UserWiki:Ninjack-Aus

[[File:Centrist-yellow.png]]Political Compass Tests[[File:Centrist-yellow.png]]
Center Left Economics: -3.38 Very Libertarian: -7.28
 * -|Political Compass Test=

Center Left Economics: -2 Reasonably Libertarian: -5.68 Extremely Progressive: 8.25
 * -|Sapply Values=

64.4% Equality / 35.6% Markets 22.2% Nation / 77.8% Globe 80.5% Liberty / 19.5% Authority 18.8% Tradition / 81.2% Progress Social Libertarianism
 * -|8Values=

81% Federal / 19% Unitary Extreme Federal 88% Democracy / 12% Authority Extreme Democratic 85% Globalist / 15% Isolationist Extreme Globalist 47% Militarist / 53% Pacifist Neutral 14% Security / 86% Freedom Extreme Freedom 67% Equality / 33% Markets Moderate Equality 87% Secular / 13% Religious Secular 74% Progress / 26% Tradition Progressive 13% Assimilationist / 87% Multiculturalist Extreme Multiculturalist Social Libertarianism
 * -|9Axes=

80.5.0% Federal / 19.5% Unitary Federational 89.0% Democractic / 1.0% Autocratic Direct Democracy 18.0% Security / 82.0% Freedom Liberatarian 88.0% Internationalism / 12.0% Nationalism Internatonalism 51.5% Militarist / 48.5% Pacifist Neutral 17.0% Assimilationist / 83.0% Multiculturalist Multiculturalist 67.0% Collectivise / 34.0% Privatize Socialized 35.5% Planned / 64.5% Laissez-Faire Free Market 19.0% Isolationism / 81.0% Globalism Globalist 88% Irreligious / 12% Religious Atheist 78.5% Progressive / 2.5% Traditional  Culturally Left 68.5% Technology / 31.5% Bioconservative Technological Libertarian Market Socialism
 * -|12Axes=

67.73% Equality / 32.7% Property 39.1% Coordination / 60.9% Market 36.5% Dominion / 63.5% Anarchy 76.9% Permission / 24.1% Restriction 76% Inclusive / 24% Supremacy 32.7% Heritage / 67.3% Novelty Social Georgism
 * -|Dozen Values=

31.3% Demagogue / 68.7% Technocrat  Advised 6.3% Planned / 93.7% Market Laissez Faire 28.1% One Country / 71.9% Global International 43.8% Military / 56.2% Peace Peaceful 56.3% Proletarian / 43.7% Peasant Worker 23.8% Uniformal / 76.2% Tolerant Liberal 34.4% Traditional / 65.6% Neoteric Reformist 68.8% Populist / 31.2% Elitist Appealing Socialism With a Human Face
 * -|Vanguard Values=

65.6% Equity / 34.4% Competition Redistributed 82.8% Horizontal / 17.2% Hierarchy Horizontal 76.6% Demand / 23.4% Regulation Free Market 25.0% Central / 75.0% Local Disunited 54.7% Automation / 45.3% Employment Neutral 89.1% Commons / 10.9% Rent Georgism 14.1% Birthright / 85.9% Merit Opportunity 85.9% Unionized / 14.1% Divided Unionist Libertarian Market Socialism
 * -|EconValues=

1.5% Revolution / 98.5% Reform Extremely Reformist 45.3% Scientific / 54.7% Utopian Neutral 3.3% Central / 96.7% Decentral Extremely Decentralized 74.1% International / 23.9% National Internationalist 30.8% Party / 69.2% Union Unionist 45.8% Production / 54.2% Nature Neutral 19.1% Conservative / 80.9% Progressive Very Progressive 100% Market Anarchism 96.5% Democratic Socialism 95.7% Social Democracy 73.1% Utopian Socialism 66.3% Anarcho-Communism 62.3% Eco-Anarchism 58.5% Centrist Marxism 49.9% Left-Wing Nationalism 34.2% Council Communism 33.6% Orthodox Marxism 29.6% Eco-Marxism 27.9% Left Communism 00.0% Marxism-Leninism
 * -|Left Values=

100.0% Reform / 0.0% Conserve  Progressive 67.5% Intervention / 32.5% Laissez-Faire Regulationist 10.0% Authority / 90.0% Constitution Libertarian 30.0% Particular / 70.0% Universal Diplomatic Interventionist 0.0% Theocratc / 100.0% Seperation Secularism 67.5% Accelerate / 32.5% Decelerate Productivism 40.0% Assimilation / 60.0% Multicultural Neutral 100% Geolibertarianism 94.4% Progressive Conservatism 89.6% Centre-Right Politics 83.5% Paternalistic Conservatism 76.5% Agorism 76.5% Civic Nationalism 76.2% Technocracy 75.7% Pink Capitalism 75.5% Conservatism 74.7% Individualist Anarchism 72.5% Neoliberalism 68.3% Paleoconservatism 67.8% Classical Liberalism 65.4% Constitutional Monarchism 63.3% Fiscal Conservatism 58.9% Paleolibertarianism 57.8% Libertarianism 46.6% Neoconservatism 39.2% Theocracy 37.7% Minarchism 31.0% Anarcho-Capitalism 24.3% Fascism 21.8% Reactionary Conservatism 19.5% Absolute Monarchism 0.0% National Socialism
 * -|Right Values=

67.6% Moderate / 32.4% Extreme Libertarian Paternalist 77.5% Lib-Unity / 32.5% Right-Unity Libertarian Co-operation 71.3% Bleeding Heart / 28.7% Paleo Progressive
 * -|Liberty Values=

74.2.2% Altruity / 25.8% Avarice Utopian 26.1% Dominant / 73.9% Insular Ideological Pacifist 69.9% Self / 30.1% Totality Individualist 2.7% Stalwart / 97.3% Hedonic Post Humanist
 * -|8Dreams=

-2.5 Communal / +2.5 Darwinist -4 Orwellian / +4 Egoistic +1 Futuristic / -1 Primal

Social Kakistocracy

Closest Match: Distributism
 * -|Ideosorter=

54.1% Moderate / 45.9% Radical Liberal Socialism 24.1% Left Unity / 75.9% Lib Unity Libertarian Unity 0% Centralized / 100% Decentralized Extremely Decentralized 32.6% Localist / 67.4% Globalist Internationalist 19% Traditionalist / 81% Progressive Very Progressive 86.3% Reform / 13.7% Revolution Reformism 97.9% Markets / 2.1% Planning Very Free Market Liberal Socialism
 * -|Liberation Values=

[[File:Capcom.png]]My Personal Understanding on Markets, Labour and Capitalism's Problems[[File:Capcom.png]]
Any functional market is ran for and by the people, every single person in the world is a consumer. The consumption of goods and services for consumers is the sole reason to produce them.
 * -|Baseline Definitions=

Goods and services are produced by an individuals labour, aided by an enterprise and the enterprises capital like a piece of machinery used for manufacturing a good or the land the manufacturing takes place, which can either be neccesary or merely assistive.

A laborer may be their own enterprise in the form of the self-employed, and enterprise isn't just a capitalist term. Many forms of socialist enterprises exist be they co-ops, state ran or mutuals. An enterprise is a catch all term for entities designed to produce goods and services.

Markets in the world use what is for all intents and purposes a barter system of valuified labour (money), to be exchanged for the mutual trade of the production / consumption of a good or service for an individual to consume.

The value of labour is directly equal to the goods and services produced this means that the value of money and how much a person can recieve for their production of a good or service is equal to the supplied demand / how much paid for the good or service.

The "invisible hand of the free market" is a flawed, resource inefficent and unethical system which inevitably prioritizes the wealth of monopoly enterprises and the ultra-wealthy - however it provides the goods and services we need succesfully and consistently and should be maintained.
 * -|Problems with Social Democractic & Keynesian Thinking (I still love keyne though)=

Social Democrats and other welfarist / ethical capitalists seek to establish government intervention in the negative situations caused by the free market, like poverty, unemployment, homelessness and social inequality among many others.

This government intervention is done through directly subsidising / paying the inable an extremely limited wage or supplement to an existing income alongside manipulating with policies like minimum wage, rent controls and maternal leave.

Another common, but non-routine way is to directly subsidise enterprise or set up government funded jobs despite the lack of sufficent demand to justify enterprise for a certain good or service in an area. The government intervenes in the perceived root of the high amount of poverty and unemployment - the employing enterprises.

The laborers creating the goods and services are paid less for their labour as their goods and services produced by their labour are worth less due to not sufficent demand for supply, lowering prices.

Thusly, make work devalues a laborers wage and worth and means they can purchase less with the same effort and have a lower quality of life.

It's a common belief among capitalists and libertarians that competition breeds innovation and the freer the market, the freer the people. This is partially true, however it is also paradoxical to some extent.
 * -|Problems with Crony Capitalism, AKA: Greed, Monopolization & Complacency=

Whilst capitalist societys undeniably have constant innovation in buisness, it is rarely to stay ahead of competition but to further the monpoly of the scarce few mass employing companies. You might think only big tech and some superstores like amazon are monopolistic, but they are merely the directly public companies.

I'd like to show an infographic you might've seen before. This might not seem to be a monopoly, but it is not conspiracist to believe that they in any way communicate with eachother for mutual gain. How many of these products and companys can you identify? Can you name any food product in your fridge which isn't produced by the food monopoly?

When an enterprise achieves a monopoly, they both completely control the exchange of labour for all except the most unionized work forces, and more importantly they completely control the supply of goods and services.

The economic parable of the broken window explains how that whilst a window maker may profit from a window being accidentally broken, the wealth used to repair the window would be spent on other economic activites regardless. If the only thing that happens between point A and point C is that some of the window owner's money now belongs to the window maker then it is just theft. Nothing of value happened due to the breaking of the window, for isn't the window being fine of intrinsic value itself?

In any reasonable market, supply and demand equalizes prices so that it's possible for a company to afford production whilst being affordable to the level of want, IE an umbrella is "wanted" less than food. When an enterprise has monopoly it can force any price. If BreadCo owns or is co-operating with all other bread producers in your local area and decides to raise prices to the maximum you can afford, then you most likely wouldn't purchase bread. However, if BreadCo decided to control or co-operate with all food producers at the supermarkets in your area (god I hate superstores) than you have no choice but to buy (they wouldn't raise the price so high that you cant buy).

To combine both previous paragraphs, the only thing that happens when a monpoly price gouges is the increased transition of wealth from consumers to the monopolistic producers with no added value, which is not just immoral but uneconomical.

This price gouging IS "make work" for crony corpotocracy assuming that there is intrinsic different value in goods and services due to the expansion of utilization, in the same way that a hug is intrinsicaly good if it is wanted and people feeling good is good.

Not only does this makework devalue the monopolized products but it also hinders consumers from consuming ALL products as they have less wealth from both being price gouged and having both intentional / accidental wage devaluation.

Economic Statiscians consider these megacorporations good even though negative economic value is experienced to the economy from the existence of them. Whilst they do create many jobs (of far lower wages and production quality) and the specially designed gross domestic product is higher for a while due to the exploitation; the common masses lose in the short and long term with far lower quality of life.

Crony capitalism is just welfare for crony capitalists, except that welfare is undeniably ethical despite it's few faults.

[[File:Liberty.png]]Civic Rights + My Economic Policies[[File:Liberty.png]]
I consider myself a progressive and believe all individuals are intrinsically equal regardless of ethnicity, sex or any other attributes.

[[File:Gay.png]]LGBT[[File:Gay.png]]
LGBT rights should be enshrinend in constitution or law with legal same-sex marriage, same-sex adoption, sex transition and anti-discrimination laws. However these anti-discrimination laws should be somewhat limited as to prevent counter discrimination and there shouldn't be a diversity quota at all.

[[File:Fem.png]]Abortion[[File:Fem.png]]
Many countries and federal territories in the world cap abortion at less than a half-dozen of weeks if not outright banning it. However most progressive abortion legislation caps at 20 weeks, which is ideal, but I wouldn't object to raising it further.

The main reason for preventing abortion is due to cultural morality, which isn't a reason to force women to give up their body autonomy and personal liberty for a year of pregnancy and most likely their career and personal life during the later stages.

There is less than a 0.05 percent chance of major complications from surgical abortion in the first and second trimester (~20 weeks), meaning it is an eleventh as deadly as conception and any regards to safety are invalid, atleast until the latest stages of pregnancy.

[[File:Dem.png]]National Democracy[[File:Dem.png]]
I love democracy, I support the unfettered freedom of political and economic choice aslong as it is not anti-democratic itself. I prefer centrist ideologies (A tolerant definition of centrism, so only significantly economically revolutionary and authoritarians aren't included) and dislike populist ideologies for subverting popular will to corrupt ends.

I might support digital democracy and voting over the internet, which would massively increase voter pariticpation at the expense of potential hacking and over-conveience making your choice on what to vote for seem unimportant to focus on. Whilst I can tolerate representative democracy, I would unquestionably support a transition to direct democracy so each policy could be voted on by all citizens of a country and not just elected representives and legislators.

[[File:Fed.png]]Local Democracy[[File:Fed.png]]
I support heightened federalization of both policy and budgetary kinds as people should have the right to self govern and have contradictory laws to the national government. These regional goverments should still be subservient to the national government though, unlike a confederal society.

States and territories should be given their own budgets by the federal government, with a limited ability to alter by the national fed if in a deficit. The people can vote on each change proposed to the budget from the last year until a majority consensus is reached, if no consesus is reached in a month then the fed can decide to pass either the previous years budget or the current draft budget, which can be altered by up to 10% in value.

Both citizens and a small regiment of elected burecrat-politicans should also be able to send in their own legislation to their local government, which would be voted on by the people to change their local constitution, or be sent to the nation-wide government if deemed wanted.

[[File:Libms.png]]Nationalization & Privatization[[File:Libms.png]]
Whilst I do support a more socialized yet laissez faire that doesn't change the fact that I am really fucking disgusted by the privatization of Australia's natural resources. To explain my point of view; Norway and Australia have roughly the same GDP based off of mining, however Norway's oil and gas are completely government owned and pays into the government's sovereign fund which is how it pays for it's nordic welfare magic. Meanwhile, Australia's mining is completely controlled by private organizations which's own coffers are filled and all we gain is "eMplOyMEnt" and furthering global warming, whilst all the resources go to america, europe and china. If I had the power to change policy with disregard for the shoddy fucking coal lobby's shitty lobbying then I'd nationalzie all resources, fuck the market shock.

[[File:Multicult.png]]Border Control & Immigration[[File:Multicult.png]]
Border control isn't particularly demanding on the budget, at 0.6% in Australia, but decreasing immigration regulation is a net benefit economically, let alone ethically.

Whilst immigration has been shown to decrease wages, this can be prevented via the strong pro-labour and minimum wage policies I've listed in other sections of my page and the immigrant's "taking jobs" statement is atleast partially contradictory with the depression in wages. Aren't le capitalists capitalizing on the excess labour? Also Universal Basic Income doesn't go to !!

Currently Immigration to Australia requires native english speaking and being skilled for labour aswell as passing a citizenship test, however these requirements should be abolished.

Ideally the borders should be completely open with free and instaneous citizenship if you can merely pass an extensive background check in person proving that you exist, however this may prove very unpopular and hard to instate so I'd be happy enough keeping our naturalization system but reduce the required time having lived in australia from four years to six months.

I also support reducing all checks on refugees, regardless of if they're fleeing persecution, wars or anything in between.

[[File:World.png]]Foreign Relations, International Organizations & Tarrifs[[File:World.png]]
I support international co-operation organizations like the UN and it's agencies like the International Monetary Fund and World Health Organization aswell as regional pan-nationalist groups like the EU and ASEAN.

Australia should spend far more on international aid then it currently does, but not just for humanitarian reasons. Foreign aid to other countries inclines them to support trade and foreign investement to the aider, aswell as increased dependency and political pressure in the aidee.To summarize, foreign aid pays back on itself through the economic influence and supporting international trade with other countries tenfold.

Import Tarrifs contribute nill to the budget and the protectionism directly harms the domestic enterprise it aims to protect assuming it's already self sufficent.

The only industries that are "harmed" by international trade and "saved" by tarrifs from "unfair competition" is the big AG voting bloc. This is because mass food imports from third world countries are both significantly lower priced than first world crops but also extremely vulnerable to small increases or decreases in profit due to the universal appeal allowing choosy-ness for whom to export, meaning that the small cut in profit only affects the supply of foreign agricultural goods. These imports directly free both land and labour that could be used elsewhere aswell as reducing the price of food, not to mention that the actual "harm" to domestic farming is extremely miniscule.

If you want a look at Venezula 100 million protectionism, take a look at hitlers shitty economy full of the unemployment protectionism aims to prevent following autarkic policies, or better yet Franco's former autarkic state's shitty economy before become extremely pro-international-trade and a free marketer to join NATO, which gave an unparralled and long period of universal economic growth and investment nicknamed the spanish miracle, which benefit all citizens of spain through decreased unemployment, decreased price of goods and increasd wages among many other signs of growth.

[[File:Modnat.png]]Military[[File:Modnat.png]]
I support our troops and the raising of military spending! Afghanistan was a global disgrace, we let a terrorist organization take control of a democratic republic which we could've prevented if given more civil development and military funding (assuming that the powers that be ever allowed it, as in all likelihood afghanistan was never about nation building and instead furthering the american military-industrial complex and big oil)

Australia is right on the chinese sphere, we need to protect south east asia from chinese agression and domination aswell as strengthening diplomatic connections with India, Indonesia and Taiwan.

[[File:Keynes.png]]Govermental Income[[File:Keynes.png]]
First off, I support raising taxes on the rich and large enterprises through any kind of tax policy (I'd also support enviromental taxes, but thats in the enviroment heading later). There has been little to no proof that raising taxes on the wealthy cause any decrease in economic activity or living standars... with a few caveats.
 * Capital Emmigration / Brain Drain

Based
Kirbly - Occupies the exact same spot on the political compass test with me. Aside from that, is a wholesome social liberal / social libertarian with all the democracy, enviromentalism, progressivism, georgism and the like that applys with it. BeryAb - A progressive anti-authortiarian civic libertarian globalist. Basically me but on the economically right side of the lib unity line. YellingYowie - Fellow social libertarian deriative with an emphasis on globalism, doubleplusgood! Potato6132 - A mega based fash disliking social libertarian. What to say except poggers! Vonali - A progressive, moderate civic libertarian with some social libertarian leanings and some georgist seasonings with a world federalist coup de grace on top. You'll join the socliber club one day! Enaysikey - Geez, I never realized how many social libertarians there were on this site before making this list. Based progressive nonetheless! Mebrouk - Social liberal, democratic progressive. Pretty basic, but also a strong humanist, and thats what matters. ChiroPro - A social liberal, democratic progressive. Wow, deja vu. SweatingCup - Based center right, prog-con, keyne loving (very important), co-operative capitalist who supports the EU, globalism, federalism and the nordic model! Alas, Authoritarian-Democrat.

Semi-Based
Pirate Tails - A (mostly) progressive social liberal / social libertarian, based!... But whats this about national liberalism and anti-internationalism? Rojo - Social Libertarianism, meritocracy, balanced budgets and globalism is based, however this globalism shouldn't come from neoconservatism and national / conservative liberalism is a cringe way of doing things. YugoslavPartisan - A moderate patriotic femboy who loves eco-socialism, direct democracy and federalism. Based, based, based!... but your hatred of liberals and social democrats alongside love of "the few good MLs" and other authoritarian socialists is concerning to say the least. RolandsSilvers - Fellow market socialist, extreme progressive, direct democrat, union supporting, anti-authoritarian federalist! Sadly... anarchism takes another one. BlartyBoy - You dislike both MLs like stalin and lenin aswell as social democrats and liberals in favour of anarchists which is your choice but somewhat cringe, but your revolutionary progressivism, worker ownership in syndicalism and horizontalism make up for that. Take the market pill! I know you wont, your pretty ideologically static, which is absurd in the context of this site considering how often peoples political beliefs shift in this fandom.

Mixed
Quagsire - Semi-direct democracy, mixed market-socialist economy, progressive-conservative and alter globalists? Equally mega based and mega cringe. Carpenter Family - I dont know too much about you, but a welfare state is kool even if its paternalistic conservative. Your leaning way too much on the state part though which knocks you down. Also make a user page so people dont gotta base you off social authoritarianism. SumisuAirisu - I dont like anarchism that much and you dont seem to have much of an economic system, but lib-unity is important and your socially progressive. Thanks for banning that guy too. Councilguy - Basically a quasi-liberal marxist, your economics and politics are a bit too orthodox and your a leaning ML. Progressivism is good though! Typicalfan4 - I have no lost love with nationalism and conservatism, but unlike those below he still supports democracy and liberty aswell as having a nice moderate balanced budget + welfare system. Guns are based too! User:SomeCrusader1224 - Ditto above but minus welfare and more against moral issues like abortion and LGBT rights. Still an anti-fascist semi-moderate so they aren't too bad.

Semi-Cringe
Comrade Shrek - I am a hundred percent sure comrade is on atleast ten layers of irony constantly, so I'm not sure if they should be here or one step below. A theocratic, reactionary, collectivizing, authoritarian communist who hates alot of the things I love. He also hates germs which is a big plus though and seems to be tolerant to libsoc users. DoomerCrusader - Despite being more openly fascist and litterally putting natsoc unabashedly in friends, is somehow far more moderate than all of cringe due to reliance on mosley's fascism. He seems nice and is tolerant to progressivism, based enviromentalism and futurism.

STILL FASH THOUGH.

Cringe
Don Comedia - Might not be a fascist, but reactionary anarcho-capitalism could be even worse. Also a mega cringe centricider who wants to beat up my boy keynes, only good thing about your ideology is globalism, as your NAP / Individualism is probbaly warped to high hell to comform to your other beliefs. (What the fuck is it with anarcho-capitalists and loving pinochet? Fake lib) Bannned - Your not a centrist just because you have a side of populism and "human rights" with your third positionist fascism. Also whats with all the evil aesthetics on your userpage? Is this whole thing some really deep ironic roleplay? KaiserKlausMouse - "German Pan-Nationalist" who wants to leave the EU, conquer and repopulate poland with germans. That aside, he's a reactionary, "enviromentalist" eco-fascist and socialist, with welfare being the only good thing coming from him, albiet in an extremely warped way. Ukraiana - Whilst the klaustard's vitrol is deeply masked and shows some economic empathy and banned only shows it through ((constant use of brackets)), Ukraiana is an open nazi. It doesn't matter that you only put natsoc and alt-right in frenemies because they were "idiots" for, roughly qouting "attacking slavs and europeans", your policies of ethno-ultranationalism and totalitarianism speaks for itself.