Owfism

Nihil Sine Profectum (Nothing Without Progress).

Basic Information

Aliases

Authoritarian Geo-Neoliberalism
Progressive Lee Kuan Yew
Neosocial Liberalism (by
Mr_Beast_0f_93
)
Authoritarian Pink-Capitalism (by Ego-Ametismo)
Corporatocratic Social Liberalism
Neo-Iliescuism
~~Limberwisk Model~~

Feel free to add!

Alignment(s)

Centre-Auth Left

Pro-ROC
Democratic
Authoritarians
Georgists
Welfarists
Environmentalists
Transhumanists
Feminists
Capitalists
Internationalists
Culturally Left
Agnostics
INTP-T
5w6
State Liberal Gang

Owfism

50%

45%

55%

65%

35%

40%

60%

80%

30%

70%

Ideological Influences

Influenced by

Authoritarian Progressivism

Social Corporatism
Agnosticism
World Federalism
Meritocratic Capitalism
Dictablanda
Nordic Model
European Federalism
Technogaianism
Secularism

Ideological Information

Notable Theorists

Owfed2

Notable Examples

(These are only countries which are similar to Owfism)

Singapore
Norway
Denmark
Canada
Finland
Sweden
Netherlands
Taiwan
Japan

(WIP)

Influences

Hammurabi (1792 BCE-1750 BCE)

Solon (630 BCE-560 BCE)
Cyrus The Great (600 BCE-530 BCE)
Sun Tzu (544 BCE-496 BCE)
Socrates (470 BCE-399 BCE)
Aristotle (384 BCE-322 BCE)
Marcus Aurelius (121-180)
Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274)
Dante Alighieri (1265-1321)
Leonardo da Vinci (1452-1519)
Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527)
Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679)
Rene Descartes (1596-1650)
Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778)
Adam Smith (1723-1790)
George Washington (1732-1799)
Thomas Paine (1737-1809)
Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804)
Napoleon Bonaparte (1769-1821)
Ludwig von Beethoven (1770-1827)
Abraham Lincoln (1809-1865)
Alexandru Ioan Cuza (1820-1873)
Ulysses S. Grant (1822-1885)
Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919)
Henry George (1839-1897)
Emperor Meiji (1852-1912)
Woodrow Wilson (1856-1924)
Theodore Roosevelt (1859-1919)
Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)
John Maynard Keynes (1883-1946)
Friedrich Von Hayek (1899-1992)
Lee Kuan Yew (1923-2015)
Anthony Giddens (1938-)
Bill Clinton (1946-)
Al Gore (1948-)
Francis Fukuyama (1952-)
Tony Blair (1953-)
Barack Obama (1961-)
Nick Land (1962-)
Justin Trudeau (1971-)
Pete Buttigieg (1982-)
Andrew Yang (1975-)
Emmanuel Macron (1977-)

People's Action Party of Singapore

Liberal Party of Canada

Save Romania Union

New Labour

Australian Labor Party

FUSION: Science, Pirate, Secular, Climate Emergency

New Democrat Coalition

One Nation Labour

Philosophy

Metaphysics

I believe that the nature of existence, it starting with that of the universe was an infinitesimally small, very hot state that expanded in time (cosmic inflation), creating chemical elements, fundamental laws (like gravity), then galaxies, stars, planets, life, the latter being refined through evolution (for biological life on Earth). This aligning with scientific methods, which I think are the most accurate approximations of the truth (since the actual truth may never be found out) and as such I believe them as they have been the best proven.

Now though, how could something come from nothing? Well, there are multiple ways to interpret it, first is that indeed something can come from the absence of something, or you can say that something was created by God, this very powerful being that is impersonal, beyond space and time and everywhere, is nothing really just the absence of something, or is it just, as physics says, the ground state of quantum field (its point of lowest energy), what if an infinitesmally small quantum field left its ground state and thus everything was created? That's what I believe to be the most likely explanation and it is the one that we have managed to make the most progress on in proving, unlike. Even if all of them are (technically) unfalsifiable hypotheses as we really don't know how the universe after a certain point in the past.

Everything around us is likely a manifestation of this quantum realm, where for example a particles position is uncertain until we observe it (superposition), or entanglement, where two particles can link together regardless of their distance in space, which clearly does not seem to be the case of our "general realm", which is just a very large manifestation of this quantum realm, which makes you linking up with say someone from the other part of the world very very improbable, infinitesmal level of probable, but not zero. Also, I believe in three-dimensional space and one-dimensioanl time, with these being connected as seen through general relativity and the special relativity of Albert Einstein, also believing that energy is indeed related to the speed of light and mass.

Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the view that any ultimate reality (such as God) is unknown and probably unknowable, basically I am not entirely commited to believing in the nonexistence or existence of God. Basically, we cannot know if God exists or not, so why do I come to this conclusion?

Well, theistic arguments that are meant to prove God exists fall into two categories: Either they are just wrong and do not prove God, for example: the ontological argument, which states that God is the greatest concept ever, the fact that it doesn't exist is not so great, therefore God must exist. It is wrong because God can be replaced with anything, for example a floating island just because it is better for it to exist, doesn't mean that it exists and or they fall towards unfalsifiable hypotheses, like saying that oh God is the most intelligent designer ( theological argument) and that whatever has been made (ex. the Earth) is perfect, but you as a human are not smart enough to get that, its unfalsifiable you can't prove that you are indeed smart enough to understand or this: God is impersonal, immaterial, does not belong in space and time, is everywhere and other properties of this God.

But, how do we know the difference between the God I mentioned above and no God at all, it not being just the universe? Sure, I technically am an atheist since I lack a belief in God, but I consider myself agnostic since the fact that I believe his nature is unknowable is more indicative of what I believe when it comes to the issue of theology. TLDR, The arguments brought up by all types of theists/religious either end up being debunked or are just unfalsifiable hypotheses in of it themselves (like Last Thursdayism, the Invisible Pink Unicorn etc.) which just result in this agnostic belief that I have.

Moral Relativism

Economics

Economic System

When it comes to my ideology's economic system, I believe that it can be best described as a corporatist eco-social-market economy (aka CESME), which is similar to the economic system of places like the Scandinavian countries, but it is also inspired by economic systems of places like Singapore and Canada. I believe that capitalism has proven itself to be the least-bad system, but, despite how much I hate his ideology, Marx was right in that capitalism does have contradictions, but these contradictions can be at least mitigated using the ideas of Keynesian School, as it is the only school which seeks to balance aggregate supply and demand through government interventions in the market and this is a main reason as to why I follow CESME beliefs.

A good economic system is one that allows for high levels of upward social mobility and thus allows even the people with the worst set of cards, but who have high levels of motivation and will to climb the ladder of class, one that allows merit to be the dominant factor in who reaches the highest of positions and who doesn't, but those who cannot become elites can and should still live a happy & fulfilling life. As such, I support measures like fostering collaboration across classes, the bourgeoise and the proletariat, with the government acting as a mediator between these two actors, following a system of tripartism and also of workplace democracy.

Private Sector

I believe that a strong private sector must exist and that most industries should not be nationalized, this is because private firms tend to be much more innovative and much more adaptive than state-owned enterprises and the latter can be more corrupt as seen in countries like Brazil. In most cases, SOEs tend to not really be profitable and as such require government funding to maintain, the Soviet Union was one example of an economy that fully relied on SOEs and it ended up stagnating and eventually collapsing due to the nature of SOEs of being corrupt and slow to adapt. But still, there should still be accountability of private companies by the workers in order to provide for environmental and worker rights protection, also supporting oligopolistic structures instead of monopolistic ones in the commanding heights of the economy.

Some policies in regards to the private sector that I support are the known public-private partnerships, which have proven to be useful tools for job creation and can allow for an economic boost and also can allow for state or private projects to be done in a quicker time and offer greater economic benefits due to both private and state actors being involved in it. I also support privatizing humanistic places like libraries, book stores, museums etc., also having the government working with private companies to offer the best of these services as these can be very helpful in cultivating and improving the human mind and its intelligence level and that under public-private hands, they will be better off and finally I support a form of private retirement pension program similar to the system present in Sweden after its 1990s neoliberal reforms.

Public Sector

Now, while I have spent some of the previous section talking about the downsides of state-owned enterprises (SOEs), I do believe that in some sectors of the economy, state-owned enterprises can fully or partially replace private enterprise and have the services be improved compared to the previous state, below I will outline the following industries/sectors where this is the case.

First off, I believe that energy & natural resources should be under the ownership of the state in a system similar to that in the country of Norway, where Equinor, an energy company, is nationalized and through it can create a sovereign wealth fund which is a great method of giving to your citizens and ensuring generational wealth. Although, this would only apply (at least until I have my mind changed) only to fossil fuels or maybe even other resources, just like how Norway approaches it as it can also serve as a way to hold these fossil fuel companies accountable, reining them in essentially.

To put more detail on that last bit, I want to create public holding companies, which buy up shares of stock in real estate, natural resources and other successful companies in order to generate a very large sovereign wealth fund that will be distributed to the people as a generational fund and also as a base of income and wealth that they can fall back on in case their own ambitions fail, allowing them to continue living a good life and not falling into poverty.

Third of all I want state-owned enterprises in vice industries, these include drugs, as black markets become harder and harder to regulate, I support legalizing drugs and having the state monopolize it and offer competitive prices so that there can be safe consumption of drugs and to also prevent the proliferation of drug cartels and the spread of poverty, which was brought on by the War on Drugs, another is prostitution, with the state operating for-profit brothels, offering good services and competitive prices and since humans are naturally inclined towards these practices, they can be a very good revenue for the state while at the same time people can do what gives them pleasure, however erotic and finally casinos, because I believe that gambling should be legal, even if it can lead to bad things, but at the same time I believe state nationalization is the best way to mitigate black markets and to generate state revenue.

And finally I believe that we should have nationalization of public transportation, a partial one, where there is a state-owned enterprise of public transit that competes with already existing/newly generating private enterprises, with the state owning routes that are necessary, while private companies build new routes. This is a model that is similar to the one employed in Japan, where the Shinkansen trains, owned by the state are in competition with other private providers on things like price, time etc.

Labor Unions

When it comes to the issue of labor unions, I support the creation of a state-owned labor union, it having links to the executive branch and the dominant party. Membership as part of this labor union would be mandatory for all workers. I support such a labor union because it can strengthen the link between the workers, the government and the bourgeois, which can be great for tripartite dialogue. Meaning, it can better solve issues regarding striking workers which can often serve as an economic and technological barrier overall, as the state union can be a means for the workers to express their discontent and thus solve it. Here's what this state-owned trade union can do:

First off, it offers board-level employee representation, believing that this federal labor union should appoint 20-40% of the members of a company's board of directors, similar to a system present in the country of Germany. This is good because it can allow the company to make just better decisions that are more in line with environmental and social needs and employees can also bring in valuable insights to the employers at times and it also just is a great step forward towards workplace democracy, which guess what is favored by the workers and will make them a demographic that will be more trustworthy of the government.

Second, it offers generous welfare/programs, for example, it can offer them lengthy vacations, sick days and even paid maternity/paternity leave programs, it can also allow for employee stock ownership programs (ESOPs) and even result in increases in wages which is good because it boosts aggregate demand which will be necessary in a time where supply will be growing rapidly due to automation and there will be consumers willing to and having the capacity to buy these many new goods, thus boosting the economy.

Finally, as I said previously, this will bring in greater class collaboration and as such allow for all classes, both the bourgeoise and the proletariat, to be satisfied. As such, there will be less push back among them when it comes to the policies of the state and even if there will be, it won't be a years-long debate that results in a heavy economic slow down because of it or whatever, meaning that my ambitions of technological acceleration alongside just reducing inequality, as high inequality can often result in great political polarization, while zero inequality can result in essentially a transformation of society into a hive-mind, even if not directly as everyone is the same, both are horrible and as such its best to just have low inequality to balance the two evils to create a lesser evil.

Commanding Heights

What I mean by commanding heights are sectors that are massive but also important to national security, this includes things like the military, industry, agriculture, semiconductors, aerospace etc. While there have been some solutions like for example the Marxist-Leninist countries nationalizing them all, but I believe this is a faulty solution but they did have some correctness in the sense that the state had to rein in these sectors to a degree. But, the way they did it wasn't correct in the sense that it led to corruption and heck even created the oligarchy that we think materialized after the collapse of say the USSR.

Instead, my solution involves using public-private partnerships (P3s) in these commanding heights, with there being regulation within commanding sectors of the economy like semiconductors, aerospace, agriculture etc. in order to keep oligopolistic competition, but I also support other measures such as what it is usually known as corporate welfare, seeking to nudge these corporations in order to make them more efficient and innovative, this is through tax cuts and government subsidies and also P3s technically, this being sort of similar to the military industrial complex that we know today in America.

Taxation

I believe that there should be fairer taxation system that does not discourage pulling yourself up by the bootstraps while at the same it allows as such I believe in lower taxes for the lower classes and higher taxes for the upper classes overall and at the same I want a tax system that can fund a generous welfare state (alongside state-owned enterprises - SOEs) that as I said gives people an economic foundation to pull themselves up, allowing for meritocratic capitalism. With this, I support implementing the following taxes, for various reasons:

First off, I support implementing a land value tax of around 5%, just like in the countries of Taiwan/Singapore, which would allow for more efficient land use, reduce the culture of higher and higher rents among landlords so that they don't get taxed more and can also act as a sort of carbon tax, an increase in productivity as a better used land means the LVT won't have as much of an economic burden and it can also allow for the housing crisis to not be as worse as the value of the land is directly tied to the value of the house itself and as land values become higher and higher, so do the prices of homes and it also discourages land speculation, which is also a good thing. But, this is the only realistic amount of LVT that can be implemented. Such a tax can also generate a lot of revenue, which is good.

Second, I believe that we should implement an ecological tax, which would come in the form of a 60$/ton for carbon dioxide emissions and 900$/ton for methane emissions. This tax would also see a 0.1$ tax on plastics, it would also see a tax on littering of 0.5$ of tourist areas, lakes, seas etc. and it would also tax the leaking of harmful chemicals and into wildlife-important areas like the Gulf of Mexico, which would generate a lot of revenue and would also force companies to be more innovative and find alternatives to their harmful ecological practices, thus boosting the transition towards net zero by 2050 and may even encourage negative emissions. It is also a good source of revenue in funding that generous welfare state I mentioned.

Third, I believe that we should implement

Welfare

I believe that there should be a generous welfare state, as such a system can help reduce poverty, allow people to climb up the social ladder and can help reduce populist discontent, generated by horrible socio-economic conditions brought on by rising inequality and house prices, bringing in more political stability and unity and can allow for a system of meritocratic capitalism as people, regardless of social class, have a good start that can lead to them to great heights through their will and power. As such, I support these welfare programs:

First off, I believe that there should be an universal basic income, that will be levied at 1,000$/month (12K$/year) and given to every person, it also being known as a citizen's dividend. Sure, it is pretty expensive to say the least, but this income would allow every person to have basic money for not just food but also other habits and luxuries and such UBI can be very useful during the times of automation where there may issues related to job loss and UBI can fix the economic aftershock and jobs fallout that may come from it and plus it lifts people out of poverty.

Second, I believe that there should be an inclusive public housing program, which is meant to provide affordable housing to the growing number of people out there who cannot afford a roof over their head due to growing and growing rents and also growing and growing house prices. Just imagine a smart, but not so rich guy failing to go to Pasadena at NASA's JPL because rents make up 50% of his spending and he has to pay for that instead. Such an IPHP would essentially cover your socio-economic foundation and allow you to climb up the economic ladder through a meritocratic system.

Culture

Diplomacy

Civics

Relations

Self-Inserts

I am judging you based on your ideology, not personality

Friendly

Brazilian Liberalism (///) - You have a very based ideology, combining policies of neoliberalism and social liberalism. Although, you don't really mention decoupling from China, that's probably because your foreign policy section is only about more internal South American politics. While your Amazon policy may be a little too extreme and your affirmative action is not something I really like, as we should only provide equal opportunity, as people are radically different so their outcomes would be different based on their decisions. Still, pretty good and we're pretty similar overall.
Tiberius Thought (///) - We are basically pretty similar, except for the fact that I guess you take patriotism/civic nationalism for a country to a farther level than I do, but yea, we're pretty similar.
Neo-humanism (///)- You're essentially a more right-wing version of me and slightly more conservative, less authoritarian and less internationalist. Still, we are similar overall and as such you belong in this tier.
Adamtheuseless Thought (///) - It's nice how you have a Pro-West foreign policy, but come on your economics are too right-wing, even for me. Seriously? The Austrian School? Also, you're too libertarian. Although we're similar overall so ig that's nice.
Neo-Glencoeism (///) - It's nice how you have become more moderate economically and social capitalism sure is based and so is authoritarianism, definitely better than your liberal socialist phase.
Omegaism (///) - While you may be more nationalist and more moderate than me on social issues, economics-wise and foreign policy wise we're mostly similar (despite you probably being less interventionist than me). Still, pretty good ideology and fellow liberal!
Whiztaleism (///) - While you're more leftist than me and also seem to be more patriotic and also less pro-immigration than I am (at least according to the user page), you still have an overall good ideology in my opinion, your ideology is overall an ideology I can be friendly with.
Aceffism (///) - Yo this is a pretty based ideology! We actually seem to be pretty similar ideologically, and the only disagreements we have are pretty minor.
Aquilenism (///) - Same as above, although our disagreements are slightly bigger, especially since you're culturally center-right while I am culturally left-wing.
Mordecaism (///) - While I am iffy about your heavy de-regulation and very libertarian views on like a lot of things, I like your progressive ideas, georgism and also Hayek ain't that bad, even if I am a Keynesian myself (be more auth though).
BERNHEism (///) - Based fellow technophiliac and while he may be a Hayekist and I am a New Keynesian, I can admire Hayek (since he did have some more social-oriented takes sometimes) and plus there really ain't that big of a difference between us economically and we're basically the same in basically everything else.
Socialist ESME (///) - To be honest we're pretty similar ideologically, even if you do claim yourself as "socialist", especially through our support of New Keynesianism, however I have some iffy parts, such as your heavy support of co-operativism, while yes, they can be useful in some sectors like utility/agriculture overall they are inefficient and proves that the workers just can't be as "elevating" as the bourgeoise, (take the high unemployment rates of Yugoslavia for example), also I am in favor of central banking rather than mutual funds also small businesses just are worse for workers and are less job secure than big businesses and also aren't as progressive, although they do have their advantages, so yea you're on the edge.

Neutral

Aryan Monarchism (///) - You have some good parts, such as progressivism, libertarianism, the nordic model and the opposition to the culture war but you also have bad parts such as monarchism, authoritarianism, white supremacism and fascism. Overall, you belong in the neutral tier. You seem to be inspired by Woodrow Wilson for your ideology, with some differences obviously.
Western Preservationism (///) - You sort of me remind of Whatifalthist (yep that alt-hist channel turned geopolitics channel) and while I do like your pro-western/individualist stances, I hate your conservatism and right-wing sentiments though (also nuclear is based and so is scientific/technological advancement).
Yoda8soup Thought (///) - While I may have a lot of disagreements with you and I usually put Marxists in the hostile tier, I am putting you on this tier since you actually seem to support liberal democracy and are also socially progressive, so yea, I guess you belong in this tier.
Socialist Third Way (///) - To be honest you're not that bad for a socialist, like you do have some good takes on like social issues and all and surprisingly you even seem to be in favor of tripartism, something I like myself, but you do have some socialist/leftist takes that I just can't get on board with (although tbf you do sort of remind me of my previous ideology).

Hostile

Ganzism (///) - Bro what? Primitivism combined with ethnonationalism? Oh wait you're also an anarchist. Yea, good luck bringing us back to the stone age. We all know the clock shall eternally march forward, it is the only way and an anarchist place will always get invaded by a statist place if it isn't protected or just ignored by a statist country (or countries).
Meowxism (///) - You know, I think its obvious as to why I hate your ideology. Direct democracy is based but come on vanguardism? You also (even if jokingly) want to execute anyone you don't like? Also socdems prevented the spread of the red evil and that's based :troll:. Also, John Brown is indeed based! You have some good parts, but overall you're just like any ML, full of many bad parts.
Super-Market-Capitalism (///) - What the hell is this? An anarcho-capitalist? Well, you know why you belong in this tier. Although still internationalism is based although you're way too extreme on the progressivism and anti-theism, like seriously. And you know, I also don't like anarchism in general so... Also you like Hoppe.
Serbian Socialism (///) - You do support land value tax which is great but you also support tariffs, which only increase poverty and make thing worse overall. Also communism is cringe.
Neo-Murba (///) - You're literally a national communist, post-civer, irredentist... Man you really try to combine all of these things. And you literally hate consumerism and other things because its not part of the natural state which as Hobbes said: solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short.
Cyberdelic Egoism (///) - The page you have really doesn't give me a lot of detail about what you believe exactly, but from what I can tell you're definitely post-humanist and technophiliac (which is based) but you use it as an excuse to get rid of the social contract, which sure, can happen in a post-human world without sacrificing the technological advancements we made (aka being like the anprims) and plus as Rousseau said the social contract is constantly changing, it isn't something that we all just "signed up to" and it didn't appear at the same time everywhere. I am really on the edge whether to put you in neutral or hostile tier and the fact that your page ain't finished yet doesn't really help me.
Glorified Communism (///) - You know why I am not going to like an ideology which thinks that crime, terrorism and political violence are overall positive with the goal of driving people towards communization, so communism, you rely on these things to get your ideology done. This is just one example but overall your ideology is something I mostly dislike but is interesting, to say the least.
16384ism (///) - To be honest, the page you have definitely isn't finished, so I can't fully judge you, but from what you have, its clear you're one of those Whatifalthist-like guys, which believes that the reason the world is so bad is because we're "woke" and that the traditions we had no longer exist and all and while yes you do raise some points about problems in America, removing "woke SJWs" will do at most barely anything about them. So yea I definitely don't like your ideology.
TIIKKETMASTER thought (///) - "Industrial society is so bad! The world is so terrible because of it!" Meanwhile, life expectancy has increased all across the world, poverty has never been lower same with infant mortality and thanks to industrialism we have reduced mortality rates in general across the world. Stop trying to make us attached to nature through your ruralist stuff, we were always meant to be separate from nature and industrialization basically cements that and no people can and are still happy, even without drugs and we can only rely on nature when it serves a value to us and that's it. BERNHE sums this up better than I do so...
Altemism(///) - Ironic, you're the exact socialist that Marx would hate with all of his neurons, anyway, first off, you're an unironic reactionary socialist and I probably don't have to explain why I, a person who believes in enlightenment-based politics/philosophy would hate you. Also lol, good luck making Sweden out of all places an agrarian autarky and I obviously hate your foreign/social policy.
Rigby Thought(///) - Your civics are decent and so are your keynesian economics, but that's just where our similarities end as I hate your conservatism and you're literally just Erdogan but with some twists and you seem to have Trumpist social stances at least partially, but still I hate most of your policies, even if they're not necessarily reactionary. CRISPR is based yes, but I think your belief in making people physically tall and strong is just too much and it should rather be about intelligence & will to power, if we're going to use eugenics responsibly in order to create a strong economy combined with strong demographic growth.
Hysteria thought (///) - I am sure that I am not the first one to say this, but you are weird and that is a very huge understatement. No sane human can actually understand what the heck this is so and heck its probably completely at odds with what I want so I am putting it here.
Niiloism (///) - What the heck is this? You hate gravity cuz yes, the EU, you literally love the ideologies of the Brazilian klepto-kakistocracy, you like monarchy, autocracy, cultism and ochlocracy? That's oxymoronic, you support some conspiracy theorist, is far-leftist and is a hypocrite tech-wise? Bruh, I don't know what to say.
Gumballism (///) - What in the actual heck? I really think that these cartoon-based ideologies are all just alts and lol you're just the opposite of an extreme Peronist and both of these opposite ends are terrible for your own country. Also neo-feudalism and austrian school? Yea its obvious why I don't "like" this ideology.