Tiberius Thought

Braun Spencer Thought is the authoritarian, economically and culturally center-right ideology of the Reddit user u/BraunSpencer. It supports the  and. It also calls for an foreign policy which balances liberal values promotion with pursuing  America's national interest. On social and cultural matters it is very patriotic and often finds himself supporting conservative causes, but acknowledges compromise is necessary to achieve them (such as being pro-choice partially to inhibit dysfunctional families and crime, strengthening family values long-term). It is most aligned with the conservative and moderate wings of the Democrat Party; but also prefers the  progressive wing of the party to the modern-day  GOP, which it feels is too irredeemably  corrupt.

Philosophy
I'm an idealist. Reality is ultimately dependent on minds and souls—the only things we can verify ourselves— to interpret them; and thus nothing objectively exists independent of them. Therefore, everything is relative. I admit all my beliefs are derived from personal experience and temperament; personal aesthetic preferences if you will.
 * -|Metaphysics=

My ethical preference boils down to a form of utilitarianism; utility being the absence of unnecessary suffering. Some suffering is necessary to negate an even worse form of suffering; some pleasure will only come down the road after immense suffering. To quote Epicurus:
 * -|Utilitarianism=

"Furthermore, we regard certain states of pain as preferable to pleasures, particularly when greater satisfaction results from our having submitted to discomforts for a long period of time... At any rate, it is our duty to judge all such cases by measuring pleasures against pains, with a view to their respective assets and liabilities, inasmuch as we do experience the good as being bad at times and, contrariwise, the bad as being good."

Therefore the goal is to reduce total net suffering. We must also consider the long-term, beyond our lifespans. This mode of thinking has influenced most of my policy prescriptions. To give two examples:
 * The [[File:AnEn.png]] ecological neglect of the [[File:Adult.png]] Baby Boomers might've maximized utility in the short-term, but severely minimized it long-term through climate change. Now future generations have to deal with climate change's effects (like more severe natural disasters, killing numerous people).
 * While [[File:Cball-South_Korea.png]] South Korea may have flaws—like a high suicide rate—it's obectively better off than [[File:Cball-North_Korea.png]] North Korea. The suffering North Koreans feel in their totalitarian nightmare outweighs the sufering South Koreans feel in their flawed democracy. Were it not for the Korean War, which led to a lot of short-term suffering, the entire Korean peninsula would be under the [[File:Juche.png]] Kim dynasty's boot and therefore long-term net suffering for all. Therefore, the Korean War was totally justified.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Economics

 * -|Summary=

[[File:Cap.png]] Capitalism
I'm a capitalist for the following reasons:


 * Decentralized market economies blow centrally planned economies out of the water, hence capitalism's triumph in the Cold War.
 * Capitalism has generated the most wealth in human history.
 * Capitalism gave us innovations in science, medicine, and technology we take for granted today; raised living standards.
 * Elevates the naturally distinctive individuals to hierarchical positions to society's benefit.

Capitalism suffers, however, once the gains aren't equitably shared among the populace, excess capital accumulation harms workers and consumers (e.g., oligopoly), and markets don't factor in negative externalities like climate change.

[[File:Orlib.png]] Social Market Economy
To sustain the benefits of capitalism while addressing its flaws, I support the social market economy (SOME). Basically a coordinated market economy with
 * Strong [[File:Markets.png]] pro-competition policies (e.g., [[File:Trustbust.png]] well-enforced anti-trust legislation) to ensure the economy constantly innovates.
 * [[File:Soccorp.png]] Cooperation between [[File:SyndieSam.png]] labor, [[File:Cap2.png]] capital, and the [[File:Statist.png]].
 * [[File:Regulationism.png]] Goverment intervention in cases of negative externalities, such as [[File:Envi.png]] environmental protections, forestry preservation, carbon taxes, etc.
 * Public works and generous [[File:Welf.png]] safety nets to ensure all citizens have a minimum standard of living.
 * Wealth caps (e.g., maximum wage) to inhibit excess monetary or property accumulation which corrupts institutions.

I consider myself a corporatist.
 * -|Class=

Labor and and capital need each other to survive. The former needs employers to make the jobs; the latter needs workers to enact their entrepreneurial vision. One without the other is sterile. As such, employers have an obligation to treat their workers with dignity (e.g., a living wage) while employees have an obligation to the business's well-being (i.e. wanting to protect it from failing). We should invest in policies and institutions which promote active cooperation between employees and employers.

[[File:Cball-Germany.png]] Co-Determination
I believe, per my belief labor and  capital require each other, that we should strike a balance between  workplace democracy and the  shareholder model. Management should be both dedicated to the profitability, liquidity, and stability of their company, but they should also treat the workers who help achieve their aims in the first place like kings.

Therefore, I propose co-determination, in which the employees of a firm democratically elect—indirectly through trade unions or worker's committees or directly through elections—representatives to the board of directors. In Germany all corporations with more than 500 but less than 2,000 members are legally required to have a third of the board of directors be democratically elected by employees. For all corporations with more than 2,000 members, half the board must be democratically elected.

This means two things:
 * 1) All decisions made on the behalf of shareholders must account for the well-being of their workers.
 * 2) Employees have an incentive to be loyal to their company since they benefit more from its success.

In other words, the welfare of both employer and employee are tied together.

There have many studies showing that co-determination measures raise wages and benefits, increase productivity, has no or a positive impact on profitability, and promotes growth (1 | 2 | 3 | 4).

I'm not opposed to trade with other countries. In some sectors of the economy trading with foreign countries is a net positive. While we (the United States) could achieve autarky in many areas of the economy for a long period of time, foreign trade is both efficient and (often) encourages  global cooperation. However, trade agreements must account for externalities. Externalities are any economic transaction which positively or negative impacts non-consenting third parties and isn't factored into the price of the goods or services exchanged. Just as domestic trade must factor in externalities, so too must foreign trade. Here are examples of why not doing so hurts Americans.
 * -|Trade=
 * By trading with countries with lax pollution laws (e.g., [[File:Cball-India.png]] India or [[File:Cball-China.png]] China), goods become too cheap since the costs of pollution, climate change, etc. aren't factored into the costs. And [[File:Cap.png]] those who make money off such trade have a profit incentive to ignore the resulting ecological decay.
 * By trading with countries with awful worker's rights—such as [[File:Cball-Kenya.png]] Kenya or, again, [[File:Cball-China.png]] China, both of which have also been caught red-handed turning a blind eye to or directly using [[File:Slaveism_icon.png]] slave labor—there's a perverse incentive to aggressively outsource. Because why pay workers at home a living wage if you can just make ten-year old human trafficking victims make your shoes! This destroys local industries—some of which are responsible for positive externalities like technological spillover—and also destabilizes domestic politics through mass unemployment.
 * Not to mention the cheap labor argument for exploiting alien workers doesn't work since free trade economically develops the parties involve. Eventually those countries will be economically developed with decent worker's rights while our domestic industries have vanished.
 * Some industries are vital to our national security (another positive externality). Letting too much of their operations move overseas reduces it. Take for example semiconductor manufacturing. The intelligence community (i.e. the [[File:CIA.png]] CIA and [[File:FBI.png]] FBI) needs computer chips from reliable producers for their mission. If most semiconductor manufacturing is done abroad, we are parituclarly vulnerable. If [[File:Cball-China.png]] China, for example, went to war with either [[File:Cball-South_Korea.png]] South Korea or [[File:Cball-Taiwan.png]] Taiwan, the technology we need for a World War III-type situation will decline.

As such, we must:
 * Encourage local consumption (like "Buy Local!" or "Made in America!" ad campaigns).
 * Spur local production for sectors essential to our national security (i.e. semiconductor manufacturing and steel production) through subsidies and (in extreme cases) tariffs
 * [[File:Biden.png]] Biden's CHIPS and Science Act is a step in the right direction.
 * Write [[File:SyndieSam.png]] worker's rights and [[File:Envi.png]] environmental concerns into trade agreements.
 * The Trans-Pacific Partnership would've been perfect for this, as it sought to abolish child labor, promote trade unions, combat human trafficking, etc. while becoming tougher on ecological neglect.
 * Add rules against currency manipulation in trade agreements as well.

I support a basic welfare state.
 * -|Welfare & Taxes=

With all the wealth capitalism generates, we can produce optimal outcomes by using of it to ensure every American has a decent living standard. For three reasons:
 * If implemented correctly, welfare programs minimize the suffering associated with poverty (we should help those less forutnate).
 * Welfare programs increase bargaining power among workers—if you live in an affordable hosue you can't lose, you can demand more from your employer.
 * And it's ultimately good politics: From [[File:Bism.png]] Bismarck in [[File:Cball-German_Empire.png]] Germany to [[File:Lyndon_B._Johnson.png]] Lyndon B. Johnson in the [[File:Cball-US.png]] United States, those you economically assist will help you stay in office.

Safety Nets
I feel safety nets can adequately address, if not abolish, poverty in the United States with more funding and inclusion. As of now they're inadequate or don't go far enough. For example, nearly half of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) recipients starve themselves to save money; 1/3 of them regularly visit food banks. And this might be anecdotal, I feel disability insurance (SSDI) is dehumanizing in that it doesn't ensure a decent lifestyle for disabled people in long-term or permanent unemployment while encouraging them to not even work part-time.

Given the natural rate of unemployment—meaning some people are condemned to joblessness by necessity (for the greater good)—safety nets should be so generous that nobody can fall into poverty. So I support:
 * Expanding SSDI so those on it earn $24,960/year ($2,080/month) a year, indexed to inflation.
 * Permitting those on it to pursue work while retaining the benefits the job doesn't cover.
 * Moderning SNAP benefits to make them more generous while implementing automatic triggers during bust cycles.
 * Improving the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and Child Tax Credit (CTC)—not only the most effective anti-poverty programs to date—by:
 * Allowing single workers and new workforce entrants to receive EITC benefits.
 * Increasing the EITC drastically for childless workers.
 * Making the CTC both monthly (instead of annual) and fully refundable.
 * Having unemployment insurance cover 70% of the income made from the job lost.

Public Works
Another way to relieve poverty among people who desire stable work is public works. Not only do public works give job seekers decent pay and benefits often not available in the private sector, but it improves our crumbling infrastructure. Public works also addresses the social consquences of jobs lost to free trade and automation (e.g. the rise in extremsim).

Biden's American Jobs Plan was a step in the right direction.

Healthcare
Private health insurance systems have many benefits, ranging from low wait times lacking in single-payer systems to high-quality care. The United States healthcare system:
 * Has the most prempetive cancer screening in the world, beating Canada.
 * Has the highest cancer patient survival rate on the planet.
 * Is the best at identifying psychological problems in a manner most other countries can't compete with.
 * Low wait times and research carried out by hospitals ensures almost immediate access to treatments for patients, event those without insurance.
 * The United States continues to be the source of medical research and innovation.

So clearly the United States has a decent healthcare system. Probably one of the best in the world. But there are problems:
 * For those who are uninsured, healthcare costs can be prohibitvely expensive.
 * Even for insured people, sometimes the insurance doesn't cover enough, driving otherwise well-off people into bankruptcy.
 * The [[File:Corp.png]] pharmaceutical industry is corrupt.
 * Prices for drugs and hospital services are too high (arguably due to them having inelastic demand).

To maintaint the benefits of America's healthcare system (e.g. innovation and low wait times) we should implement measures like:
 * Make private insurance mandatory, with fines greater than health insurance premium costs for refusal.
 * Include, however, a public option that peope can (a) buy into, (b) will be automatically enrolled in once they lose their job, and (c) is completely free for those of low- or no-income.
 * Implement aggressive consumption taxes on vices which needlessly increase the demand for healthcare services (e.g., overly-sugary products, alcohol, and tobacco).
 * Perhaps we can use the revenues generated from said taxes to subsidize healthcare costs, and thereby reduce prices.
 * Reform patent laws so there's less of a perverse incentive to psuh and market unsafe or ineffective drugs.
 * Better regulate the pharmaceutical industry in general, and wage an anti-corruption crusade against the FDA and CDC.

The public option alone would hopefully result in a multi-payer, innovative system like South Korea, but I would be fine with the  Swiss model with a public option more generally.

[[File:Cball-Austria.png]] Public Housing
I support expanding public housing (also known as social housing).

While suburbs have been under attack over the last few years, I remain unconvinced they will disappear anytime soon.
 * The majority of Americans inhabit [[File:Urban.png]] suburban and [[File:Rural.png]] rural areas—good luck removing them from their homes without a fight.
 * Zoning for denser housing in suburban area probably won't accomplish anything significant (as the data suggests).
 * As we make advances in [[File:Envi.png]] green transportation (like the solid-state battery for electric cars), it's likely car culture is here to say.

If our goal is to ensure every American has a home, the best solution is to expand public housing like the social democrats in  Austria did over a century ago. By constructing affordable public housing—to the point we've effectively created a public option in housing—we will force landlords to reduce rents through competition. If the suburbs aren't going away anytime soon, this is the next best thing.

Sociocultural Issues

 * -|Law & Order=

[[File:AuthAnRad.png]] Anti-Sedition Laws
Benjamin Franklin once remarked "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." I agree, which is why I would've worked with him to pass the Alien & Sedition Acts. You cannot sustain a liberal democracy without eliminating all long-term threats to it. Retribution for seditious behavior is necessary.

Hate Speech
One form of seditious behavior that should be punished is hate speech, which I define as: Inciting violence or advocating unjust animosity in written or spoken form against fellow citizens based on racial, ethnic, or religious grounds. As we become more diverse of a country—and in my opinion by necessity—we must regulate the speech of  bigoted  extremists. Because: What punishment should one face for hate speech? I think Singapore and  Germany handle this question best.
 * When tensions between different races or religions reach a breaking point, social cohesion—necessary for a functional country—becomes impossible to maintain.
 * When extremist individuals hell-bent on destroying or oppressing other groups have the loudest voices, they can deprive minorities of autonomy at the expense of overall society. They can do this either directly by influencing public policy or indirectly through private discrimination, mob violence, etc.
 * Therefore, limiting the speech of extremist bigots maximizes overall liberty.
 * And as of now, the biggest pushers of hate speech subscribe to ideologies which threaten our national security (e.g., [[File:QAnonism.png]] QAnon and the [[File:Altr.png]] Alt-Right, both [[File:Cball-Russia.png]] Russian-sponsored).

[[File:AntiDrug.png]] War on Drugs
I oppose legalizing drugs.

Although I'm fine with legalizing marijuana, drugs in general pose a serious public health risk. Someone who's addicted to drugs doesn't have true freedom either, as they're  slaves to whatever they're hooked on. While I'm not a fan of jailing non-violent drug users, I agree with the Portuguese that addicts should be forced into rehabilitation for their own good. (In that country they have a commission dedicated to dealing with drug addicts, capable of doing everything short of actual imprisonment like property confiscation.) While limiting the demand for drugs via mandatory rehab helps, we also must go after supply. I would the death penalty for drug dealers.


 * -|Sex Issues=

[[File:Gay.png]] LGBT Rights
I support the rights of LGBT people.

I'm personally biased as I'm openly bisexual. But I think homosexuality played a positive role in our evolution.
 * Homosexuality promoted social integration among the populace. Sex plays a social role, not just a reproductive one; which is one reason humans and [[File:Monkey.png]] primates in general are unique social species.
 * As non-reproductive persons prioritize other matters and not breeding with the opposite sex, they assisted in child rearing (caring for their nephews and nieces) which allowed heterosexual couples to safely pass on their genes further.
 * Homosexuality allowed for females—the most [[File:Eugen.png]] eugenic creatures in my opinion, as they will select for ideal traits among kin—to form alliances against [[File:Patriarchy-DiscrimValues.png]] dysgenic, sexually coercive males. Homosexual men also wouldn't take part in such institutions.
 * This may be why [[File:Incel2.png]] incels absolutely despise [[File:Les.png]] lesbians the most. Because lesbian relationships, by virtue of keeping those like the former out of kin selection, had a eugenic effect.

Today, same-sex couples are more than capable of raising the awaiting the nearly 120,000 children awaiting adoption; and they do a great job when they do.

That being said, there are some problems within the LGBT community. The culture of promiscuity common among gay men is a public health crisis; an abundance of sexual partners, regardless of protection use, increases the likelihood of getting STDs. Many of those diseases can be passed onto non-consenting third parties and increases the demand for, and therefore prices of, healthcare services (both negative externalities). As I'll discuss later, I believe this is a case for promoting monogamy among homosexual men as part of a broader socioeconomic effort to promote marriage and decrease divorce.

While lesbians have lower STD rates, they have an absurdly high domestic violence rate. Although I'm unsure how to address it besides expanding healthcare access to include mental health treatment and funding domestic violence support institutions.

Those opposed to LGBT rights often cite high rates of mental illness among same-sex couples, but the worst response to this is to drive homosexuals into hiding (which translates into coercive heterosexual relationships where they can pass on their genes); allowing them to form relationships with each other has a long-term eugenic effect.

As for transgender rights, I'm also biased because I've befriended many transgender and  non-binary people over the years. I've become sympathetic to their situations.

Gender dysphoria is likely a biological condition and currently-existing evidence suggests transitioning is the only way to treat the condition. Removing the stigma surrounding it would also help. I've noticed studies which suggest transitioning doesn't help fail to control for the necessity of bottom surgery. Many trans people I've met don't need bottom surgery, but feel pressured into it to avoid persecution. They would otherwise be fine with hormones alone.

Gender dysphoria is often [https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00049530.2021.1900747#:~:text=Children%20with%20gender%20dysphoria%20often,%2C%20suicidality%20and%20self%2Dharm. comorbid] with other (often severe) mental conditions which we know have a genetic component (i.e. bipolar disorder). But HRT has a sterilizing effect, reducing their reproductive capacity.

In other words, emancipating transgender people and increasing access to gender-affirming care is a net positive for society.

[[File:AntiAntiAbortion.png]] Abortion
I'm pro-choice. Although we can decrease the number of abortions by improving sex education and access to contraception.

As said before, women are eugenic creatures. They select for partners with ideal traits and prompt competition over access to their love. This is a good thing; humans are the way they are today because women ultimately select their partners. Rape, however, allows for otherwise undesirable men to surpass this kin selection process. And what makes us human is our ability to make horrible decisions. (For example, mating with a psychopath in a leather jacket who drives a motorcycle; he might meet many traits an attractive man would have, but his personality disposition, likely genetic, makes him unfit for parenting.)

Abortion denies men an ability to pass on these bad genes. It reinforces a woman's ability to choose their own partners and have good offspring. Those who support patriarchal values oppose abortion—especially  incels and their  enablers—for this reason. Because they want to control a woman's sexuality to their benefit, regardless of the long-term harm of doing so. It denies a man an ability to pass on bad genes.

As Levitt and Dubner demonstrated in their book Freakonomics, abortion was critical in the fight against terrifying crime wave of the late 20th century. Crime rates dropped by the 1990s because the lower classes sought abortions the most. And they still do. Economists have recently confirmed Levitt and Dubner's arguments. But why was this the case anyway? There's a genetic link to violent crime,  mental illness,  low intelligence, etc.—all traits heavily associated heavily with poverty. We can even predict (with profound accuracy) educational attainment years in advance using genes. So of course keeping fertility rates among the lower classes below replacement levels minimizes those anti-social tendencies.

The humanity of the fetus is irrelevant to me. A woman's bodily autonomy over her reproductive decisions, by virtue of maximizing overall utility, trumps the rights of the would-have-been child. I think abortion up to 15 weeks (when most abortions occur) should be free on demand. On the side, we should use policies we know increase fertility among the middle class (e.g., high-paying jobs and affordable housing).


 * -|Other=

[[File:Intercult.png]] Immigration
Ideally, we would have a healthy fertility rate—between 1.8 and 2.1, around replacement levels. But this is unlikely going to happen in the near-future. (But I do have solutions to raise them.) Even if it did:
 * 1) Without a guarantee that we can keep fertility rates around replacement levels ad infinitum, we may worsen the aging crisis long-term. Because we'd have a greater abundance of elderly people and even less young people to provide for them.
 * 2) Even with a healthy fertility rate, you would have over two decades worth of dependents in the workforce. (Unless of course you loosen child labor laws; which is both absurd and politically infeasible.)
 * That means more hungry mouths to feed—on top of all the unproductive elders we're already anxious over—so the demand for food will drastically increase without enough supply, leading to runaway inflation.

So until we raise fertility rates and address the problems addressed above, immigration is a necessary evil. Its economic benefits are undoubtable, making it necessary for sustainable productivity, filling in labor market gaps, fuelling job creation, etc. But we also know ethnic diversity, without a unifying force, reduces social cohesion.

The solution to maintaining the benefits of immigration—which, again, remain absolutely necessary in the absence of native workers filling in market gaps—while keeping the social harms low is to:
 * Keep fertility rates among immigrants below-replacement levels through easy access to abortion and contraception.
 * Promote institutions (like religion perhaps) which unify everyone, regardless of race or ethnicity, and enable cooperation.
 * Push for laws against sedition, particularly hate speech laws, to lock up those who will take advantage of racial/ethnic tensions.

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

That said, the best way to describe my foreign policy is. I accept that in the short-term we must prioritize our national security and economic interests in the immediate term; as all countries, being extensions of human nature, will act in their self-interest at the expense of others. To ignore the rest of the world as countries gain geostrategic advantages they can use to undermine us is masochistic. But in the long run we should strive for a global order which upholds liberal values. The end goal should be a global federation of liberal-democratic administrations—the most effective political systems to date while sustaining peaceful relations with each other—whether they be  constitutional monarchies or  republics.

I feel American foreign policy should focus on:
 * Maintaining the balance of power abroad, denying foreign countries, especially America's adversaries (e.g. [[File:Cball-Russia.png]] Russia), excess geopolitical power.
 * Protecting liberal-democratic governments or those ideologically comparable from domestic and alien threats.
 * Minimizing the influence of adversarial countries like [[File:Cball-China.png]] China in South America (per Monroe Doctrine).
 * Strengthening military alliances like [[File:Cball-NATO.png]] NATO, perhaps expanding it to Asia to guard against Chinese aggression.
 * Promoting liberal-democratic governance and economic development across the planet (through violent measures if necessary, especially proxy conflict).
 * Using the [[File:Cball-UN.png]] United Nations as a tool to undermine aggressor nations and totalitarian nightmares like [[File:Cball-North_Korea.png]] North Korea (i.e. United Nations Security Resolutions).
 * Containing extremist ideologies like [[File:Jihad.png]] Jihadism and [[File:ML.png]] Marxism-Leninism.
 * Joining multilateral fair trade agreements like the TPP to promote [[File:Markets.png]] free markets, [[File:SyndieSam.png]] worker's rights, and [[File:Envi.png]] environmental protections everywhere.


 * -|Current Issues=

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

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


 * -|Historical Events=

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

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

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

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


 * -|Global Co-Op=

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

Political Tests

 * -|SapplyValues=


 * -|EconValues=


 * -|8Values=


 * -|4Orbs=


 * -|CivilizationValues=


 * -|IdeoSorter=

Influences

 * Andrew Jackson (1767-1845 AD)
 * Aristotle (384-322 BC)
 * Elizabeth Warren (1949-present AD)
 * Epicurus (341-270 BC)
 * Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945 AD)
 * Harry S. Truman (1884-1972 AD)
 * Ian Fletcher (???-present AD)
 * Irving Kristol (1920-2009 AD)
 * Isaiah Berlin (1909-1997 AD)
 * James Madison (1751-1836 AD)
 * Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778 AD)
 * John M. Keynes (1883-1946 AD)
 * John S. Mill (1806-1873 AD)
 * John Rawls (1921-2002 AD)
 * Lyndon B. Johnson (1908-1973 AD)
 * Margaret Sanger (1879-1966 AD)
 * Michael Lind (1962-present AD)
 * Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527 AD)
 * Richard Spencer (1978-present AD)
 * Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919 AD)
 * Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826 AD)
 * Thomas Paine (1737-1809 AD)
 * Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924 AD)

Based

 * [[File:OwfBall.png]] Owfism - You're seeing the [[File:Libhawk.png]] light, my friend. Most excellent.
 * - Based philosophically and overall interesting ideology.
 * - We're have rather similar policy platforms and you seem nice as a person.
 * - A lovely friend I share a lot of common ground with.
 * [[File:NSL.png]] - I like your ideology, but if you embraced [[File:Neobert.png]]  on top of everything else you believe that'd be epic.
 * [[File:Uzarashvilism.png]] - I've moderated my views a bit since we last spoke, but I remain sympathetic to your beliefs.
 * - HUEY LONG GANG!
 * [[File:NeoArctoismIcon.png]] - I think we have more in common than in differences now, albeit with some strong philosophical contentions.
 * [[File:Floofelsballicon.png]] Fluffy Thought - A wonderful friend who's basically what I was earlier this year.
 * - We might be drifting apart ideologically, but I consider you a good friend.
 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe - Not bad.
 * [[File:Rocksismicon.png]] Rocksism - You seem chill. I still have a soft spot for democratic socialism.

Bringe

 * - Uh...
 * [[File:Panth.png]] Pantheonism - Ideologically meh...
 * [[File:Fixed_autocrates.png]] Autocrateism - Sorry, but capitalism requires a strong state to minimize net harm. [[File:Minarchist.png]] Minarchism can only work in an [[File:Farm.png]] agrarian society.
 * [[File:ProtTheo.png]] Reginald thought - Your views are tolerable, but your views on climate change are naïve at best.
 * - A rather nice person although I'm not as friendly to anarchism as I used to be...

Cringe

 * [[File:pixil-frame-0(27).png]] New Model Of Cheesenism - We may have vague similarities economically, but I'm not a fan of your reactionary tendencies.
 * [[File:Nazcapf.png]] Lanceism - Your solutions to current problems (like outlawing abortion) would make them worse. Please moderate your views and, while you're at it, get your own art and icon.
 * - I don't know why, but you give me bad vibes. Initiating Directive 7395: Destroy all communists!

Positive

 * [[File:Orlib.png]] - Most based economics.
 * [[File:AuthLibDem.png]] - Excellent political system.
 * [[File:World_Federalism2.png]] - A goal worth aspiring towards.
 * [[File:Imp.png]] - The only realistic way to achieve the above.
 * [[File:Neocon_Distributism_with_helm.png]] International Distributism - Pretty admirable, not gonna lie.
 * [[File:Patriot.png]] - I'm proud to be an American.
 * [[File:NatProg-0.png]] - You, I like you a lot.
 * [[File:JackDem.png]] - Bloody epic.
 * [[File:Lyndon_B._Johnson.png]] LBJ Progressivism - An underrated president; promoting [[File:Soccap.png]] social capitalism at home, sending [[File:ML.png]] Reds to Hell abroad.
 * [[File:FDRismF.png]] Rooseveltianism - FDR and Truman are among my top ten favorite presidents for a reason.
 * [[File:Hillaryism_Sprite.png]] Hillaryism - Having objectively the best policies, I wish every day now that you won 2016. [[File:Cball-Russia.png]] Russia should never be forgiven.

Mixed

 * [[File:Authcap.png]] - While [[File:Cball-Brazil.png]][[File:Pinochet-hat.png]][[File:Cball-Nicaragua.png]] you guys were useful assets against the [[File:Soc.png]] Red Menace, some of the things you did were otherwise garbage.
 * [[File:Persondignity.png]] - Great ideas—and I certainly prefer you to [[File:Hochi.png]] Ho the Rat—but your reckless implementation got you [[File:CIA.png]] overthrown.
 * [[File:Neoliberal-icon.png]] - I don't despise you like I did before, but trade needs to be regulated.

Negative

 * [[File:ML.png]] - It warms my heart knowing you lost the Cold War.
 * [[File:Altr.png]] - Currently America's most dangerous fifth column.
 * [[File:Trump.png]] - The evil embodiment of the above.
 * [[File:Putin.png]] - Undermining [[File:Cball-Russia.png]] Russia is objectively a net positive for humanity.
 * [[File:XiJinpingThoughtf.png]] Xi Jinping Thought - [[File:Cball-China.png]] China is the single greatest threat to human flourishing in the long-term.
 * [[File:Chavismo.png]] - If only Guaidó got away with it.
 * [[File:Chom.png]] Chomskyism - Please go away already.
 * [[File:Civlibert.png]] - A pipe dream.

Comments
Will clear every once in a while.