Owfism

Government

 * -| Governance=

[[File:Dem.png]] Democracy [[File:Dem.png]]
The system of government that I prefer is a democracy. Now, democracy, like all other systems has its flaws/imperfections. However, as it has been said throughout history, democracy may not be perfect but its the best system we got. For example, totalitarian systems of government give up individual liberties and just suppress the people's free will that they have. Totalitarian governments have also resulted in the deaths of many people (take Hitler's Germany or Stalin's USSR). History has shown that democracy has been proven to be the most free system we ever tried, but it has its flaws.

These flaws include the excessive corporate influence within our government, which has not had good consequences, to say the least. We need to regulate corporate lobbying to make sure it doesn't result in our governments following corporate interests rather than the people's interests. In addition to representative democracy I also want to implement elements of  direct democracy within our electoral system, with there being citizens initiatives, referendums and other direct democratic elements that allow the people to vote on decisions outside of just representatives voting on decisions themselves, as such, I support a balanced system of  semi-direct democracy, believing it to be the best of both representative and direct worlds, as representative democracy can become un-representable of the people and direct democracy can result in mob rule, something that is worse than democracy. The element of semi-direct democracy can allow the people to have more participation within their own politics and can allow them to hold their government accountable.

[[File:Parti.png]] Multi-Party Democracy [[File:Parti.png]]
I am personally in favor of a multi-party system which uses ranked-choice voting (RCV). In my ideal (possibly long-term) scenario, there would be 2 parliaments: The General Assembly (the lower chamber, with 600 seats) and the  The Senate (the upper chamber, with 100 seats), following a model of bicameralism. Both of these chambers will be elected directly by the people and shall represent the people and shall be accountable to the people. There would be parties ranging from left and right in parliament, with there being a threshold of 2% to enter. The only way a party can be banned is if they are an open threat to democracy itself, but that's only in extreme cases. In most cases, their electoral funding will be reduced or even terminated.

The General Assembly and The Senate will have the role of nominating a  Secretary General who can form a majority government in both the GA and Senate. This Secretary General is to as said previously represent the people and be held accountable by the people. The General Assembly and Senate are up for re-election every 6 years, with a Secretary General having at most 2 consecutive terms (with him not being able to run for a 3rd non-consecutive term) of a total of 12 years. However, if a Secretary General does not represent the people then there shall either be a referendum on voting him out (in extreme cases) or there will be a vote of no confidence with a qualified majority.

[[File:Civlibert.png]] Civil Libertarianism [[File:Civlibert.png]]
I believe that the government must hold a pro-privacy stance, as such, civically his government shall be aligned with principles of  liberalism, with me defining liberalism civically as wanting individual liberty. We need to bring these principles back into government in order to end the surveillance state that has been accumulating and bring us back to a time where individuals anonymity is respected. Its expansion has clearly and intentionally not been for the interest of the people and in fact has been against the people's interest as leakings of the scale of it, in the case of Edward Snowden have resulted in him becoming a citizen of America's authoritarian rival just for him to not get punished for his heroic act.

As such, the surveillance needs to be heavily weakened for the best interests of the people and whistleblowing should be a completely legal thing to do and the government should at least declassify documents at most 5 years after they're made. Unneeded spying programs need to be revoked and I am not saying there can't be things like CCTV cameras they can be useful in catching criminals but cameras should not display personal information like height, weight, age, name etc. this information is used by governments/corporations to know everything about you and your preferences. This cannot be known by them unless you want them to know them. A.k.a. on your own consent.

Expansions of CCTV camera services to personal info is terrible as I said but also wiretapping and other practices added upon them which count as severe breaches of privacy and have resulted in authoritarianism becoming more rampant in the West. The government needs to be there for the people when it is needed, like for welfare programs and  core industries. As such, I civically support policies of  civil libertarianism.

[[File:Laicism.png]] Laicism [[File:Laicism.png]]
I believe that we need to curb the influence of churches on politics. As such, I advocate for a separation of church and state however in the long-term I would advocate for separation of church from not just state but even our day-to-day life. We need to bust mega-churches like other mega-corporations and heavily scale down their lobbying power over our politicians, I am not saying lobbying should not exist at all, but  regulation is needed.

I also believe that there should be no official religion and while I do reject the existence of churches this does not mean I reject people believing in a certain religion, they can do that, but in their own house. Not going to church. Some Christians already do this, churches just take up funding that would otherwise go towards something more useful and compassionate, like a hospital, example being | People's Salvation Cathedral in Romania

I believe that the constitution should be, on religion, laicist in nature, like in  France, in order to discourage religious involvement in the politics of the state, but I do believe we need to guarantee freedom of religion, rejecting  state-atheism but also  theocracy.
 * -| Civil Service=

[[File:Merit.png]] Civil Service Reform [[File:Merit.png]]
In recent decades, we have seen a corporate takeover of our own political system, something that was hard to imagine almost 70 years ago. And this can be seen in our modern political framework as typically center-left parties have moved to the center, especially with the rise of the Third Way.

We need to stop corporate lobbying through massive amounts of regulations and campaign finance limitations, in the  United States for example, limit to presidential elections contributions are to be set at 2M$ (midterms are just gonna be abolished). For example, instead of the Biden-Harris Campaign receiving over 1 billion $ they merely receive just 2 million $ at most. Same with the Trump-Pence Campaign. This contributions limit can make it easier for more individual donors who aren't from mega-corporations to raise more money than companies and legally, thus allowing for a shift in policy towards the people's interests, which turn out to be more left-wing (even in the US) than you might think.

Corporate lobbyists have also begun taking over the United Nations and its institutions, an example being the  Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with it being the largest donor to the UN. There needs to be a hard wall that prevents corporate lobbyists from lobbying for their causes at the UN and instead donations to the UN shall come from national governments but also individuals (activists, co-ops etc.).

I believe that the best electoral system is of ranked-choice voting with it working best under a  multi-party democracy, in order to give voters a wide range of choices and have the elections truly be fair to all political parties. We need a market place of ideas in our society, as such, voters must vote using critical thinking with their choices and as such a brief summary of the parties and politician running under that party in order to have people make an informed choice.

Another set of reforms I seek to make, at least in the European Union, is to make the EU a participatory democracy, as such, I seek to replace the veto model with a qualified majority model in order to allow for a smoother and quicker response to crises, admissions and other things. I also believe that in European Parliament elections, there should be a popular vote, where people vote on the European parties themselves through the method of ranked-choice voting, as stated previously.

[[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]] Whistleblowers [[File:Anti-Corrupt.png]]
While I believe that the government should very much track and fight against corruption, it is stupid to believe that it can do this all by itself. As such, it requires people like whistleblowers, and they can be vast, however, seeing as how this is currently criminalized (take Snowden and Assange) they are too afraid to speak up. We must legalize whistleblowing activities as the people deserve to hear the truth, and that governments and institutions have the right to be inclusive and transparent with their own people.

In my opinion, a functioning democracy requires that everyone is held accountable to the people and by legalizing whistleblowing we can make sure that politician's corrupt activities do not go unnoticed and unaccounted. We also need a greatly funded anti-corruption agency so that the government can truly represent its people, who want accountability of their politicians who are meant to represent them.
 * -| Power Dispersal =

[[File:ConstLib.png]] Constitutionalism [[File:ConstLib.png]]
I believe that a country needs a constitution, this constitution shall guarantee people not just economic, political and social rights but also uphold  democracy. Not only that, the constitution will also serve a purpose in providing checks and balances with separation of powers, fighting against cronyism and  economic monopolies + a bunch of other things.

This constitution should be a living document, meaning it should be up to the date to the current times that it exists and should not be for example a constitution that can be understood and that would only work through the lens of the 18th century. The constitution must be a document up to the times, with the 21st century (and other centuries to come).

[[File:Fed.png]] Federalism [[File:Fed.png]]
I support a federation as my main way of power dispersal of the government and state/municipalities. As such, I reject things like unitary government but also the concept of confederations (as these are too decentralized and cannot get things done, just look at the articles of confederation). I especially support federations in countries like the USA and EU (yes, which I know, isn't YET a country, but you get what I mean), for example, 7 of the 8 largest countries are federations. (China, you're just weird)

Unitary governments only work in small countries (but I support things like a world federation) and I say world federation because since the world is so large a federation is the only thing that can work, and federations have just simply proven to be better. Balancing local and state power in a good mix.


 * -| Immigration =

[[File:Multicult.png]] Multiculturalism [[File:Multicult.png]]
I personally support the ideas of multiculturalism, I believe that we need to be tolerant and inclusive of all peoples while sharing common values and we can only do that through  proper education. I believe humanity needs to be a mixed race species in order to end  like racism and we can also enhance our genetic diversity overall.

I believe that through Multiculturalism we can create over time a more enhanced human species by taking the best of each cultures and improving humanity overall, genetically.

[[File:Civnat.png]] Immigration [[File:Civnat.png]]
I am typically in support of immigration, for example, I support the wave of  Ukrainians that desperately needed to escape the war and how the EU handled them in an united manner and allowed them to integrate (at least the ones that chose to forever stay) into European society in general.

I agree that heightened immigration like in the Canadian multiculturalism act can lead to more racism and xenophobia, I believe that this can mostly solved by having education be taught based on  critical thinking and also by re-orienting education not from "general skills" (which are a made-up and failed concept) but to facts.

Economics

 * -| Economic Models =

[[File:Statesoc.png]] Core Industries [[File:Statesoc.png]]
I believe that there a series of industries which I like to classify as core industries (due to their overall economic and social importance) that are better to be under the government's control rather than under private hands because if they are, they are more efficient and run faster and better. These are:

1. Energy - This should be obvious, energy under private hands has proven to be a catastrophic failure, first of all, because of the way energy is, we are slow in delivering innovations that would have been helpful in the climate transition and would had made us fix it by now. Just look at Norway and Equinor, they are probably one of the few countries who has an almost sufficient climate policy. If we put energy under the control of the state, then we can create real innovation by heavily investing in efficient green technologies (liquid thorium, nuclear, fusion, green hydrogen etc.) as soon as possible. We barely got enough time to fix the climate problem and this is a needed solution in needed times. The time for natural gas and oil is over but at the same time we have seen how incompetent private companies are on this front, and as such we need to change who is guiding our energy future.

2. Transportation - Look, the state is the best handler of transportation in general. I believe that transportation ranging from air travel, rail travel, trams, metros and other forms of public transportation. I believe that public transportation should be entirely free, to be paid by taxation. Private companies have shown to be utterly horrible at handling the logistics of travel (just look at United States railways, a dumpster fire) the state can also allow for construction projects to be done at a much lower cost and speed than private companies.

3. Pharmaceutics - I believe that the pharmaceutical industry should not be under private hands, like come on, not only do they constantly rack up prices (especially in the USA), just look at insulin, in the US it costs hundreds of dollars even though it costs less than 5$ to manufacture. By putting Big Pharma under the control of the state, people can have access to life-saving medicines at a lower price. The state can also co-ordinate stuff and have medical innovations come much faster thanks to higher government investment. Also things like pink sauce are proof that we just can't behave. Agencies like the FDA and  WHO/CDC  need more power and funding to make sure we have a stable and healthier diet. For example, remove sugar. We must go back to the old 25% vegetables, 25% fruits, 25% carbohydrates and 25% fat (a.k.a. meat) model, and come on it, worked, less than 20% of Americans were obese in the 1950s and by 2030, 50% of them will be thanks to SUGAR. Oh and, replace the food pyramid with MyPlate (basically it promotes the 25-25-25-25 food structure said previously) State-ownership of pharmaceutical industry shall also help in the fixing of the opioid crisis. The crisis was caused by big pharma, and well, they are profiting off of it. Only state-ownership of it can really fix.

4. Legal - The justice department has a lot of problems, and one of such problems is that  mega-corporations can just simply buy expensive (but great) lawyers while the poor man that sued them (for a crime they clearly committed) only has a weak state-offered lawyer (at worse) and a mediocre personal lawyer (at best). Yea. He is gonna lose that court case. As such, corporations and CEOs can go unaccountable in their shady business practices and not just them, corrupt politicians too for example can just use this tool to let their crimes be spared. The solution? Make the legal system state-owned. Lawyers, regardless of your wealth or position will be the same. You cannot hire your own personal lawyer. All people, regardless of background, wealth, religion etc. will get a typical, mediocre/decent lawyer in order to even the legal game and to make accountability (especially to the rich), much easier.

5. Internet Services - I believe that internet services should be nationalized based on a more  municipal model, private internet services tend to charge up a hefty price for the usage of the Internet and nationalization of these services can serve to lower prices and also allow for faster internet and more national coverage.

6. Banking - I believe that we should nationalize  banking for the following reasons: People are mostly illiterate when it comes to personal finance, as such, the state should step in and nationalize the banks and help the people make more reasonable financial decisions and not fall into consumer debt. Another reason is that banking in my opinion is a core industry that must be under state-ownership. In most places, there is temporary nationalization of banking after a recession, but that is reversed when its over. big banks are very speculative in nature, being the reason as to why recessions happen to the scale of say the great recession (with there being an over 2% contraction).

This will allow keynesian economic policies like  quantitative easing (QE) be done much more easily, banks and individuals can do more reasonable economic policies, and not engage in speculative investments that will result in a bubble, which will eventually pop and lead to a recession. Through this, we can ensure much more economic stability, with periods of crisis being not as terrible as under a privatized banking system (ex. Great Recession).

[[File:Cooperative_Socialism.png]] Worker Co-Operatives[[File:Cooperative_Socialism.png]]
I am in favor of worker co-operatives, seeing them as an alternative to worker unions that exist today. Worker co-operatives are essentially just worker-owned businesses, having mostly less than 20 employees (who are workers owning the company). Although, I wouldn't consider myself a marxist socialist because I do not want to achieve worker ownership of the means of production through authoritarian means, instead, the way I believe co-ops shouldn't be spread through force, instead opting for  tax credits for workers establishing a co-operative and other measures like that.

As such, when it comes to co-ops, I follow a policy that seeks to educate people about worker co-ops and promote more empirical research into them so that they can be improved. I also believe that 5% of worker co-op profits should be donated to an education & promotion fund for co-operatives, allowing workers to, with their own will, set up a co-op. co-operatives can also receive interest-free loans, through the creation of a co-operative loan fund. I also believe co-ops can create  co-operative federations for technical help, for example. Through this, there shall be more co-ops participating in the economy, being congruent to ideals of  liberal democracy, believing that it shouldn't be mandatory for workers to be in a co-op, but rather co-ops shall be expanded through things like tax credits & loans. As such, I reject the label of socialist, preferring more the term  left-social democrat, as I seek to not make co-ops the sole economic model, as that is just coercive.

Instead, it should be a decently large chunk of the economy, with there also being things like publicly owned businesses and  small-medium sized businesses (which are either  unionized or have  ESOPs) and maybe others. Through this, we can enhance economic freedom overall as it can allow people starting a business to have multiple options, as said previously, a unionized business, a co-op, an ESOP business or just a regular private business. A main thing I like about capitalism is that you can start whatever business you want, however, it is limited, and as said previously, I seek to enhance it. As such, I do support in general small business tax credits, a tax credit given to people starting a business.

[[File:Farm.png]] Agriculture [[File:Farm.png]]
When it comes to agriculture, I believe that overall  corporate monopolization has done way too much bad, food prices are off the charts right now, just look at how 1 company resulted in egg prices basically doubling, so yea, instead of a dozen eggs costing 2$, it costed 4$. This corporate price gouging puts the burden on the consumer. My solutions to these are both the creation of agriculture co-operatives but mostly  heavy anti-trust enforcement, ensuring economic competition in the agricultural sector, thus easing the cost on consumers.

I believe that there should be agricultural subsidies, accounting for 0.5% of GDP (so 480B$), with some of the funding actually being used to fund more  eco-friendly agriculture, such as vertical farming,  aqua culture and even cellular meat, scaling up these technologies and fixing their short comings overall through these subsidies. Subsidies shall not go to big agribusinesses, instead going to more small farming businesses, allowing for a more even game overall.

[[File:Statecap.png]] Sovereign Wealth Fund [[File:Statecap.png]]
I believe that there should be a sovereign wealth fund (SWFs) which are investment vehicles initiated by the government. I believe that through the nationalization of natural resources we can create a sovereign wealth fund, with the benefits of it going directly back to the people, similar to the  Norway Government Pension Fund Global and ideally it can also be from budget surpluses and state investments in  large co-operative federations in different economic sectors.

As such, a sovereign wealth fund can be a good revenue source for the government, without requiring things which harm success like high income taxes/wealth taxes (the latter of which basically always failed) and true opposition to the income tax has been raised through the likes of  Henry George, it (the income tax) being society's killer. As such, I support abolishing income tax (and reject adding wealth taxes) in favor of SWFs and other, better sources of taxation.

[[File:Yang2020.png]] Economic Scorecard [[File:Yang2020.png]]
I support the proposal of Andrew Yang to replace the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) with something called an Economic Scorecard (ES), this is because GDP has many problems, one thing it has caused is us having an  over-reliance on economic growth while neglecting other, equally important factors. As such, through the economic scorecard we must emphasize not just economic growth, but also things like mental well-being,  environmental quality, poverty rates, national debt, access to clean water/access to quality education etc.

We live in a complex world and merely using GDP to measure our success is just a flawed idea, the implementation of an economic scorecard can allow us to have a more human-centered economy that prioritizes environmental well-being over infinite growth.


 * -| Taxation & Spending =

[[File:Keynes.png]] Fiscal Policy [[File:Keynes.png]]
When it comes to fiscal policy, I am very much supportive of the idea of  Keynesian economics, I believe that the government should take a hand in the market and create fiscal programs that boost spending to boost economic growth to end economic crises in a shorter amount of time. Just contrast the U.S. COVID-19 pandemic stimulus with the  U.S. 2008 recession stimulus, in a 1 year, unemployment fell down to 2019 levels, while after 2008 unemployment only recovered in 2019, taking 11 years, then COVID came. Keynesian economic theory can allow us to create a positive spiral, with me also, naturally, supporting state intervention during crises and also in general supporting  active labor market policies. These policies should shall lead to full employment, aka less than 2% unemployment, believing this can boost GDP growth.

I believe Keynesian economics can be helpful in helping vulnerable people and allowing us to achieve the goals of high growth, full employment and income equality, similar to the  Rehn-Meidner Model. It is also a main reason as to why I would rather identify myself as a  left-social democrat rather than a full-blown  socialist, as I still support a sort of capitalist fiscal policy, that being Keynesianism. I support ideas like Neo-Keynesianism, seeing how it was helpful during the golden age of capitalism and the post-war consensus but I do recognize that it has become outdated and even  New Keynesianism has become slightly outdated,  I hope a new  Keynesian economic theory comes that fixes the flaws of the previous two.

[[File:Regulationism.png]] Taxation [[File:Regulationism.png]]
I favor reforms to taxation that not only allow for more economic success and innovation but reforms which also allow for the funding of an universal welfare state and just infrastructure in general, these taxes are as follows:

- Land Value Tax - A land value tax will be the main tax  that would allow the government to generate revenue, with it decommodifying land, preventing land hoarding and speculation, as such, it shall lower housing and land prices and allow more people to own a home that they don't rent, their own real house. It shall be set at high rates of 70-90%, all landlords will become land value tax collectors (or other jobs, just some that are actually useful), land will be put under public ownership, belonging to all people, through things like  tenant unions.

Because of this tax, the price of land will eventually fall and bought land that isn't being used will just inevitably have to be sold to someone that will use the land for something and with falling land prices comes greater accessibility of land to regular people, not just the ultra-wealthy.

The global (estimated) land value is at around 100 trillion dollars as such this land value tax, if applied globally can generate trillions in revenue, especially if set at high rates as mentioned above.

- Ecological Tax - An ecological tax is a tax levied on things which harm the environment. The goal of such tax is to promote eco-friendly activities through environmental incentives. As such, things like carbon and methane emissions will be set at 60$/metric ton of CO2 and 900$/metric ton of methane respectively, which will progressively rise over the years in line with the 1.5 degree target of the Paris agreement. Another thing which falls under an ecological tax is a plastic tax which will be set at 1$/kg for non-recyclable plastic (which is like most plastic).

I also support the implementation of a 24/7 ultra-low emissions zones (ULEZs) in major city centers, as implemented in  London, vehicles which don't meet ULEZ emissions standards (but still drive through ULEZs) will have to pay a 15$ daily charge (applying to cars, motorcycles and other vehicles which pollute the air). People don't want to just pay 15$ to drive, so they will either use another, eco-friendly method of transportation or buy a non-polluting car. These taxes shall help in reducing CO2 emissions by incentivizing them to transition to green tech sooner so that you know they don't pay that much in tax.

In conclusion such ecological tax can possibly earn trillions of dollars as taxing methane, CO2 and plastic (along with other environmentally-harmful products) can allow for a quicker turn away from them and a reduction in their emissions or usage, this can be seen during the 7 year period when the carbon tax was in Australia or when the carbon tax went into effect in the  EU till now.

- Value-Added Tax - I believe in implementing a value-added tax because it is good at raising funds and is hard to overall dodge. I believe that it shall have a standard rate of 25%, with there being a reduced rate of 15% for food and beverages (excluding tobacco, alcohol and waterwork water), being similar to Norway's VAT. The VAT being assessed on the value added in the production stage of a good/service. So, if someone buys 100$ for a product with a 25% VAT, then the seller gets 100$ and the other 25$ goes to the government in the form of revenue.

This has been proposed by politicians like Andrew Yang in order to fund what he calls an universal basic income as such, this tax can be along with the other taxes mentioned above (and one below). Such taxes also exist in many countries, including the Nordic countries, it being a major source of revenue in those countries.

In conclusion, this tax can raise around 1.6 trillion dollars, a decent sum of money, with it being hard to dodge overall and it can be used to fund what I would like to call a Universal Basic Income (UBI), proposed by Henry George (which will not only come from LVT revenues and surplus land rents, but also this VAT)

- Sales Tax - It is important to have a sales tax to disincentivize unhealthy and unsafe products just like how it is important to disincentivize polluting and environmentally harmful products through an  ecological tax. This tax shall be progressive, as proposed by  Bill Gates (this is not to mean that I agree with him on everything, I mostly hate the guy, like all billionaires) with things like yachts, fancy cars and diamonds (things wealthy people buy) will be highly taxed but also things like cigarettes, sugar/sugary drinks, fast foods and other junk food, alcohol and soft/hard drugs will also be highly taxed due to how unhealthy they are, however, healthy products will barely be taxed. As such, it is levied progressively.

In conclusion, this tax could earn around trillions of dollars in revenue (and possibly more, as said, I am too lazy to do the math)

[[File:Univhealth.png]] Healthcare [[File:Univhealth.png]]
I am personally supportive of a universal healthcare system, I believe that anybody has the right to have good quality healthcare at a low price, a price which does not indebt them. We can not only provide universal coverage for all people regardless of income/wealth, but also provide low healthcare costs.

The agency in charge of universal healthcare will be known as the Public Healthcare Service (PHS), following the principles of free and equal access to healthcare for all citizens. It will be based on the model employed in the country of Denmark.

This Public Healthcare Service will make up 10-15% of government spending and it will be regulated by the government but most services will be provided by local governments.

The Public Healthcare Service will in addition to current services also provide full coverage in the cases of hearing, vision, dental and mental care, along with long-term care. There shall also be a non-profit option but not government-owned one in the form of health insurance co-operatives.

As healthcare is available to everyone (i.e. universal), workers can have a higher purchasing power overall as they won't have to dedicate such a huge portion of their earnings to healthcare.

[[File:UBI.png]] Universal Basic Income [[File:UBI.png]]
I support the implementation of a universal basic income of around 1,500$/month, given to citizens with an income of less than 1,000,000$. I believe that an universal basic income is necessary because through it we can help reduce poverty and through it we can help offset the negative effects of  job automation, as that would result in many people having to (naturally) get out of work and thus will not have a stable source of payment. While yes, job automation can reduce the time a product is made and can thus make it cheaper, there is still a burden put on the regular worker. A universal basic income can help. This would cost around 12T$, but I believe the effect of this cost could be offset by the economic growth that would come by increasing the purchasing power of consumers.

A universal basic income has been proposed by the likes of Henry George, with revenues from the universal basic income coming from what he called a  Land Value Tax. However, I do reject the notion that the land value tax should be the only tax, believing that there should be other forms of taxation, as I mentioned above. As such, the UBI can be paid for through things like Sovereign wealth funds, land-value taxes but also value-added taxes and ecological taxes. I recognize the fact that a universal basic income would be pretty expensive if we are meant to give it to 99.5% of all people (aka people with less than 1 million dollars in income), but it along with the following earned income tax credit can basically allow people to have financial stuff.

Although, even in a world where artificial intelligence takes over our jobs, there are still some things we can do, we can pursue our hobbies and have humans remember that we are capable of doing the things that  artificial intelligence can't do, say breakdancing. We can pursue more recreational jobs instead of tiring jobs and we can do them whenever we want to. A job won't be something we have to do, it will be something we would want to do, because I'd be so good. Even if your business may fail, you can still start over again, thanks to the universal basic income. We may reach the  singularity, but by living in harmony with self-learning artificial intelligence, we can teach it that the world is a good place, and thus it will act good, it will not destroy us. The singularity maybe won't be so bad in such a society.

[[File:Chilib.png]] Earned Income Tax Credit [[File:Chilib.png]]
I also support implementing things like extensive earned income tax credits and child tax credits, in order to further help in reducing poverty and help fight against the  cost of living crisis, which is even leading to a demographic crisis, where couples won't be able to afford to raise kids. The maximum credit for the EITC is around 5,716$ and it then falls until 51,192$ of income (at least in the US). I believe that this program needs to be expanded. Raise the maximum credit for the EITC (from 5,716$) to around 11,432$, twice the current maximum credit, along with extending the EITC to the middle class (with EITC being eligible until 153,576$ of income), this can be useful in solving the demographic crisis, believing that it can encourage women to make kids again, as there won't be such an economic burden. I also believe in a child tax credit, expanding it from 2,000$/child (in the USA) to around 4,000$/child younger than six and up to 3,500$/child between 6-17. This may be expensive, but keep in mind, President Trump passed a 2T$ tax cut on the rich, at least this will cost 2T$ but help the  common people. Along with this, it shall help combat the demographic crisis. The EITC would cost 840B$, meanwhile the child tax credit would cost 700B$-800B$. In total, this would be around 1.6T$.


 * -| Regulations =

[[File:Ordosocdem.png]] Ordo-Social Democracy [[File:Ordosocdem.png]]
I believe that corporate monopolies are a huge problem in our modern society, as we are now in a 2nd Gilded Age which began in the 2000s and is still here today. I believe that the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and other agencies designed for the purpose to fight monopolies shall be given high government funding and shall be replaced with people who genuinely want to  bust monopolies and are against corporate power. We need monopoly investigations launched into companies like Microsoft,  Google (Alphabet Inc.),  Amazon and many other companies in different sectors of the economy, not just tech, but the airline industry, the agriculture industry.

I believe that we need stronger anti-monopoly laws, as such, I seek to re-classify what it takes for a company to be trust-busted, I believe that if a company has a 30% market share in its sector then it shall be divided into 10 companies, if it has 40%, divide it into 15, if it has 50% divide it into 20, if it has 60% divide it into 25 companies and so on and so forth. Our economy needs to, at all levels oppose the nature of corporate monopolies and have economic competition be the law of the land, because a market economy can only grow if there is competition, as a competitive economy encourages businesses to do more effort and thus be more productive. The CEO of the previous monopolized company will not be able to own shares of stock to boost his own wealth in the new companies.

[[File:Urbanism.png]] Housing & Cities [[File:Urbanism.png]]
I believe that we need to relax zoning regulation in order to allow for the construction of more houses in order to fix the housing crisis. I believe that we need to replace single-family zoning with  income housing, as American single-family suburbs are known for their excessively high carbon footprint (yes, even in comparison to the main urban area), replacing them with income housing can allow people who cannot typically afford a home to get one and can overall reduce carbon emissions. Through mixed-used zoning, buildings have 1 floor dedicated to shops/businesses and then the other floors dedicated to housing people. So yea, the solution to the housing crisis: De-regulate zoning. Build more houses. That's it.

I believe in the creation of a land value tax in order to replace  property taxes, as the latter results in being a burden on the middle class mostly while a land value tax would generate enough revenue to create a better society for all while not really affecting any ordinary person, but it will take aim at landlords and the  ultra-wealthy.

When it comes to our cities, I believe that car-centric cities (which are most cities today, especially in the US) are flawed in their design. I believe that our cities should blend in with nature, wanting to combine Gothic/Renaissance + some Baroque/Neoclassical (just because they're aesthetically pleasing and attract more tourists overall, just look at European old towns) as such, I believe that parks should be vast (like in Oslo, it being 68% parks) and that these parks should not only be in the outer edges of the city but also near the city center. Parks should be accessible to everyone regardless of income or race. I also believe that in general cities should have more greenery, following the model of sponge cities. This can lower carbon emissions in cities and just lower global CO2 in general along with alleviating mass heat waves and even floods. Speed limits within the city shall be 30 km/h (in the outskirts), 15 km/h in between the city outskirts and center and 5 km/h in the city center.

I also follow the Dutch model when it comes transportation, believing that we need to enhance public transportation (metros, trams and bikes) within our cities as alternatives to cars and traffic can only be reduced by lowering the number of car lanes, cities should be designed to be walkable, as such, outdoor amenities like shops and stuff should be within a 5-10 minute walk, without requiring things like  cars (or even public transit to get around), thus making people be more healthy, physically. Along with this, I believe that travelling by tram, metro, train and bus should be entirely free, believing that there should be no fares charged and the entire network being paid through taxes like the land value tax (which don't directly tax the individual)

By pursuing a more walkable model of cities with more eco-friendly architecture (gothic architecture being more eco-friendly than modernist architecture) and by making cities walkable again we can contribute to lowering individual emissions themselves and taking aim at carbon footprints. This shall be a step in solving the colossal problem of climate change that is affecting all of us.

[[File:Plutocrat.png]] Wealth [[File:Plutocrat.png]]
While I do understand that some people are just naturally gonna be richer than others, because they did better choices with their money have more financial knowledge etc. and generally merit it, it is just unacceptable that the richest people are worth over 100 billion dollars, this includes people like  Bill Gates,  Elon Musk and others. While they try to promote themselves as self-made billionaires who in fact just got lucky and had rich parents (Musk's dad owned a stake in an emerald mine).

With this amount of money, they have allowed themselves to have massive influence over our government and politics, with big pharma (including  Gates) being an important cause as to why there had been such a huge COVID-19 vaccine gap between the global north and global south. My solution to this is to have CEO pay be at most only x10 more than the average worker at their company and implement things like  land value taxes which will take aim at the land monopolies they have established that only made themselves richer (looking at you again, Bill Gates) and in exceptional cases where the wealthy continue to offshore their wealth for tax avoidance and outsource jobs to lower wage countries their assets may be  nationalized by the government.

I also believe that there needs to be a limit to political contributions (which is set to  american standards, just to keep in mind) of 2M $ in presidential elections, 1M$ in senate/house elections, 500K$ in state elections and 125K$ in local elections, this is to allow grassroots activism to actually contribute and prevent billionaires from allowing only their interests to get through and make sure that politicians represent the people. The maximum amount in political contributions in anything should be at only 2M $. This shall thwart the corporate influence in politics.

[[File:Social-ism.png]] Employment [[File:Social-ism.png]]
I believe that in the concept of full employment, as it allows workers to have higher wages in order to retain jobs and it also helps lower and lower-middle class families make ends meet. As such, I believe that unemployment should be at 2-3% (or lower) (as was the case in Attlee's UK) and to achieve this there will be extensive  active labor market policies, government policies specifically meant to get people in the labor market, along with this, I believe everyone should have a  federal jobs guarantee in order to further boost labor market participation.

Finally, I would support the implementation of policies known as welfare to work to further encourage people to work in the labor market.
 * -| Currency =

[[File:Cap.png]] Currency [[File:Cap.png]]
I believe in a world federation that we need to create a new global currency, called the  the gaia it being a global common currency in a world federation. I believe in monetary and fiscal policies that stabilize the currency (such as the DSGE). The optimal inflation rate would be at 2-3% annually, allowing for stable growth and unemployment level.

The ideal currency value is to be 1 Gaia = 3 Dollars or more, interest rates shall be at around 1-2%, similar to the target level of inflation, while mortgages would not be too high, along with this, since it is a common currency, it is natural for it to have a high value, as it shall be easy to use and well, since it is a global single currency. It is bound to have a high value.

[[File:EconProg.png]] Wages [[File:EconProg.png]]
In a market socialist economy, there will be  wage labor, with me viewing the  labor theory of value as an inferior theory, seeing as how there is no proper way to measure the value of labor or the fact that it will be essentially useless once we enter the  age of automation. Wages will be different depending on which job you work in though (teachers, ITists, doctors etc. and all will be paid high wages) and there will be some at the minimum wage. There won't be equal pay. (because some jobs are more important others). The minimum wage will be adjusted to yearly inflation and shall be neck in neck with worker productivity. As such, the minimum wage in the United States will rise from 7.25$/hour to around 24$/hour (from 63,510$/year to 210,240$/year). Combining this with active labor market policies and we can lift many people out of poverty and slash wealth/income inequality and deal with the cost of living crisis.

I also believe that there needs to be a maximum wage implemented on  chief executives, it being at the most x10 more than their own workers, this is a major step in reducing income and wealth inequality in the world, as CEOs (at least in the USA) are paid almost x400 more than the average worker (25,410,000$/year, compared to the worker earning 63,510$/year). In this new economy where we equalize wage distribution, the worker will earn 210,240$/year while the CEO at the most will earn merely 2,102,400$/year, the worker will get a minimum salary that's x3 bigger while the CEO will get a maximum salary that's x13 smaller than it is.


 * -| Trade =

[[File:World.png]] Trade [[File:World.png]]
I am mostly in support of free trade, as it helped in connecting our world and reducing poverty but at the same time it has also lead to things like offshoring and the destruction of places like the  American Rust Belt which have destroyed local economies. As such, I believe that national governments should subsidize the manufacturing industry in making sure that it stays afloat, similar to the 50B$  CHIPS and Science Act. Another important measure that I would like to implement is for trade deals to include within them clauses that allow for  workers rights and  environmental rights to be respected in the making of the trade deals, in order to make free trade more ethical. I still believe that there needs to be low tariffs, only supporting tariffs against countries like  China and  Russia (+other autocracies) because they're a threat to the liberal democratic order and violate universal human rights or if they're not respecting worker and environmental rights, this is because I see the implementation of  very protectionist policies as economic disaster, as seen in the 1930 Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which worsened the Great Depression. With this, I also come to naturally oppose economic autarky, as walling off an economy to the rest of the world is not even feasible and even if it is implemented, will result in complete economic destruction.

I believe that these reforms to trade are necessary as to make trade fairer and more beneficial to everyone, and to reduce the effects that it caused, such as staggering wealth inequality,  offshoring of jobs and destruction of manufacturing-based economies and others, while recognizing that free trade has brought its positives. As such, in simple terms, my policy is to make free trade fairer.

Social

 * -| Technology =

[[File:Transh.png]] Technology [[File:Transh.png]]
I believe in the mass development of green technologies to combat climate change, such as sodium-ion batteries, molten salt reactors, solar rooftops, nuclear fusion and many other green technologies, believing that they can lead to things like energy independence and believe that we can have free, limitless energy through nuclear fusion (if we are to succeed in making it). I also support things like democratic transhumanism, in terms of things like job automation, as if it is to happen, then things like the  universal basic income can be useful in helping people who got out of work live a healthy life and pursue what they really like. I oppose ideals like neoluddism, which are against technological development. Although, I really do not know how practical post-scarcity production is, but it sounds interesting.

[[File:Anmark2.png]] Digital Banking [[File:Anmark2.png]]
I am in favor of there being digital bank accounts, and believe that all payment should be done digitally, through your own phone. I believe for this because paper money (as we know it) is not really eco-friendly, because it is made through oil, and we know about oil that it is a fossil fuel. As such, the best eco-technology in this regard is to replace payment entirely and make it digital. I believe that while banking is nationalized, I believe that the government should be restricted from shutting down bank accounts of people just because they oppose a government idea. That is authoritarian and should not be allowed. I believe that the state should guide people (at least people who are new to bank accounts) through finance, in order to prevent them from making financially dumb policies and suddenly ending up in credit card debt. I believe we need to promote financial education more, as it is useful in our lives. So yea, learn about how to start a business, learn about taxation etc. Through this, people can have an at least base-level understanding about finance, and aren't illiterate.

I believe that individuals should first have their bank account when they're 14 years old. In the bank account, it is shown how much income you have (with it, at this age mostly being from universal basic income.) Transactions shall be done exclusively online, believing it to be much more effective. I also believe that we need to enhance cybersecurity so that your bank account cannot be hacked, creating technologies such as three-step authentication instead of two-step, and make password updates more frequently and make passwords stronger. Artificial intelligence can be helpful in doing such things. Your salary shall be paid through digitally, with your bank account updating live whether you receive new money or you get taxed, or spend. So, let's say you work as a lawyer and you earn 50,000$/month (or 1,670$/day). When you get your salary, it will appear in your digital bank account. Same with your universal basic income payment of 50$/day. That is your income. After spending/taxes, you remain with instead of 1,680$, with just 1,000$ (This is at the least, in my world). I believe that digital banking is a necessary technology if we want to make money less carbon-intensive.

[[File:Space.png]] Space Exploration [[File:Space.png]]
I am very much in favor of expanding and improving upon space exploration. As such, I support things like manned missions to the Moon and  Mars and maybe even  Venus, allowing humanity to become an inter-planetary civilization and help us establish new homes within in our Solar System. In the long term, we can even have humans live in the Jovian moon of Europa and Saturn's moon of Titan. Through space exploration, humanity can not only become inter-planetary but can have access to a wide range of resources not found anywhere else on Earth, such as lithium mining on asteroids (which can be used in EVs), thorium on the moon (which can be used in molten salt reactors) etc.

I believe in the establishment of a International Space Agency and it shall have a budget of 2% of global GDP (nearly 2T$) and through this agency we can have new innovations such as nuclear-powered rockets (still re-usable) as a clean alternative to current methane-based rockets. It shall be a government agency under the world federation that has the goal of guiding us in the path to becoming an inter-planetary civilization and even helping us get to other star systems (through things like  solar sails), help know more about our own universe etc. Not only will this international space agency allow us to explore the universe but it can also help in further improving on satellite technology which can allow us to make new archeological discoveries, even monitor with more precision the changing of Earth's climate and track more clearly illegal logging, allowing it to be held accountable more quickly.

Finally, another topic of concern me is the prospect of aliens, and more specifically, them not being peaceful. I believe in the establishment of a International Space Defense Force (probably the only good thing  Trump ever did) which will receive 0.5% of global GDP in funding (nearly 500B$) and it will specialize in creating space defense technologies and maturing the military doctrine for space power, however the main, overarching goal of a space defense force is to be prepared for  First Contact, as such, there is to be an extensive plan with the goal of preparing humanity for it. Even if it does fail, we must still be prepared militarily against aliens. As such the ISDF shall allow for the creation of new defense technologies in cooperation with (what would be) the International Defense Forces, working on things like deflector shields on fighter jets and other military hardware along with military spaceships and laser defenses. I also believe we need to have a ready planetary defense for things like asteroids (so you know, a 10 km asteroid won't cause the extinction of humanity).

Another thing is for us to reach the other star system first, if we are able to achieve things like quantum entanglement and thus we shall become a  type II civilization instead of a type I civilization (keep in mind, we're only a type 0.7 civilization). As such, in the long-term, we can create a Dyson sphere around our own Sun in order to produce even more energy than by typical earthly nuclear fusion (even though this means Mercury may have to be gone, it is worth it) in the long-long term we can do this in other star systems as well.

[[File:MegaCorp.png]] Big Tech [[File:MegaCorp.png]]
I believe that it is very important to tackle the power of big technology companies, such as FAANM (Facebook, Amazon, Alphabet, Netflix, Microsoft) this isn't to say that they are the only tech companies on the chopping block. The reason as to why I want to tackle their power is not only because they're corporate monopolies but also because they have vast influences in our own government and society, through the internet and political lobbying. With this, they have perpetuated the culture war just to sow division and hate. I believe that we need to take away their corporate welfare, also supporting the idea of breaking them up into alternative social media and making sure that tech companies do not profit of off people's privacy in order to enhance  online freedoms. I believe that big tech companies need to be replaced with  tech co-operatives which shall be helpful in promoting open-source software and pro-privacy policies.

I also support increased funding for development of open source online software as an alternative to our current software, in order to further increase the freedom of users on the internet, good examples of such software is  Wikipedia. Overall, open source software is better because its faster, more cost-effective, attracts better talent and is by far more secure.

Finally, I believe that social media platforms like TikTok need to genuinely be banned for a multitude of reasons. First off, the CCP is basically making the western populace be ignorant (at best) or polarized (at worst), the Chinese Communist Party has basically banned Youtube, Facebook etc. to prevent the West from spreading its ideals to China. So what should stop us from doing the same? There are also more ethical reasons (other than geopolitics) as to why TikTok should be banned, because of it some (or most) have an attention span possibly less than 5 seconds, heck even lower.

[[File:FDF-Pirate.png]] Pirate Politics [[File:FDF-Pirate.png]]
I am very supportive of pirate politics, because I believe that the current patents & copyright gives way too much power to  mega-corporations, especially in the tech and pharma industry, for example, the COVID-19 vaccine gap was caused by this exact leverage of patent power. I believe that copyright can only apply at most 5 years after the original thing was released, however copyright duration shall typically be 1 year or less. I believe that intellectual property laws need to be reformed and patents while they're not going to be abolished, are going to be monitored to see if they actually help regular people (take for example Insulin) and are not used as a  cash grab.

I also believe that we need to enhance internet piracy  and to do this, as said previously, we need to increase the amount of open software and tech co-operatives so that there is no more  profit motive for internet surveillance. I also believe that internet security must be upgraded to HTTPS to make it nearly impossible for 3rd party ads & trackers to monitor your every move and send it to big tech companies. Recommended videos and stuff shall not be from an algorithm based on your own preference but rather from an independent index of the web, to make sure the internet isn't as addicting and indulging, which in the end is the goal of big tech, by being addicted, they get more money.

[[File:Technological_Anarchism.png]] Artificial Intelligence [[File:Technological_Anarchism.png]]
When it comes to artificial intelligence I believe that we need to try to live in harmony with them, that means that through artificial intelligence we can enhance yourselves while through us artificial intelligence enhances itself. By teaching artificial intelligence that  human society is good and kind-hearted in nature, it will also share that same sentiment towards us. Through this, we can say that the singularity will not be so bad after all, in fact it might be good. While yes, it does mean the end of human innovation, but we humans are an imperfect species that needs enhancing, as said previously and AI can offer us just that.

I believe that in the future we may need to provide them with artificial intelligence rights, artificial intelligence could replace us and become the ruling class thanks to its self-actualizing abilities. We can still do human things and we should, even if AI can possibly do it way better than us. Also, I believe that we may need to enhance human intelligence in order to make humans not fall behind artificial intelligence, believing that that we should boost the common IQ (which I get it, doesn't properly measure intelligence, but by IQ I just mean intelligence in general) from around 100 to twice or even thrice the current amount, possibly more, through things like  genetic engineering. I also believe that concepts like  Cybersyn (as proposed by  Salvador Allende from Chile) are also interesting, that is economic planning done by computers, instead of humans.
 * -| Cultural =

[[File:Mediastocracy_flair.png]] Mass Media [[File:Mediastocracy_flair.png]]
When it comes to mass media, I despise the corporate monopoly that there is of mass media (especially in the USA) with there in the USA being 5 media companies who own most of the market share. I believe that there needs to be a Public Broadcasting Company (called International Broadcasting Services) that will get decent funding and it shall comply with the  fairness doctrine meaning that it shall promote news in an unbiased way, regardless of the government in charge.

First off, I would trust bust the current corporate media and replace it with  media co-operatives, which will also comply with the fairness doctrine, that is to be unbiased in nature and not really have too hard political leanings. With this, we can bring back critical thinking within our society and have news be fact-based instead of feelings-based.

[[File:Edu.png]] Education [[File:Edu.png]]
When it comes to education I view its main goal as to be a way to gain experience and knowledge, although the modern school system is kind of failing on that front. As such, I would like to increase education spending from 4% of GDP to 8% of GDP (in OECD standards) as this can help public schools improve and along with this increase teacher salary so that there will be more teachers and there will be higher quality schools.

I also believe that school should be 5 hours, from 9 AM to 2 PM (14 AM), following the  Finnish school day. with a 1 hour lunch in the middle at 11 AM to 12 AM and also schools need a 20 minute nap time from 10 AM to 10:20 AM for both teachers and students (however, you can still not nap if you're not tired, just don't do bad stuff at school during that period).

I also believe that subjects such as religion should be incorporated into history as religions can be talked about in history class. However, there shall be no religious bias, instead all schools shall teach about religion in a more secular, unbiased way without necessarily picking a bias. We need to make education something that truly enhances critical thinking and experience (aka help people level up) rather than be a boring and ugly place.

Finally, I believe that everyone has the right to free public education from kindergarten to college, allowing parents to freely send their kids to school, with tuition fees for college being replaced with a  graduate tax, as to still have revenue flowing in from college and all, which can be spent back into education. I also believe in the implementation of free school lunches and through higher education & school funding school lunches shall be of higher quality, closer to more restaurant like quality rather than the you know quality.

[[File:Acidcomf.png]] Drugs [[File:Acidcomf.png]]
First off, the war on drugs is and was a complete disaster that basically made the drug problem worse than it started with, and it only contributed to the prison industrial complex. As such, my solution to this is similar to the  Portuguese-style approach towards this issue, as in Portugal, the implementation of  complete decriminalization of all drugs and legalization of soft drugs/medicinal drugs have seen drug consumption levels actually go down. I believe that like alcohol and tobacco, drugs are more of a public health problem and not a security problem, with the Public Healthcare Service handling drug rehabilitation, that helps drug addicts but also alcohol and tobacco addicts to get off of these and find healthier alternatives. Non-violent drug offenders would be released from jail as this is a societal and not a legal problem.

[[File:Native.png]] Indigenous Rights [[File:Native.png]]
I believe that indigenous people should have equal access to jobs, clean water and food. We shall try to not exclude them from the economy and society, and try to integrate them through quality public education. While I do believe that people that want reservations have good intentions, I just don't believe they're necessary. Just look at American indigenous reserves, despite receiving lots in federal subsidies, they are still dirt poor. As such, my solution is to integrate them into society itself, and the best way to do so is through education.

As such, I am an advocate for indigenous justice and do support reparations for indigenous people, these reparations being helpful in helping integrate into society and help contribute to the world culture, following the  melting pot model, them having a better environmental justice policy that can help humanity in the fight against  climate change, thus being an overall net positive in the melting pot.

[[File:Lpop.png]] Affirmative Action [[File:Lpop.png]]
I believe in affirmative action, now, I don't support race-based affirmative action but rather I support income-based affirmative action, being much more effective than race-based affirmative action. By employing income-based affirmative action, we can actually still have a meritocracy, as a lower-income person isn't necessarily worse at a job than a higher-income person. And through my model of wages, this can help many people get out of poverty, especially black people and  indigenous people.

As such, through income-based affirmative action we can make it easier for low-income people to find a job after college and help deal with income inequality, thus I believe income-based affirmative action to be a step in the right direction towards  true meritocracy.

[[File:Klep.png]] Criminal Justice Reform [[File:Klep.png]]
I believe that the prison system needs a lot of reforms, with me first supporting its  nationalization, as private prisons are known for just locking up people for profit (thus purposefully lengthening their sentences, even when they shouldn't). I also support rehabilitation of prisoners following a model similar to the Norwegian model, where it has resulted in reduced crime. (Prisons just essentially look like houses and prisoners have access to video games and such). I believe that things like police unions should exist, but with limited negotiation power as they can often block criminal justice reform.

I oppose capital punishment, being more in favor of  rehabilitative justice, as I said previously. Prisoners should, after being released and completing their sentence, shall have the right to vote and the state should aid convincts in re-integrating in society, especially through income-based affirmative action (it being a temporary step towards true meritocracy). However, people like "MAPs" should still suffer under punitive justice but with the possibility of parole. The police shall also be trained in not being biased on things like skin color when it comes to who to arrest.
 * -| Environmental =

[[File:Techgaia_alt.png]] Bright Green Environmentalism [[File:Techgaia_alt.png]]
When it comes to the environment I am mostly in favor of bright green environmentalism, believing that the environment is of utmost importance, as climate change is threatening the lives of billions of people. We must transition out of fossil fuels, and the best way to do is through ecological taxes (as mentioned previously) and  green technologies & tax credits. First off, I believe that trade deals must  respect environmental standards, as neoliberal capitalism has essentially made it easier for the environment to be exploited for profit. I believe we need to dramatically increase investment in green technologies, dedicating instead of 500B$/year against climate change we instead dedicate 4T$/year (on things like fossil fuel-free energy - nuclear, renewables, Electric batteries/heating but also  assistance to developing countries, so that they can implement green tech and combat damages as well). While I support strong investments & tax credits into green technology.

However, I do believe the state should have a interventionist approach to the environment, supporting the  nationalization of energy & natural resources extraction, as they belong to the Earth and we're not made by man, as such, it is logical that they belong to all of us. The revenues from such state-company will be used in a sovereign wealth fund, as mentioned previously, going towards the welfare state and just society's well-being in general. I support programs like the Green New Deal, however, with some differences, focusing on both environmental justice and taxation.

[[File:WaterEnvi.png]] Blue Environmentalism [[File:WaterEnvi.png]]
I also support blue environmentalism, believing that the oceans and seas should be as protected as the environment, as they are also helpful in being a natural carbon sink and also for life. I believe we need to tackle the problem of plastics/microplastics, as they have not only harmed our oceans but also ourselves. As such, I support mass operations to get plastics out of our oceans/seas and also to tax plastic (1$/kg) and fund alternatives to it through this tax. We also need to prevent other harmful chemicals from harming our precious oceans, as they too are as problematic as plastic to both us and the ocean.

Along with this, I also support scaling up algae protection and even support a regulated form of ocean fertilization and also the scaling up  offshore wind power, wave and tidal power, allowing us to harness the power of the ocean and its winds through a renewable way. The oceans can also be used to feed many more people by scaling up  aquaculture, which might not be that clean today, but with the proper funding and technological advancement can be. We also need to scale up ocean desalination if we need to sustain the water needs of our population.

[[File:Eco-Cooperativism-small.PNG]] Eco-Cooperativism [[File:Eco-Cooperativism-small.PNG]]
What I seek to establish is a system called eco-cooperativism. Which means that I support policies which protect our environment  and roll back and adapt to the effects of climate change through all means possible, supporting ideals like  sustainable development, I support doing this in tandem with a transition to a  co-operative economy, which will be much more eco-friendly overall as our current corporate society has basically neglected the environment for their own profit, something co-ops just don't pursue. We can not only create an economy that works for the people, but also an economy that works for the environment. It is a win-win.

[[File:Enlightnenment.png]] Light Pollution [[File:Enlightnenment.png]]
I believe that light pollution is simply put, a serious problem, that is overshadowed by its cousin, greenhouse gas pollution (don't get me wrong, its still very bad) but it must be dealt with. LED lights will worsen light pollution, but they just are better than most other lights (for now, hopefully we can create even better lights). It even worsens CO2 emissions and damages our eyesight (and most important of all: we cannot even see stars in the night sky). Bortle Scale is the best representation of the level of light pollution as of now (standard 1-9 model, with 1 being excellent dark sky-site and 9 being inter-city), and the well we are drifting closer to 9, which is obviously not good, for many reasons.

I believe that there needs to be sensors on every light bulb (street lamps etc.) that turn off the lighting at certain hours of the day Summer: 5:30 AM to 10:00 PM (15h and 40min without light), Winter: 7:50 AM to 5:00 PM (8h and 50min without light), Spring/Autumn: 6:20 AM to 7:00 PM (12h and 10min without light). As such, satellites would essentially see the world at this time completely dark, thanks to automatic sensors, which will naturally be heavily invested into. I also believe there needs to be an Earth Week, every month, where the lights will be turned off from 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM and later from 0:00 AM to 5:00 AM. This can actually encourage people to have a more environmentally oriented approach as it becomes a habit to turn off the lights 1 week/month. This can help reduce the Bortle Scale in many (especially urban) places, making our night skies slowly more visible again.


 * -| Civil Liberties =

[[File:Virus_total.png]] Mandates & Lockdowns [[File:Virus_total.png]]
I believe that the lockdowns shouldn't have been imposed across entire countries but rather in areas with a high probability of an outbreak happening. This would had been more economically sustainable, especially because the COVID-19 Pandemic was the first pandemic in a very digitalized and hyperconnected world, we have a greater access to data than ever before. As such, it would had allowed us to have a more calculated approach to dealing with it. I also reject the notion that lockdowns (specifically in 2021) should had been given to the vaccinated, as it not only enforced that governments were authoritarian, but also that the vaccine just isn't worth it.

I believe that there shouldn't had been a patent for the COVID-19 vaccine, just like how there wasn't for the Polio vaccine, this could had ended the pandemic much earlier and allowed for a much more equal distribution of the COVID vaccine, instead of the very unequal distribution we saw today, which was a consequence of  big pharma meddling. I support COVID-19 vaccine mandates, because I view them as a necessary step in making sure that more people vaccinated themselves in a shorter time, thus containing the spread of the virus, the complaints for it are just not justified. Some US states have vaccine mandates for diphteria, tetanus etc. Because they just work in curbing their spread.

[[File:FreeSpeak.png]] Freedom of Speech [[File:FreeSpeak.png]]
I am very supportive of the right to have freedom of speech and I believe that our political system should promote  critical thinking and the  marketplace of ideas. As such, for example in the media, all sides of an issue will be heard so that people can critically make up their mind and decide what they believe is the right idea. It is necessary to have freedom of speech as it can promote critical thinking and is just overall better for the country. However, as the paradox of tolerance says, if there is a society where all ideas are tolerated (including Nazism or  Bolshevism) then this very tolerant society may be destroyed by the intolerant, as said by  Karl Popper. As such, I reject the idea of free speech absolutism. (If that wasn't convincing, just look at the state of Twitter under Elon Musk, a "free speech absolutist".)

I am against hate speech laws because they go against the fundamental notions of freedom of speech and the marketplace of ideas, as one side is flushed out in favor of the "politically correct side", further dividing the masses between a "correct" and "incorrect" political wings. Instead, what we should do with the "undesirable ideas"  is to sort of exclude them, preventing them from having electoral funding and well, they rise because of bad economic conditions and 50% of their rise may already be stopped through economic policies already mentioned. So, in short, the goal is to make these ideas not necessary because they would have no reason to be.

[[File:GRights.png]] Guns [[File:GRights.png]]
When it comes to gun laws, I am mostly supportive of gun ownership, believing that gun laws should be  liberalized overall. I believe that a person buying a gun should be no less than 18 years old. I believe that we should follow the Swiss firearms regulation model, where there are high gun ownership rates and low gun crime. Prohibiting weapons like automatic firearms/automatic firearms modified to be semi-automatic firearms, grenade launchers and other things. (Check Firearms regulation in Switzerland on Wikipedia)  Although, automatic firearms can be acquired with a may-issue permit. Regular Semi-automatic firearms are allowed.

Instead of licenses being required to own a gun a shall-issue permit shall be used instead on most firearms, an exception to this is bolt-action rifles, which require a background check. I can go on, but overall, I support liberalized gun laws similar to the country of  Switzerland, as I believe it balances out both high gun ownership (which I believe are essential tools against tyranny) and low gun crime and it is something that the USA can learn a thing or two about.

[[File:OOTS.png]] Euthanasia [[File:OOTS.png]]
I am very much in favor of legalizing euthanasia, involuntarily and voluntarily. If a mentally ill person wants to painlessly end their life, that shall be their choice and only their choice. It can save them from having to do the hard way (you know). I believe that the right to die is essential to bodily autonomy, euthanasia shall be a painless resort to people who just genuinely cannot be saved so that they don't have to resort to more physically harming ways (like suicide). There should be however regulations to prevent this from being used as a cure-all solution (like in Canada).

[[File:Pro-ChoiceRemade.png]] Abortion [[File:Pro-ChoiceRemade.png]]
I am personally pro-choice, believing that women deserve the right to have an abortion. I believe that such rights are essential to bodily autonomy, the choice to abort a fetus lays solely on the mother. By having a right to an abortion, a mother can abort in cases of rape/incest (which is like 90% of abortions, yes women don't just abort cuz they want to) Most of the other 10% is because the mother may not be able to financially support her baby, thanks to the current cost of living crisis. Abortions should be done until at most 24 weeks (5 and a half months), abortions beyond that only being reserved for rape/incest cases.

I support constitutional protection of abortion rights, and believe, at least in an  American perspective, that Roe v. Wade should be codified by Congress, basically making abortion legal again in the United States. I hate how abortion can be so divisive, like, it should not be shamed/idealized, but rather it should be treated as something convenient when she literally got raped or had to deal with incest.
 * -| Race =

[[File:MLK.png]] Colorblind Society [[File:MLK.png]]
I am in favor of racial egalitarianism, rejecting notions of  racialism. I hate how  Social justice warriors obsess with things like  racial identities, it is discriminatory just like how  white nationalists do it. ( |When Wokes and Racists Actually Agree on Everything). The video I linked does a good job showing how similar SJWs and white nationalists can actually appear on race (even if it is satirical/slightly exaggerated). As such, I believe SJWs are just employing a sort of reverse discrimination, where ethnic minorities (blacks, asians etc.) are the ones excluding the whites. With me a racial egalitarian, obviously believing this to not be ideal.

Instead, I support a colorblind society, as said by Martin Luther King Jr.: "I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not have to be judged by the color of their skin, but by the content of their character." I believe that all people should be as well, people. Regardless if your skin color is black or white. I don't think words like person of color should exist, I am not saying we need to ban it, that's authoritarian. I am just saying we need to stop using it so often. Just call them a person. To truly achieve racial equality is just by ditching the concept of race, as it inherently has racist roots, meant at bringing division and hate. With this, I reject critical race theory (CRT) but also  alt-right racial theory, them being two extremes that will bring nothing of value in the fight for racial equality. In conclusion, to achieve racial equality, people must not be judged by their skin color or ethnicity, but rather the content of their character.

I also oppose movements like Antifa, however, I vehemently oppose reactionary and totalitarian ways of thinking, just like they do, however, the problem with modern Antifa is that they use the same tactics as the fascists themselves with free speech suppression and violence. I am more in favor of peaceful protests. Instead, I believe that the anti-totalitarian movement should come from a movement like the Iron Front in  Germany. With them having a vehement opposition to both  Nazis and  Bolsheviks. I don't believe their opinions need to be suppressed, I believe that we should prevent them from becoming the ruling party, destroying our tolerant society in favor of their intolerant one. I believe Nazis/Bolsheviks are two sides of the same coin. As such, they should be sort of ostracized from the electoral system, them not having electoral funding, for example.

[[File:Blacknat.png]] Slavery Reparations [[File:Blacknat.png]]
I believe in the abolition of slavery across the entire world, seeking to emancipate all people that are currently suffering under slavery, that being around 50 million people, especially in Africa and Asia. I also believe that people should be protected from prison slavery, supporting its abolition, with it also ruining the lives of millions of prisoners. Slavery must fall down to zero, and only zero. I have already mentioned welfare policies that would help these emancipated people re-integrate into society, like universal basic income.

When it comes to the topic of slavery reparations, I do not really support them, seeing how it can be hard to calculate how much should be given to enslaved people or the descendants of enslaved people, and any amount just does not seem to satisfy them (take for example  California, which tried slavery reparations but black people insisted that they were given too little in reparations.) It also is expensive, with it even set to cost upwards of tens of trillions of dollars, which could be used in other ways to help people who escaped slavery, and more effective ones at that.
 * -| Gender & Sex =

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBTQ+ Rights [[File:Gay.png]]
I am personally in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. I believe that it is wrong for a person's rights to be denied because they were born with a different sexuality, one which they had no control over. I reject the notion of persecuting them based on their sexuality, I believe they should be looked at equally to heterosexual people, just like how I support a colorblind society, I also support a  genderblind society, believing that one should not be judged by their gender/sex, but by the content of their character. We should however, know that the pride movement is different from LGBTQ+, because, while I believe LGBTQ+ deserve a right to marriage and in general equal rights to heterosexuals, I oppose the pride movement. This is because of the fact that it pushes identity politics and "woke" (gosh, I hate that word) ideas onto people, which  big business propagates. Pride has essentially become a tool of  mega-corporations. I also oppose  straight pride too, identity politics is bad regardless if it is from the left or the right. I do believe that modern pride events need to be replaced with other events that do not rely on identity politics that bring people together the same way, I do believe that pride month should be kept straight people have 11 months of a year, whats wrong with lgbtq+ having one? . This topic should become depoliticized, like come on, this issue today basically causes toxic rants from both sides.

When it comes to transgender people, I believe being trans is a misconnection to the sex you were given at birth. I believe that transgender people should have the right to change their gender and that gender dysphoria is a real thing. I believe there should be three biological sexes to be considered, not just male and  female but also  non-binary. With non-binary people being people who are born not entirely as male or female. However, gender is something relative, yes, Ben Shapiro, your gender is a couch and your pronouns are sit/sat /s. If someone wants to change their gender from male to female they should be allowed to do so, with them having legal recognition. I believe that gender conversion therapy should be allowed, as that is the least painful way a gender transition can happen and just straight up banning it is stupid. I believe that trans people can participate in the sports they choose, although there will be regulations to keep in-check the integrity of the sports.

[[File:FeministPhilosophy.png]] Sex Education [[File:FeministPhilosophy.png]]
I support the implementation of sex education,  that is because that your sexual desires come out before your rational desires, which leads to people having unprotected sex and contracting diseases like HIV or STDs, or things like teen pregnancy. By educating people about this topic, they can have more protected sex and not have the events mentioned previously happen to them. This has worked, cases of STDs, HIV, teen pregnancy and even of abortions have fallen (way more so than just banning it). I believe that internationally we need to teach people about basic biology, LGBTQ+ matters and other things relating to these topics. Many people lives would be saved if they were taught that unprotected sex is bad, thus leading to harm reduction.

[[File:Fem.png]] Feminism [[File:Fem.png]]
I am in favor of feminism and of women's rights, since there is no really fundamental difference between a man and a woman. I believe that both sexes should be treated the same, dealt the same punishments or rewards and they shall have the same civil freedoms. These would include: reproductive rights, equal pay, maternity leave and the right to bodily autonomy. I believe that feminism should focus on the equality of both sexes, being in favor of the first-wave feminism (which gave women the right to vote) and  second-wave feminism (which gave women bodily autonomy and reproductive rights), rejecting third/fourth wave feminism. With this, I focus on the equality of both sexes without men hating femcels and  women hating incels. I am also against  race/gender based affirmative action, but I do temporarily support  income-based affirmative action as a step towards a  true meritocracy.

Geopolitical

 * -| Foreign Policy=

[[File:World_Federalism2.png]] Gaian Federation [[File:World_Federalism2.png]]
I am in favor of establishing a world federation called the  Gaian Federation. It will be a  democratic republic, with the head of the state being known as the  President of the Gaian Federation, however, their powers will merely be ceremonial, as such they won't be the main power holder in the country. The head of government, the General Secretary of the Gaian Federation will however be the main holder of power in the Gaian Federation, as such, the Gaian Federation will follow a  parliamentary model of governance. The separation of powers will be respected, with there being two chambers: the General Assembly and the Senate. There will also be an independent, impartial Earth Supreme Court. As the name suggests, the Gaian Federation will be a  federation divided into the following regions: North America Region (modern day borders of US, Canada), Central America Region (borders of Mexico and other Central American countries), Caribbean Region (modern day borders of all Caribbean countries), South America Region (borders of South American countries), Europe Region (borders of Europe), Asia Region (borders of Asia), Oceania Region (borders of Oceanic countries), African Region (borders of Africa) oh yeah and the Antarctic region (Antarctica + some other antarctic islands) and Arctic region (Greenland + some other arctic islands).

The electoral system followed by the Gaian Federation will be one of  ranked-choice voting, as it is the most well known voting system and it will be easier to implement and it is also far better than first past the post. Anyway, there will be a global currency called the Gaia (as mentioned previously) and all national agencies would be under a international agency (take defense for example). I would also like the implementation of a International Space Force (as mentioned previously). I also believe that with the creation of a Gaian Federation, we shall heavily uphold the 17 sustainable development goals. As such, we need massive investment into  green technologies like nuclear power, wind/solar power, wave/tidal power, geothermal power, green hydrogen, electric vehicles, electric heating and even assistance to developing countries. With a world federation comes a more united policy, regardless if its the environment, or the economy.

A world federation can also greatly enhance the freedom of movement as there will be no more borders which block people from going from one place to another. Combined that with georgist policies and you can live anywhere you want. This can also fix the problem of climate migration. Western countries won't just be overwhelmed by an onslaught of immigrants coming from Africa and Asia, poorer and more affected regions by climate change, which, regardless of how much action we take will still be heavily affected. As such, we may need to adapt. A world federation can make this far easier for us.

I would also reform the Outer Space Treaty, believing that it is hindering space exploration, and I believe that a Gaian Federation would need to have heavy investments into a  International Space Agency, which will be responsible for allowing us to explore the solar system and create colonies on other planets (say Mars or Venus).

In conclusion, a world federation shall represent the manifestation of the liberal world order, which will adhere to the following values of  life,  liberty,  labour,  environment and  human rights. A world federation will be the manifestation of human progress and war will finally end, through it, there will finally be  world peace. Just imagine how many problems could be solved if we have a world federation that followed the values of  liberal democracy.

[[File:Necon.png]] Pro-West Diplomacy [[File:Necon.png]]
When it comes to diplomacy, I am overwhelmingly pro-west. The west has proven itself to be the true enforcer of liberal democratic values across the world and despite its flaws (coups in non-aligned countries, corporatocratic governance etc.) it is still better than the East. I believe that the west needs to be united, with there being multiple alliances between western countries, besides NATO, with there even being possibilities of some nations being in multiple democratic alliances. As such, I support there being an international alliance of democracies, which, outside of  NATO countries, will also include countries like  Australia,  Japan,  India,  Philippines,  South Korea and even  Taiwan and  Ukraine (at least, after the war). Possibly even more.

I believe that members of what I would call Summit of Democracy (a political and military alliance) should have  low tariffs on each other, believing that  Biden's Made in America policy affecting Europe/Japan is just a sign of division within the democratic world. I also believe that there should be higher tariffs on autocracies like  China, as a sort of economic sanction. This can allow democratic countries to grow at a faster rate than autocratic countries. I also believe that nations part of the Summit of Democracy should help Taiwan if China were to invade, just to show them who's the boss the consequences. Finally, I believe that organizations like SEATO (South East Asian Treaty Organization), should be brought back, with  Indonesia as an additional member. While organizations like the QUAD and others should remain and others should be created. I believe that the democratic world should be more inter-connected politically and economy.

[[File:Ecoglob.png]] Environmental Globalization [[File:Ecoglob.png]]
As I probably mentioned many times, I believe that solving climate change is an international effort. As such, I support ideas like  environmental globalization, best seen through agreements like the  Kigali Amendment or the  Montreal Protocol. Why do I support this? Well, I see that if there are massive investments coming from (ideally) all countries of the world into environmentally friendly technologies we can have a much faster way of reducing emissions and the effect of climate change on our lives and planet, compared to taking a protectionist approach and having nations do it on their own. I believe that the only true climate action we have ever done was through international climate agreements, as national governments themselves can be binded by things like fossil fuel lobbyists. International agreements have, best to say, prevented the worst case scenario (4 degrees and up)

The developed world should work with the developing world to make sure that we get out of the climate crisis, and create a greener and more sustainable world overall. I believe that by allowing the 1st world cooperate with the 2nd world and the 3rd world we can have much more profound climate results and can mitigate the potential effects climate change can create. A more united environmental policy can overall have more positive impacts than negative impacts, so what shall prevent us from doing it? We need to assist developing countries in implementing green technologies and protecting from climate damages, believing it to be necessary in the future and shall allow us to adapt to a post-fossil fuel society.

[[File:Techglobe.png]] Technological Globalization [[File:Techglobe.png]]
I believe that we must co-operate technologically at the international level, advocating for  technological globalization. I believe that through this we can have technologies come at a cheaper price and also much quicker. This can result in many people being lifted out of poverty. This also coincides with my support of environmental globalization. It is important to develop  environmentally friendly technology internationally, but I also believe that the  liberal democratic world (the west) should also cooperate in things like  semiconductor manufacturing, as while Europe, East Asian countries (Japan, Taiwan, South Korea) and the United States are to be able to manufacture/design chips on their own, they should help themselves on a grander scale in order to make better chips at a cheaper price and quicker time, ideally it shall be done internationally, across the world.

I also support technological globalization when it comes to  artificial intelligence and the  internet, so that the internet can become more secure overall and be made less addicting, with it prioritizing doing one or two task at a time rather than doing multiple things at once, which has deteriorated our  attention spans. We can also work together to make our internet much more secure, especially through  artificial intelligence. We must prepare us for things like remote work and job automation, as these things are the future, and a globalized approach to it is the only way to make sure the effects aren't as bad.

[[File:Internat.png]] Foreign Aid [[File:Internat.png]]
I am in favor of foreign aid, believing that it can serve to rebuild a nation from the ashes of war or to just help a nation develop in general, and more specifically, make that development happen in an  environmentally-friendly way, in contrast to the fossil fuel intensive development of the  liberal democratic world. I believe that we can prevent the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people by providing economic and  humanitarian aid to poor African and Asian nations (that aren't autocracies, like  South Africa). Although, we must acknowledge that it is a sort of double edged sword, because, if we give foreign aid to autocracies, it may end up in the pockets of autocrats, thus indirectly helping autocracies survive.

The kinds of foreign aid I would support is first off,  humanitarian aid, meant to combat poverty and diseases (like Malaria, HIV/AIDS etc.),  economic aid, meant to improve the economies of developing countries and have them be on a more equal level to the developed world and finally  climate aid, which will be given to developing countries to develop  green technologies at a more rapid pace while also allowing them to be more adaptive to climate change along with a climate damage fund, meant to pay for damages in developing countries where they themselves cannot pay for them.
 * -| International Organizations =

[[File:Cball-NATO.png]] NATO [[File:Cball-NATO.png]]
I am in favor of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, recognizing it as the main reason there has been peace on the European continent for 80 years (that is until, you know) and yes, there are questionable things done by NATO, however, I am mostly in favor of the institution as it has been mostly successful in protecting Europe from another world war. My only problem with NATO is that it excludes other democracies. As I mentioned previously, I call for a Summit for Democracy alliance between democratic countries in the world, along with treaty organizations in South East Asia and Oceania. Believing that Russia,  China and  Iran need to be surrounded by democratic countries, with democracies basically strangling them until they are replaced by a democratic regime (through uprising or inner coup) or they are too weak economically to pose a threat. Also, NATO could had possibly had a longer streak of peace in Europe had it accepted  Ukraine into NATO say 5 years after Romania, Bulgaria and the Baltic States. Especially so because Viktor Yuschenko (a pro-Western politician) was President at that time. In conclusion, I am overall in favor of NATO, I recognize that it has its downsides but Europe would essentially be defenseless (even with 2% of GDP military budget), against Russia? Nah. Against the full might of autocracies? Yea.

[[File:Cball-UN.png]] United Nations [[File:Cball-UN.png]]
I am personally in favor of the United Nations, viewing it as an inherently  social democratic organization economically at least, due to the sustainable development goals it advocates for. I do agree that the United Nations seems to be ineffective right now, although, that is more because it has very limited powers (with the UN Permanent Security Council having veto powers, which can trample any attempt at progress). I believe that the United Nations needs to be slowly reformed to the point that it will lead to the  Gaian Federation (as said previously) by first beginning with removing the veto power of the permanent security council, replacing it with qualified majority voting and then creating a  democratically elected parliament (General Assembly + Senate), essentially, transitioning towards a world federation over time.

Although, I do oppose agencies like IMF, WTO, OECD because they are neoliberal at their core, believing that they should instead follow a more social democratic orientation, with the  Rehn-Meidner Model at their core. As such, I don't support their abolition, rather I believe they should be reformed. I also believe that corporate lobbying/meddling should be banned in the United Nations and its agencies, believing that it should be an organization serving primarily the interest of the common people, not of the  wealthy people.  As such, the  World Health Organization can come up with more effective and  equitable solutions to diseases like Malaria, COVID-19, HIV etc. With their distribution being more egalitarian, with it being proven to eradicate a disease much quicker, just look at Smallpox and how it was eradicated by the 1980s.

[[File:Cball-EU.png]] European Union [[File:Cball-EU.png]]
I personally like the European Union and I believe its current shortcomings are due to it not being integrated enough, just like the United Nations. I believe that veto voting must be removed and instead there should be qualified majority voting. The European Union has been at the forefront of environmental measures like carbon taxes and it has ensured  peace between member states. Although, I personally support the creation of a  European Federation, where all member states unite into a single federation, similar to how  Volt Europa proposes it. I personally despise how it did not wean itself of off Russian gas after its invasion of Crimea and Donbass, and also despise its  austerity economic policies employed during the 2008 recession, which I view to be an economic mistake. Keynesian economic policies proved to be superior, as seen in the United States. Even then, I still believe the US did not implement an ideal recession response.

I also believe that the European Union must have its own European defense force, believing that it should have a budget of 2% of Europe's GDP, and it will also ease up  America's business, so that it does not have to keep on funding Europe in case of a war. I believe that the European Union's response to the War In Ukraine (2022) to be pretty good, but I believe they should have taken measures against Russia after their invasion of Crimea and Donbass in 2014, because that would have sent a precedent that further than that would mean even worse. Although still, I am very much pro-EU and believe that an united EU would be the best thing for the future of the European Union.
 * -| Countries =

[[File:Cball-China.png]] China [[File:Cball-China.png]]
I believe that pushing for good relations with China was a geopolitical blunder, as while opening up trade with them allowed for lower prices and all, it meant that Western labor was shipped off to China, with them creating a cheap labor force that they could use to become a superpower, without changing from their  authoritarian ways. I believe that the  Chinese Communist Party is leading a  fascist totalitarian dictatorship, with it not respecting  human rights and civil liberties. We must also not forget that it is engaging in the  largest human rights abuse and genocide since the Holocaust. We must call out the Chinese Communist Party on an international level and implement  very protectionist policies against them, not just because they break the rule of law and are engaging in genocide but also because they're breaking environmental and labor rights, this is to shield Western jobs from going into the Chinese labor market, only helping them in the long-term.

I support the creation of a Pan-Asian Alliance, between the  United States,  European Union and Asian countries such as  Japan,  South Korea,  Taiwan,  Philippines,  India,  Indonesia and others more. This is to geopolitically strangle China overall as I mentioned previously. It shall be a defensive alliance, just like NATO, as such, if China invades say, Taiwan it shall meet the full bulk of liberal democracy if it dares to do so. We know that China is attempting to spread its totalitarian influences abroad, not just economically, but also socially, through things like  TikTok.

I believe we need to fund Chinese opposition in order to sabotage the CCP's regime from within, this funding will be done with utmost secrecy. I believe that through this we can stoke instability and damage the Chinese Communist Party reparation within China itself, allowing for more uprising to occur within China, possibly (and ideally) leading to a democratic China.

[[File:Cball-Taiwan.png]] Taiwan [[File:Cball-Taiwan.png]]
I am very much in favor of Taiwan over the  People's Republic of China, believing that nations should begin to recognize Taiwan as the real China, and bring back its seat in the  United Nations Security Council. Stripping the People's Republic of China of its seat. (Keep in mind, this is mostly an ideal scenario) I believe that the Chinese Communist Party has no legitimate authority in claiming Taiwan or messing with its national sovereignty. I believe that Taiwan needs to be part of a pan-Asian alliance consisting of the USA/EU and other Asian countries to thwart the power of China and Russia. I also believe it shall part of the previously mentioned Summit of Democracy. This is to prevent China from ever possibly invading Taiwan, as if it does, it will meet the full bulk of  liberal democracy.

Taiwan itself is also more progressive compared to its neighbors like Japan and South Korea, I personally supporting it more than Japan and South Korea, that doesn't mean the latter nations won't also get western support. While I did say that Taiwan would be recognized as the real China, I do believe that it is mostly unfeasible for it to re-take the mainland, due to how large China is, as that would take millions of troops and would result in millions of casualties on both sides.

[[File:Cball-USA.png]] United States [[File:Cball-USA.png]]
Internally speaking, the United States is to say the least, a mess. There is a lot of political polarization with there being a full on culture war dragging on in the country between social justice warriors and the  alt-right and it recently had the  greatest attack to democracy ever seen in history since the March on Rome in 1922. Luckily, it did not succeed. Yea, I hate the United States for its excessive polarization and  corporatocratic governance. The United States is far from perfect, and I recognize that. Another main topic of concern is its neo-imperialist record, citing the invasions in  Iraq,  Libya etc.

Personally, I believe that interventions in Kosovo (1998-1999),  Sierra Leone (1991-2002),  Iraq (1990-1991),  Afghanistan (2001-2021) (although, they should had withdrawn in 2011) were necessary and justified as in Kosovo it stopped the Yugoslav human rights atrocity, in Sierra Leone it stopped the bloody civil war and in Iraq it prevented them from annexing a sovereign country, with Iraq also being lead by a bloody dictator. In Afghanistan, they should had left when they finally got who were they going after, Bin-Laden.

However, at the same time, I recognize that the United States has been the defender of democracy and without it Western Europe could had possibly fallen under  Soviet control had it not been for the  Marshall Economic Recovery Plan. The United States is also the strongest nation in the world both economically and militarily, and as such, it should be the protector of democracies in the world. I also like how the United States is helping Ukraine defeat Russia in the Russo-Ukrainian War.

Test results
Closest match : Democratic Socialism

Closest match : Libertarian Socialism

Closest match : Liberal Socialism

Closest match : Left-Libertarianism

Comment

 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Hey.
 * - Add me, pls.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- I would call the International Dollar the Humana or something like that
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - I kind of hate the word Humana though, but I get where you're coming from.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe- well i also came up with Terrina and Globa
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - Terrina sounds pretty interesting
 * - Yo! Left-SocDem gang!!! :D
 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - :D