×
Create a new article
Write your page title here:
We currently have 6,043 articles on Polcompball Anarchy Wiki. Type your article name above or create one of the articles listed here!



    Polcompball Anarchy Wiki


    Levathonism is the ideology of, well, Levathon. I'll work on this more when I feel motivated to do so and have time.


    Economy
    Laissez-Faire
    I view most, if not all regulations imposed on the market as unnecessary and only stifling market innovations and competition. Whether it be any form of taxes, subsidies, labor laws, quality controls, price controls, licensing, patents, lobbying, nationalization, whatever it may be, I view it as a net-negative for the economy. Unrestricted markets and competition naturally give incentives for corporations to improve their products and provide consumers with what they want, as well as treat the workers fairly. Because of this, I view regulations that try to "protect workers and consumers" and shit like that as unnecessary, only raising labor and product costs, as well as reducing competition on labor, which leads to job losses and creates deadweight losses, disrupting the market equilibrium and the growth of businesses. Many regulations just cause the distortion of prices, examples being most taxes(especially sales and sin taxes), tariffs, and subsidies, preventing the market equilibrium and should be abolished. Free markets being allowed to operate without any government interference leads to maximization of returns on investments, as well the unrestricted migration and investment of capital, which leads to higher wages and the improvement of life. I also advocate for the complete privatization of all industries and firms(including welfare and social security), as nationalized industries are less efficient, lacking competitive pressure and innovation, and being very prone to corruption, stifling fair competition due to state backing, which is very similar to subsidies, which leads me to believe that the state should never give out any subsidies. I also support free banking the gold standard, and am against fiat currency, as excessive use of paper currency just causes price inflation and a decrease in the value of the currency. There is also a risk of the central banks using the immense power that they have in order to manipulate the economy. I am also in favor of the using cryptocurrencies, as they have many advantages, such as decentralized systems that do not collapse at a single point of failure, better protection from inflation, and no government abuses of the money supply. I believe that a natural monopoly will not form because it is the state enacting economic policies that benefit certain businesses over others that cause monopolies.
    Gig Economy
    I am in favor of a Gig economy and self-employment, In which independent workers/contractors are hired for temporary positions and short-term commitments. Those who are self-employed are able to create their own work environment and schedule with little intervention from the corporations they are working for, while still able to be productive. There are many other benefits of a gig economy and self-employment, such as increased flexibility, access to a variety of jobs and talent, and a better work-life balance. I also see corporations benefit from a gig economy due to having access to a much larger variety of workers due to the constant moving of workers to different temporary positions. Due to this, I see a widespread gig economy as desirable, and all the taxes that have to be paid by gig workers should cease to exist, as all taxes should be.
    Counter-Economics
    I am also a proponent of counter-economics. I believe that all exchange should be undertaken through voluntary and consensual means, and state should have no say about what goes on in exchange between two or more consenting individuals, as long as there is no use of violence or coercion, because violence bad. I am supportive of markets that are outside the supervision of the state and therefore cannot be taxed or regulated, such as grey(not specifically illegal products) and black(explicitly illegal products) markets. I do, however, reject red markets because the use of violence and coercion is antithetical to ideas of voluntary exchange. I believe that the underground economy should be utilized in order to combat tyrannical regimes, and I believe that individuals should be liberated from any sort of regulations and controls imposed on voluntary trade, free to exchange whatever they please, as long as it is consensual. I also view engaging in counter-economics is great for undermining the overreaching state regulations, the mainstream economy and corporate monopolies.
    Free Trade
    I am also supportive of global, unrestricted trade. Free trade has brought a great amount of prosperity and driven competitiveness across the globe, giving millions access to a variety of resources and goods they otherwise wouldn't have had, and lifting many nations and people out of poverty. In contrast, protectionism suppresses free exchange, isolates the domestic market from the world market, prevents individuals from possessing different goods of higher quality, prevents countries that do not have certain resources from getting a hold of those resources, restricts competition, keeps prices high, add no capital to the country, and hinders economic growth overall. I am against all forms of protectionism, including selective protectionism against enemies and other countries who have opposing ideologies, I do not want to restrict free exchange and global competition, and protectionism against enemies would just increase hostility. Needless to say, tariffs are not good for the economy and should be abolished.
    Georgism
    I believe in the principles of Georgism. I believe that property rights do not extend to land, as land is not made by anybody, so nobody has the right to claim ownership of the land. There should only be one tax, that being the land value tax, which is a levy that only takes into consideration ground value(the value of the land itself) and not the structures that are built on the land. I view all other taxes as theft. This tax is also extended to the use of natural resources. Since land, natural resources, and the like are not produced by the one who owns it, one should not be able to make a profit from it, and if an individual wants to use a plot of land, they should have pay a land value tax for it. An LVT is great for many reasons. First, by taxing the value of the land completely, it gives landlords and rent-seekers incentive to actually develop their land to make a profit instead of waiting for it's value to increase overtime while adding nothing to it, so it helps greatly with the problem of inefficient use of land and speculation. By replacing property taxes with an LVT, there will be a higher supply of houses due to lower taxes, making housing prices more affordable for everyone. I also argue that with an LVT, land monopolization will be less prevalent, as there will be no reason for rent-seekers to keep the land they hold, pushing pushing them to sell it to people who actually need it or will make use of it, leading to increased economic mobility due to others being able to access land and its potential for prosperity. The revenue gained from the LVT can be used to fund a citizens dividend, which is based on the Georgist belief that land and the natural world belong to all people and the profits made from taxing the value of the land should be given back to the residents who made it valuable in the first place. Pigouvian Taxation would also be imposed on individuals and organizations who damage the natural world, examples being the pollution of air and water.
    Trade Unionism
    Labor Unions can be good and bad. One on hand, collective bargaining with employers is beneficial, and is able to respond to the needs of workers and provide them with more rights and privileges in the workplace, mitigate harmful corporate practices, and leads to healthier labor relations along the way. However, the workforce will probably not take into account the effect their demands and negotiating can have on the business itself. Strong Unions can force employers to cave in to unacceptable demands that cannot be afforded, forcing them to increase prices or take losses. I also believe that unions are prone to corruption and allow for those in charge of the unions or a majority of workers to express their needs at the expense of the individual at times. I do still support independent trade unions being allowed to exist, and workers should be allowed to strike if their needs are not being met, although employers should also have the right to fire those who do go on strike. Trade unions should receive no state backing and it should be entirely voluntary to join them. Overall, I would consider myself a supporter of trade unions as long as there is no Cronyism used to give one side an advantage.
    Anti-Copyright
    Intellectual "Property" is not legitimate property and should not be treated as such. This is because it is an idea. Copyright laws are bullshit and all they do is prevent people from accessing ideas and information. Laws that concern intellectual property simply lead to monopolies, which in turn stifles the competitive nature of the market. Another really big problem with copyright laws is that they are abused by parasitic individuals and corporations alike to limit commercial activity and internet freedoms. If an individual or organization has their work stolen, instead of bitching to the government about it, they should instead work to squash their competition by themselves. The state has much more important things to deal with than petty internet drama, and at the end of the day, if you can't protect your program from piracy well enough, that is your own fault.
    Mass Automation
    Automation is inevitable, and that is a good thing. Automation in manufacturing comes with many benefits, such as an increase in productivity, reduction of labor costs, the constant availability of machines, improvement of product quality, and much more. It makes no sense not to embrace it and try to get there as fast as possible(Unless you're a retarded luddite). After automation in manufacturing is achieved, living costs should be driven down enough so people will be able to pursue more of their goals, and more important jobs should be prioritized. The gig economy can also definitely help with the problem of job loss, as instead of being employed full time, they work part-time on many different projects for many different corporations, so work would still exist, but not in the way it does today. I would also encourage citizens to engage in passive Wealth Accumulation, investing in business and capital to revitalize the economy and gain a profit.
    Civics
    Privatized Governance
    My view on the government is that it should be structured as a sovereign, joint-stock corporation that owns a city state and operates its property as a for-profit enterprise. There should be a Monarch-CEO with absolute power and ultimate decision-making authority who manages the overall operations in the sovcorp to ensure that important decision-making is quick and effective, as the Monarch-CEO will be tied to a responsibility mechanism that pressures them to make the best decisions possible for their property. Such a position should be hereditary so there is a clear line of succession, with the heir educated in statecraft since birth so the monarch has knowledge in ruling.. Other positions of power should be delegated to an Aristocratic, Technocratic elite of private investors/shareholders, with each of these shareholders being liable for their own shares in the sovereign corporation, providing financial security, and providing an incentive for professional management and reduction of waste, as the money of many shareholders are at stake. The sovereign corporation should provide services to its residents and accumulate as much profit as possible, with the profits being either reinvested into services or distributed among shareholders. I also believe that Formalist forms of governance such as Monarchism and Aristocracy lead to a lower time preference and an incentive for those in power to care about the economy and the country because they are the owners of assets instead of temporary caretakers like democratic representatives are. If a state is run for profit, then it has no reason to restrict freedoms. In fact, it has an incentive to maximize liberty in order to attract customers/citizens.
    Patchwork
    I am a firm believer in the concept of patchwork. In this system, each city would be its own sovereign government that can implement their own policies free from outside interference. This system puts an emphasis on individual choice, as individuals would be able to move to whichever independent city-state they desire, whether it's because the city state aligns with their views and preferences the most, they believe it is better for themselves, or just because they wanted to. With individuals able to move freely from patch to patch, city states would compete for more citizens, giving an incentive for these city-states to constantly enhance their services, (e.g., law enforcement, judiciary courts, and national security) which would drive innovation as each city-state strives to improve their government services and policies in order to attract more citizens, implementing many different policies and experimenting with political systems, which in turn creates a diverse and competitive market for governance.
    Post-Libertarianism
    Despite being a Libertarian, I diverge from the dogmatic views of mainstream libertarianism, which is that government action is inherently bad and tyrannical. I think that a more proactive government that runs on libertarian principles should be embraced for the sole purpose of maintaining individual liberties and eliminating coercion. This does not mean I support an authoritarian state per se, but I do believe that the state should be strong enough to ensure that the inalienable, God-given rights of the individual, that being life, liberty, and property are not infringed on by anyone, and that social cohesion is maintained. I believe that the protection of individual liberties should be the main concern of the state, and this should be pursued in the most effective way possible. I view mob rule and rampant crime as incompatible with a truly libertarian society, instead opting for an elitist civic structure and a government that works to uphold the rule of law that fights majoritarian tyranny and criminals stripping residents of their liberty. I believe that for liberty to be realized, a state of security must be reached, leading me to support a large crackdown on crime by a disciplined, effective police force that crushes any sign of criminal activity and domestic terrorism. This would ensure that a libertarian government in power would be secure and protected from political opponents eroding liberty if they ever rose to power.
    Elitism
    I advocate for Elitist, hierarchical forms of government, where political power and influence is concentrated in the hands of a select few with expertise and high status. I believe that governments function best when those who are most capable of leadership make governmental decisions, and those who are unskilled and incompetent should not have any say in government affairs. I view Populism as a pathetic attempt to give power to the masses that riles up and politicizes the populace to further their meaningless pursuit against established hierarchies, which will inevitably fail. Populism is a destructive ideology that just gets in the way of excellence in decision making and puts the interests of the masses above all, rendering it a threat to liberty and individuality. I believe that for excellence and liberty to thrive, populism and all that stems from it should cease to exist. I view elitist governments as far more stable than democratic or populist governments, as they don't waste time and resources in elections, avoiding political strife and conflict. A genetically healthy, hereditary ruling class educated in statecraft since birth, making decisions for the sovcorp without interference from the masses is best, as the ruling elite will care for their property and try to make the best decisions possible for the city-state to see the value of the assets they hold increase, incentivizing responsibility and efficiency.
    Algocracy
    Human governance has proven to be a failure, as corruption runs rampant and decision making is slow. I view an algocracy(rule by computer algorithms) as ideal because once artificial general intelligence(AGI) is developed enough in the near future, it will be able to accomplish any task humans can, and even surpass human capabilities. Computers will be able to process information and solve complex problems in an instant. With computers having access to all public information & data while being able to process huge amounts of data with ease, they will give out precise and specific orders to subjects, making it very useful in war, criminal investigation, and most importantly, governmental use, as governments will be able to know all public information about it's residents with the power of supercomputers. Because of this, I believe that the government should become far more automated, in order to ensure that decision-making is precise, quick, rational, and free from corruption and bias.
    Societal

    Philosophy

    Relations

    Good

    Neutral

    Bad

    Exceptional Nobility

    Aligned

    Middling

    Counterproductive

    Godless Barbarians

    Comments

    I am not adding anyone as of now.
    Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.

    Recent changes

  • TheRoseOfLiberty • 20 minutes ago
  • 2005Remember • 45 minutes ago
  • 2005Remember • 53 minutes ago
  • LimSiat89 • 54 minutes ago
  • Cookies help us deliver our services. By using our services, you agree to our use of cookies.