Self Insert
"People can really believe anything these days!" - Ismism

This page is meant to represent GeneraleArmando's political views. Please do not make any major edits without their permission.

"Men are no more dependent beings that need protection from a hierarchical and paternalistic system; they are independent beings capable of guiding themselves and can approach others as equals."
Armando

Armandonian Liberalism is user GeneraleArmando's self-insert ideology that mixes various beliefs from the center and left wings of politics, mainly from Liberalism (and all its variants), Social Democracy, Market Socialism and, more limitedly, some variants of Right-Libertarianism and Left-Libertarianism.

Ideology Template

Armandonian Liberalism

Politics

Form of Government

I believe in a Semi-Direct Liberal Democratic Federative Republic with a strong Constitution (In order to protect Civil Liberties from Dictatorship of the Majority) and a strong emphasis on Experts making sensible policies based on the will of the elected politicians and, thus, of the people.

I support replacing all Senates with a ' House of Experts ', where actual experts, nominated by the President or the Monarch , also vote on laws.

In principle, I have nothing against Ceremonial Monarchies, and I would even support a Constitutional Monarchy where the monarch has either Reserve Powers comparable to those of a Parliamentarian Republic, or executive power and the duty to nominate capable ministers.

State Powers and its Limits

The State is both a necessity and a benefit for society, even though I do have my reservations against excessive Economic Regulations, excessive State Intervention and most forms of state-mandated Culture.

I am extremely Anti-Authoritarian and I critique Military Conscription and Compulsive Military Service, Government Surveillance, Imperialism, State Capitalism and Excessive Interventionism as Authoritarian Actions and Government Overreach.

Political Methodology

I overall personally support Fusion Reformism in the form of both Social Economy Activism ( Co-operative Ownership, Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP), Board-Level Employee Representation (BLER)) and of Ordoliberal-adiacent economics. In the event of an Authoritarian Government I do however support both Peaceful and Violent means to attain Liberty once again.

Foreign Policy

Diplomatically, I am a strong Pro-Europeanist that would like closer European integration, but not to the level of a Federation. I also support close International Cooperation as a mean of peace rather than Military Interventionism. However, I still recognize how military intervention can potentially be better in some situations (E.g. against ISIS or in genocidal countries).

Palestine - Israel Question

I define myself as an Anti-Zionist, since I, in principle, refuse any legitimacy of the state of Israel; however, I also believe that the current situation has gone too far to delete Israel from the map without creating unnecessary suffering, so I propose either a two-state solution with Israel mostly going back to 1947 borders (With obvious adjustments for modern times based on the 1967 borders) and abandoning illegal settlements in Cisgiordania, or a one-state solution where religion is completely banned from state legislation (Other than respecting freedom of religion and religious festivals) and total equality between all ethnic groups is upheld.

Culture and Society

I define myself as a Radical Liberal, as I have a strong commitment to Civil Liberties, Freedom Of and From Religion, Anti-Clericalism, Liberal Egalitarianism, Cultural Liberalism, primacy of the Individual, Individualist Feminism and supporting Government Programs that make it possible for everyone to put their rights and liberty into practice (Support programmes for the homeless, for abandoned LGBT teens, economic safety nets, ...). I also support a File:PragmatProg.png Pragmatic and Moderate form of File:PROG.png Progressivism in society, without forcing it on people 9 times out of 10 (As it has generally the opposite effect).

Religion and the State

As part of my Anti-Clerical and Laicistic policies, I believe that religious authorities should not partecipate in political life and that the state should have an Atheistic or Deistic approach to life, without devolving into a priori Repression of religion.

Nation

I deem Citizenship and Language as the two main factors of nationality, with Culture playing only a smaller part overall. Patriotism is a necessity in my opinion, as it just means "Love for one's own country and cultural characteristics" and not "Belief in one's own supremacy on the basis of country and nation".

Immigration

I am supportive of immigration; however, I also understand that Interculturalism is necessary to preserve the Civil Liberties from Conservative Immigrants that want to change their host country to a less Free one. I am thus critical, at times, of Multiculturalism, especially in regards of Religions. I support the 'Ius Culturae' rather than the 'Ius Soli' and I am against the 'Ius Sanguinis' past the parents.

I think we should crackdown on Illegal immigration and accept less refugees overall (still helping them and treating them humanely), but at the same time, we should simplify the process for legal immigration, as today it is excessively slow and cumbersome.

Crimes and Punishments

□ Restorative or Retributive Justice?

"Tough on crime, tough on causes of crime"
File:TonyBlair2.png Sir Tony Blair

I believe that justice should be fundamentally retributive (but not cruel and not excessive) and restoration should be seen as an important part of justice, but not it's first and foremost objective.

At the same time, we should still work towards resolving the causes of crime (Poverty, corruption, discrimination, lack of education, bad parenting, ...) through government programmes.

□ Expulsion of Criminal Immigrants

□ Self-Defence

□ Death Penalty

I disdain death penalty in all cases but these ones:

□ Serial Rape

□ Mass Murder

□ (Maybe I'll add other in the future)

File:Anti-Identi2.png Colorblind Society

I regard myself as File:Anti-Identi2.png Anti-Identity politics and would like to see a society where people are not judged or classified on the basis of Race, Ethnicity, Sex, Language (~~Mostly~~), Sexual Orientation or Gender, but rather on their Knowledge, Merits, Culture (As in, how they behave in regards to their culture) and content of their character.

Post-Gender Society

I believe that we should strive to attain a Post-Gender society, where Sex has no meaningful impact on the perception of a person and on how they should behave.

My little Conservative side

I am Moderately Conservative on a few issues:

□ Open Marriages

Open marriages are both false and a fraud, as marriage should be deep connection and trust between two individuals (Regardless of Sex, , Sexual Orientation , Gender, etc.). In addition, open marriages are damaging to eventual children, who wouldn't have fixed parental figures.

Open marriages shouldn't be recognised as valid marriages and should be treated as marriage frauds and sham marriages and should be accordingly punished.

□ Culture War

I fucking hate the Culture War and both Alt-Lite and SJWs as whiny kids who need to understand the concept of Individual Liberty
□ Architectural Reactionarism

I am generally an Architectural Reactionary with a preference on styles from the Renaissance to the 1800s, but I don't inherently oppose newer styles of buildings (Fuck 1950s-1990s architecture though, ugly as fuck.

Linguistic Nationalism

My most nationalistic policy would be requiring all immigrants that request a citizenship to either:

□ A - Change/translate their surnames in the state's official language

□ B - Give them two surnames: the first one being a surname in the state's official language and the second one being their native surname

Why Linguistic Nationalism? Language is the only way to completely understand a given Culture; Language is the only indissoluble connection one has to one's own nation, unlike any other one, which are either abandonable or artificial ; (WIP)

Philosophy

⬢ Philosophical Influences

"Enlightenment is man's emergence from his self-imposed immaturity. Immaturity is the inability to use one’s understanding without guidance from another. This immaturity is self-imposed when its cause lies not in lack of understanding, but in lack of resolve and courage to use it without guidance from another. Sapere Aude! “Have courage to use your own understanding!”--that is the motto of enlightenment."
Immanuel Kant, extract from "Answering the Question: What is Enlightenment?"

My greatest ideological influences come from the Enlightenment Era and similar movements both preceding and succeeding it. I may define myself as a Kantian and Post-Kantian gnosiologically and epistemologically.

I was also influenced by Romanticism (More particularly by the Pre-Romantics and the italian author 'Giacomo Leopardi') as I think that emotions are almost as important as rationality (it would be a 50.5% Rationality to a 49.5% Emotions).

My ethics partly come from Immanuel Kant's ideas and partly are not too dissimilar from J.S. Mill's thoughts ( Utilitarianism and the Harm Principle).

I believe in the extreme importance of Relativism, Post-Modernism, Post-Structuralism and Positive Nihilism: this is because I think it is impossible for every human to have the exact same thought process, as life shapes us and our way of thinking.

All of this makes me an Anti-Positivist.

Humanitarianism is the biggest part of my ideas and it is the whole engine of my political thought.

Marxism, Catholic Social Teaching, Humanism and the Austrian School have had some influence on my way of thinking, but I would never identify directly with any of those movements.

Pragmatism is also a big part of my thought process.

□ How do I define myself philosophically?

Personally, I find myself as mainly influenced by and (somewhat) part of these movements and schools of thought:

Empiricism
Individualism
Millism
Enlightenment Era
Kantianism
Post-Kantianism
Existentialism (Still learning though)
Optimistic Nihilism
File:Anti-Essentialist.png Anti-Essentialism
Anti-Positivism

⬢ The Human (WIP)

The Fundamental Meaninglessness of Life

To understand my point of view, we need to start from a single axiom: Life is fundamentally meaningless and we can only make subjective meanings out of it.

There is basically no interacting God, no teleological end, no divine providence, which makes Atheism, Deism and File:Pantheism2.png Pantheism the only doctrines I accept

Human Action

Another axiom, very similar to the Praxeologist one: There is no human nature but self-interest, which means that even altruism is fundamentally self-interested

Humans as the Measure of Everything

TLDR; Transcendental Idealism + Personal ideas shaping how we see the world. Res Cogitans/Extensa. Physical world (Meaningless objects, meaningless everything) and Metaphysical world (Human relations, human understanding).

Rationality, Irrationality, Emotions

TLDR; Neutrality of reason. Impossible neutrality in decision. Equal importance of emotion and reason. Esprit de Geometrie/de Finesse.

⬢ The State and Society (Heavy WIP)

Justification of the State and Taxation* On Liberty

WIP

□ Liberty and Equality (WIP)

□ Liberty and Security (WIP)

"The aim of all socialist measures, even of those which appear outwardly as coercive measures, is the development and the securing of a free personality. Their more exact examination always shows that the coercion included will raise the sum total of liberty in society, and will give more freedom over a more extended area than it takes away."^[1]
Eduard Bernstein

Tolerance

Taking from the previous sections, we can describe tolerance. We can already say that tolerance is fundamentally the defense of relativism: it literally means to accept one's opinion regardless of your support of it; we can also sum up tolerance as Evelyn Beatrice Hall's quote 'I Disapprove of What You Say, But I Will Defend to the Death Your Right to Say It'.

As even Voltaire said in his 'Treaty on Tolerance', however, tolerance needs to have some limits, and those limits are founded primarily on the intolerance of a particular group.

We can simply take the already universally hated Nazis as an example: their ideology is explicitly against many basic human rights and freedoms, they actively incorporate racialist and anti-egalitarian policies and support a militaristic and extremely authoritarian state. Should we accept their opinions, since their explicit objective is taking away our right to express ours? Absolutely no. We can, again, rationally get to a vague definition of tolerance: it is based around a social contract where we all decide to tolerate each other, so anyone who decides to break the contract in serious ways has no right to cry for tolerance. What is a 'Serious breach' of the contract of tolerance is, obviously, based on emotions, but we can still consider the rational and skeletal definition as a foundation.

Egalitarianism

Humans are obviously unequal from birth, be it because of height, sex, colour of the skin, et cetera. However, it would be inhuman to consider people as inherently less than others because of unchangeable and casual characteristics.

We can say that we should judge people 'not because of the color of their skin, but because of the content of their character', as the human has the capacity of bettering itself to the point where 'natural advantages' get outclassed by sheer 'force of will'.

People should thus be judged primarily through their capacities and only secondarily and minimally through their unchangeable characteristics.

Metapolitics (WIP)

Ideological purity only hurts a movement in the long run. This is because pure ideology is increasingly distant to rationality and increasingly irrational and unachievable.

The State and State Action (WIP)

Legitimacy of state action is part of the realm of irrational thought, so there is no universal consensus of what kinds of state action can be considered legitimate or not.

I will defend the liberal views on the matter though.

□ The state's legitimate when it acts in order to preserve freedom and wellbeing;

□ Being judged by one's character and not one's body is a just principle that should be legally protected

□ Non-economic laws should strive to preserve freedom of thought and the possibility of relativism

□ The harm principle is a good basis for laws

Against Ethnicity and Race as Concepts (WIP)

The concept of ethnicity easily loses any sense, as an italian in germany who doesn't know to be italian is completely equal to an "ethnic" german.

⬢ Philosophy of Property

Thanks Robert LaFevre, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Robert Nozick for the inspiration.

The Origin of Private Property

As Robert LaFevre puts it, Private Property is a natural right, in the sense that every man has the will to own something, which sets him apart of all the others. Private property arises not from the state, but from the human will to own property, which creates a 'social contract', where everyone has an interest in not stealing in order not to be stolen from, even if the owner is not present.

Private Property and its Defence

I reject the notion that private property is a purely artificial concept created exclusively by violence, either private or from the state. The best defense of private property is primarily the Social Contract previously described: since I own something and I want my ownership to be respected, I will respect the others' claims of ownership of other objects.

As this notion expands itself to all of society, we see that there is no violence in the continuation of ownership; if it hadn't been like this, there would be an eternal State of Nature, where no one can trust no one else and where everyone fights for property.

The cases of ownership not being respected are rarer and, in those cases, defence of private property is left to the private individual: how many times is the state useless in the case of theft from one's home? Or when a car is stolen or broken into? In these cases, the state merely restraints the thief and doesn't necessarily defend property directly, else we would live in a police state, with patrols constantly in every street.

We must, however, reflect on why we need to defend our property: are thieves mostly malicious, or are they created by their dire situation?

Poverty and inequality are certainly the mother and the father of theft, as widespread ownership of property and wealth wouldn't generate the same amount of thieves. We can say that in an anarchic society, excessively concentration of wealth and of inequality would naturally be redistributed to an equilibrium at a breaking point. However, a state prevents this, which...

The State as Defender of Injustice | The Ethics and Limits of Private Property

...Makes the state a protector of injustice. Such wealth concentration can happen only when a higher force protects any kind of ownership from the threat of (justified) theft from masses of poors. A state is such a type of higher force and, while it does protect distributed private property (rightly so), it also protects unjust forms of private property, such as:

□ Unimproved land

□ Natural conformations (Lakes, Mountains, Rivers, etc.)

□ Unextracted natural resources (Ores, Forests, etc.)

□ Property that doesn't respect the right-of-passage to unowned property

□ Property that is not in enough quantity for the unobstructed survival of others

And other similar kinds of property.

This kind of property is unjust because it violates the Lockean Proviso (Which basically enunciates that Private Property is only legitimate, though, only when it arises from work or from transaction; one cannot legitimately own something that is naturally present, unless it required some work to extract, I.E. land and natural resources are not legitimate possessions) and it doesn't respect human dignity and the right of a human to survive.

However, a case can be made to retain ownership of most of these kinds of unjust property.

The Necessity of Private Property

The necessity of private property lies in the possibility of economic activity: if there was no ownership of unimproved land, construction of buildings can be impaired; if there was no ownership of natural resources, no one could extract them efficiently enough; if there was no ownership of extracted resources, their transformation into products would be much slower and less efficient, as anyone could take those.

These uses balance out the injustice of private property.

The Necessity of Wealth Redistribution

While private ownership of most kinds of unjust property can be seen as necessary, it is equally necessary to maintain private property as distributed as possible (or even to make many kinds of property public), as self-ownership is much more preferable to absentee-ownership, since extreme economic inequality numbs Democracy and damages Human Life and the Economy.

When this is not possible, such property should be taxed and revenue should be distributed to all members of society in need through a dividend (A Negative Income Tax is my preferred method) and to all of society in general by using those taxes to fund government programs.

Georgism gets the method right: most unjust private property comes from land ownership and, consequently, resource ownership, so we should apply a Land Value Tax on all land and on natural resources, as neither of these have been produced by anyone and both are available only in a limited amount.

Expropriation should thus be a last resort, only when there are serious societal consequences that derive from the private ownership of a good or of some real estate.

Why Real Estate is not Necessarily Exploitative (And Why Private Enterprise Always Is)

I justify Real Estate through a Marxian lens:

If we define exploitation as the retention of a part of a Worker's produced value, which is called Surplus Value by Marxian Economics, then Rent is non-exploitative as long as the total amount 'paid' does not exceed the Market Value for the rented good, as it would just correspond to gradually buying the good and/or even paying less than it would cost; once this limit is surpassed, though, any further kind of Rent can be considered as exploitative, even more so if there isn't any alternative to this situations.

However, this can be resolved by letting Market Forces with some Regulations do their course or, if it isn't possible, or if leaving the market to itself would lead to excessively slow results ('In the long run, we're all dead' situation), by Intervening in the economy through the production of needed goods; basically, we should thus strive to help people and firms to own what they use and leave renting to a completely personal decision by mainly using and adapting market forces (and not by regulating and banning ownership of multiple buildings), reaching then a society where Private Property is largely Distributed.

In a firms' case, Surplus Value would be the cost of the machines, tools and resources used by the Worker and bought by the Employer. This cost is, however, much lower than the one of a house, and retaining surplus value is almost always a form of exploitation by bosses; after having repaid the constant capital, which would take a smaller amount of time compared to buying a building, all workers should eventually become owners of their firm, a situation which is basically the same as in modern Worker Cooperatives.

What about shares? Shares are another form of exploitation, since there is only a monetary contribution and no labour contribution to the firm: shareholders get repaid much more than the amount of money or labour that they contribute to the firm. Only Bonds and Loans are a non-exploitative form of exclusively monetary contribution to a firm, since there is only limited profit for Bondholders and Loan-Givers.

Exploitation by Wage Labour, thus, can only be resolved by working in Worker, Producer, Consumer Coops or in Non-Profits

□ Why Ban Private Firms that do not Produce Profit for the Owner?

An owner that claims no profit, other than the one that he gets should he be a constant contributor to the firm, be it in management, work or anything else, is basically the same as any other worker, and he should get no privilege over the others for the simple fact that he founded the firm at some point. The only 'privilege' he should get is recognition for his efforts in establishing the firm and a just monetary compensation for that, always corresponding to the principle of 'To each according for his own contribution' and nothing more.

In addition to this, once the constant capital has been repaid to the owner of a firm, the worker owns the constant capital as much as the previous owner does. Paying the total value of something without having ownership over it can be, without a doubt, a form of exploitation.

□ Then why don't we ban Non-Profits?

Non-Profits are a completely different form of organisation which, as the name says, does not have profit in mind for no one that partakes in its efforts, since their objective is helping others for a price as low as possible; every worker, thus, is paid for his contribution, and nothing more or less is given to them.

□ What about Consumer and Producer Coops?

Justifying these two types of businesses is much more grounded on pragmatism rather than ideology: consumer coops and producer coops help both economic efficiency and consumer rights and, since it is impossible for a consumer to life off profits from their consumer or producer coop, such businesses offer better wages and benefits to their workers.

Economic Beliefs

⬢ General Overview

Armandonian Liberalism's economic thought is inspired by various, mostly liberal, schools of though, with the most inspiration coming from Social Liberalism, Ordo-Liberalism, Social Libertarianism, Anti-NeoCon Third Way, Green Liberalism, Georgism, Social Democracy, Liberal Socialism and Market Socialism. Yugoslavia is also a big inspiration for policy (either negatively or positively).

Fusion Reformism towards a more Social Economy and eventually Liberal Market Socialism is my main objective; if there is active resistance against the peaceful establishment of co-ops, revolution is always the plan B.

Economic Schools

Armandonian Liberalism is economically Radical Centrist (Leaning Center-Left ) and follows a mix of New Keynesianism, Freiburg Economics, Chicagoan and New Classical Economics , Georgism, Ricardian Economics and, more limitedly, Austrian Economics , File:Lausanne.png Lausanne Economics, Post-Keynesianism and Marxian Economics , with the objective of being Pragmatic in economic decision-making and to favour evidence-based policy.

"What are your general economic beliefs though?"

To answer to that question, I would say that the Freiburg School of Economics correctly defines my beliefs: an economic system where the state doesn't distort the market by excessive Regulations, Artificial Price Distortion or excessive State Economic Intervention, and where an "Economic Rulebook" is created in order to maintain healthy and just competition, foster moral economic practices and direct the market towards a particular direction. At the same time, I support many Georgist ideas.

I am a strong supporter of the Cooperative Movement and of the concept of Social Economy, as I believe that workers deserve a fair wage (If not the complete value of their own work) and more decision making in firms, since they are both the source of all value and profit of the company, making jobs a social contract between workers and employers, and since it is generally known how firms, the bigger they get, the more they exploit workers.

In addition, workers value their welfare more than employers and managers, so they wouldn't make terrible and inhuman decisions and wouldn't oppose automation (as every worker, instead of being laid off, would just work less hours).

Social Economy vs Economic Democracy

While they are similar concepts, a Social Economy and an Economic Democracy are not necessarily the same thing: an Economic Democracy is always a Social Economy, but not vice versa.

The fundamental difference between the two is that a Social Economy just bases itself on cooperatives, mutuals, associations, foundations, social enterprises, paritarian institutions etc., while an Economic Democracy usually adds societal control over investments and overall decision making, effectively putting the markets under the service of society and the state, in a way not too dissimilar to Market Socialism.

□ Is my ideology really a Social Economy?

Short answer: I believe so.

Long answer: My proposed economic system can be described as nothing more than having a Modern Liberal economic system embrace a Social Economy much more closely. Economic freedom for cooperatives and small businesses and (most) private property are still in place.

While it does have some kind of Social Ownership of Capital (E.g. National Mutual Fund), it is not inherently subjected to the state and individuals, banks, credit unions etc. still have much freedom with investments and loans. The objective is also not state or societal control over the economy, but better economic freedom for every citizen.

For these reasons, I do believe to be in the realm of a Social Economy, rather than in an Economic Democracy.

⬢ Economic Policy

Economic Liberalism and Globalism (WIP)

I believe that the Free Market can be an enormous force of good and efficiency (When well-regulated, as explained further down): this is because, as we've seen countless times, they can create growth, innovation and cheaper prices much better than planned economies.

Market economies are also self-regulating, leaving most smaller economic decisions to the costumers and the consumers and generally reaching an equilibrium by themselves (Again, there should still be government intervention, as explained further down).

International cooperation should be fostered, as it maintains peace through trading relations, it helps countries focus only on some kinds of industries and helps directing investments all over the world.

Protectionism should be abandoned, unless there are national security motivations or there is unfair competition for lack of certain laws in other countries. Trade agreements should, thus, have clauses for better working conditions and environmental regulation.

Private Property

□ Economics

TLDR; Why private property is necessary for economic stability and growth, and how exploitative wage labour gets replaced by non-exploitative rent and land development

□ Intellectual Property

TLDR; Where intellectual property is legitimate, where it isn't, why it is inherently exploitative

Taxation

(Thanks to Template:Blue Nephalem Thought for the direct inspiration)

Taxation would be reformed to be much more clear and it should be calculated by using a function and (almost always) no tax brackets. The taxes should be:

□ Land value tax (10%-50%, except the first home)

□ Progressive income taxes

□ File:GreenRegulation.png Pigouvian and Environmental taxes (25%-100% except for self-employed people and businesses with less than 5 people)

□ Inheritance tax (30%-45% from 1 million Euros onwards)

□ Gift taxes (30%-45% from 100 000 Euros onwards, unless given to a charity)

□ Corporate taxes (WIP)

□ Financial Insurance Tax (Paid by banks to fund a National Financial Insurance Fund)

□ Church taxes (15%-25%)

□ Capital gains taxes (WIP)

□ Property taxes (20% for Luxury Houses)

□ Sales taxes (WIP)

□ Tariffs (For imports from countries with sub-par working conditions, sub-par environmental laws and sub-par animal welfare)

□ AI tax (2% flat-tax for every business with more than 50 employees employing AI to fund worker retraining programmes)

□ Immigrant tax (50 - 100 Euros a month for all working non-citizens to fund an Immigrant Support Fund)

These tax rates are flexible depending on the circumstances of the economy.

⠀

State Intervention in the Economy

▣ Regulations

Regulations are a necessity to ensure a healthy economy and a healthy and just society. I am generally aligned to EU regulations and with Ordo-Liberal and Freiburg-Style regulations on this matter.

In general, regulations should be simple, effective and should not create excessive File:Econdeflate.png Inefficiency, excessive Bureaucracy and Regulatory Capture; their benefits should be weighted with the benefit of less strict regulation (or no regulation at all).

The primary objective is being pragmatic with regulations and not excessively ideological.

Some examples of regulations I support:

□ Moderate rent increase control

□ Labour Rights

□□ Workplace Safety

□□ Work-Life balance laws

□ Environmental Regulation

□ Safety and Health Regulation

□ Consumer Protection

Some examples of regulations I would reform:

□ Zoning Laws

□ Occupational Licensing

□ Business Creation

Some examples of regulations I would remove or greatly reform and reduce:
□ Most internet regulation

□ Compulsory USB-C

□ Taxi permits

□ Tech-companies regulation

□ All File:AntiBert.png Crony Regulation

▣ Anti-Trust

Anti-Trust legislation should keep the economy fair and free from Monopolies. It should be expanded to break up firms that have gotten so prevalent that they count as "Too Big to Fail" businesses and, at the same time, be reformed in order not to encompass practices that are misrepresented as monopolistic.

▣ Environmentalism

The environment should be protected using a mix of Regulations, State Intervention and Negative Externality Taxation , all of which should balance the need to do something about environmental problems and human needs (Both social and economic).

The primary objective should be reaching a

Solarpunk society.

▣ General Idea

In general, services should be rendered much more clear and efficient, in order to minimise waste of funds.

▣ Welfare

Welfare is a necessity and minimum basic services, a safety net and some wealth redistribution should be provided by the state; a progressive Negative Income Tax should be something to look into, as it can potentially simplify the welfare system and the safety net by giving money to those in difficulty instead of creating many different programs, so that they can spend them on what they know they will need.

▣ Stimulus and Unemployment Checks

In the event of recessions or when workers get laid off, checks should be given monthly only as requests or payment directly from the government or through banks: this is because unused funds would just be 'Erased' after 8 weeks I.E. they can't be accessed by recipients anymore and would go back into the checks program.

All of this would discourage saving and actually stimulate the economy. ▣ Universal Healthcare

Universal Healthcare will be guaranteed to any and all citizens; it should not be completely free though, with smaller sums of money being paid by those who utilise the services (With a maximum of 200 Euros). Individuals unable to pay for medical expenses would still receive free care.

This doesn't mean that private healthcare would be banned (More will be explained in the next sections).

▣ Education

In order to provide flexibility, no teacher should be obliged to be a member of the school they work to be, but only an employee.

Elementary and Middle School education should both be completely state-owned, in order to provide an equal education for all pupils.

High School education should be mostly state-owned, however private High Schools should be possible to open, with a maximum tuition cost of 1500€ per year and the rest of the costs being paid for by

University education should remain as it is today; at the same time, there should be more scholarships awarded both by Universities and the State.

▣ National Financial Insurance Fund

In order to avoid a financial crisis induced by bank-runs, a National Financial Insurance Fund should be established and paid for by all banks through a dedicated progressive tax. This insurance fund would help failed or failing banks repay their depositors in full.

▣ Electricity and Water

▣ Housing

The state should play a bigger part in building housing and organizing housing projects. This is mainly inspired by the Gemeindebauen of Red Vienna.

Go to r/Neoliberal for my views on housing deregulation.

"The important thing for Government is not to do things which individuals are doing already, and to do them a little better or a little worse; but to do those things which at present are not done at all."
John M. Keynes

▣ Dirigisme and SOEs

Dirigist policies are, as history has shown us, a necessity to make the country prosper. As already said, protectionism should be abandoned and other methods of fostering an industry should be put in place; generally, direct investments and the creation of State Owned Enterprises (SOEs) are the best ways to do so. Incentives should be put in place only when it is necessary to do so, I.E. when regulations and dirigist policies would be excessively distruptive or difficult to enact.

▣ Central Bank

A

Central Bank , independent from the central state, is to be retained/established, as it can make business cycles less severe in their effects. The Central Bank should be managed independently by

Technocrats.

⠀⠀⠀⠀

Workplace Democracy and Worker Representation

□ Co-Determination

Low-level management should be obligatorily be elected by workers or be completely eliminated in favour of more self-management. Marchionne's "Low hierarchy factories" are also a concept that should be looked into.

□ Unionism

Unions are, in principle, to be supported; however, I apply the concept of "Realist Unionism", that is basically not blindly supporting unions, as, sometimes, they have unrealistic and unjust advances towards employers.

□ Tripartism

TLDR; Seeing how well this system works in the Nordic Countries, we should look into it

File:GigEcon.png Gig Economy and Self-Employment

We could say that a File:GigEcon.png Gig Economy helps people have more flexibility. At the same time, this is largely abused by many firms, which use Freelancers and Self-Employed workers in order not to abide to an employment contract and exploit this kind of labour.

In order to solve this, Trade Unions and a newly-formed (albeit not as powerful as in the past) Guild System should regulate relations between firms and File:GigEcon.png Freelancers and File:PCB-Indlibsoc.png Self-Employed workers.

Natural Monopolies: Cooperativisation or Nationalisation?

Natural monopolies (Roads, Railways, Dams)

Transport Systems

Biking infrastructure should be constructed all over the place, to foster the use of bikes and scooter and reduce the volume of cars used.

The Taxi sector should be mostly deregulated, in order to foster self-employed taxi drivers and more competition. Motorbike-taxis and bus-taxis should also be allowed to exist.

Urban Planning

⬢ Social Economy

Progress towards a more Social Economy should be done through Activism, autonomous organisation (through internet, for example), pro-worker democracy and pro-cooperative reforms and without much direct government intervention (Basically, we should behave Freiburg-style). The basic tenets are these:

□ Co-operative Ownership

□ Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOP)

□ Board-Level Employee Representation (BLER).

In addition to this, laws that make establishing a cooperative, a mutual etc. should be put into place; examples are the Marcora Law and the Right to Own (More info: Unlearning Economics - Worker Democracy).

Cooperative Crowdfunding

"Cooperative Crowdfunding" is a system where people can crowdfund a new worker or consumer cooperative through either a (cooperative) bank or a bank/state-licensed site or organisation: it would work similarly to sites like Kickstarter.

Coop-Worker Finder

"Coop-Worker Finder" would be a service where new entrepreneurs can find like-minded people to found a coop with.

Healthcare: Promoting Worker and Consumer Co-ops

As we've seen, the private healthcare sector in its current form is either a complete failure (Like in countries like the US) or overly expensive (Like in most EU countries). One part of this problem can surely be pointed to private hospitals private insurance companies having profit for the shareholders and the owners as their highest priority; it follows that we should promote (or even force) both Consumer Cooperatives and Worker Cooperatives in the sector.

Firstly, all insurance companies should be consumers' mutual funds, in order to fight the common occurrence of insurers deciding arbitrarily whether a given hospital visit was necessary or not.

Secondly, we should promote cooperatively-owned hospitals and clinics (Similar to the Brazilian UNIMED).

Insurance, Housing: Promoting Consumer Co-ops

Prostitution and cooperatively-owned brothels

Prostitution should be legalised but limited to cooperatively-owned brothels, while street prostitution should be prohibited but decriminalised and pimps should remain illegal and prosecutable.

These limitations have these objectives:

□ Reduce sex slavery

□ Regulate prostitution

□ Maintain body autonomy

Founders of Coops: Risk and Reward

TLDR; Rewarding founders of coops for taking risks

Entrepreneur as a Job | Firms and Buildings

TLDR; How entrepreneurs can become coop-founders in order to stimulate economic growth

⬢ Forced Cooperativisation (Section in heavy rewriting)

▣ Economy

Cooperativisation of Sectors

We should individuate those sectors that can be mostly coop-driven and foster the creation of and transformation of businesses into worker and consumer cooperatives. Pharmacies, Light industry, Manufacture, Insurance, Programming, Social Media, Road transport, and many other sectors can potentially all be based around cooperatives and cooperative federations.

Eventually, we should ban private business creation in such sectors and only allow for cooperative creation.

Ban on Firm Inheritance

Firm inheritance should be banned and the firm should go directly to workers, in order to eventually phase out all private businesses.

Trade Unions | Employee Firm Ownership Plans

In order to foster the Right to Own, Trade Unions

Ban on Private Insurance

TLDR; Mutual insurance

Cooperativisation of Capital Intensive Sectors

TLDR; idek

Status of Non-Profits

Non-profit organisations will not be subjected to the same laws as for-profit businesses: private ownership will be possible and they will be subjected to pretty much the same regulation as today, as the objective of this kind of business is, as the name says, not to give a profit to owners or workers, but to give a cheaper and humane service

Financial Sector (Heavy WIP)

□ Domestic Investment Funds

Yugoslavia's Domestic Investment Funds

□ Private Banking

□ Cooperative Banking

Banks Mutual Funds, Credit Unions, Cooperative Banks etc.,

□ Private Investments

TLDR; Bond markets, stock ownership as exploitation, why non-exploitative stock ownership is basically a bond market, why bonds are non-exploitative ('Repaying' machinery and resources to who bought the bond, as the funds come from him)

▣ Politics

⬢ Cooperative-specific regulations (Section in heavy rewriting)

Worker Cooperatives

Worker Cooperatives would be allowed to have up to 1/5 of workers as non-members (The calculation would be: Number of Members ÷ 5 = Maximum number of Non-Member employees, always rounded up), in order to ensure an easier hiring and training process. Membership would remain completely voluntary, with each worker deciding between being a simple employee with none of the benefits of membership, or pay for the membership (This process would be organised by each co-op independently).

Consumer Cooperatives

All Consumer Cooperatives would either become multi-stakeholder/worker-consumer cooperatives, after a vote by both employees and members, or have obligatory co-determination for workers once they pass 60 employees.

Cooperative Brothels

Cooperative Brothels will just be considered as collaborating self-employed people who share the same space. Profits will be assigned to the individual worker and will not be shared through equity.

Focus on some Concepts

⬢ Private Property (WIP)

Why Private Property is not Inherently Exploitative (Personal Article)

Write to me on Discord to get the first draft of the document!

Reading List

Already Read

Ludwig von Mises - Economic Policy
Pope Leo XIII - Rerum Novarum
Pope Pius XI - Quadrangesimo Anno
Voltaire - A Treatise on Tolerance
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - On the Origin of Inequality
David I. Backer - Illyrian economics
Gregor and Otto Strasser - The Manifesto of the Black Front
Immanuel Kant - Perpetual Peace
Robert LaFevre - The Philosophy of Ownership
Thomas Paine - Agrarian Justice
Niccolò Machiavelli - Il Principe (Studied in school)
Ludvik Vaculik - 2000 Words

Reading It

Group of International Communists - Fundamental

Principles of Communist Production and Distribution

Eduard Bernstein - Evolutionary Socialism

Cesare Beccaria - On Crimes and Punishment

Jean-Jacques Rousseau - The Social Contract
John Stuart Mill - On Liberty

Planning to Read

F.A. Hayek - The Constitution of Liberty

F.A. Hayek - Road to Serfdom
F.A. Hayek - Monetary Nationalism
F.A. Hayek - The Denationalisation of Money
Immanuel Kant - Critique of Practical Reason
Immanuel Kant - Critique of Judgement
Immanuel Kant - Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals
Immanuel Kant - Metaphysics of Morals
Immanuel Kant - The Conflict of the Faculties
Jean-Jacques Rousseau - Reveries of the Solitary Walker

Vilfredo Pareto - The Mind and Society

File:DeSoto.png Jesus Huerta de Soto - The Theory of Dynamic Efficiency

File:GeoAust.png Fred Foldvary - The Business Cycle: A Geo-Austrian synthesis
John Stuart Mill - Utilitarianism
John Stuart Mill - Considerations on Representative Government
John Stuart Mill - The Subjection of Women

John Stuart Mill - Principles of Political Economy

John Locke - Two Treaties on Government
Thomas Hobbes - Leviathan
Thomas Hobbes - Behemoth

Henry David Thoreau - Civil Disobedience

Henry David Thoreau - Walden; or, Life in the Woods

Henry George - Science of Political Economy
Henry George - Protection or Free Trade

Karl Marx - Das Kapital
Robert Nozick - Anarchy, State and Utopia

Marco Bentivogli, Diodato Pirone - Fabbrica Futuro

MacPherson - One Path to Cooperative Studies

Adam Smith - The Wealth of Nations
Adam Smith - The Theory of Moral Sentiments
Edmund Burke - (Something in general)
David Hume - (Something in general)
Alexis de Tocqueville - Democracy in America
Alexis de Tocqueville - The Old Regime and the Revolution

David Ricardo - On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation

Hillel Steiner - An Essay on Rights

Peter Vallentyne and Hillel Steiner - Left-Libertarianism and Its Critics

Peter Vallentyne -Left-Libertarianism as a Promising Form of Liberal Egalitarianism

Peter Vallentyne -Libertarianism and Taxation

Peter Vallentyne -Libertarianism and the State

Peter Vallentyne -Child Liberationism and Legitimate Interference

Peter Vallentyne -Freedom of Expression, Hate Speech, and Censorship

Relations

Real and plausible ideologies

Friends

Template:PB - One of the most based philosophers and economists in history
Liberal Market Socialism - Basically my economic system
Social Economy - We will reach you, one day.
Social Liberalism - You are the best liberal, thanks for the economics
Liberal Socialism - Basically me, but with more a lot emphasis on social ownership of things.
Ricardian Socialism - Mainstream economics need ricardianism!
Radicalism - Radically liberal also means that you can vote in your workplace!
Liberalism - Based property rights, based free markets, unbased capitalism. Still, I am basically you in a framework of social economy (And a little more welfare).
Ordo-Liberalism - You are a bit more right-wing than me, but you have MANY valuable lessons.
Cultural Liberalism - Live and let live - with a bit of Moderate Progressivism and Moderate Conservatism here and there where it's needed.
Green Liberalism and Eco-Cooperativism - He who doesn't protect the environment is inherently ignorant
File:PCB-Neoliberal-icon.png Neoliberalism - r/Neoliberal is a nice place
File:DistributismIcon.png Distributism - The only third position I will accept
Social Libertarianism - The only good (And not stupid) libertarian
File:PCB-Regulationism.png Regulationism - Useful if not taken too far.
Syndicalism - I agree with you in principle, but I will also support employers' unions when they are right, remember.
Liberal Corporatism - Tripartitism is based
Social Capitalism - Social Market Economy??? Let me in!
Third Way - To redistribute wealth you have to create it first.
File:PCB-Marketsoc.png Market Socialism - It's nice discussing with market socialists. They are not that ideological.

Likeable

Liberal Conservatism - Generally likeable, but you got to actually redistribute wealth for it to trickle down. At least you're not File:PCB-ConLib.png Conservative Liberalism.
F.A. Hayek - I shouldn't like you, but I feel so attracted to your ideas for some reason.
One-Nation Conservatism - Best conservative, but we do have our economic disagreements from time to time ~~MOTHERFUCKER WHY DID YOU LEAVE THE EU~~ .
File:MuscLib.png Muscular Liberalism - DEFEND CULTURALLY LIBERAL VALUES RAHHHHHH (But stop being islamophobic please).
Social Democracy - Too statist and you create too many inefficiencies in the market, but you have many useful ideas, like co-determination and, arguably, rent control.
Titoism - Based laws on foreign investments, but you should have accepted the free market more.
Council Communism - Most based form of communism, would live under it if I had to decide which kind of communism to establish. I do have my reservations against the economic planning (It is inherently anti-individualistic) however.

Frenemies

Post-Libertarianism - Has some interesting takes, but is too laissez-faire.
Democratic Socialism - Some of you are more akin to my ideas and Liberal Socialism, others to regular File:PCB-Marketsoc.png Market Socialism, but why are SO MANY of your followers State Capitalists!? Cringe
File:PCB-Nalib.png National Liberalism - A bit of nationalism is necessary to keep us united (If you don't think that liberalism IS the best system ever, how will it ever survive?), but you get too conservative and even protectionist at times.
Mutualism - Mixed bag, I will certainly keep that National Mutual Fund you theorised though. One way to socially own money.
Austrian School - Has some good ideas and a good business cycle analysis, I may apply your principles here and there, but laissez-faire was a failure. Full stop.
Libertarianism - Eh. Liberty is obviously good, but you have more of an emphasis on being egoist than on being free with others harmoniously.
File:PCB-Corptism.png Corporatism - Class collaboration is more based than laissez-faire, but you're too statist.
Socialism - Yes, we're gonna get to you, but only BY AUTOMATION.
Capitalism - VERY mixed bag. I have many elements from you and a good boss can be better than a cooperative, I must admit it. But history shows us how exploitative you are and I think that, in the long run, it would be better to phase you out into a much more Social Economy.

Unlikeable

Protectionism - Free trade fosters cooperation, peace and helps every country with focusing only on what they do well. Protection makes prices higher and doesn't help international relations at all. We should still apply you when there is an emergency situation though, or to defend us from unethically produced goods from other countries.

Enemies

File:PCB-Commie.png Communists and State Socialism - Unlike socialism, you two are completely utopic and devolve constantly in dictatorships or back to capitalism.
File:PCB-Awaj.png Anarchists - Utopic, unrealistic, etc.
File:PCB-Corp.png Corporatocracy - Freedom is also freedom of opening a shop - corporations won't take away that right.
File:PCB-Ancapf.png Anarcho-Capitalism - Jeff Bezos' personal fleshlight
State Capitalism - Sure, sure, you could be good IN THEORY, IF THE STATES THAT UTILIZED YOU WERE ACTUALLY DEMOCRATIC.
File:PCB-ConLib.png Conservative Liberalism - Fuck you. Just fuck you.
File:PCB-Reactsoc.png Reactionary Socialism, Strasserism and Neosocialism - You all are the worst. Basically left-wing fascists.
File:PCB-Fash.png Fascism - How would anyone like to live under your system? You're pretty fucking scary.

Self-Inserts

Judging your ideology, not you :D

S-Tier Lads

Template:NameEvolutionarySocialism - You're fucking EPIC. I may get many ideas from you.

Yori Model - Fellow based reformist (But what if we need revolution, just a little, as a treat ;) )

Template:Blue Nephalem Thought - You're the mirror version of me basically. Based in all departments and in the support for a social economy.

Mainstream Hard Left - I hardly see anything "Hard" about your left, but we are similar nonetheless.

File:Soc3Waywithanhat2.png Socialist Third Way - Liberal Socialism GANG! Another based comrade.

Leerderism - Frisia is my favourite country on EU4 :D. If you add co-ops to that, then it's even better.

Artelordism - I am looking in a mirror rn.

Yoda8soup - Another fellow reformist with revolutionary characteristics. We are very similar tbh, but abandon the partial democratic planning man.

Template:SocMor - You are the closest we can get to neo-distributism lol. A very nice and level-headed ideology (Especially economically) and one of the best class-collaborators here

Ultra-Enlightenment - You are one of my favourite ideologies on here and I love the totality of your beliefs, especially the philosophical ones.

Template:GoobLab - Again, one of the best class collaborators, plus you've become even more similar to me. You should just embrace cooperatives totally at this point though.

A-Tier Friends

Uzarashvilism - Very strange cultural beliefs, but other than that, very based economics, not unlike to mine

Great British New Left - MY MAN. You are pretty cool tbh, hope that our (Pretty dire, to be honest) differences don't distract us from the cooperative movement.

Heredism - Based mutualism, but I doubt that it would work in the long run.

Template:ETS - Ok man, I gotta say that you are a bit too much of a statist and collectivist in my opinion, mostly on the basis of syndicate control of the economy and of cultural policy, however I don't really have any strong opposition to your beliefs. Your democratic system is interesting. Overall a nice ideology.

Mr_Beast_0f_93 - We are pretty much the same culturally and socially, I admire your commitment to human rights and liberty; we are extremely similar even in foreign relations and in (very general) economic policy. However, our direst differences lie in government intervention in the economy. I believe that a mix of Ordoliberal and Social Liberal economic policies are the best balance between economic efficiency, state intervention, liberty and human-centered policy, while you are more laissez-faire on the matter; I do however see how we can influence each other, as our ideologies are pretty much open to change.

Another contentious point is the role of co-ops; while you don't support eventually mandating them, you still recognize their utility.

P.S. PETIT BOURGEOISIE GANG

Gooberism - A bit more culturally right-wing than me and you are still laissez-faire adiacent, however your family-centered economics (Basically modern-day distributism) put you a bit closer to me. Overall based

Brazilian Liberalism - You are the next target for the coop-pill. Also, pretty based economics, but a bit too authoritarian here and there.

File:CalafaxBall.png Geoliberal Social Democracy - Very VERY based economics man.

Template:Panth - idk about that economic coordination and corporatism, I prefer dirigisme, but otherwise pretty nice economics. Just get a little bit more democratic though.

Owfism - Pretty much a regular Social Liberal tbh. Pretty good in my opinion, just needs to be a little more focused on cooperatives and reject a lot of that support for Big Business.

HEW Thought - National Syndicalism is economically based, but socially? I don't really like conservatism that much. You're pretty moderate though, so still based ;)

Likeable Gang

Aristocratic Futurism File:AriFut2.png - Now - your ideology is really thought-provoking and you raise good concerns against the status quo of liberalism and democracy, but I think that you put a little too much trust in unelected officials and in a society divided in classes, even if they're meritocratic. May also get some ideas from you though.

Vistulism - A tad bit too statist for my liking plus protectionism is shit, however we have similar ideals and love for cooperatives!

Tiberius Thought - Too statist for my liking bro, but you seem to know what you are talking about. Based economics.

File:EgoFutureStrasserism-Alt.png Ego Future Strasserism - Very based economics, less based strasserist simbology

Frenemies

Council Marxism - A much better version of Council Communism. Still, where are the markets?
- See the latest addition to my page.

Serbian Socialism - Tito 2? Based! You're just a bit too extreme for my liking (And sorry for misrating you lol)

"35% good, 65% bad" Gang

Glorified Communism - Your analysis is... very interesting. I fundamentally agree with the Solar Economy part. However, I reject violence and insurrection and I have my doubts on anarchy and minarchy.

Jefbol Thought - Council communism is a mixed bag. Automation will surely lead to it, but for the time being, it just restricts the freedom that the markets give us.

Enemies

Template:Ayafantoho - You're down here simply because I am grading beliefs (I mean, you're anarcho-nihilism on crack boi), but we should bash our own skulls together some day

Gumballism - Cringe neoreactionary. Touch grass

Rigby Thought - Conservatism and right-wing economics have been a disaster for humankind. Also, eugenics???

Meowxism - Marxist-Leninist, Planned Economy Supporter, Collectivist, Anti-Nationalist, Eurosceptic, Anti-Liberal, ... I cannot imagine a worst ideology and a worse system to live into tbh.

Hysteria thought - A very strange lad, but economically tame (which I still don't support)

</tabber>

Comments

Council Marxism Would you mind if I were to replace the LeftCom armchair emoji you put in my page with one of Council Communism in an Armchair?
- - Yes you can do it
  - File:Armchair CounMarx Correct.png I love making this kind of stuff too much just look at the little gal, she sits