Aurelianism

Aurelianism is a political ideology that emphasizes nationalism, cultural neutrality, and economic laissez-faire policies. It takes its name from Marcus Aurelius, a Roman emperor known for his Stoic philosophy and emphasis on personal virtue.

At its core, Aurelianism seeks to promote the interests of a nation and its people above all else. It emphasizes the importance of maintaining a strong national identity, while rejecting the idea of cultural supremacy or discrimination on the basis of immutable characteristics.

Economically, Aurelianism advocates for a laissez-faire approach, with no government intervention in the economy. It believes in free markets, individual liberty, and the importance of private property rights.

The Government & The Economy

All men are equal under law, or so we pretend, in modern systems no man is equal to another, in western nations, almost always a rich man gets precedence over a poorer one, inequality under law exist based on your sex, looks, connections and even things beyond your control like culture and public sentiment. Inequality is something found everywhere in nature so some such activities found in governemnt are naturally moral, women recieve precedence over men when it comes to child custody & domestic voilence, which is good but also unfair. Even so the government has no ability to reason and therefore can't understand morality, it is only man that can decide what is moral and what is not, under this premise the Aurelian government is a limited one, run only by the best of the best and exists only to protect the nation, provide security and punish injustice.

What makes a citizen? This is a question rooted in the idea of civic responsibility, the notion that citizens of a nation should contribute to its prosperity and stability. An individual can live in a country and be declared a citizen, but does that mean they are truly a citizen of that nation? In some countries it is required that one holds values and traits associated with the nation to be considered a citizen, in most nations one needs to simply be born in the borders of the country or be the offspring of a citizen to be a citizen. (See Jus Soli and Jus sanguinis for more)

In other systems, citizenship would be marked by the ability to participate in civic life. Voting in elections, military service and occupying public offices are just a few of the requirements to be an official citizen.

But in an Aurelian state that isn't exactly the case, my definition of citizenship is simply someone who has lived in the nation for 15 years. Now naturally that also means that no child is born a citizen but only become citizens at the age of 15.

To be a citizen means having certain rights, but also the one simple responsibility to pay taxes, nothing else is mandatory but taxes within the Aurelian state.

TLDR: You're only a citizen in Aurelia if you've lived there for 15 years, but at least all you have to do is pay taxes - no mandatory military service!

All men are simply not equal, a sense of priority must exist, so a citizen gets priority over a non-citizen, priority in court & priority in police response and security. The citizen has many rights and protections over the non-citizen, but the most important one, that of property, i shall outline below.

The Right to Private Property is a fundamental principle in many societies and legal systems around the world. It allows individuals to own and control property, which can include personal possessions, land, buildings, and other assets. It is one that should be guaranteed to the citizen by the Constitution, but limited only to the citizen. Restricting the right to private property to citizens is an essential component of citizenship itself, by restricting private property to citizens, it is a way of reinforcing the idea that citizenship is a privilege that comes with certain obligations.
Limiting property to citizens is also based on concerns about national security and sovereignty. In many countries, private property is seen as a critical aspect of national security, as it allows individuals and businesses to control resources and assets that may be strategically important to the nation.

While in most nations today, public organizations such as corporations, syndicates, and multi-owned businesses also hold property, there are several reasons why the right to private property should be limited to individuals and not extended to these types of organizations.
Firstly, individuals have a more personal relationship with their property than organizations do. When an individual owns property, they are more likely to have a direct connection with it and care for it in a way that reflects their own values and priorities. In contrast, organizations are typically managed by multiple people who may have different priorities and values, and may not have the same level of attachment to the property.
Secondly, organizations can accumulate large amounts of property and wealth, which can lead to concentration of power and influence. When this occurs, the rights and interests of individuals may be overshadowed by those of the organization. This can lead to exploitation and abuses of power, as well as a lack of accountability for the organization's actions.
Thirdly, individuals have a greater level of autonomy and control over their own lives than organizations do. When an individual owns property, they have the ability to make decisions about how it is used and what happens to it. This allows them to exercise their own judgment and make choices that align with their values and interests. In contrast, organizations are typically subject to a wide range of organizational bureaucratic constraints, and may be required to act in ways that do not align with the logical expectation of a business, as by the senseless short-term profiteering made to appease shareholders at the expense of the consumer, worker politics coming at the expense of the workers that syndicates are meant to protect, and lastly the well known and hated diversity quotas, which are only there political virtue signaling and nothing logically expected of a business.

Overall, while public organizations have a questionable but productive role to play in society, it is important to limit their rights to private property in order to ensure that individual rights and interests are protected. By doing so, we can help to promote a more just and equal society where everyone has the opportunity to thrive.

TLDR: Only citizens get to play the game of 'property, property, which citizen owns thee?'

There are very few logical reasons in favor of taxation, but the one i'd like to use is fiscal stability in direct opposition of the inflationary insanity that is currency printing. Taxation can be a good and logically trackable way to ensure that the government has the funds it needs to provide it's essential fuctions, while maintaining a responsible fiscal policy.

Without taxation, the government would have no way to raise the revenue it needs, and it would be forced to rely on borrowing, which can lead to unsustainable levels of debt and interest payments. The Aurelian state shall not have a currency, instead it shall have a trimetallic standard, using platinum, gold & silver all of which will fall under the National Mint's juristiction.

Details

All individuals shall pay a base 8% flat income tax rate, regardless of their income level. This type of tax system is usually, simple and fair because everyone pays the same percentage of their income.

However, in my proposed tax system, there are several clauses that add additional taxes on top of the base tax. Here's how i would explain each clause:

Non-Official Language/Overbureaucracy Tax: This clause proposes an additional 5% tax for individuals who do not speak and wirte the official language of the country. The rationale behind this tax is that speaking the official language is important for communication and integration in the country, and individuals who do not speak the language may require additional resources and services. This tax would incentivize individuals to learn the official language.

Deservice tax: This clause proposes an additional 8% tax for individuals who refuse to serve military in times of war, more for this in the "service by contract" section of the military. The rationale behind this tax is that military service is considered a duty of citizenship, and individuals who refuse to serve may be seen as shirking their duty. This tax would help fund the members military with better equipment, training and related programs to offshoot the "deservice" of those choosing not to serve.

Non-Citizen Tax: This clause proposes an additional 30% tax for individuals who are not citizens of the country. Though non-citizens may seem weird to put taxes on but this tax would incentivize individuals to become citizens, as well track malicious foreign actors in the country. If a non-citizen amasses wealth within the nation's borders and then leaves the country without paying his tax, he is exiled till the due is paid back with with a 5% per annum interest. If he so attempts to reenter the country without paying the owed sum, he may face a criminal trial with punishments ranging all the way to capital punishment.

"Corporate" Tax: This clause proposes a 20% tax on "corporations", or so to say public organizations. The rationale behind this tax is that "corporations" are considered separate legal entities from individuals and small businesses, i would personally classify them as pseudo-governments. This also includes large syndicates, churches, charities, non-profits and other multinationals. This tax would help disincentivize corporate monopolies and oligopolies, ensuring that the majority of the national economy is made up of small business and individuals as opposed to large corporate entities.

TLDR: My proposed tax system: Everyone pays a flat 8%, but if you don't speak the official language, refuse military service, are not a citizen, or are a "corporation", we'll tax the living daylights out of you.

National Mint

The National Mint, as the name suggests, is a government-owned institution responsible for recording the value of the country's money, based on market fluctuations, as well as producing coins. There is no currency but a trimetallic standard, the National Mint is responsible for producing, testing, and maintaining the supply and quality of platinum, gold, and silver in circulation.

The National Mint would be in charge of establishing the weights, purities, and denominations of each of the three metals, ensuring that they meet the standards set by the market. It would also be responsible for minting and distributing the coins or bars on the demand of financial institutions, as well as to the general public.

In addition, the National Mint would be tasked with monitoring the nation's treasury to ensure that the state never goes into debt. This would require close cooperation with other government agencies, as well as financial and economic experts.

TLDR: The National Mint: where the government produces coins, monitors the economy, and ensures your loose change is worth more than the candy you bought with it.

Nations typically prioritize economic growth and prosperity. As such, military policies that align with these goals are wise and within reason, right? Well, not exactly, most nations operated under a keynesian economic policy, or a variation of it, as such their economies are inefficient, this inefficiency becomes worse when talking about a direct socialist economy. With said inefficiency and the Rabble Politics & Rat-Race Economics, as the economy gets more centralized and monopolized and small businesses get killed off, the Economic calculation problem will eventually become critical and cause a recession or a depression in the host country. When this occurs it becomes very likely that the host country initiates a war because of either optics or their misunderstanding of economics. As such aurelian military policy should be suited these facts.

Service by Contract

This section outlines the terms and conditions of a contract between an individual and the state, which, if agreed upon, would void the Deservice tax.

By signing this contract, the individual agrees to serve in the military for a specified period of time in exchange for the exemption from the Deservice tax. The duration of service, specific duties, and the benefits and protections provided will be outlined in the contract. The individual would receive training and equipment as necessary to fulfill their role, and would be compensated accordingly. Said training may be reduced and in rare occasions even voided if the person has received proper private military training, from a private security firm, militia or military contractor.

In cases where an individual is unable to serve in the military due to injury, mental disability, or self-induced unhealthiness like obesity, they will be excluded from the terms of the contract. The individual must provide appropriate medical documentation to prove their condition to be eligible for exclusion. Furthermore, if an individual is called upon to serve during times of war, and they are physically or mentally unable to do so, they will be once again subject to the Deservice tax, and they'll have to pay the tax for every year that the contract provided them tax exception, and the terms of this will be outlined in the contract.

It is important to note that the contract is voluntary and that individuals are under no obligation to sign it.

TLDR: Join the military and get tax exemption, or stay out and pay the Deservice tax - your choice, but don't blame us if you end up broke and out of shape!

Selective Tariffs

It is important to note that implementing selective tariffs based on the type of organization or individual may be challenging to enforce and could lead to unintended consequences. However, defining the criteria for what constitutes a "public organization" or a "private company" can be crucial for the effective implementation of the selective tariff policy. Here are some possible criteria that can be used:

Ownership: A private entity is owned by an individual, while a public entity is owned by a group, collective, everyone, or no one.
Funding: A private entity receives funding from private sources, while a public entity may receive funding from public sources such as government or donations.
Governance: A private entity is governed by its owner or a board appointed by the owner, while a public entity is governed by a board or council appointed by the group, collective, or government.
Competition: An entity could be considered "public" if it has an unfair advantage in the market due to government regulations or subsidies, which create barriers to entry for other businesses.

To verify whether an entity meets these criteria, a process of due diligence may be necessary. This could involve reviewing the entity's ownership structure, statements and documents. Private entities would not be subject to any tariffs, while public entities would pay a tariff of 50% by product/service to domestic market value, and these tariffs must be paid in the domestic trimetallic standard.

The selective tariffs imposed on "public" entities are justified based on the principles of Austrian economics. Austrian economic policy emphasizes the importance of competition in driving innovation, efficiency, and economic growth. However, when "public" entities have an unfair advantage due to foreign government subsidies or government regulations that create a foreign monopoly, such advantages may stifle competition and harm the domestic market. By subjecting these "public" entities to selective tariffs, it could encourage competition by creating a more level playing field. Austrian economics also argues that markets are efficient at allocating resources and prices, but only when they are free from government intervention. When government policies create market distortions, such as subsidies or regulations, it can lead to inefficiencies and misallocations of resources. By selectively imposing tariffs on "public" entities that benefit from government intervention, it could help correct some of these market distortions.

Tariffs are a form of economic defense, similar to military defense. Just as a country might invest in military defense to protect its borders and citizens, it may also impose tariffs to protect its domestic economy. In this view, tariffs are essential to ensure economic stability and security. This policy as such is not so much an economic intervention into the market but an attempt to protect it from foreign interference, as such is a policy of the military.

TLDR: To selectively tariff "public" entities, first check if they are owned by everyone, no one, or a group of aliens, and if they fund themselves with donations from the Tooth Fairy.

Democracy is often hailed as a system of government that allows for the representation of the people's will. However, the flaw in this system lies in the very nature of human beings themselves. Humans are inherently selfish and prone to irrational decisions based on emotions and whims. Therefore, allowing every individual to have a say in the governing process will only lead to chaos and the rule of the majority, which may not necessarily be the best for the society as a whole. Furthermore, democracy is also vulnerable to demagoguery, where leaders appeal to the base instincts and prejudices of the people to gain power. This can lead to dangerous policies and decisions that could harm society as a whole. A non-democratic system, on the other hand, would be less susceptible to such demagogues, as the decision-makers would be more insulated from public opinion.

Instead, a more efficient and effective system of government would be one where a select few, who are deemed to have the necessary knowledge and experience, make decisions on behalf of the population. This system would ensure that decisions are made based on logic and reason, rather than the emotional and irrational whims of the masses.

In summary, while democracy may sound ideal in theory, it is not a practical system of government due to human nature and the susceptibility to demagoguery. A non-democratic system, where a select few make decisions based on knowledge and experience, would be a better alternative for the good of society.

One possible form of non-democratic system that could achieve this goal is a fiscal technocratic system, where decisions are made by experts in the economic field. This system would be based on the premise that those with expertise in the economy are better equipped to make decisions related to the economy, rather than politicians or popular demagogues without any experience or understanding of economics.

In this system, representatives are appointed by a governing body or a designated authority, based on merit and qualifications, to make decisions on behalf of the people they represent. The selection process for these representatives could be based on a set of criteria, such as academic qualifications, professional experience, peer-reviewed publications, as well as a test based on Austrian Economics and the Economists already in government. This would ensure that the representatives are highly qualified and knowledgeable in economics.

It is important to note that a non-democratic system does not necessarily mean that there is no representation or that individual rights are ignored. Rather, the goal is to create a system where decisions are made based on merit and expertise, rather than popularity.

TLDR: Democracy is flawed because people are irrational and prone to demagoguery, so let's have a group of smarty-pants make all the decisions instead.

The ideal nation's borders would be expansive, encompassing the Balkans up to the Danube and splitting off on the Drava River, but stopping before the Mur, continuing with the Drava through Lake Dubrava and Ormoško Lake then following the established Croatian border to the Adriatic coast. The eastern border should start from the Chorokhi river and split off to the Oltu stream then continuing through it and the Norman then Başkale Streams extending all the way to Kurdistan, following south the euphrates river through syria then splitting off in lake assad west to Lake Jabbūl, continuing west south of aleppo until the city of saraqib then south to Maarat al-Numan, Hama, Homs and Al Qusayr to lebanon, lastly including all of lebanon down to the israeli borber. All the Ionian and Agean islands, as well as Cyprus included. With such a vast territory, the aurelian nation would hold significant power and influence in the region, controlling strategic trade routes and resources.

In terms of economics, the nation would have access to a wide range of natural resources, including oil, gas, minerals, and agricultural land. It would also be strategically located between Europe, Asia, and the Middle East, making it a crucial hub for trade and commerce.

Global Competition

The location of a nation plays a crucial role in its global competitiveness, and being strategically positioned in proximity to neighboring countries like Russia, Germany, Italy, Egypt, Iran, and France can provide an advantage. To ensure stability and prevent conflicts in the surrounding regions, establishing designated autonomous territories known as "security states" in the intermediary areas could be considered. These areas would be under the control and influence of the parent nation, acting as a buffer against potential instability and war.

National vs International

National and international can often be seen as two sides of the same coin, or be wrongfully labeled as evil and good by those who don't understand that both national and international are two answers to the same question, that being "Where do a nations borders end?".

The nationalist answer is that a nation's borders end at its physical boundaries, which may be marked by natural features like mountains, rivers, or oceans, or by artificial boundaries like walls or fences, borders which are pressed against other nations. According to nationalists, the state has the right to govern and protect its citizens within these borders and to maintain its sovereignty and independence from other nations.

The internationalist answer is that a nation's borders do not necessarily need to be seen as a hard and fast limit on its sphere of influence or concern. Rather, the internationalist perspective believes that the world is an interconnected and interdependent system, or so to say that the world is "One Nation Under ~~God~~".

As such the Aurelian nation rejects this notion, therefore, it is, a nationalist state.

TLDR: The Aurelian nation is a proud nationalist state that believes in physical borders and refuses to join the "One Nation Under God" group chat.

In a minarchist federal system, the responsibilities of the public sector would be limited to military, police, and courts, while leaving everything else to the market. At the same that means that the Federal and state level governments would have similar jobs just different applications.

Here is my framework for such a system:

Central Government Responsibilities:

The central government would have limited responsibilities focused on maintaining national defense, law and order and administering the national courts. It would have a military force responsible for protecting the nation against external threats, including the selective tariffs policy and would maintain a police force to enforce federal laws & punish criminals that cross state lines. The central government would also be responsible for establishing and maintaining a federal court system that would oversee cases that affect the nation as a whole.

State Government Responsibilities:

The state governments would have more autonomy in this system. They would be responsible for maintaining their own internal law and order, including state-level police forces and state militias. The states would also administer their own local court systems to handle cases within their jurisdiction. The state governments would have the freedom to tax anything not relating to property.

Protection of Individual Rights:

The system would prioritize individual rights and freedoms, with both the central government and state governments being limited in their ability to infringe on these rights. The courts would play a critical role in protecting individual rights by ensuring that laws do not violate the Constitution or infringe on the rights of citizens.

TLDR: In a minarchy, the government's responsibilities are limited to military, police, and courts, leaving everything else to the market - which means you'll have to find your own healthcare, education, and fire extinguishers.

Essential Rights

Natural rights are inherent to all individuals by virtue of their existence, and they are not granted by governments or other entities. These rights are based on the principles of natural law and are considered to be universal, meaning that they apply to all individuals regardless of their citizenship status.

The most fundamental natural rights are the right to life, liberty, and property. These rights are considered to be inalienable, meaning that they cannot be taken away or surrendered under any circumstances. Other natural rights include the right to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and freedom from arbitrary arrest or detention.

While governments may recognize and protect natural rights, they do not create or grant them. Therefore, all individuals, regardless of their citizenship status, have a claim to these natural rights. However, there may be certain rights that are granted specifically to citizens of a particular country, such as the right to vote or hold public office, which are not considered to be natural rights.

Freedom of speech is the cornerstone of our society, it allows us to express our opinions and ideas, to engage in debates and discussions, and hold those in power accountable. It enables us to challenge the status quo, expose corruption, and demand change. Without freedom of speech, we risk falling into a state of tyranny, where those in power can silence opposition and stifle dissent. History has shown us time and time again that the suppression of free speech leads to a loss of civil liberties, and ultimately to authoritarianism. Furthermore, freedom of speech is essential for the advancement of knowledge and progress. It allows us to explore new ideas and challenge conventional wisdom. It encourages creativity and innovation, it fosters an environment where people are free to express themselves and to share their ideas without fear of retribution.

Some argue that freedom of speech should be limited in certain circumstances, such as hate speech or speech that incites violence. While I understand the concerns behind these arguments, I believe that limiting freedom of speech in any way is a slippery slope that can lead to the erosion of our fundamental rights. Instead, we should focus on educating people about the power of speech, and encouraging them to use it responsibly. We should promote dialogue and engagement, and create an environment where everyone feels empowered to speak their mind without fear of persecution.

In conclusion, freedom of speech is a fundamental human right that is essential to the functioning of any society. It allows us to express ourselves, to challenge the status quo, and to hold those in power accountable.

TLDR: Without freedom of speech, we'd all be reduced to nodding our heads and using emojis to express ourselves - let's keep it!

While this may be a controversial topic, I believe that the right to bear arms is an essential component of personal freedom and self-defence.

Firstly, I want to make it clear that gun ownership is not just an American issue, but a global issue. In many countries, citizens are prohibited from owning firearms or face strict regulations that make it nearly impossible to exercise their right to bear arms.

Gun rights provide the ability to protect oneself and one's family. In many countries, individuals are not allowed to carry firearms for self-defense, leaving them vulnerable to violent attacks from criminals. By owning a gun, individuals are able to protect themselves and their loved ones from harm, and deter potential attackers from targeting them.

Furthermore, gun ownership is also a safeguard against government tyranny. Throughout history, there have been many instances where governments have oppressed their own citizens, and the people were left defenseless. By allowing citizens to own firearms, governments are reminded that they serve the people, not the other way around. A government that fears its citizens is more likely to respect their rights and freedoms.

In addition to these practical benefits, gun ownership can also be a symbol of freedom and individuality. The ability to own a firearm is a sign of personal responsibility and self-reliance. It is a statement that one is capable of defending oneself and is willing to take responsibility for one's own safety.

TLDR: Gun ownership: protecting yourself, deterring attackers, safeguarding against tyranny, and showing off your personal responsibility and self-reliance, all while making your cat nervous.

At its essence, freedom of movement is rooted in natural rights, the inherent entitlements that all individuals possess by virtue of their humanity. As such, it encompasses the fundamental right to choose where to reside, labor, learn, or journey. It embodies the liberty to engage with diverse cultures, encounter novel individuals, and broaden one's horizons. It encompasses the capacity to pursue improved prospects, be it for personal fulfillment or vocational advancement. In essence, freedom of movement is an elemental manifestation of the natural rights that all human beings are entitled to enjoy.

TLDR: Freedom of movement: because sometimes you just need to get out of your mom's basement and see the world.

The right to due process is a legal principle that guarantees that every individual is entitled to a fair and impartial hearing before being deprived of life, liberty, or property. This means that individuals must be given notice of the charges against them and have the opportunity to be heard in a court of law before any punishment is imposed. Due process ensures that everyone is treated equally under the law and that no one is subject to arbitrary or capricious actions by the government.

One of the key benefits of due process is that it provides a check against abuse of power by the government. Without due process, the government could simply accuse individuals of crimes and punish them without any evidence or justification. This would result in a situation where the government had unchecked power and individuals had no way to defend themselves. Due process ensures that the government must follow established legal procedures and that individuals have the right to defend themselves against any accusations.

Another important benefit of due process is that it promotes public trust and confidence in the legal system. When individuals know that they will be given a fair hearing and that their rights will be respected, they are more likely to have confidence in the legal system and to comply with the law. This, in turn, helps to maintain social order and ensures that everyone is treated fairly.

TLDR: Without due process, the government would have unchecked power to accuse and punish individuals, which would make life a lot easier for the government but a lot harder for everyone else.

Privacy is a necessary component of a free and democratic society. Without the right to privacy, individuals would be subject to constant monitoring and surveillance, and their personal lives would be open to scrutiny by the government or other entities. This would create a chilling effect on free speech and expression, as individuals would be hesitant to express themselves for fear of retribution.

Furthermore, the right to privacy is essential for protecting the dignity and autonomy of individuals. It allows people to make their own choices about how they live their lives, without interference from others. This includes choices about their personal relationships, their medical treatment, and their personal beliefs. Without the right to privacy, individuals would be subject to unwanted interference and pressure from others, which could undermine their autonomy and self-determination.

TLDR: Without privacy, we'd all be living in a real-life Truman Show, and that's not a show anyone wants to be a part of.

Social Issues

Social issues refer to problems or concerns that affect the well-being of a society or a group of people within a society. These issues can arise due to factors such as poverty, inequality, discrimination, injustice, and social unrest. I shall outline my stance on some of them below.

From the moment of conception, the fertilized egg contains a unique combination of genetic material that determines the physical and biological traits of the developing fetus. Within a week, the embryo has implanted itself into the uterine lining and has begun to form the basic structures of a human body. By the end of the first week, the neural tube is forming, which will eventually develop into the brain and spinal cord. Given these biological facts, I argued that the fetus is already a developing human being and that terminating its life after the first week is morally wrong. I believe that all human life should be protected from conception to natural death, and that the right to life is a fundamental human right that should not be violated.

A fetus is not just a mere collection of cells, but a unique individual with their own genetic makeup and potential for life. Denying them the opportunity to live is equivalent to denying them their right to exist and exercise their first choice. Just as every individual has the right to decide what they want to do with their life, the fetus should also have that "right to choose" whether they want to continue, to exercise their future beliefs, connections and decisions.

There are alternative options available such as adoption, which can provide the child with the chance to live and make their own choices in the future.

TLDR: Fetus: a small but mighty individual with their own unique genetic makeup, potential for life, and hopefully a good adoption plan.

Drug criminalization is a violation of individual rights and an affront to personal responsibility, individuals have the right to pursue their own happiness and make their own choices, so long as they do not initiate force or fraud against others. This includes the choice to use drugs, even if doing so may be harmful to oneself. By criminalizing drug use, the government is essentially punishing individuals for exercising their rights and making choices that affect only themselves. This not only undermines individual autonomy and personal responsibility, but also creates a host of negative consequences.

One of the most significant negative consequences of drug criminalization is increased violence, when drugs are illegal, the market for them becomes a black market, with all the associated problems of violence, corruption, and organized crime that go along with it. Drug crime diverts resources away from drug treatment and education, which could be more effective in reducing drug use and addiction. Instead, the focus is on enforcement, which often leads to civil liberties violations and overburdened criminal justice systems.

TLDR: Drug criminalization is like trying to cure a headache with a hammer - it only makes the problem worse.

Intellectual Property laws stifle innovation by creating monopolies and hindering the development of new ideas, they limit the distribution of knowledge and ideas, leading to a lack of progress and slow economic growth.

Such laws often prioritize the interests of corporations and wealthy individuals over those commonly thought to be the targets of these protections. For example, pharmaceutical companies in the United States often patent life-saving drugs and charge exorbitant prices, often because of said patents not giving any incentive to find cheaper methods for drug production, putting them out of reach for many people who need them. Copyright limits the sharing of cultural and educational materials, such as books, music, and academic articles, which could have a transformative impact on people's lives.

I hold the view that all ideas are remixes of other ideas, i chose Capitalism because the free market is best optimized for this exchange, I hold the view that copyright is a clear violation of freedom, as it restricts the free exchange and remix of ideas. In a truly free society, all individuals should have the right to what they create/produce but nobody should have the right to what someone else produces, even it derives inspiration from someone else's creation.

Here are some examples of problems caused by Copyright:

Patent Trolling
Pharmaceutical Patents.
Software Patents
- Amazon's "one-click" ordering system
Gene Patenting
- Monsanto's Seed Patents
Wright Brothers Patent War
De Beers Diamond Company against Synthetic Diamonds
"Sky" Trademark

TLDR: Copyright laws are a mess and lead to ridiculous legal battles over things like "one-click" ordering and whether or not the word "sky" can be trademarked.

I believe that individuals should generally be free to pursue their own values and goals, as long as they do not violate the rights of others, this includes the right to autonomy over one's body and identity. However, there are certain factors when it comes to gender-affirming treatments. In particular, individuals who are under the age of 15 or who have mental challenges may require additional safeguards in the decision-making process regarding surgeries and treatments related to gender identity. It is essential to prioritize the well-being and best interests of these individuals, taking into account their mental health and capacity to make logical decisions. While I still believe that government interference should be limited in the medical decisions of citizens, there are cases where certain restrictions should apply.

Regarding citizenship, I believe that citizenship status alone should not be the determining factor in accessing such treatments, instead, the focus should be on an individual's mental health and capacity to make decisions that affect their own well-being. It is important to recognize that the decision to undergo medical procedures for gender affirmation involves complex and deeply personal considerations, logic and reason are absolute in this matter, if an individual is unable to pursue reason, they must not be allowed to mutilate their body.

In terms of legal implications, it remains challenging to prove malicious intent or manipulation in cases where individuals may be coerced into undergoing surgeries or treatments, while the law may have limitations in addressing such situations, private mechanisms, such as market forces and reputational consequences, can play a role in discouraging unethical practices.

Now let's get philosophical. Each individual has the right to pursue their own happiness, and the proper moral purpose of one's life is to achieve one's own flourishing through the use of reason and productive work, that's fine it's logical, but logic isn't the pillar of existence, material reality is the pillar of existence, and transgenderism involves a person's identification with a gender that is different from their biological sex, this identification may result in the desire to undergo medical procedures, such as hormone therapy or surgery, to align their physical body with their gender identity.

Do you see the problem?

Transgenderism takes subjectivity and emotions over the physical body and material reality, that's not a functional stance to take, it's not logical. Most of these people are suffering from mental illnesses, like gender dysphoria, they're not logical, and as such, they shouldn't be allowed to maim their bodies, for will need them healthy and intact for their future.

TLDR: Logic can be a buzzkill, but when it comes to gender-affirming treatments, emotions shouldn't overpower the physical reality.

Philosophy

The philosophy that i believe in could be described as a form of materialistic egoism, I view the world as existing independently of human thought and that all living creatures are inherently self-interested. This perspective posits that the nature of the world is objective and immutable, regardless of how individuals may conceive it, and that humans are simply one part of the larger material reality that surrounds them.

From this starting point, I argue that the most ethical way for humans to act is to embrace their inherent selfishness. This does not mean that individuals should be callous or cruel towards others, but rather that they should prioritize their own interests and desires above all else. In doing so, they are simply acting in accordance with the natural order of things, and maximizing their own chances for survival and success in a competitive world.

I reject the notion of God, it is a purely imaginary construct that has no bearing on reality. If God were to exist, I argue, it would be the duty of humanity to destroy him, as his existence would represent a threat to the autonomy and self-interest of all living beings.

Ideas are the building blocks of knowledge and understanding, and they play a crucial role in shaping the way we perceive and interact with the world around us. While it's true that all ideas are ultimately based on previous ideas, this doesn't diminish their importance or value. In fact, the process of building upon previous ideas is essential to the development of new and innovative concepts. By synthesizing and refining existing ideas, we can create novel and insightful perspectives that deepen our understanding of the world.

Ideas are not created in a vacuum, knowing that can help us to appreciate the interconnectedness of all human knowledge. By acknowledging the origins and evolution of ideas, we can better understand the context in which they arise and the ways in which they are shaped by cultural, social, and historical factors.

In this sense, I believe my philosophy is both pragmatic and humble, acknowledging the limitations of human knowledge and the importance of building on the insights of those who have come before us. I believe it explains the reasoning behind my policies, quite well.

TLDR: Embrace your selfishness, reject God, and appreciate the interconnectedness of all human knowledge - but don't be a jerk about it.

Based on the philosophy I have outlined, one could argue that vigilantism and ethical violence are justifiable. From this perspective, if a person or group is threatened or wronged in some way, they have a right to use whatever means necessary to defend themselves and protect their interests. The legal and social institutions that are meant to uphold justice and order are often flawed and corrupt, and therefore may not always provide adequate protection or redress for those who have been wronged. In such cases, vigilantism may be a necessary and justified response to systemic injustice or oppression.

However, I caution against the indiscriminate use of violence, it is important to use force only when necessary and as a last resort. Individual responsibility and accountability is necessary, those who engage in vigilante violence must be prepared to accept the consequences of their actions and tojustify them in the court of public opinion and that of the law.

TLDR: Vigilantism and ethical violence may be justifiable in extreme cases, but remember: violence is like a birthday cake, use it sparingly and be prepared to explain why you ate it.

Humans are purely material beings, and our existence is grounded in the physical world, as such, it is important to take care of our bodies and our material needs. This means that excessive escapism, such as excessive drinking, sleeping, or drug use, is counterproductive and potentially harmful to our well-being. Although I do not reject leisure or pleasure outright, these are important aspects of human experience, I do caution against overindulgence or escapism, as these behaviors can lead to a neglect of our material needs and an inability to fully engage with the world around us.

The phrase "I am material man within material reality" speaks to the fundamental importance of recognizing our physical needs as human beings. In order to thrive in the world, we must acknowledge and attend to our bodily needs, such as nutrition, rest, and exercise. To deny these needs or overengage in these behaviors, is detrimental to our physical well-being is ultimately self-defeating, as it undermines our ability to fully engage with the world in which we exist. By embracing our material nature and attending to our physical needs, we are better equipped to navigate the challenges of the world and find meaning and purpose in our lives, or so to say, sobriety is necessary for a safe drive to life's destination.

TLDR: Don't overdo the fun stuff, or you'll end up too hungover to enjoy the material world!

Capitalism is an economic system where the means of production are owned and operated by private individuals or companies, and the exchange of goods and services occurs in a free-market economy. In this system, individuals have the freedom to pursue their own economic interests and compete with others to accumulate wealth and resources. The prices of goods and services are determined by market forces of supply and demand, and individuals are motivated to produce goods and services that will generate the highest profits. This competition and pursuit of profit leads to innovation, efficiency, and economic growth.

Capitalism rewards individuals for their hard work and entrepreneurial spirit. Those who are successful in accumulating wealth and material possessions are able to enjoy the benefits of their labor, while those who are unsuccessful are motivated to work harder and improve their economic situation. It is the best economic system for material advancement.

TLDR: Capitalism: where the pursuit of profit leads to innovation, efficiency, and the occasional monogrammed golden toilet seat.

I firmly believe that love is a form of selfish discrimination. It is a natural human tendency to be attracted to those who possess qualities or traits that we find desirable. This is why people tend to choose partners who are physically attractive, financially stable, and share similar interests and beliefs. This type of selective behavior is not only natural but also essential for our own well-being. However, the idea of being selfish in love is often criticized as being insensitive and callous. But the truth is, love is selfish by nature. We seek to be with someone who can fulfill our emotional, physical, and even financial needs. This is not to say that we don't care about our partner's well-being, but rather that our own happiness is the primary focus.

Now, the question arises: how can we achieve happiness with this mindset? The answer lies in understanding that our own happiness and that of our partner are not mutually exclusive. In fact, a happy and fulfilled partner is more likely to contribute positively to our own well-being. Therefore, it is important to ensure that our partner's needs are also being met in the relationship.

TLDR: Love is selfish, but it's okay because a happy partner means a happier you, so don't be a jerk.

Relationships

Based!

Objectivism - It could have been a movement to change America to it's core, only if the leader could understand what consistency and morals are. The philosophy though remains a supreme example of excellence.

Capitalism - "The great virtue of a free market system is that it does not care what color people are; it does not care what their religion is; it only cares whether they can produce something you want to buy. It is the most effective system we have discovered to enable people who hate one another to deal with one another and help one another." Quote by Milton Friedman

Gun Rights Advocacy - "The gun has been called the great equalizer, meaning that a small person with a gun is equal to a large person, but it is a great equalizer in another way, to. It ensures that the people are the equal of their government whenever that government forgets that it is servant and not master of the governed." Quote by Ronald Reagan

Kritarchy - Courts provide a neutral and objective forum for the resolution of disputes, ensuring that justice is done and that the rights of all parties are respected.

Positive

Anti-Democracy - In a democracy, the government has the power to tax and regulate economic activity, restrict certain forms of speech, and even limit the ability of individuals to defend themselves. I argue that such actions are an infringement on individual rights and freedoms, and that they lead to a loss of personal responsibility and self-reliance. Furthermore, creates an environment of political tribalism, where people are more concerned with winning elections and gaining power than with promoting individual liberty and limited government. This tribalism can lead to polarization, intolerance, and even violence, as people become more focused on advancing their own interests and ideology at the expense of others.

Policism - I like the police... most of time.^[1]

Linguistic Nationalism - Language is the only characteristic under which nationalism can be justified with the least prejudice possible.

Wierd?

Nationalism - "Nationalism is an important concept, but often used in a superfluous manner by those with no concept for their own." Quote by
Im not Dead nor Drunk

Anarcho-Capitalism - Truly a utopian dream, but the older i grow, it seems that a dream it will remain.

Police Abolitionism - Just as I say to most libertarians, the police would not disappear if you abolish it, it will just be privatized.

Negative

Lipostocracy - Obesity is a preventable condition, but it takes a lot of hard work and dedication to maintain a healthy weight, even so that doesn't mean i won't fat shame you.
- Im not Dead nor Drunk
  - I'm still trying to lose weight, i can't understand why it's so slow.

Cringe!

Gun Control Advocacy - "The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms." Quote by Samuel Adams

Socialism - "Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery." Quote by Winston Churchill

Democracy - "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter." Quote by Winston Churchill

Racism - Race is not real.

Posadism Most logical communist... but yes really, what's more logically communist than trying to put an end to the material world.