Owfism

=Introduction= Owfism is the official ideology of Owfed2. It is a eco-cooperativist,  mutualist,  ultra-internationalist and  progressive ideology. It inhabits the Libertarian Left section of the political compass. The main goals of this ideology are:
 * [[File:Eco-Cooperativism-small.PNG]] Establishment of an eco-friendly, co-operative based economy with few government intervention.
 * [[File:Cybercom.png]] Digitalization of economic planning and distribution.
 * [[File:World_Federalism2.png]] Creation of a World Federation and the abandonment of the nation state.
 * [[File:Laicism.png]] Formation of a more rational and secular society.
 * [[File:Civlibert.png]] Creation of a free, unfettered world.
 * [[File:Neotechnocracy.png]] The acceleration of technological growth.

=Figures= Heraclitus (535 BCE-475 BCE)  Socrates (470 BCE-399 BCE)  Democritus (460 BCE-370 BCE)  Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE)  Marcus Aurelius (121-180)  William of Ockham (1285-1347)  Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)  Rene Descartes (1596-1650)  Jean Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)  Immanuel Kant (1724-1804)  G.W.F Hegel (1770-1831)  David Ricardo (1772-1823)  Pierre Joseph-Proudhon (1809-1865)  Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)  Karl Marx (1818-1883)  Henry George (1839-1897)  Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)  Sun Yat-sen (1866-1925)  Albert Einstein (1879-1955)  Mustafa Kemal Ataturk (1881-1938)  Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)  John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)  Clement Attlee (1883-1967)  Jean-Paul Sartre (1905-1980)  Albert Camus (1913-1960)  Gene Rodenberry (1921-1991)  Mikhail Gorbachev (1931-2022)  Nikolai Kardashev (1932-2019)  Stephen Hawking (1942-2018) Julian Assange (1971-)  Andrew Yang (1975-)  Ivan Bartos (1980-)  Andrewism (?-)  BritMonkey (?-) 

=Beliefs=

Economics
Owfism wants to establish an economy that works for the people but is also realistic and effective. They believe that while every system has flaws and is thus not perfect, however, a system with little flaws and flexibility can be made. This is why they advocate for a co-operative based Minarcho-Mutualism. They see this as a way to establish worker ownership of the means of production. They support the notion of markets but letting them run free can lead to  "unintended results". As such, they support a democratic computer program, one similar to  Allende's Cybersyn in the country of Chile. They believe however that some government intervention in the economy is necessary, in the case of breaking up monopolies and trusts. They believe that Gross Domestic Product should be replaced with an  Economic Scorecard, as to make political priorities be more towards the quality of the people. They believe that co-ops should be the bulk of the economy, however, the economy must have diversity as such there still will be  Small Medium Businesses and  Small Family-Owned Businesses. The role of the government would be very limited, as most economic things would be down to computers and workers. However, stuff like rail and electricity is still nationalized because those things are better under one national company. I am against protectionism in the economy as it can lead to a divided world and more factionalism. However, most countries are going to have eco-friendly manufacturing bases as to prevent offshoring (until the world unites). When it comes to taxation, they advocate for:
 * [[File:EconProg.png]] Wealth Tax (30% rate on wealth over 1bn$)
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Land Value Tax (a progressive rate from 0-95% based on the value of the unimproved land)
 * [[File:Envi.png]] Carbon Tax (at a rate of 60$/ton, progressively rises to meet Paris Agreement targets)
 * [[File:Merit.png]] Inheritance Tax (at a rate of 50%, only applies to the wealthy)
 * [[File:Health_and_Safetyf.png]] Value Added Tax (from 5-15%, based on how healthy/eco-friendly a product is)
 * [[File:Religion.png]] Church Tax (5%-50% progressive rate on all churches based on size, in order to discourage the opening and continuation of churches)
 * [[File:Cryptan.png]] Financial Transactions Tax (0.1% rate, set on all financial transactions in order to prevent market speculation)

Environment
In the case of the climate crisis, Owfism believes that a problem this big needs an action that is equally as big. As such, they believe in sweeping measures to solve the climate crisis to ensure a green future. They are part of the Eco-Cooperativist Movement, the movement that seeks to establish a  co-operative based economy as part of the transition of  going green. I support a dramatic increase in the fight against climate change, wanting to have global government climate investment soar to 4 Trillion $. They not only want to massively increase investment in things like renewable energy and electric heating, but they also want massive investment to flow towards things like hydrogen-powered high-speed trains, electric bicycles,  nuclear energy (until renewable storage improves), offshore wind, tidal power,  aqua culture and sea de-salinization, cellular meat, green buildings and many other green technologies. This massive investment will allow there to be enough investments in everything and allow a quick end to the climate crisis. They also believe that a carbon tax is necessary, this will tax major polluters and thus encourage them not to pollute as much in order to not get taxed as often. This tax will rise progressively until we reach net zero. I also believe that we will need carbon capture technologies (both natural and artificial) in order to achieve net-negative emissions and to truly bring emissions down to pre-industrial levels. I also support nuclear fusion technology and I believe it should be pursued, if it is possible to make, then we will have a renewable and strong source of energy. I also believe that there should be education in regards to the environment in order for us to learn how to live in harmony with Mother Nature and her sons. I also support the abolition of cars as cars just have higher pollution levels compared to other forms of public transportation and are worse for the environment, in production and in travel. =

=Philosophy=

Overview
When it comes to metaphysics, my philosophical beliefs are a synthesis of the ideas of Nominalism,  Existentialism and  Absurdism. When it comes to ontology, I believe in Metaphysical Libertarianism.

[[File:Non-Essence.png]] Nominalism [[File:Non-Essence.png]]
As a nominalist, I believe that universals (or general ideas) in of it themselves are just mere names we give with them not having any corresponding reality, no reality of their own. The only things that are grounded and have a corresponding reality are the particulars themselves. I also believe that everything is made out of matter, as asserted by Hobbes.

[[File:Existentialism.png]] Existentialism [[File:Existentialism.png]]
I believe in existentialism, the idea that there is no inherent meaning of life given to us by a higher authority (a government) or higher being (God). I believe that the way we find meaning to our life is by creating it ourselves. I am both an existentialist and absurdist, as I do agree with Camus on some things but also hold that we have free will, so I am technically both.

[[File:Absurd.png]] Absurdism [[File:Absurd.png]]
I believe in absurdism, and I believe in the  Camusian interpretation of the Myth of Sisyphus, one must imagine him happy doing the same thing for eternity, as that is technically what most people do every time they are at work, yet they are fine. Camus offers 3 solutions to the discovery that we are in an absurd, the first is suicide, the easy way out, the second is a leap of faith, still believing that there is a true meaning to life. The first two solutions are philosophical suicide. The third is embracing the absurd, that our universe is meaningless and its okay.

[[File:DvPermission.png]] Metaphysical Libertarianism [[File:DvPermission.png]]
I believe in libertarianism, no, not Ron Paul and tax cuts. Free will, the idea that our actions are done independently by us and are not determined by something else. Personally, I believe that we do have free will. Like, how are our actions determined? And if so, what determines them? If something determines our actions, wouldn't that determining factor make us be determined not to think about whether our actions are determined?

Overview
When it comes to epistemology, my philosophical beliefs are built up on the ideas of Epistemic Existentialism and  Cartesian Anxiety.

[[File:ExistPhenom.png]] Epistemic Existentialism [[File:ExistPhenom.png]]
I believe in epistemic existentialism, the idea that what is rational and what is irrational is merely down to the individual themselves, the idea that what is rational for us to believe is in part, up to us. We decide what is rational or not, through free will.

[[File:Descartes_2.png]] Cartesian Anxiety [[File:Descartes_2.png]]
I believe that we cannot really know everything, as the knowledge we have of the things around are constantly changing, it is thus essentially impossible to know every single thing about the things we know and to know the things we don't know. This is called Cartesian anxiety. However, you can have a stable foundation of knowledge, and the only alternative is to live in chaos and confusion.

Overview
When it comes to the notion of Logic, I believe in Hegelian Dialectics.

[[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]] Hegelian Dialectics [[File:HegelianPhilosophy.png]]
As I said, I believe in Hegelian dialectics. Through dialectics we discover the truth about things and modern society in of itself. Hegelian dialectics has 3 main phases: Abstract, Negative and Concrete. Let's sum them up. The abstract is the initial idea and belief that emerges. The negative is either the reaction against it or the thing which allows the abstract to finally express itself into the concrete. The final result. Whether its good or bad. The cycle, of abstract, negative and concrete continues and continues over the course of human history. We, today, are currently living through and will always live in this cycle.

Overview
When it comes to sociology, my ideas are a synthesis of Social Constructivism,  Moral Subjectivism,  Cosmopolitanism,  Individualism and  Metamodernism. These ideas for the basis of my beliefs about society.

[[File:Constructivist.png]] Social Constructivism [[File:Constructivist.png]]
I believe in social constructivism, the idea that sociocultural conditions and forces determine how one lives his life, and the way he builds meaning to his own life is based on what conditions he was born in and just because he had worse chances than others doesn't mean he is inferior to others, he is still human. This is contrary to essentialism, which states that different conditions at birth mark that the person is an inherently distinct (or even inferior by more right-wing people) type of person and cannot become "normal".

[[File:Cosmo.png]] Cosmopolitanism [[File:Cosmo.png]]
I believe in cosmopolitanism when it comes to manners of international theory, the idea that all human beings are a member of a single community and that we are all  world citizens. Cosmopolitan international theory is very influential to my belief in a world federation. We shall be united, as humans, even if we share different beliefs about the world.

[[File:Subj.png]] Moral Subjectivism [[File:Subj.png]]
I believe in moral subjectivism, the idea that morals are merely based on our own perspectives on what is right and wrong and is thus merely subjective, as such, I reject moral universalist arguments and I believe that morals shouldn't universally be equal to all, and that it should be up to the individual to decide what morals and beliefs are good and bad.

[[File:Josiah_Warren.png]] Individualism [[File:Josiah_Warren.png]]
I believe in individualism, I believe that individuals have  free will and thus can have individuality, I believe that through individualism a man (a person) can find his true worth and is free to pursue his true passions. I think that capitalism (the system right now) is a collectivist ideology, as it forces people to work without being able to do what they truly love, and it also oppresses them at said work and doesn't allow their own self-determination. With this, I come to identify with the philosophy of Oscar Wilde.

[[File:Metamodernism.png]] Metamodernism [[File:Metamodernism.png]]
Personally, I believe in Metamodernism, the broad range of developments in culture, art and society in general. A definition of metamodernism is the idea that it is an oscillation between modernism and postmodernism. I believe that metamodernism is the right synthesis between these two ideas, as both make some good points and I believe that it combines the good of both.

Overview
My philosophical beliefs on ethics are based on the ideas of Virtue ethics and  Eudaimonia (which means human flourishing or well-being).

[[File:Virtue_ethics_icon.png]] Virtue Ethics [[File:Virtue_ethics_icon.png]]
My personal moral code begins first with virtue ethics, the notion that a human should have morals based on  golden means (virtue) between two vices, one that is too much and one that is too few. I believe that there are 12 virtues (or golden means), as proposed by Aristotle.

[[File:Eudaimonia.png]] Eudaimonia [[File:Eudaimonia.png]]
I believe that humans should seek well-being and flourishment, and to achieve that I believe that a society must be  individualistic, as said in the previous section. In my opinion, humans can achieve eudaimonia by being virtuous and pursuing friendship. I think these are good moral codes, however, I do not want to universally insert them into all individuals, like some, and I believe that while their morals are not the same as mine, they still can freely pursue them.

Overview
When it comes to aesthetics, that being the study of art, my beliefs in art tend to be that of solarpunk.

[[File:Ectrans.png]] Solarpunk [[File:Ectrans.png]]
=Personality=

MBTI
INTP-T "Turbulent Logician"

INTJ-T "Turbulent Architect"

(I don't know which fits me more)

Enneagram
5w6 "Troubleshooter"

=Relations (Self-Inserts)=

Friends
Yoda8soup Thought (//) - Surprisingly, we are actually pretty similar, on economics, we both support market socialism and georgism. De-central computer planning is an interesting concept, socially, we are pretty much the same, however, you should be more libertarian. Civically, we are the same, except for defensive democracy, I don't like that. Although, you should be more internationalist. TLDR: Pretty similar, with some minor differences. (//) - Not bad! Especially on economics and a bit on social policy, we are actually in agreement, however you need to be more progressive and more internationalist, otherwise, not bad, as said before. Mattism (//) - Not a bad ideology, we are pretty similar, the only difference we have is that you're too protectionist for me and are also in favor of defensive democracy, you are also more economically moderate but other than that, you are a good ideology.

Celfloskyism (//) - Pretty nice ideology, and it clearly seems you want not just equality but also freedom for the Chinese people, although I don't really like the ideas of Irredentism, your cycle democracy is not really something I like. You support virtue ethics and existentialism, although I am not that utilitarian though. Otherwise, pretty good!

AshleyHereism (//) - Yo, this is actually based for an anarchist, existentialism and absurdism are very based! Oscar Wilde is also based! I don't agree with Diogenes, but he was savage and independent, and I like that. It's nice how you support some Stoicism. Overall, you're mostly an anarchist version of me, which is pretty interesting.

Uzarashvilism (//) - Economics wise, you are pretty similar to me, as we both believe in a socialist market economy, and the fact that we both believe that the Nordics are just (for now) the countries with the best economic model (or rather, least evil) in the world. Not bad, however, our difference comes in social and international issues, first off, you are too conservative, you can at least be more progressive by supporting SJW-Lite. Also on international issues, you can still be a globalist and oppose "economic globalization" (like me). So yea, too isolationist. But yea, pretty good overall.

Glencoeism (//) - Wow, you are pretty based! I agree with you on PWA, we both stride for a sort of Co-operative, meritocratic society, if only you were more global... BE MORE GLOBAL!

Inexistent Ideology (//) - Not bad, just be less nationalist, more progressive and also more pro-market. Oh and more democratic. In rest pretty good.

Rocksism (//) - Not bad, and yes, Camus is based. You may be too communalist and marxist for my liking, but overall, pretty good!

BrainRustism (//) - Some of your stances on education are pretty admirable, yes, you should be able to sell candy at school, it improves competition and prevents a school monopoly engaging in unfair price gouging. You're actually not that bad, even if I disagree with you on some things.

Neo-Kiraism (//) - Your philosophy of absurdism is based, you're agreeable in some areas like eco-socialism,  but I am not that Marxist overall, preferring mutualist socialism instead. Internationalism is based, but come on, you got to support a world federation. Overall, not too bad.

Frenemies
Post-Councilism (//) - I hate vanguard centralism, and I am just generally not really into Communism in general, nor do I agree with Zizek, although you're quite literate in political/philosophical theory, which I admire. I wish to have said more but sadly I am not that literate in the beliefs you have so...

HelloThere314ism (//) - Your beliefs are not really beliefs that I tend to agree with, and also, on some parts, your page is unfinished so I don't really know how to rate you, but it is clear you know theory, so that's nice.

Ultroneism (//) - You are the most literate user on here on basically anything, now that's something, however, my opinions on your ideolo- I mean philosophy. In rest, my ideology disagrees with your ideologies on many things or I am just too illiterate on some things to give a proper opinion.

BasedManism (//) - I am just gonna beyond the ideas of based and cringe and just put you in frenemies tier definitely not because of the fact I am too lazy to read your page right now although I don't know, your page doesn't seem to mention ethics for example, only seems like it mentions metaphysics and logic. So, I can't completely judge your philosophical beliefs, so yea, you go here. Also come on at least I have some influence from Kant in epistemology

FinalFantasy24ism (//) - Your ideology is literally just Hu Jintao as a self-insert. No really, that's what it is. So you belong here.

Enemies
Implianium (//) - Its nice how you hate religion, but bruh why state atheism? And come on, why do you support genocide, ultranationalism and anti-urbanism!?! And god dang it you want psychopaths to be their own class, what is this? I really hope this is LARP.

Test results
Closest match : Democratic Socialism

Closest match : INTP

Closest match : Libertarian Socialism

Closest match : Liberal Socialism

Closest match : Left-Libertarianism

Announcement

 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I need an ideology image (you know, like this: [[File:OwfBall.png]]) but one which actually encompasses my ideological beliefs. The ideologies that would be part of it are to be Geolibertarianism and Libertarian Market Socialism. (Can include 2 other ideologies in the combination, of your personal preference, must be ideologies Owf adheres to)
 * - [[File:Owff.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Thank you!

Comment
Owfism - Deleted old comments

Rocksism - Add please (also is that the Limberwisk flag?).

Owfism - Yes it is, I thought it was cool since I couldn't think of another thing other than that (and I will add you soon, kinda busy rn)
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - It is cool (if it existed I'd move there too).

Implianium - Add me

- Add me? :)

- Hi, I re-added you. Would you mind adding my ideology again?

- Readd me please.

- Btw, the geolibertarian market socialism page was my very old self insert, idc about it anymore so you can revamp it if you want, kinda like what Aaron did with Bleeding Heart Geolibertarian Market Socialism.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Wow, I actually didn't know that, I just saw the page and just saw how accurate it was to my ideology, so I just adopted that. Yea, I could maybe revamp it.
 * - Also, could you please add me?


 * - Add me?


 * - Add Please.


 * [[File:BasedMan.png]]BasedManism - add me?


 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]]Uzarashvilism - Yo there, add me?


 * - Re-add me fellow Wilde enjoyer.


 * - Monism isn't the principle that mind and body are united in each "individual" human. It is the principle that all of reality is one thing, that there is no body or mind but rather these are modes or aspects of the one thing, as such you and I and every other human are actually one "object" or thing and thus we do not have bodies, but rather each seemingly individual body is actually just a "limb" or part of the whole.


 * - Could I use text of your ideology to my policies?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes you very much can.


 * - "Let's first begin with the definitions of both ideas, first off, rationalism is the practice of basing actions and opinions on reason and knowledge. Then, empiricism is the opposite, with it being the practice of basing actions and opinions on belief or emotional response." WHAT? - Rationalism is the principle that knowledge derives from reasoning, as such logical reasoning. While Empiricism is the epistemological belief that sensory experience such as scientific observation is the source of knowledge - it has nothing to do with belief, emotion, or opinions. What utter dribble, as if Descartes didn't also utilise empirical arguments and Locke didn't use rationalist principles.

- Yo! You're a cybersocialist now too that's based as hell! :D
 * - Gorbachev is based [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Indeed [[File:Gigachad.png]]
 * [[File:Neokira2.png]] Neo-Kiraism - add me lol

- Add me plz

Glencoe- add me Plz


 * - This is definitely me when I confuse conceptualism and nominalism.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I never heard of that term before, I had heard of nominalism and I thought that would fit, I will change that.
 * - "The main problem of metaphysics, which precedes the essence of objects is the problem of universals and particulars." - Essences are univerals so it doesn't precede, but is simultaneous - and if one was taking a purely historical look at the evolution of the problem, essence actually precedes.  "There is a view however, that asserts that universals don't exist, that being conceptualism" - Neither Conceptualism nor Nominalism assert that universals do not exist. let me go over the quadrants; Platonic or Strong Realism holds that universals are mind independent and transcendent, that is they are abstract and exist as neither material or immaterial objects. Then you have Aristotelian or Immanent realism that holds that the "form" or essence or universal of lets say a cat does not exist in and of itself, but is rather immanent and never seperate from the particular. Then you have a range of Nominalisms which can include conceptual nominalism or conceptualism. Conceptualism holds that the concepts within the mind are univerals, i.e. I imagine a cat as a universal cat that is neither a tabby or a simese or black or tall or etc. While the nominalist holds that the only universal is the actual word cat, and thus the imagined cat is always a particular cat that you have experienced or can mitch-match together.  "And even if there was a form, what would the perfect form of "cat" be?" Plato's 'Forms' may be perfect (even this is not strictly true, because Plato's Forms are just the absolute form i.e. a cat and nothing else, or the "Good" and nothing else, unlike say a small cat which is both a cat and small) - but universals are just shared properties that all the particulars have, i.e. a tall cat and a small cat are both cats, doesn't make "cat" perfect.  "In conclusion, I believe that the only thing that actually exists are merely material particulars" Nominalism nor Conceptualism leads to materialism, All nominalists historically have been empiricists, but not materialists. As such Ockham believes in immaterial objects such as God and the Angels, Berkeley was a subject Idealist, but someone like Hobbes thought everything was matter.

FinalFantasy24-Please Add me:https://polcompballanarchy.miraheze.org/wiki/UserWiki:FinalFantasy24 BrainRustism - Add?
 * - Am I missing something? Where Neokira supports Juche?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - When I added Neokira, it said on their page that they are sympathetic to Juche, maybe they have removed that or something, I should probably look. Edit: Yea, they removed that, I will adjust that in my relations soon

- Do you have discord? BrainRustism - What is it that you disagree?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Sorry I don't.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I don't really agree with an armed insurrection against the school system, and also its not school that is causing us to fail its the un-meritocratic system that we live in, which sadly, school doesn't mention us. The problem with school can be solved through reforms not armed insurrection.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- Hydrogen Powered planes are green they should be used
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yea I kagree, I know, I said the thing I said because well even those are not that common compared to regular planes.

Pantheonism - Add me?