Owfism

=Introduction= Owfism is the official ideology of Owfed2. It is a eco-cooperativist,  participist,  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.
 * [[File:Partip.png]] Foundation of a participatory-based economy.
 * [[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=

[[File:Anticap.png]] First Off [[File:Anticap.png]]
Let's start off with the obvious: capitalism has basically failed us, it has failed us basically on everything, on things like the  environment,  human mental health and also on  work. It has destroyed the environment and is basically destroyed our mental health and it has basically poisoned many generations first with lead now with fossil fuels and microplastics. We genuinely need to abandon it. You have not only made the 3rd world be far behind the rest of the world but are also destroying the same communities that you claim benefit from your system. Wait? Why am I saying we are capitalist system? Hogwash! We are even worse than that! We don't even have economic competition, the essence of capitalism. We are a damn corporatocracy, who has basically peddled 2 sides of the political aisle to focus on  culture wars  to move people's interests away from the economy, as a distraction. Why did we do this?

[[File:Partip.png]] Our Alternative [[File:Partip.png]]
Look, It is easy to say words of hatred about capitalism, but the system will always be better if you have no alternative to it. As such, I seek to create a participatory economy, in order to have participatory decisions in the economic mechanism. This economic model shall value freedom, tolerance and self-management. Workers deciding economic mechanisms will be part of co-operative federations, although, they may not be enough to be the bulk of the economy so I support implementing supplementary things to help like  worker councils and  socialist computer planning to improve the efficiency of such a participatory system. Through this, we can achieve worker ownership of the means of production, along with workplace democracy and workplace self-management. We can expand democracy into a place where it should also belong, not just in choosing a country/city head. Through these programs I seek to eradicate things like poverty/hunger and improve equality of opportunity and  equality of outcome.

[[File:Regulationism.png]] Taxation [[File:Regulationism.png]]
We need to reform how we tax people and well other things, because in our current society we just have too little revenue and we are constantly dealing with deficits (even in times of good economic circumstances) and this has resulted in debts being extremely high (over 100% of GDP in European Union and  United States). As such, we need enough tax revenue so that spending can be high to have a universal welfare state of sorts and to support my policies that would require tax revenue while not having a bloated deficit during good economic times. As such, I support the following taxes:


 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Land Value Tax - A land value tax is a tax on the unimproved value of land. It will be charged at rate of 50-100% in order to reduce [[File:Georgist.png]] land value and to thus reduce housing prices, as housing prices is mostly driven by the price of land, this will allow more people to own land and end the monopolization of land by the [[File:Plutocrat.png]] wealthy, who they have enough money to afford their land compared to poor people. This will also technically serve as a tax on pollution, as pollution, which harms the air is also eligible to be taxed by the LVT. Hell yea! Triple shot! Land prices, housing prices and pollution. How can you not support this?
 * [[File:EconProg.png]] Wealth Tax - A wealth tax is necessary in order to deal with the high wealth inequality that has been accumulating since the [[File:Reagan.png]] Reagan era. This tax must be levied progressively on wealth exceeding 10M $, with the following rates: 0% for people who earn less than 10M $ (obviously), 2% for people with 10M $ - 100M$ wealth, 4% for people with 101M$ to 1B$ in wealth, 6% for people with 1B$ to 10B $ in wealth and 8% for people who more than 10B $ in wealth. While a major criticism of this tax will be that it may result in [[File:Plutocrat.png]] capital flight, all of these (or some of these) taxes would be implemented only in a [[File:World_Federalism2.png]] world federation and tell me, where will the capital fly if it is all the same country? So yea, this tax seeks to deal with the massive wealth inequality in the world. Let's take [[File:Microsoft.png]] Bill Gates as an example. If a wealth tax like this was implemented since the year 2000, would be around 70B$-80B$ and not the colossal 100B $.
 * [[File:Long.png]] Corporation Tax - I support the implementation of a progressive corporation tax that is based on a companies [[File:Corp.png]] corporate profits in a given year. There will also be some deductions and incentives for companies to invest in their workers, in green technology, in new infrastructure etc. than to horde it all and give it to the [[File:Statist.png]] government. This tax is to be levied like this: 0% for companies who have less than 1M $ in profits, 10% for companies who have 1M$ to 100M $ in profits, 25% for companies who have 100M$ to 500M$ in profit, 50% for companies who have 500M$ to 2.5B$ in corporate profits and finally 70% for companies who profits exceeding 2.5B$. As such a [[File:Long.png]] corporation tax could be a key tool in driving down the obscene [[File:Corp.png]] corporate profits which are ramping up inflation not just in the [[File:Cball-US.png]] USA but across the [[File:World.png]] world.
 * [[File:Envi.png]] Carbon Tax - A [[File:Ecocent.png]] carbon tax is a very necessary that we have to take to solve the climate crisis. A carbon tax, as the name suggests seeks to combat pollution by taxing polluters, this will encourage them to not pollute as much in order to not pay as much in taxes. This will be a vital step in reducing the [[File:World.png]] world's CO2 emissions. The tax would be 60$/ton of CO2 emitted, so for example, if this sort of tax were to be implemented in [[File:Cball-China.png]] China, it would generate 840B$ in revenue, at least in the first year of its implementation. With this much revenue, this tax is to be used in investing in fighting climate change and maybe even a little to go towards welfare programs if there is room to spare. This will be implemented in conjunction with a global carbon price also set at 60$/ton of CO2 emitted, this is a further tax on polluters one which is set to reduce CO2 emissions even further and get us in the line with the 1.5 degree target of the [[File:Cball-France.png]] Paris Climate Agreement. This is a necessary measure we have to implement if we want to not experience the worst that this climate crisis will offer us.
 * [[File:Edu.png]] Graduate Tax - The [[File:Edu.png]] graduate tax will serve the role in replacing tuition fees and other form of burdens on the students that they have to pay directly to [[File:Plutocrat.png]] profit-seeking universities just so that they can continue education. The revenues earned from this tax will go to making sure schools are in good condition and quality of education is respected and students are able to go to the universities that they want, without being forced to pick a cheaper one just because another university was too expensive for them. This tax will also be used to fund universal kindergarten and pre-kindergarten for [[File:MathTheo.png]] students.
 * [[File:

[[File:NatProg.png]] Trust Busting [[File:NatProg.png]]
I mentioned a little bit about trust busting and I am telling ya, this is very necessary. We live in a corporatocracy, a 2nd gilded age. Everything from technology to the airline industry is literally a monopoly. WE NEED TO TRUST BUST IT ALL. Break it all up. Amazon, Facebook, Twitter whatever! A company at most should only have a 5% market share, not like idk, 50%!?!. The only difference between this gilded age and the first is that these guys are philan- oh wait the first gilded age people were also that!?! Ok nvm, the only difference is that now we're a surveillance state with our every move being spied on, not just on the internet but also in real life. We need to trust bust all of them just like we did in the 1910s to the 1930s, under Roosevelt, Wilson and Taft. We did it then. We can do it now.

[[File:Statecap.png]] State-Owned Enterprises [[File:Statecap.png]]
Although, there are still some industries that are better off as monopolies, although, no, they shouldn't be under private control. They should be under the state. These include things like water, electricity, rail and telecommunications. These just cannot be under competition, as things will genuinely be worse without them.

[[File:WorkWelf.png]] Public Works and Investments [[File:WorkWelf.png]]
In my opinion, public works are a very good thing as they not only offer economic stimulus, they also technically reduce  inflation as it allows supply to flow easier thus balancing supply and demand and it thus keeps prices low. So yea, a plus and a plus. It also reduces unemployment (as seen in the New Deal). In conclusion, it not only makes the transportation of supplies quicker (which eases inflation) it also offers jobs and economic growth.

[[File:Postkeynes.png]] Work [[File:Postkeynes.png]]
Yes, I believe everyone should be guaranteed a job, how did you tell? This reduces unemployment, boosts economic growth and allows more people to have a stable economic foundation that they can build on further. I also believe workers should own the businesses they work in, in the model of co-operative socialism. Although, we are to eventually abolish work itself because of automation. (Although, there will still be robot maintenance workers, the robots don't repair themselves!) As such, I would support an universal basic income although I think a  Negative Income Tax could maybe do the job better.

[[File:Merit.png]] Merit Economy [[File:Merit.png]]
I believe everyone should have a fair and equal opportunity regardless of the social class and condition they were born into, I support strong upward social mobility in order to create a thriving middle class. I support abolishing Passive Wealth Accumulation, interest and to keep consumer debt as low as possible. I also believe people should be accepted into a job based on their capacity regardless of their race, gender, sex, religion or political leanings. As such, I come to oppose both exclusionary job practices which only accept let's say white people only but also stuff like affirmative action as it can often lead to white people who were more capable than black people to not getting a job.

[[File:DvCommerce.png]] Trade [[File:DvCommerce.png]]
Look, I don't oppose free trade, I think it has done some good things overall such as lowered prices and lowered poverty and plus it has made us more connected although it has also done some very bad things like offshoring of jobs, destruction of the Rust Belt and it has also resulted in soaring income and wealth inequality. As such, I believe that we got to twist some things up in order to truly make free trade something that benefits us, the people. First off, Biden's CHIPS and Science Act is a pretty good start as it subsidies semiconductor manufacturing and I believe we should be subsidizing and spurring production of local manufacturing to prevent offshoring of jobs. Also, we should write worker rights,  human rights and  environmental rights into free trade agreement. Oh and finally, currency manipulation shall receive stronger consequences. (My beliefs on this issue are pretty similar to Braun Spencer Thought) Through this, we can have the benefits of free trade while fixing the downsides.

[[File:Dem.png]] Democracy [[File:Dem.png]]
Democracy is vital to my political system, whether it would be in the economy or well, politically. democracy is something that is necessary to have, something that represents the people and is the system that has come define western society and western values. However, there are currently western big trusts that are secretly funneling money to   authoritarian regimes that seek to undermine our values and through this money they can continue to strengthen themselves and their power. But, these mega-corporations are not just destroying  human rights outside the West, it is attacking democracy from within, as companies like Nike for example are funneling money to  MAGA candidates for US senate and US house. The United States is widely considered the founder of modern constitutional democracy and was once considered untouchable from authoritarian forces. ( It Can't Happen Here) Sadly, it may just happen here. We need to strengthen our democracy, we need a participatory economy, massive trust busting against these mega corps who seek to tear us apart through culture wars with a final end goal of abolishing democracy and our voting rights and to replace it with an oligarchy of shareholders, being completely unaccountable to the government and people. Democracy is very good in my opinion, but it isn't in it's right form. The solution to this in my opinion is liquid democracy combined with a  semi-direct democracy, in order to give  people more power when it comes to the democratic process. So basically, a person votes for a proposal that they personally want, which is then delegated to someone which votes for them and that delegate vote can be overriden by the person if he doesn't like his decision. This serves as a balance between direct and representative democracy and in my opinion is probably the best of both systems as it maintains the best of both worlds. This system under my political condition will be implemented globally (well yea, cuz I support a  world federation.) We need to save and then strengthen democracy, so that it cannot shatter into many pieces like it is about to do today, and the only beneficiaries from this would be the  World Economic Forum and other institutions that advocate for a similar thing to "stakeholder capitalism". They will reap what they have sown and will hold complete control over ourselves. We must prevent the techno-dystopia. It cannot and must not happen here. The case for strengthening democracy should be obvious, democracy needs repair, especially after what we have seen at January 6 in the USA and what we may see by the Trump carbon copy in  Brazil, and we may even see, like in America, an example of a  Pluto-Kakistocracy, where the rich just rule over society and everyone is just bittering in the things the plutocrats created to distract their weak minds. We must stop this, as stopping this would mean democracy is saved, if we don't, Democracy will collapse like domino pieces.

[[File:Envi.png]] Environment [[File:Envi.png]]
We are gonna need tough action in every sector of the economy to deal with this problem, and it is a colossal problem, one which, in my opinion, the nation state just cannot solve. This problem requires a world federation for us to truly solve it. This problem is climate change. It does not make sense to have many nation states with differing political ideologies to "fight" this problem, as it leads to nowhere, just like how it has been seen, and the only actions we have did against it is actually in spite of nationalism (take the Montreal Protocol and Kigali Amendment). It thus makes the most sense to create a world federation. We can cooperate internationally far easier than we ever have. Now that's out of the way, how do we solve climate change? Simple. First off, we must get out of this corporatocratic economy at once and embrace the  participatory economy, one which is a decentralized socialist economy, compared to our centralized capitalist economy. A complete opposite so to speak. We need to start taking things seriously. Let's implement the carbon tax, global carbon price, emissions trading scheme, land value tax. However, we cannot just tax our way out of this problem. We need to implement climate justice programs, we need reparations for indigenous people and they need land and autonomy, as such, they are to contribute to lowering logging, as seen in  Brazil under the  Lula administration. We need to drastically improve anti-logging technologies and tree planting technologies, in order to add 1 trillion trees (without any being lost to logging) extra for natural carbon capture (increasing the number of trees from 3 trillion to 4 trillion). We need to reach net zero by 2040 or 2045 as that is in my opinion the most realistic. We need to legalize hemp and end the War on Drugs in order to provide an eco-friendly version of concrete. We need to repair the damages done by imperialism to the 3rd world by fighting for  indigenous justice and offering  eco-subsidies to poorer places in the tropics to build an eco-friendly society and one which is more equal to the West. When it comes to energy, we need to drastically scale up subsidies to renewable energy and subsidies to fight the climate crisis as a whole, increasing it from 500 billion$ a year to 4 trillion $ a year. This will allow a more diverse array of subsidies to go to things which are equally important not just renewable energy but also electric heating, green hydrogen, carbon capture (natural and artificial) etc. but also things like climate subsidies to poorer regions, an idea proposed for a while that has never materialized. I hate electric vehicles, they may seem like a good solution in theory, but the electrical grid right know is 70% fossil fuels and also even if the electrical grid became 100% renewables, there would still be illegal child labor and also imperialist extraction of Lithium/Nickel/Cobalt in order to meet the demands of the  wealthy and indulgent west. Oh and there would also be high pollution from production along with the fact that Lithium is getting scarce and expensive. With this, we need to drastically replace it with alternatives, not just in our transportation but also in technology (computers, laptops, phones etc.) as such, I propose green hydrogen that can be used as energy storage for renewable energy so that solar/wind and other sources which can technically be powered in certain conditions can power our homes even when the conditions aren't right. Green hydrogen shall also be used for public transportation, like trams, metros, bicycles. All kinds of public transportation should be completely free, as done in Luxembourg. Personally, I very much hate cars. Although, it can be sort of difficult to get them off the road, so yea, I would get them out of our cities and those on the motorways and rural areas and stuff, as much as I hate them, would have to stay, however, they are to be powered by green hydrogen. And trains shall become more economically viable than cars, as high speed trains powered by hydrogen shall become the norm for medium-distance transportation. Planes shall also be powered by hydrogen. On the topic of food supply, we already have enough food for everyone until 2050, like, from now until 2050, nobody should be dealing with hunger. The participatory economy along with  computer planning will make sure that food distribution is not put to waste and is actually donated to either food banks or is sent to people who desperately need it most. Although as I said, with our current food production, it is enough to feed everyone up until 2050, which leaves us just 28 years. As such, we need to drastically ramp up stuff like aqua culture, implementing it across the entire world can allow us to feed many mouths for many years to come and aqua culture takes up way less space than current live cattle does. Oh and cattle should be replaced with cellular meat. Cellular meat uses way less land, pollutes way less and uses way less water. Oh and speaking of water, WE DO NOT HAVE WATER SCARCITY. the only form of scarcity we have is our little access to it. We only have access to 0.6% of the world's water, as even 70% of fresh water is hidden up behind glaciers (especially in Antarctica. Although, luckily for us we have been able to tap a bit of it, but, we still have 98% of water that is in our ocean. We need to drastically scale up desalination technologies across the world and to also make them eco-friendly and to make desalination quicker. This can basically make it so that water scarcity will never be a problem as we will always have a fresh source of water. We can change so much yet we are doing so few.

[[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]] Corruption [[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]]
We must be very very tough when it comes to corruption, it is a plague that leads to evil things like  Klepto-oligarchies (like in  Russia and the  USA if you want to sort of extend things). That said, corruption is a plague. And we have to cure it, do we have the cure? Yes. Politicians and other positions should be investigated in a tripartite manner by the police,  regular people and  whistleblowers. This is to ensure that this isn't just some Machiavellian attempt at consolidating power. So, things like bribery, lobbying, nepotism, embezzlement, clientelism etc. will be heavily restricted. Sentencing is to be 5-10 years (depending on the scope of corruption) and after release the said person cannot serve in public office for 3 years. We got to ensure that our public offices are accountable to the people. Does this also to apply to corporate leaders? Absolutely. Anyone who's done forms of corruption are to see the consequences.

[[File:Policism.png]] Police [[File:Policism.png]]
The police desperately needs reform. First off, when a police officer does a crime, or a police agency does a crime, it shouldn't have to be accountable only to itself, it shall be held accountable to the people. The police should also be under worker co-ops, like most things.

[[File:DvPermission.png]] Freedom of Speech [[File:DvPermission.png]]
We should uphold it. We need to abolish stupid things like copyright (in most cases) and also allow individuals to have a right to speech in every place, not to be spied on by cameras or to be censored and deleted because someone hated your argument even if it was right or wrong. There is no reason for us to be censored on the internet and in real life. In my opinion, everyone deserves a voice in our society, as a voice allows us to show who we really are. Whether it is good or bad. And that is what I like about freedom of speech.

[[File:CIA.png]] Whistleblowers [[File:CIA.png]]
Hell yea they should be allowed to do their stuff. They are a very useful thing to have, they can investigate and truly hold the police and the government to account when regular people cannot and can make it easier to expose people for  corruption they otherwise would naturally try to hide. They can also expose war crimes and other kinds of stuff the government would intentionally or not try to hide and classify. They are a good tool in de-classification and accountability and shouldn't be held up as criminals but rather "Heroes" of sorts. Also, don't extradite Assange.

[[File:GRights.png]] Guns [[File:GRights.png]]
We deserve a right to own guns. Everyone over the age of 18 should be able to purchase a gun to protect themselves from a criminal before the police get in and arrest them (keep in mind, police don't teleport to your house once a criminal enters). As such, I support a liberalization of gun laws but I still support some minor waiting times of around 1 month to make sure the gun buyer is actually mentally fit to use it and won't do you know what.

[[File:Laicism.png]] Religion [[File:Laicism.png]]
"Religion is the opium of the masses." - Karl Marx. My beliefs of religion follow a doctrine of laicism, which basically separate life/politics from religion. I support a big church tax of 50% in order to stop mega-churches and to also weed out the idea of churches, like come on, look, I support  freedom of religion, you can worship whatever god you like, but come on, churches are unnecessary along with other religious institutions. This does not criminalize religion, it rather keeps it a private manner. So yea, people can worship whoever they want, but they aren't getting privileges like churches and stuff.

[[File:Scientist.png]] Science [[File:Scientist.png]]
Before we begin on my stance on science we first got to establish what science is made of:  Mathematics (the study of patterns),  Physics (the study of matter),  Biology (the study of living things),  Chemistry (the study of substance),  IT (the study of information) and  philosophy (the study of ideas). Now, why is philosophy included here? Well, philosophy seeks to find the truth about the world, whether it is principles or ethics or the nature of the human mind. With this, philosophy is the main guiding stone of the others (biology, math, IT, chemistry, physics) and could be considered the most important part of science. As such it is to be known as foundational science.' Mathematics, the one which studies patterns, structures, space is thus referred to as structural science. Biology is known as natural science because of its study of living beings. Chemistry is to be known as organic science as it concerns itself with substances and the study of them. Physics is known as the fundamental science as it studies matter and finally IT is known as algorithmic science, because it deals with algorithms and computer things. In my opinion, improvements in these 6 branches of science have always brought forth positive outcomes in our society, way more than religion ever has. An improvement in any of these fields has helped us achieve many wonders that were before considered unimaginable. So, it is logical in my opinion to massively invest in these 6 fields and to teach them to our students in school so that we can continue to innovate and improve our society as it has been improving for thousands of years. Who started this? Who started science and our drive towards innovation? Thales of Miletus. He is the one who broke Greece from mythology and started the first science, philosophy, and the others soon followed. We need massive investments in our education and science in order to continue bringing in innovations, and we need science at this very moment as we deal with the colossal problem of climate change. Just imagine all the cool things we can do with this massive investment into science, we can go to space again and become an inter-planetary (heck even inter-stellar) civilization, we can eradicate other diseases like polio, guinea worm, malaria and many others. We can finally put a positive mark on ourselves.

[[File:Edu.png]] Education [[File:Edu.png]]
We need investments to flow into our education in order to make sure that the citizens of the world are smart and know at least some basic things about the world and aren't like you know: Americans. (btw, this doesn't apply to all Americans and there are genuinely smart Americans out there, not everyone there is stupid, but that's just the example I came up with.) I want to make school lunch be completely free but also more similar to home-made lunch, students can choose between the following lunch options: sandwich with tomatoes, onions and cabbage and biscuits; chocolate pancakes with strawberry on top; chocolate cookies and a pack of yogurt and finally drinks: water; orange juice; lemonade. There will be a 1 hour recess every school day, this recess will allow students to truly consolidate the information they were taught and also allow them to remember it better as good food improves mental ability. Another thing I would like to do is expand the period of free/mandatory education from 14 years to 20 years (making pre-K and college free). This will allow students to learn more things in time, even if college to some may just seem like repeating the things in high school or whatever. In my world federation society,  Esperanto shall became a "lingua franca" to be taught 2 hours per day alongside the native language in that said area. Another good thing I would like to implement is the learning of chess in schools, not just regular chess, which can help with memory, discipline and cognitive skills but also Fischer chess (or Chess960) in order to learn students that life can have random, unexpected moments it throws at you when you least expect it, and through Chess960, a random game, students can learn that. How am I gonna pay for extending free education by 6 years? Well, I would implement a graduate tax and also use other forms of taxation to pay for this. Oh and students are to come to school not by 8:00 AM (when they're forced to wake up at 6-7AM, when they're really tired and have no time of anything except to dress up for school) but reform it the following: 9:00 AM - kindergarteners come to school; 9:15 AM - elementary schoolers come to school; 9:30 AM - middle schoolers come to school; 9:45 AM - high schoolers & college people come to school. I think this time table is balanced and it allows all students, regardless of where they are in education to properly prepare for school and not come completely messed up and tired. School will also be 6 hours long, just like how it typically is. Oh and also, on homework, while Finland shows to be almost fine without it, however, there should still be some small amount of homework just to make sure the student has some basic knowledge of the material. Oh and, ABOLISH surprise tests. This completely messes up students and they have to prepare for something they never knew they had to. Tests should be something they should expect, so that they can be prepared. While in online classes students seem to learn quicker, that is merely because they do not have to do such a mental effort in getting to school in the first place, as it is at their house and they can eat the things at their house (which are currently better than school lunches) but there are downsides to this, first off online course tech is not that advanced and also this makes them less exposed to vitamin D which can hurt human vision. So yea, the best we can do is make physical schools more like home, as I propose to do. But, wouldn't sending kids to school just sending them from another building to another building because them staying at home means they have less vitamin D while it would apply to school? Well, in my opinion, students should have 2 hours of outside courses in a special building, adjacent to the school building. This will allow students to not just have more fresh air it will allow them to get their needed vitamin D, thus improving their eye sight. Oh and, education should exclude talking about believing in religion and the only mentions of religion should be in relation to historical events that had to do with it and the history of religions and that's it, education should be very much secular and talk about science as a better tool than religion in helping ourselves and society. My goal in education is to ensure humanity becomes smarter the generations that follow.

[[File:FDF-Pirate.png]] Internet [[File:FDF-Pirate.png]]
Look, I LOVE the internet. In fact, it is what I am typing this page on. But, it really needs changes. First off, I believe the internet is a place for the individual to freely express himself and to be completely encrypted, something which isn't upheld as  corporations basically have the internet be a surveillance state. Our phones and computers are spying on us every second. As such I support the abolition of behavioral patterns and tracking devices, replacing behavioral ads with private ads, used in the Brave site. Also the browser market is very monopolized, Google Chrome has a 70% market share in the browser market. We need mass trust-busting on web browsers and companies behind the web browsers as monopolies often do less updates and innovations to their products because of the lack of competition. In the 1990s, there were many browsers, but now only like 5 browsers own >90% of the market. This is unacceptable. Through trust-busting, the biggest browser at most shall own 5% of the market. Everyone should have freely ready to use alternatives for browser whether they want to, each browser with its own purpose. The freedom of choice, the best freedom. When it comes to social media, it also needs to be trust-busted. There needs to be hundreds of social media companies that own more than 90% of the market share not just I don't know, 6? Also, they should uphold freedom of speech and shouldn't just ban users cuz they are on the other side of the  culture war. Personally I believe the internet (and the world wide web) should be a place free from government but also free from  corporations. It should be a place that belongs to all oof us, individuals. This can allow the individual to be liberated, to use the internet as a way to express himself in a platform that is by  the people, of the people and for the people. In conclusion, the internet should be a minarchist place, where the people are completely free in most cases with the government barely intervening. Under no pretext shall corporations/government spy on us unnecessarily 24/7 on the place that is meant to be the place that belongs to the individual.

[[File:SocHawk.png]] Interventionism [[File:SocHawk.png]]
To be honest, I am not that big of a fan of interventionism, I prefer  diplomacy. Although we should do it when all other options have been exhausted. democracy is declining across the world, not just in Africa and Asia but also in Europe and the Americas which is a worrying sign. I genuinely think that some countries genuinely may need a foreign-backed coup to put a democratic guy into power, no  Kissinger, not a military dictator, a pro-democracy leader. It should be kept a secret only till the period of the coup and not long after it, it shall be made declassified. And it shall be a "we go in and we go out" foreign policy, like that of Theodore Roosevelt and not the lame  Wilsonite policy, that was used in  Iraq and  Afghanistan. Look, I love diplomacy, but we need to sometimes get our hands dirty. When it comes to Ukraine, heck yea we should sanction Russia and give Ukraine weapons. The United States is actually doing something right for once.

[[File:Cball-USE.png]] United States of Europe [[File:Cball-USE.png]]
We need the European Union to integrate itself into a full-on functioning state. In my opinion, the EU being an United State will be far better for Europe and Europeans. It will be a federation, following a completely  parliamentary model of government, with there being a prime-minister that would lead the federation and he would hold the titles of head of government, however, there would be a ceremonial president to make sure he isn't all-powerful. The integration to an European Federation should be done through organizing the people to support it (as done by Volt Europa) and by integration done similar to previous EU integration, although, it shall require only a majority of nation states voting, removing the veto, not just on this, but on any EU vote in order to make the EU more democratic. Europeans in the EU shall also be able to vote on European parties themselves, as they will replace the national parties. Oh and also, there will be referendums and citizens initiatives in order to let the  people have a voice.

[[File:World_Federalism2.png]] World Federation [[File:World_Federalism2.png]]
I also believe, as my eventual long goal that the United Nations must be integrated into a  World Federation, like, the UN just relies so much on the will of the biggest powers (the big five) Russia, USA, China, France and UK. Just imagine all the things we can accomplish with this. There are so many things that it just seems like anyone who opposes this is brain-dead (I know they're not, do not be mad at me). First off, the United Nations can actually make having food a human right, which is a first step to tackling world poverty. The obvious thing is that there will be world peace, as well, it will just be a world federation. This, just like the United States of Europe will be a  parliamentary  semi-direct democracy where the people can truly be represented and have a voice. It can also boost the things we're trying to do, like cure cancer, cure malaria, end poverty, fight against climate change etc. Like the saying goes: "United we stand, divided we fall." The nation state just seems so outdated especially when we look at the colossal challenges we face that nations just aren't able to solve. Most of the things in the world that are separate by nation will just become one, as there is technically only one nation.

[[File:Anat.png]] Language [[File:Anat.png]]
I support Esperanto but I don't want it to replace  native languages, like English or Polynesian to name a few. Esperanto shall serve as a sort of lingua franca (like English does today) and it shall be taught in schools 2 hours/week in order to allow people regardless of social status to be able to learn it at least partially. Esperanto represents something unique, by having a language like English be the lingua franca, it will just seem the world federation will be idk American hegemony at its best or whatever. Esperanto is a language that does not represent the hegemony of any former nation. It what truly represents a world federation not an imperialist ploy by one of the big 5 but a united  individual effort.

=Philosophy= (Revamping this, like the rest of the page)

[[File:Non-Essence.png]] Nominalism [[File:Non-Essence.png]]
What are universals? Well, in my opinion, they are only mere names without having a proper corresponding reality. The only thing that exists is the particular, that particular object exists. Properties, numbers, and sets are merely features of the way of considering the things that exist. Let's say you have an apple. The apple is the particular object. Realists will naturally say that there is an universal apple out there and that all apples come from it. What? How does it look like then huh realists? Yea, universals just don't have any corresponding reality, only the particulars have that. And like Hobbes I believe the world is made out of matter. With this, I follow the views of nominalism.

[[File:Sartre.png]] Life [[File:Sartre.png]]
Look, the meaning of life is made up by the individual, and meaning to a certain life only applies to the life of one individual and cannot be made universal. The meaning of life is thus a relative concept, that differs from person to person, thanks to the fact that we, in this universe are bound to have  free will, as matter (especially in U-238) and three colliding bodies prove to be completely random and unpredictable, which could mean that we are to have free will. The "meaning of life" you may tell others is merely based on your own personal experience and is thus relative, with it may not even working on another person. Thus, the meaning of life is not bound up by a higher being/authority and is not pre-determined. With this, "Existence precedes essence." - Jean-Paul Sartre

[[File:Anin.png]] Metaphysical Libertarianism [[File:Anin.png]]
Personally, I support the idea that we have free will and that our actions are done freely, with our own will and are not predetermined by other things (determinism). Now, the main question is what are the arguments to back up the claim? Well, first off, determinists like to say that because there are laws of physics then everything is determined. That is wrong, the laws of physics are not the thing the universe is governed by, it is governed by matter and matter while it typically follows the laws of physics, it does so because of it's own free will not because it is determined by something to do that. The laws of physics are merely a concept created by us in order to understand how our universe with free will works, and they aren't 100% accurate and probably never will be. This is just proof of the universe's free will. Another example of matter actually following the principles of free will is Uranium-238 (pure). Every particle of it is the same, yet they act unpredictably. Let's say it is in a vacuum. It will begin shedding off its atoms and begin decaying, without we being able to know how and when are they going to decay or at what rate they're. We cannot predict that, it is completely random, yes completely random. Another example I would like to bring is not just on the atomic scale, but also on the planetary scale. Three colliding bodies begin to interact with its each other and its orbits just cannot be predicted regardless of how many simulations we run, maybe there is an element of random, of completely free will out there in our universe.

[[File:Rousseau.png]] Social Contract [[File:Rousseau.png]]
Let's first talk about the 2 states of humans: The Natural State and the Social Contract. I align with the Rousseauist idea of the Social Contract. What is the origin of human rights? We made them the hell up. Let's first begin with the natural state, the epoch before the social contract. then came the Social Contract and the doctrine of  human rights. This meant giving up some of our freedoms that were in the natural state, this created the notion of choose). Social Contract only diversified freedom in my opinion, as the saying goes: "Good luck being free from anything when you're all alone in the desert, having nothing to choose." As such, my political philosophy seeks to balance negative liberties and  positive liberties through the  social contract.

[[File:Individual.png]] Individualism [[File:Individual.png]]
Look, I am a very individualist person when it comes to political philosophy. This comes through in my beliefs of civil libertarianism and the  social contract which balances positive liberties (freedom to) and negative liberties (freedom from). I believe that positive liberties and negative liberties are to be balanced and that we need more of both, with this, I also support human flourishing as a means of manifesting this individualism. Since we have free will, it is natural in my opinion for us to act as individuals. I also believe that the internet should become a place completely or almost completely free from government and corporations, becoming the place where individualism is most expressed. So yea, I am firmly individualist. The belief in collectivism while also believing in free will is contradictory and the belief in individualism while also believing in determinism is contradictory as free will manifests in that the individual is free to think for himself and  determinism manifests in that the actions of an individual are already determined.

=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 (//) - You're not that bad! You want worker ownership of the means of production like I do. To be honest, economically we are basically alike. Although, your control on free trade basically goes too far, I hate tariffs. Based! (//) - 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.

Pantheonism (//) - Pretty interesting ideology and not that bad at all, pretty based when it comes to diplomacy, but still, why monarchism and why can't you be more progressive?

Atronism (//) - Marxist-leninist, I know, you seem to be slightly authoritarian and not libertarian, but hey at least you're progressive (even if way too progressive) and are Laicist, like me. Which is absolutely based. A more leftist and slightly more authoritarian version of me. Not bad.

Braun Spencer Thought (//) - You are basically reincarnated LBJ, your economic policies are not that bad but you should be Socialist and while you support a world federation I despise your support of tariffs and also your support of interventionism. Interventionism should typically be the last call not the first call. Pretty close onto being in frenemies.

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.

New Model Of Cheesenism (//) - Unironic islamo-fascist. You are no good.

Lanceism (//) - Eh, the only tolerable thing of you is your move to more moderate economics, but your forced christianization and support of theocracy is very cringe. Also stop being so traditionalist like, why oppose gays and abortion? Oh and why the hell do you want cigarettes to be legal, which cause 480,000 deaths/year, x48 more than heroin and crack which literally kills nobody, illegal? Your ideology is still terrible, even if slightly improved.

Reginald thought (idk) - What? Climate change will only be eventful in 500 years? Bro, what? It's already eventful and is changing stuff NOW. Let alone 500 years from now. I don't reject soup kitchens and charity, but it isn't useful to just almost replace government welfare with it. Also why illegalize drugs and trans people? This is cringe.


 * -| Quadrants

Friends
Libertarian Left - This is probably the best quadrant out there and the one my ideology belongs to as you know, I am economically left-wing but also civically libertarian. Tbh, it better than the other quadrants even if it has some people that I may not personally like.

Libertarian Unity - You're not perfect, as you just are moderate and all but hey at least you want the people to be free and aren't as bad as Libertarian Right.

Frenemies
Libertarian Right - Your economics are awful and most of the things about you are also awful, but uh... you at least want people to be free?

Center - Stop being so moderate! PROGRESS! PROGRESS!

Left Unity - It's nice that you advocate for left-wing economics but can you pls be less statist?

Enemies
Authoritarian Left - Oh come on, examples of you in practice have never turned out to be good (the Soviet Union, Maoist China etc.) they all became authoritarian states that didn't really manage to achieve Socialism.

Authoritarian Right - You not only are authoritarian (and even totalitarian) you also combine it with the exploitative capitalist system, bruh.

Authoritarian Unity - You combine the worst of both Authoritarian Left and Authoritarian Unity. (Although, not all of you guys are completely terrible, still be less statist).

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?

New Model Of Cheesenism - re added me

Atronism - Seems like you've shifted a little bit more to the left, which is based. Add me?

- I arrive with a question. Is your flag supposed to be a reference to this?
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Yes

Braun Spencer Thought - Add me, maybe?

Lancebarnett - Trash economics and social ideas
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - My views are not perfect, neither are yours, we are equal.
 * [[File:O'Langism.png]]O'Langism - Nice response.

Lancebarnett - add me

reginald thought - add me pls

- Ayo can you re-add me I re-added you and you are based as ever. :)


 * - Completely wrong about the egoist on the social contract. Please don't spread misinformation.
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - What is the egoist stance on the social contract then?
 * - The state of nature has never existed and is merely a thought experiment, you are immediately born in a social relation of power, the family or community, you don't spring out of thr ground but rather have a mother. Secondly, Stirner is not a philosopher of "Negative Liberty", his critique of freedom and liberty is that it can only ever be negative, "freedom from". He doesn't want a state of nature, not absolute negative liberty. And his critique of human rights is not that they are constructed, but rather they are "human" rights and no his rights. They are alienating.

Lanceism - can you edit me for changing views