Fluffy Thought - A wonderful friend who's basically what I was earlier this year.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I like you, but now I must convince you that a [[File:World_Federalism2.png]] global federation requires [[File:Libhawk.png]] getting your hands dirty. ;)
 * - We might be drifting apart ideologically, but I consider you a good friend.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe - I like a lot of your policies! Such as prohibiting interest and PWA. Good job.
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - You seem chill. I still have a soft spot for democratic socialism.

Bringe

 * [[File:NeoArctoismIcon.png]] - You're not as bad as I thought you were, but I still think much of your ideology is self-contradictory and that many of your stances on sociocultural issues have no basis in reality.
 * - Uh...

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.

Positive

 * [[File:Soclib.png]] - Effective [[File:Welf.png]] welfare states? Check. Effective [[File:Regulationism.png]] regulations? Check. Promotion of [[File:Markets.png]] SMEs and [[File:SyndieSam.png]] trade unions? Check. For-profit [[File:Capcom.png]] state-owned enterprises (SOEs) and [[File:Nordmodel.png]] sovereign wealth funds (SWAs) in key industries? Check. Based ideology.
 * [[File:Protect.png]] - We must protect our industries from foreign competition, revive our manufacturing base, end our dependence on other countries for necessities, and be more self-sufficient. If we hope to maintain our national security, ensure fair competition, and give every American good-paying jobs.
 * [[File:FDRismF.png]] Rooseveltianism - FDR and Truman led [[File:Cball-US.png]] America against [[File:Nazi.png]] Nazi Germany, set the stage for a global [[File:Anticommunism.png]] anti-communist effort, gave commoners assistance during the Depression through [[File:Welf.png]] redistribution and public works, and helped organize the post-war prosperity. Respect.
 * [[File:Kemal.png]] - Pushing for [[File:SyndieSam.png]] trade unionism and [[File:Monkeyzz-Enlightenment.png]] Enlightenment values while opposing [[File:React.png]] reactionary influence? Based.
 * [[File:Lyndon B. Johnson.png]] LBJ Thought - Bringing my country closer to [[File:Socdem.png]] social democracy, getting my party the most loyal [[File:Blacknat.png]] voter base in recent memory, and stubbornly waging war against the dirty [[File:HoChiMinh.png]] Reds? Based and underappreciated.
 * [[File:Necon.png]] - Advancing [[File:Cball-US.png]] my country's national security, [[File:Imp.png]] access to resources, and [[File:Dem.png]]/[[File:Prog.png]] democratic/progressive causes globally? Sign me up!
 * [[File:NatProg.png]] - We need more of your [[File:Trustbust.png]] trust busting now more than ever. Plus, [[File:LaFollete.png]] La Follette was a chad.
 * [[File:Mach.png]] - Sometimes making a positive change in the world requires... Getting your hands dirty.
 * [[File:Long.png]] - A based gentleman who wants everyone to live like a millionaire by [[File:Welf.png]] sharing the wealth.

Mixed

 * [[File:Lukash.png]] Lukashenkoism - [[File:Cball-Belarus.png]] Belarus is such a wholesome country—a haven for [[File:Soccap.png]] small businesses, [[File:Rural.png]] village life, [[File:Agsoc.png]] collective farms, and [[File:Capcom.png]] state-owned enterprises—but Lukashenko himself is a clown and [[File:Klep.png]] Putin puppet.
 * [[File:Strasser.png]] - I feel about you how I feel about [[File:Lukash.png]] him. Based economics, but you take some things too far.
 * [[File:Marx.png]] - Your analysis of capitalism in many ways stood the test of time. But your solutions were terrible.
 * [[File:Dsa.png]] - We have similar visions for society (like more democracy in the economy), but I wouldn't go as far as you do.
 * [[File:Reagan.png]] Reaganism - Terrible [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] neoliberal policies responsible for many of America's current problems. But your [[File:FDRismF.png]] Truman-esque crusade against [[File:ML.png]] Tankies and their [[File:Sandinism.png]][[File:Cball-EastGermany.png]][[File:Cball-DRAfghanistan.png]] friends—rightfully condemning the [[File:Cball-USSR.png]] Soviet Union to history's junkyard—is why I didn't put you under the negative list.

Negative

 * [[File:Nazi.png]] - Vile.
 * [[File:ML.png]] - I may support some state-run industries, but historically [[File:Cball-USSR.png]][[File:Cball-China.png]] your regimes became the new [[File:Plutocrat.png]] bourgeoise; centralizing wage labor to the benefit of top political officals, turning your citizens into empty cogs in a machine while food shortages were rampant. And you pushed for ideological and geopolitical hegemony on a global scale. I'm glad that [[File:Necon.png]] they defeated you in the Cold War, starting with [[File:FDRismF.png]] Truman's intervention against communist guerrillas in [[File:Cball-Greece.png]] Greece.
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] - Free trade doesn't work and leaves us vulnerable. You were a useful asset against the [[File:ML.png]] Red Menace, but that's about it.

Comments

 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - Add maybe?
 * - Yo this is hella based. :D
 * - Hello there
 * - Saw the ideology thingy was broken so i fixed it up, remember to add me if you ever add self-insert relations
 * - Add me?
 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]] - Absolutely based! Add me?
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] Braun Spencer Thought - You three have been added!
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- add me
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Can you add me to relations?
 * - add me?
 * - add me?
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Ho ho ho.
 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism - add me