No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 248: | Line 248: | ||
::[[File:Post-Cameralism.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Post-Cameralism|'''Post-Cameralism''']] | ::[[File:Post-Cameralism.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Post-Cameralism|'''Post-Cameralism''']] | ||
::[[File:NarcMon.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Drug Mercantilism|'''Drug Mercantilism''']] | ::[[File:NarcMon.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Drug Mercantilism|'''Drug Mercantilism''']] | ||
::[[File: | ::[[File:Krit.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Law|'''Law''']] | ||
::[[File:Arist.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Aristocracy|'''Aristocracy''']] [[File:Oligarchy.png]] | |||
::[[File:Civnat.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Nationalism Now, Globalism Later|'''Nationalism Now,''']] [[File:World.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Nationalism Now, Globalism Later|'''Globalism Later''']] | ::[[File:Civnat.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Nationalism Now, Globalism Later|'''Nationalism Now,''']] [[File:World.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Nationalism Now, Globalism Later|'''Globalism Later''']] | ||
::[[File:Alter-Neobert.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Alter-Globalist Neo-Libertarianism|'''Alter-Globalist Neo-Libertarianism''']] | ::[[File:Alter-Neobert.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Alter-Globalist Neo-Libertarianism|'''Alter-Globalist Neo-Libertarianism''']] | ||
| Line 330: | Line 331: | ||
<h3>[[File:NarcMon.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Overview|'''Drug Mercantilism''']]</h3> | <h3>[[File:NarcMon.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Overview|'''Drug Mercantilism''']]</h3> | ||
The theory goes like this: If this nation abolishes all forms of drug laws, and lets and even encourages citizens to manufacture drugs, this can help increase funds to our nation, as we can export to nearby countries via drug trade, furthering relations with cartels and further strengthening the nation. By monopolizing on the drug trade, we can increase funds towards the state as well. | The theory goes like this: If this nation abolishes all forms of drug laws, and lets and even encourages citizens to manufacture drugs, this can help increase funds to our nation, as we can export to nearby countries via drug trade, furthering relations with cartels and further strengthening the nation. By monopolizing on the drug trade, we can increase funds towards the state as well. | ||
<h3>[[File:Krit.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Overview|'''Law''']]</h3> | |||
{{Quote | |||
| quote = <big>{{glow|{{Color|#000000|''"An Eye For An Eye, And A Tooth For A Tooth"''}}|#dec521}}</big> | |||
| speaker = [[File:Abmon.png]] [[Absolute Monarchism|Hammurabi]] | |||
}} | |||
Today, at least in America, there exists a function of law that entails harsh laws but lax punishments. I believe that the roles should be completely switched, i.e. a function of law that entails lax laws but harsh punishments. | |||
<h3>[[File:Arist.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Overview|'''Aristocracy''']]</h3> | <h3>[[File:Arist.png]] [[Schumacherianism#Overview|'''Aristocracy''']]</h3> | ||
Revision as of 12:15, 30 January 2024
As I further explore political philosophy, this page will maintain frequent updates, sometimes with important information. Make sure to check back once in a while to make sure you don't miss an update.
"When The Weak Are Envious Of The Strong Yet Simultaneously Prideful Of Their Weakness, We Have Entered Communism."
Schumacher
Schumacherianism is the political ideology of Me. He is 
Right-Libertarian, 
Globalist with a 
Centralized Government, 
Ruralist and 
Ultraprogressive.
Summary
Hover over the icons for more information. Some icons might not have a redirect due to laziness.
I Suggest Reading The Freedom Complex By Me Before Continuing.
Also, another disclaimer, I would love to write more, but i am not the best at formulating enough thoughts into my ideas. Asking me questions helps grow the page, so please do so.
Overview
State
Economy
Culture
Society
Philosophy
Miscellaneous:
User Test
Critique of In-Exclusive Conservatism 
Case Against Brazilian "Liberalism" 
- Comments....
- Page Notes...
State
Basic Principle of Life
The autonomy of the individual is the most basic principle of life. To live your life the way you want to live it, with minimal intervention from the outside to take this most obvious right. That said, I agree with the majority of the Right-Libertarian community, such as, but not limited to:
Consent Ethics
Freedom of economy- Abolition of Taxation
- Abolition of Victimless "Crimes"
- Abolition of the Welfare State
- Gun Rights
- Freedom of Speech and Expression to an Extent
- Against Democracy
- Drug Law Abolition
- Among Others.
Furthermore, the main reason why i believe what i believe is because i think my ideal world would bring about the most freedom.
Constitutionalism & State Function
wip
Post-Cameralism
As the revolution begins, the state that begins this reformation's goal is to grow as much as possible, and it is easily growable using capital. Therefore, the method is to get as much capital into the hands of the state as possible. But that requires a governmental system in which the decentralized economy CAN get capital into the hands of the government. Hence why we make a system to that of Cameralism, except that it is fixed to fit the system of Right-Libertarianism, instead of its more 
economically centralized roots.
Drug Mercantilism
The theory goes like this: If this nation abolishes all forms of drug laws, and lets and even encourages citizens to manufacture drugs, this can help increase funds to our nation, as we can export to nearby countries via drug trade, furthering relations with cartels and further strengthening the nation. By monopolizing on the drug trade, we can increase funds towards the state as well.
Law
"An Eye For An Eye, And A Tooth For A Tooth"
Today, at least in America, there exists a function of law that entails harsh laws but lax punishments. I believe that the roles should be completely switched, i.e. a function of law that entails lax laws but harsh punishments.
Aristocracy
to be written...
Nationalism Now, 
Globalism Later
to be written...
Alter-Globalist Neo-Libertarianism
to be written...
Anarchism is impossible
Basically what 
Ayn Rand states. There needs to be an objective law to settle conflicts, and gang warfare.
Economy
Social Darwinism
"Darwinism can be defined as "the survival of the fittest", not as a rule of the strong but rather, in the extreme individualization of the economy in a capitalist framework."
This pertains to: 1. The stratification of the individuals who do well, and 2. The separation of the parasites from their host.
work in progress.
Austrian School of Economics
In terms of praxeology, the theory is that economic decisions are based upon the needs of the individual, and their goal to better themselves. A person does not just make economic decisions with no goal, and that goal is most always of some way for the individual to ease some sort of discomfort. That is the key to economic growth. Thus, we can understand that the decentralization and the deregulation of the economy best fits this goal of such an economic growth, so that our economy grows stronger and puts more money into the state and into the rest of the citizens' hands.
Land Centralism
Unlike the rest of my economics, the only thing I would consider myself egalitarian on is land. I believe that the state should hold central power over the land, and distribute it equally among the citizens. What separates the darwinistic view and the egalitarian view of scarce resources is its ability to be reproduced. If it is able to be reproduced, anything like food should be held in the propertarian and darwinistic view. While if it is finite and unable to be reproduced, say land, it should be communally owned and distributed equally (except for things like minerals. What i mean by land is actual living space: somewhere you can actually call your home and you can do what you want with that said land).
Nozick Entitlement Theory 
Robert Nozick introduced the entitlement theory of justice, which explains how individuals may acquire something justly. He states that an acquisition is just if it is gained voluntarily and without coercion. The acquisition of unowned resources through labor and voluntary exchange. Although he also introduces the idea of rectifying past injustices. If property was unjustly taken or transferred through coercion or fraud, rectification is needed to restore the rightful ownership to its original or legitimate state.
Culture
Progressivism
"Familial and societal values should be abolished in favor of a more individualistic value system in which such individuals form and comply to their own values as they grow and develop."
Progressivism, as i explain in Freedom Complex, can be defined as the decentralization of tradition. An example of the contrary, family values would be considered centralized tradition because it is a tradition that is centralized around the family, the family being that unitary being that grows its tradition from its offspring. Contrary to this, however, is decentralized tradition. That is, the family does not attach its traditions to their children and expect those children to keep said traditions. Instead, these children form their own traditions from their own experiences growing up, and dont necessarily follow a set of traditions from anyone else.
Moreover, progressivism can also be in the form of social stigmas, wherein a progressive society, social stigmas slowly disappear within a centralized form, and instead exist only in small quantities within society.
Anti-Conservatism
Conservatism and 
traditionalism are often times resulted in the conglomerate of the people, whose goal is to indoctrinate as much people into their ways of life. The problem with such a system is that it teaches children 
communitarian systems; It teaches children that the community and the family is more important than yourself, and such goals in life should be to serve and be apart of your community until you die. That is absurd for many reasons.
Moreover, the ideas of social stigmas make it more difficult for the individual to fully express themselves, i.e. it de-individualizes individuals, which is antithetical to our movement.
Scientific Progressivism
This pertains to my belief in very progressivist values to an extent, but believing in some "conservative" alignments, solely because of theory and scientific reason. Not that I have much, but such as:
- The belief that gender should be abolished all together (see: Postgenderism), because gender is not a social construct, rather it is built off of biological factors rather than social ones. So while i don't believe in postgenderism, I believe in gender non-conformity.
Society
Hyper-Individualism
Everything across society, from 
Economics, to Civics, to Culture, should be centered around the individual.
Constant Revolution
My belief is that both the citizens of the nation-state, as well as the governors of that nation-state, both have different agendas and desires. This happens to cause a tension between the citizens and the government. Using this information, we need to find a way to strike a balance between said desires. Violent uprising between either side can be defected so long as both sides - the citizens and the government - are around equal strength in power. So long as both sides are equal in power, neither would want to revolt against the other, as that would be inefficient and costly.
Meritism
"The weak give birth the strong, and the strong give birth the weak."
I favor the idea of meritism. That is, I tend to favor the notion that individual success is SOMEWHAT seperable from economic status.
Moreover, I believe that children who are born from weak families tend to strive towards stratification as they grow older. On the contrary, children who are born from strong families who are tended to with gifted luxury will become lazy and hedonistic, socially de-stratifying themselves as they parasitically disconnect from the strong that gifted them.
Genetic Transhumanism
to be written...
Neo-Kaczynskism
I came up with this idea when I first moved away from Neoluddism. As I moved, I kept in favor of Ruralism and Peri-Urban living environments. That is because I believe Kaczynski was correct, but not about the techno-industrial system as a whole. While his theories about overcrowding, noisemakers (which I'll get to at a later time), and humans growing to meet the needs of the system rather than vice verse hold quite true, his enemy was less the techno-industrial system and more fault lies on 
urbanization itself. In this urban society, only then are we subject to slavery by technology only because the ways of how we naturally survived are gone, and then we rely on technology to get us even our bare necessities like food and water, since the population is so large, the city must be large too, and in which our necessities are housed and produced tens (to potentially hundreds) of miles away from where we live, whereas the rural man lived alongside where his necessities are found.
Kaczynskist Study of History
"Think of history as being the sum of two components: an erratic component that consists of unpredictable events that follow no discernible pattern, and a regular component that consists of long-term historical trends. Here we are concerned with the long-term trends."
Kaczynski, in paragraphs 99-110, explains his five principals regarding long-term historical trends and societal changes.
First Principle: Small changes within society typically do not alter long-term historical trends. These trends tend to revert back unless it is accompanied by larger societal changes. This principle is rooted in the observation that long-term historical trends are typically resistant to minor fluctuations. Instead, they persistently follow a particular direction due to the inherent stability of societal systems unless substantial changes occur. It implies that the 'normal' state of a society tends to prevail despite temporary deviations caused by minor changes.
Second Principle: Significant changes that alter long-term historical trends impact society as a whole, keeping in mind the interconnectivity of human societies. Since things in society are interconnected, changing one aspect of something will inevitably change another aspect of society.
Third Principle: If a change is large enough to alter a long-term trend, its consequences cannot be predicted in advance. Since society is so complex, predicting what would happen after a deviance in social outcome would prove difficult.
Fourth Principle (
Commies beware): A new kind of society cannot be designed on a piece of paper. That is, you cannot plan out a society and expect it to work out how you planned it. Since individuals have a tendency to deviate from the masses, this society you try to set up manually will inevitably fail.
Fifth Principle: People do not consciously choose their form of society. Rather, societies tend to develop without human control.
This helps us understand what type of society we would envision in such a revolution. The rapid change would be unpredictable, and society is not easily engineered, but rather is formed naturally as society evolves. This also highlights the impossibility of some of the things i advocate for, such as my Ultra-Progressivism.
Hedonic Treadmill and Surrogate Activities
As humans start to get their biological needs met with less effort, they put their effort into something else, i.e. surrogate activities, and these activities cause a decadent hedonism upon those who do such activities. And these activities cause some sort of damage to the natural word.
Furthermore, the notion of the hedonic treadmill let on via surrogate activities are of the stance that these cause viscous damage to the mind and body to those of whom act upon such self-deprecating activities.
It is all about balancing the effort needed to provide for your biological needs enough to where those do not get stuck on the hedonic treadmill.
Philosophy
Metaphysics
My belief is that that of which is considered an arbitrary need of the human mind (that is, anything that isnt a physiological need) is not a need but of which is merely an abstraction of the human mind. That said, I critique the human condition for these main reasons:
1. Where as animals only feel emotion when it naturally fits or benefits them, us as humans have gotten used to relaying emotion even during times that it is not justifiably needed, and this has caused a wide-spread culture of reliance on these emotions.
2. This has caused a schizm of materialism, separating good materialism from bad materialism. I define the separation of the good and bad materialism as the chasing and acquisition of material "goods", those of which the material goods that are beneficial to one's survival in some way.
- 2.1: Since the modern human has less of a necessity to chase material "goods", they instead spend their time chasing material "bads" (see: Hedonic Treadmill & Surrogate Activities)
Duhkha
Yes, life is merely suffering. Going back to the Austrian School of economics, all of our decisions are means to ease some sort of discomfort. Every single action we make is to ease our concurrent suffrage. Suffering is a fundamental truth about life. It encompasses not only obvious forms of suffering like pain, illness, and loss but also the inherent unsatisfactory nature of all conditioned phenomena. In life, you are almost always going to be conditioned to something you find unsatisfactory. That is because humans are naturally wired this way. This inherent dissatisfaction stems from several factors:
- Impermanence (anicca): The constant changing nature of life means that nothing remains permanently satisfying. Human experiences, relationships, and material possessions are subject to change, decay, or loss, leading to a sense of dissatisfaction.
- Sense of Self (anatta): The attachment to an ideal self-image, along with the desire for its gratification or preservation, resulting in the suffrage we feel when reality does not hold up to this standard.
Nietzscheanism
work in progress
Mostly will be pertaining to his "master/slave" morality.
Buddhist Nietzscheanism
We refer to the combination of Buddhism and Nietzscheanism, further stratifying and separating the strong from the weak.
Take drugs, for example. A strong-willed and enlightened individual will never take these drugs, or they will, but are good enough to take them in moderation, as they see fit. A 
weak-willed individual will use the drugs and, contrary to strong individuals, will go through the "gateway effect". This is where the artificial state of hedonic euphoria induced by the drug becomes unreliable, usually as a side effect of over-usage, and the individual's need for the substance grows.
The government is in the wrong when they imprison weak individuals with drug problems. The government doing this only stagnates and prolongs the suffering of the weak individual, not letting them die off naturally, and keeping them in an artificial state of life.
Drug legalization plays an important role in stratifying the strong individuals.
Actual Humanism
Libertarian Argument for Environmentalism
"A polluted environment usually incorporates man-made waste into such equation (hence why it is considered violation of our previously-mentioned principal of non-aggression), but the extent of which it changes the environment must be given an approximated method of determining whether it is considered pollution or not, because the building of a house and the presence of toxins in the air both present a change in the environment, and both do include the probability of indirect harm."
Pollution is a form of aggression. Pollution is a form of land modification that indirectly causes some sort of harm to the environment. Harm to the environment is aggression, because it limits the property rights of others. It is essentially a trespass on the property rights of individuals or communities. The pollutants released into the air, water, or soil can have direct and indirect consequences, ranging from damage to ecosystems to the degradation of natural resources.
Buddhist Critique of the Human Condition
"Happiness comes after discipline."
to be written...
MAGA Epistemology 
This has to do with the ideology of Trump and the epistemological justifications for believing in certain conspiracy theories.
When we note MAGA, we mean to note on it's constructivistic tendency of a nation and it's people, as with skepticism, we note on the accountability on factual information: where the source comes from, what biases surround this information, and so on, and if the information is of inherent falsehood or formulated from a source of which is not of our control.
What we mean by constructivism of the nation is that the notion of factual information coming out is of inherent biases to that of which the founder and initial spreader of this information we do not know their true intention of this information.
Objectivism > Egoism 
While Egoism generally emphasizes acting in one's self-interest, Objectivism provides a more comprehensive philosophical system that includes moral, epistemological, and political principles. Such principals are as follows:
- Morality. While both Egoism and Objectivism emphasize self-interest, Egoism may lack a broader moral foundation, as it can be subjective and vary between individuals. Objectivism, on the other hand, provides a more structured moral framework based on reason and individual rights.
- Objective Reality, understood as the primacy of existence, which relates to the external universe being primary, whilst our consciousness is secondary, and that our consciousness must conform to the primary existence.
- Rational Self-Interest is a conducive factor of objective reality. It is seen as the objective requirements of human life and the pursuit of values that contribute to one's well-being.
- Similarly,
Neo-Rationalism, shares the rational negotiation of reason of Objectivism, as well as the objective nature of reality. Too does it acknowledge the capacity of the mind to critique its own structures, with the potential for reconfiguring narratives and identity based on new experiences and impulses.
Ethics and Law
heavily work in progress
In ethic theory, the law is defined as the settler of disputes, pertaining to two contradicting actions that violate property rights of the other contradicting person. This deals with "who should get the property right" of the contradicting persons involved.
Contradictory actions are only possible when there is scarcity.
Here we analyze the different theories of law subject to choosing the winner of the property dispute. These are as follows:
Utilitarian Ethic- Stirner Anti-Ethic
Democratic Ethic- Consent Ethic
In 
Utilitarian Ethics, the action that wins the dispute and gains the property right is the one of which the best outcome is in effect. The problem with this ethic is that what is better and gives the most happiness is arbitrary; There is no single and objective truth as to what would give the best outcome. Moreover, this ethic expects the future to be objective as well. There is simply no way to objectively know if one action will be able to lead to or fulfill the demand that the action was meant for.
In the Stirner anti-ethic, any contradiction or property dispute is simply given ownership based on the "might makes right" principle. What is oxymoronic and contradictory about this, however, is that this belief is preached by an oppressed minority in opposition to the oppressive state. This state is using the same exact belief onto the citizens of might makes right, therefore the Stirner ethic is contradictory and false to ethics.
The democratic ethic is in favor of the notion that property right should be given to the majority, that is, the larger conglomerate that votes to give this property right to mutuals of a conflict depending on whatever the populous chooses.
This leads us to the consent ethic. The previous ethics we have discussed can be primarily classified as statist or collectivistic ethics. This ethic, contrary to and unlike the other theories of ethics, is the only one to base itself on voluntary association - i.e. consent. It is the only one to take into account the individuals allowance towards someone else encroaching unto their private property.
Human Rights are Property Rights
to be written...
Skinwalker Theory
I define skinwalkers as a form of people on earth - those of which are worse than even 
parasites, these are the ones who are avid violators of the non-aggression principle, these are the true parasites of society. Those of which mostly consist of gangs, those "people" who attack random people on the street "for fun". They are the true parasites, and must be exterminated.
This includes harsher punishments for harsher crimes, and harsher punishments for non-aggravated attacks against someone.
work in progress...
User Relations
- What I think about other users on this site:
Abacusism (
/
/
) (the first part also serves as a critique of 
Occo's critique of my social darwinism.) - Yes, our species has survived mainly through it's communitarian tendencies. But that era is over now. We have the technologies to make individuals capable of surviving on their own. Furthermore, the value of labor is not equal, and so your society would be rewarding the ones who do more valuable labor the same as someone who does less valuable labor. This form of reward is insufficient.
Baxism (
/
/
/
) - I do not agree with the collectivization of society. But i do like the Rosseau part, but i dont understand why animals should rule, as animals can be just as psychopathic as humans, and maybe more.
- Lankajori Thought (/
/
//
/)
"As a Conceivable Taboo (Bisexual), I believe that Conservatism should be achieved by the most people it can be, with Traditional Ordinaries and Conceivable Taboos. Inconceivable Taboos are by nature against conservatism as they did not even exist in the past. "
Tying conservatism solely to certain groups is an overly simplistic worldview. Conservatism is an all-encompassing ideology. As in, conservatism can be adopted by anyone to achieve conserving anything. 
Social Justice Warriors, for example, are reactionary in-definition because they argue for their ideology with no logic or pragmatism, and favor a reactionary outlook on their beliefs. Furthermore, what these people believe in is a culture, and they want to preserve that culture (and spread it, too). Lastly, social norms evolve, and to say that transsexualism or radical feminism cannot become a cultural norm (or even in the notion that they never existed at all) is outrageous.
- Lankajori Thought - Equating Reactionaries to SJW's is all I really need to say to disprove this but I'll speak on this more in my own page
Neo-Robespierrisme (/
/
/
/
) - Besides the absolutely no text explaining your reasoning for why you believe in anything, i disagree with almost all of this. Ethnopluralism and Jacobinism is abhorrent, and so is your weird oxymoron about being anti-reactionary but also anti-LBGT.
Extreme Gainism (
/
/
//
/
) - Extremely aggressivist, which i despise. I dont agree that terrorism and war are even affective for gaining wealth. Yes, you can have enough oil rigs and factories. Although I agree that the bottom of the caste are the weak leeches who do not work but rather siphon off the strong. Those people should just be eliminated naturally, though. (this really just feels like the regular 
darwinist critique of 
kraterocracy.)
Rocksism (
//
/
) - The term "unjustified hierarchies" is a little arbitrary, don't you think? What type of hierarchy is unjustified, and have you thought of the reasons as to why some may be more stratified in society? I am generally in agreement with your culture section, although I disagree with gender abolition because I believe that gender (and gender constructs) are based in biology, and are naturally going to exist. Although i generally do agree that we should work to rid society of unnecessary and reactionary prejudices based off of nothing but reaction. I really like your praxis, and acting in solidarity against the oppressors that are the state. And lastly, I disagree with your organization, as individual autonomy means inherent stratification of the strong and self-sufficient. And attacking those who do stratify themselves on par their accumulation of a certain resource they can trade off for labor means you are not an individualist as there is no individual autonomy left.
- (
Brazilian Liberalism
/
/
/
/
)
First off, I generally disagree with your economics. I do support your deregulation. However, the things you want state-owned are horrendous. Healthcare and education should not be publicized.
The centralization and de-individualism of the school system has created the awful curriculum that us students have to work with. A private and decentralized school system is better for students because it is not limited to a standard or curriculum and is actually flexible and able to work with individual students' (dis)abilities and passions, unlike the nationalized school curriculum now.
The healthcare system is also something that should not be handled by the state. But i digress. Your social services belief is not pretty either. Poverty is important to maintain stratification. Moreover, minimum wage is awful, for many reasons, including that it is bad for smaller businesses, reducing competition and increasing the strength of monopolies.
I feel that the term "class collaboration" is a bit redundant. The voluntary transaction of the workers and the businesses are inherently in collaboration. It is in both of their best interests to work with each other, and if it isn't then they wouldn't be working with each other. Furthermore, it would be in both the workers' and businesses' best interests to make themselves the best interests of the other side, because if they work against each other, then they both lose each other and their livelihoods.
Income tax is abhorrent, especially in the amount that you proposed. Income tax is a form of slavery, as I note in the preface of 
The Freedom Complex. Taxing corporations is also negative, as taxing a big business would inadvertently cause them to move out of your country, where tax laws are exempt from such evil laws. If you tax land, then you shouldn't tax houses either. Car and pollution tax are the only taxes I agree with, and I think your pollution tax is too lenient.
Overall, your economy, of which is just "rob the citizens of their labor so that they have to rely on the government", makes me sick to my stomach.
Your social views are a little more agreeable, however, such as gender and sexual equality (although wood-chipper treatment for 
pedophiles). I agree with your believe of 
anti-racism, but not because of the reason you proposed. I believe it is dumbfuckery because the biological differences between the current races are extremely small. Yes, there can still exist biological differences within a same species, but most racists are more focused on phenotype rather than genotype. I do agree with your drug and abortion propositions, although I do not believe that either of these should be regulated at all. Your gun-rights ideals are awful though. I shouldn't need permission from 
terrorists the police to keep myself safe from criminals. Furthermore, if police had the control of whether or not citizens could carry guns, outside their home or not, then that would make the police a much more oppressive entity. I generally agree with your environmental propositions.
Your governmental system seems off. First, using authoritarianism to combat authoritarianism is a little oxymoronic, don't you think? When I created my comment on Constant Revolution, I had the quote “who will guard the guards themselves?” in mind. Where both parties of the citizens and the government are guarded by each other. But if you have an authoritarian state to combat corrupt officials, who guards the government guarding the corrupt officials?
I also wanted to comment on your death penalty proposition. Although I generally agree that someone who infringes on the rights of others should have their rights taken away, I believe that your propositions such as insurrection and crimes against the state are evil. The state is ran by humans, too, and the fact that the people running the government are exempt from such laws is very hypocritical, since you believe in giving the state the allowance to commit heinous acts of slavery upon the citizens of the nation.
The section of police I find abhorrent. Secret police do nothing but make your country more corrupt. I also wanted to note that, drug traffickers are not criminals, as crime is defined as acts of aggression upon another individual, and trading is not a form of aggression.
"When the police need to hide from you to protect and serve you, their interest is no longer to protect and serve you."
I disagree with your autonomy of state. States do not have rights, people do, and giving states more rights means they have the power to obliterateamend the constitution freely. Also conscription is slavery.
Overall, I see your governmental system as hyper-authoritarian and extremely hypocritical.
I am curious as to why you believe in patriotism. Also 
civic nationalism (and terrorists 
the government) caused this.
Your foreign policy was sickening. And even I thought you couldn't get less evil after reading that you agreed with conscription. You wanting to help with coups against leaders opposed to hyper-authoritarianism is genuinely the most abhorrent thing I've read in your page thus far. Dear god.
Onto philosophy, I disagree with your notion on individualism. The individual does not have autonomy if they should answer the community. I generally agree that hedonism is not the best and that it will always seep through into our society, and our propositions are somewhat similar, although I believe in teaching the youth about Buddhism. I also generally agree with the Neo-enlightenment, but I don't think it should be violent.
And that, my friend, is why i called you Benito Mussolini all those years ago.
Ideological Relations
- What I think about other ideologies in general:
Great.
- The Ultimate Doctrine Of Libertarianism - There is seriously no reason to live if your only reason to live is to serve someone other than yourself.
- Buddhism - The Buddha was correct about everything.
- Libertarian Environmentalism - Polluting the environment, by any means, will always lead to a violation of the NAP.
Multiculturalism - Decentralize tradition.
Acceptance.
Good.
- Rothbardianism - While i am not an anarchist, I do agree with your theory of natural rights.
Middling.
Negativistic.
Wrong.
- Anarcho-Communism
Abhorrent.
Conservative Socialism - We do not have a duty to serve our community. I denounce everything you stand for.
Reactionary Socialism - Above but worse.
Catholicism
Islamism
User Test
Before starting: Please place your icon at the end of what you chose. you will see mine and potentially other users as an example. This helps me so i can change your score if i end up changing a score outcome, as well as potentially helping you better keep track of your score.
COMING SOON
Comments
Please go to my talk page or my debate page to add stuff here. Ask to be added in the talk page. Anything goes in the talk page.
Evenoskyism - add me back please
Rocksism (
/
/
/
) - Could you readd? A bunch of stuff has changed since you first did.
Neocarlism - add muh
Distributist Reactionaryism - add me
Infinity Thought (
/
/
/
/
/
) - Can you add me please?
Rocksism - Hey do you mind if I steal your ideological evolution template?
Amism - What's your opinion on this page I created: Liminal Cultism And would you like to add anything to this page
Second Anidiotoncrack Thought- add first :D
Imperial Socialism - can you add me plz?
Bensonism - Add me you fag!
moxogeni - One of the best articles on the wiki. Congrats!
Venatrixism(
/
/
/
) - Add me TIIKET
- - Why do you support Centralism over Federalism, if Federalism revolves around liberties while the other don't? Even thought i am Authoritarian myself, i am still in support of the federal system. Why Centralism?
- - Because there needs to be a central authority that contains the constitutional laws that rule over the land. Im okay with local governments, but they cannot create and enforce new laws.
Political Evolution
 Sentience and it's consequences... |
 +  + 
|
 I'm not even sure... |
 +  + 
|
 Make Libertarian Market Socialism Great Again |
 +  + 
|
 "Neo-Luddist Anarcho-Capitalism" |
+  +
|
 Not much to say about this one. |
+ + 
|
 I gave up luddism around this time. |
+  + 
|
| Me now. |
+ +
|
I was insane and thought that sentience was the biggest problem and thought that we needed to obliterate every sentient being and destroy the universe so that sentience can never happen again.
I found out about VHMENT and my economic and civic beliefs came to light.
I gave up leftism.
I gave up anarchism.
I gave up luddism around this time, and adopted the Neo-Kaczynskist philosophy.
Notes
in order of creation, not necessarily appearance.
I was already a stuanch believer in the Trickle-Down economic theory, 
he only reinforced my beliefs in it.- he told me about how Hayek "saw that capital operates as a non-conscious, irrational flow of desires providing feedback in the form of the price system."
- This serves as another reason why I believe that the only possible anarchism is Anarcho-Capitalism.
Political Tests
-
Buddhist Theocrat
-
Moderate Psychopath
-
Neutral Evil
Icons.
{{SchumaIcons}}
Schumacherianism (////
)