Cyber Thought

Self Insert "People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism This page is meant to represent Cyber7878's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

Cyber Thought
Basic Information
Aliases	Quark (Accused, Erroneously)
Alignments	Libright Capitalists Formalists Timocrats Culturally Paleolibertarian Libertarians
Ideological Influences
Influenced by	Organization Formalism Presidentialism Timocracy Old Swiss Confederalism Economic Hayekism Free Banking Georgism (Mostly) Private Welfare Neo-Mercantilism Diplomatic Neomedievalism Cultural Paleolibertarianism International Interculturalism (in Eastern Europe) Peri-urbanism Philosophical Monism Stoicism

Organization

Formalism: Democracy (and republican dictatorship) doesn't work. The disconnect between actual power and recognised power (i.e. people in government don't have a stake in the country) leads to demagogic crooks taking power by promising to help people, only for them to use their power to sack the wealth of productive citizens and/or give special privileges to lobbyists in exchange for large sums of money in the form of "campaign donations" and/or a high ranking position in one of the lobbyist companies, precisely because they have no stake in the country and are accountable to no one, unlike a board of directors and its appointees (CEOs, CFOs, CTOs etc.), who are accountable to the shareholders that elected them. As such, i support the establishment of city-states ruled by timocratically elected for-profit corporate governments elected by citizen-shareholders. Citizenship (and therefore the right to elect and be elected) would be tied to ownership of stock in the company and residence within its jurisdiction. A Board of Directors (or BoD for short) elected by shareholders would supervise the activities of the corporation and appoint a CEO, who would be in charge of the activities that the BoD supervises. Due to the predominance of the executive branch, one could say that my system of governance is presidentialist, almost dictatorial, even.

Confederacies: If left to their own devices, city-states almost always get conquered by larger countries, so it would be logical for them to form confederacies to protect their independence and advance their foreign policy interests, similar to the Old Swiss Confederacy. These confederacies would be controlled by confederal BoDs, elected by the state BoDs, which would manage matters concerning foreign policy.

Economics

Regulation: History has shown that minimal regulation is the key to a prosperous economy and wealthy populous. Markets are a pretty good method of economic organization, and regulating them too much leads to inefficiencies, misaligned incentives and barriers to entry that benefit business cartels, but some regulations are necessary to protect the rights of workers and consumers, similar to how some state and some laws are required to protect the rights of citizens.

• Monetary policy: History has also shown that free banking is the most beneficial monetary policy, because private banks have strong incentive against subprime lending, which is responsible for the speculative bubbles that caused most of the economic crises in the last 120 years. No subprime lending=no speculative bubbles=way less economic crises. Also free banking gives people the freedom to choose their currency, which is also good.

Georgism: I support Georgism, as it is unfair that people profit off things they didn't create, like land, the commons (natural materials such as air, water, and a habitable Earth) and natural resources, often times only being able to do so through improvements created by other people, and thus profits from these should be "taxed" (though it could be argued that LVT and Pigouvian Taxes are not actually taxes, but rather reappropriation of stolen investment value and compensation for damages to the commons and extraction of resources which belong to us all, respectively). The advantages to these are the following:

• Incentivizing efficient land usage.
• Turning rent from a form of extortion into just another race to the bottom to provide a service for the lowest price while still turning a profit, as well as incentivize landlords to make money through additional services like protection, cleaning and repairs.
• Increasing urban density, which has a large slew of benefits such as reduced urban sprawl (which protects the environment), less obesity, lower crime rates, shorter commutes and stronger local businesses.
• Lowering the tax burden on improved property and agricultural soil, and increasing it on unused land, thereby making land speculation unprofitable.
• Giving back to the productive members of society who made the land valuable in the first place, and compensating them for pollution of the commons and resource exploitation, through a Citizen's Dividend.
  • LVT and Pigouvian Taxes: Because of all the benefits i listed above (and the fact that they could be argued to not even be taxes), i support LVT and Pigouvian taxes. A portion of the revenue would go to the state (as it too, like productive members of society, creates improvements without which many wouldn't be able to profit off of land, the commons and natural resources, is impacted by the pollution of the commons and is part-owner of the natural resources of the country) while the rest would be distributed to all citizen-shareholders and non-citizen residents who are still employed by the end of the fiscal year or were employed for a majority of it (a total of 183 days or more) through a Citizen's Dividend.

(Mostly) Private Welfare: I, outside of the Citizen's Dividend (which technically isn't welfare but compensation for a variety of different things, as i explained in the Georgism section), oppose government welfare, and instead support private fraternal benefit societies, which were very widespread and extremely effective until governments regulated them out of existence. And the way they work prevents freeloading, as only those who've paid into the system would be allowed to cash out, thereby solving the main problem of open borders i.e. useless sand niggers coming in droves to the Yurop to leech off of welfare, refuse to integrate and form ethnic enclaves.

Neomercantilism: Tariffs and protectionism are a double-edged sword, it protects local industries, but also makes them less competitive, and the price increase the tariffs cause to imports has negative effects on domestic prices. The solution? Neomercantilism, reduce barriers to entry and increase incentives as much as possible, that will make domestic industries stay and attract foreign investment.

Foreign Policy

Neomedievalism: The world system and modern nation-states are two sides of the same coin, the latter is the former on a local scale and only only makes its job easier, because centralized authority on a national scale paves the way to centralized authority on a global scale. The apparently hypocritical move of siding with the world system, which many "nationalist" heads of state have done in recent years makes total sense once you realize this. Most "nationalist" leaders do not have their nations' best interest in mind, they're bureaucrats who only care about power, that's why when push comes to shove (like in our era of instability) they side with those who will help them maintain their power, the world system. The fascists were on point when they spoke about national palingenesis, because they too realized that the modern nation-state was just an instrument of power for the bureaucrats, the one ruling class archetype most defined by power, and would therefore be the most likely to sell out their nations to the world system, as opposed to the other 3 archetypes:

• Merchants, who are most loyal to money, and would be very reluctant to sell out their country to the world system, as that would destroy its economic potential. As a matter of fact, the rise of the world system and its puppets, the modern nation-states, coincides with the bureaucrats overtaking the merchants as the ruling class of the west in the 20th century.
• Priests, who are most loyal to their religion.
• Warriors, who are most loyal to their fellow warriors.

Real nationalism can only come from these 3, not from the bureaucrats. Luckily for us, the very structures they built to keep themselves in power, the world system and modern nation-states, are both collapsing, and we're seeing a return to an international order analogous to that of europe during the high middle ages, where the lack of centralized power created a power vacuum that was filled by decentralized feudal states, merchant republics, peasants' republics, religious military orders and nomadic barbarians, which was basically the other 3 archetypes collectively dogpiling on the bureaucrats for ~400 years because everyone got to be the ruling class somewhere at some point, EXCEPT for the bureaucrats. The bureaucrats fear a return to this based order, they're rushing the "Great Reset" because they know that the pendulum is swinging in every direction except theirs, and they need to fully establish their order lest everything they had worked on collapses and allows the other 3 archetypes to carve out places for themselves in that new and chaotic world, so i, for one, welcome the collapse.

Culture

Paleolibertarianism: I am culturally Paleolibertarian, i believe that a "conservative" morality should be enforced, for the most part, by civil society, rather than the state, because enforcing it through the state would create a legal precedent that can be (and actually was) exploited by cultural marxists to enforce their anti-morality and take away our freedom. Disparate Impact Law (the thing that enabled the cultural marxists to take over the west's academia, bureaucratic apparatus, corporations etc.) wouldn't exist if they didn't have the legal precedent to back it up.

International Interculturalism (in Eastern Europe): I support co-existence, cross-cultural dialogue and interactions between the different cultures of Eastern Europe, we're not very different, after all, there's no point in constantly squabbling over our not-significant differences, and we have much bigger problems to deal with, like sand niggers.

Peri-urbanism: As TIIKKETMASTER has pointed out, the worst-off poors are the ones in urban areas, because you can't hunt, forage or farm in those areas, which means your survival is inevitably going to depend upon precarious jobs/government handouts/goodwill of passerbys. I support deurbanization, and the scattering of the population into peri-urban settlements (small town/village-sized settlements with urban infrastructure and amenities), because having the local clinic, grocery shop, bar, train station, countryside and wilderness all within the same walking distance from your house is pretty fucking cool, and so is being able to have a vegetable garden in your backyard.

Philosophy

Monism: WIP

Stoic Virtue Ethics: WIP