UserWiki:DerVampir666

Semi-Democratic Federalism
I support semi-direct democratic,  constitutional  federalism. I think the federal government should primarily handle that which affects the country as a whole, such as:
 * Inhibiting large concentrations in wealth (e.g. [[File:Trustbust.png]] trust busting).
 * A [[File:Georgist.png]] site tax on the unimproved value of land.
 * National security and sustaining a military.
 * Foreign policy in general.
 * And to ensure a baseline standard for human rights.

If the federal government must implement, say, a regulatory or welfare program, it should be handled in a decentralized, democratic manner. See Canada's Medicare system: decentralized but financially sustained by the federal government.

Everything else should be handled through a hybrid of direct democracy and representative democracy. Citizens can initiate referendums on the town, county, and state level while representatives are still appointed to act as a third party to factional disputes. But when representatives themselves try to pass laws there should be referendums (depending on the issue), a sunset clause (so bullshit laws aren't passed while we slumber), and the document should be read aloud in full on public televison.

Small Businesses
My ideal is making as many people as self-employed—and for production to be handled as locally—as possible. I feel actively promoting ruralism and small businesses is a step in the right direction. With the latter, I see small businesses as:


 * More innovative—generating 14-16 times more patents than bigger firms.
 * Greener, as they take steps to respond to an increasingly anxious consumer base.
 * Are better responsive to price signals in general, making them more efficient.
 * Better for workers.
 * A sole propiteriship down the street is more accountable than anonymous shareholders 1,000 miles away.
 * Small business employees report higher job satisfaction, happiness, and commitment; and feel their concerns are listened to and addressed by leadership.
 * And in abundance small businesses will compete for the best working conditions and pay possible. This, combined with LVT and prohibiting usury, will inhibit surplus-value extraction as well.
 * Empowering and autonomizing small communities.
 * Buying locally generates more local wealth and jobs, making small communities like towns and villages more self-sufficient (local multiplier effect).
 * Small businesses foster a sense of community (e.g. a family-owned arcade sponsoring the kid's baseball team and donating heavily to local causes).
 * Also empowering ethnic, racial, gender, and sexual minorities—giving them more financial independence.

By extension I'm a big fan of worker co-ops. The vast majority of them are small. This is because they prioritize their own members over growth. (Some even operate at a loss to keep workers from going jobless.) Therefore, the benefits of small businesses—such improving community health, autonomy, and happiness—apply, as seen in Italy. However, once a co-op becomes too big, they suffer from the same flaws as big businesses. See Mondragon, which hires more independent contractors (wagies) than worker-owners. Once they grow to a point then ownership in a co-op only exists de jure, not de facto—making them no better than ESOPs. So, unlike libertarian market socialists who tend to be friendly to large-scale co-ops, I don't discriminate when it comes to  busting trusts.

Anti-Big Business
I see large concentrations in wealth as an existential threat to both democratic institutions and human rights. Big businesses are a source of stagnation. Once they achieve a certain size they only do the bare minimum to maintain their market share. An example of this is Big Tech companies spending more on patent enforcement, stifling competition, than on research and development. Big Pharma does something similar by spending more on marketing than creating new drugs. And to the extent Big Pharma does create new drugs, they're rushed, mediocre, and/or dangerous—often doing shady things like covering up negative clinical trial data to deceive patients and doctors. And big businesses eventually become central planners, as demonstrated by the socialist Leigh Phillips in "The People's Republic of Walmart"; and all the inefficiencies seen in Soviet-style economic systems apply.

More than this, excess wealth concentrations corrupts our institutions. Two ways this is done:
 * [[File:CronyCap.png]] By lobbying politicians. Basically, big businesses donate money to political campaigns which best reflect their policy preferences. That means candidates with the most campaign finances get the most advertisements on television, billboards, etc. This sort of manufacturing consent ensures that candidates most aligned with the rich get the most attention, and therefore the most votes. TL;DR the wealthy have the loudest voices.
 * [[File:Regulatard.png]] By regulatory capture. Regulatory agencies meant to protect the common man against dangerous products and working conditions become bedfellows with the wealthiest firms in their respective sectors. A great example of this is nearly half of the FDA's budget comes from the biggest pharmaceutical companies; and this results in the FDA becoming complacent with the industry's unforgivable corruption.

To promote small businesses and to eliminate these large concentrations in wealth, I would support measures like a wealth tax, trust busting, and ending unfair business privileges like limited liability (since they allow anonymous shareholders to profit off negative externalities without accountability). I would also support directing the revenue and assets derived from these measures to small-scale entrepreneurs, worker co-ops, and independent farmers. Subsidies in general for small businesses (tax cuts, land grants, generous loans) while denying them to bigger firms would be great to make them more competitive.

Note: I believe a small business is too big once it meets one of the following criteria:
 * It exceeds 150 members. This is the Dunbar number, or the minimum amount of people an individual can cognitively handle or bond with. Once a firm exceeds this number then personal relationships become difficult to sustain, leadership becomes impersonal and less accountable, and fosters the conditions for corruption and unsustainable growth.
 * It makes enough in profits to buy out other firms, giving them an unfair advantage in the market.
 * When it controls over 10% of the market.

Generally speaking I'm supportive of enterprises which don't meet the above criteria, though I'm willing to hear exceptions to the rule; though if such exceptions must exist they should be non-profits or worker cooperatives.

LVT
Speaking of wealth taxes, I'm a strong supporter of land-value taxation as promoted by Henry George. Private property in land is a source of monopoly, poverty, and inequality. As natural resource ownership concentrates, a landed plutocracy is better able to extract rent, labor, and other resources from the unlanded commons like leeches. If one cannot access the means of survival without submitting themself to those who "got there first," they're effectively a slave. Suppose you among 100 people crash-landed on an island and claimed all of its natural resources, beating everyone (who were either still unconscious or unable to keep up) to them. In order to access these resources like clean drinking water and coconuts, you demand they do your bidding. They're de facto your chattel slaves.

Hunter-gatherers treat the land as common property. Work to them is play and starvation doesn't exist since they take from nature what they need according to ability. We should emulate this within the context of a modern society. And the best way to do this is ensure those who occupy and use land must reimburse the community for it based on its market value.

Singapore does this by leasing its land to its citizens, resulting in the highest home-ownership rate in the world. In a country as massive as the United States, adopting something like Singapore's system would promote rural life since most land value is in urban areas and would make rural areas cheaper to occupy and use, boosting the number of entry-level farmers and small-scale entrepreneurs. This is why farmers across the globe support this scheme. And of course this would deprive the wealthy of another tool to exploit the common man.

The revenue derived from this scheme should go towards a basic income and a public option in health insurance. I'm also supportive of ecotaxes in general.

Ruralism
The most self-reliant people in this world are those who own their own farmland and subsist on it without external help or subversion. Urbanized socieites suffer from over-indulgence and are thus weaker pyschologically, physically, and spiritually. (Which is why rural populations handle war better, assuming technological equality.) Rural societies, ultimatley, are both stronger and freer. A strong nation is an agrarian one.

Yes, I'm a big fan of La Follette, how did you notice?

Protectionism
In the immediate term I'd be willing to support protectionist measures to undermine big business in favor of smaller ones. This is because, as I've heard argued, free trade allows big businesses to shift costs overseas. So limiting their ability to shift production overseas would reduce their competitiveness and make smaller producers more lucrative. But in the long-term free trade is objectively the best; protectionism often leads to war with countries over resources. If a foreign country has a comparative advantage but you can't get what they produce peacefully through trade, you must resort to violence. The drive for economic nationalism and  autarky caused both world wars.

Despite Nazi Germany's drive towards economic self-reliance,  big businesses saw profits skyrocket and entire countries had to be  brutally swallowed to keep the system from collapsing. Adam Tooze in his book "Wages of Destruction" illustrated how big business profited from tariffs. And as my friend pointed out, protectionism can benefit big businesses since it severely limits foreign competition. So protectionism, even in the short-term, might have the opposite effect I want. It might be better to reduce the profitability of big business overall through the other policies I suggested, rather than run the risk of unnecessary conflict and hostility.

Banking
I support outlawing interest and fractional reserve banking—the former always producing unsustainable economic inequality and the latter destroying economies and enslaving the masses through unfettered credit expansion. Having a currency based on debt means our lives depend on corrupt financial elites. I also want to replace the Federal Reserve with an Independent Treasury (like Young Hickory did). Big banks like BlackRock, Chase Manhattan, and Goldman Sachs should be broken up. I'm still strongly sympathetic to a decentralized currency,  mutual-credit banks, and  Islamic finance.

Economics TL;DR
To achieve my vision of a society dominated by self-reliant farmers and small businesses, while big business is next to non-existent, I support the following measures:
 * Prohibition of interest (usury).
 * Trust busting galore and other pro-competition measures.
 * A 100% tax on the unimproved value of land.
 * Abolishing or drastically reforming intellectual property.
 * Ending other unfair business privileges like limited liability.
 * The five measures above combined would inhibit monopoly and exploitation.
 * A 70-100% tax on all excess revenue or assets to prevent excess inequality.
 * Replacing most welfare programs with a basic income.
 * Free trade.
 * Subsidies for small businesses, organic farmers, and worker co-ops.

Police Reform
I think, like sheriffs on the county level, police chiefs in towns, cities, and districts should be democratically elected. This is to hold them more accountable to the public as, once corruption becomes apparent, they can be voted out or recalled. Something similar recently transpired when the Uvalde town council, due to local pressure, fired the district police chief for reckless incompetence. There should also be term limits in place to prevent mini-J. Edgar Hoovers running around. Other legal reforms I'd support include:
 * Eliminating qualified immunity.
 * Busting police unions.
 * Expanding the castle doctrine to include excessive police force.
 * Bodycam mandates.
 * Diverting wasteful police spending to better training and social workers.

But morally I think / violent responses to law enforcement's excessive force (Waco Siege), repeat violations of the social contract (Minneapolis Police Department), and pursuance of tyrannical laws (e.g. War on Drugs) are completely justified.

Based

 * [[File:DistProg.png]] - Literally me.
 * [[File:Agrnac.png]] National Agrarianism - Rural nations are stronger, freer, and more virtuous.
 * [[File:NatProg.png]] Bull Moose Progressivism - Trust busting is pog. Teddy is among my top ten favorite presidents.
 * [[File:Jacksonian_Democracy.png]] Jacksonian Democracy - Jackson is also among my top ten favorite presidents.
 * [[File:Jeffersondem2.png]] Jeffersonian Democracy - Thomas Jefferson is objectively the best Founding Father (alongside Paine and Madison).
 * [[File:LibSocDemIcon.png]] Libertarian Social Democracy - The only form of social democracy I can get behind.
 * [[File:Long.png]] Longism - Every man a king!
 * [[File:Guildsoc.png]] Guild Socialism - I think we can get along well.
 * [[File:Hedonism.png]] - Simple living and moderation is ideal.
 * [[File:Georgist.png]] Geoism - Land should be treated as common property (like it was by our [[File:Anprim.png]] hunter-gathering ancestors) and the land tax is best for this. You're also the best way to achieve [[File:Farm.png]] agrarianism.

Bringe

 * [[File:Neolud.png]] Kaczynskism - Many of your criticisms of industrial society have stood the test of time and I admire your Amish-esque solution to the problem... But abolishing all forms of organization-dependent technology is going too far.
 * [[File:Distributist.png]] Distributism - We have similar economics and I like your agrarian character, but I'm not a fan of the Catholic Church and too many of you are [[File:Cfash.png]] him in disguise.
 * [[File:Polpot.png]] Pol Potism - There are probably better ways of achieving an agrarian vision without a totalitarian nightmare.
 * [[File:Strasser.png]] Strasserism - Same as above, but a moderate version of you without the racism or authoritarianism would be based.
 * [[File:Ancom.png]] Anarcho-Communism - I will work with you against authoritarians, but I can't get behind completely abolishing markets.
 * [[File:Ancapf.png]] Anarcho-Capitalism - Same with you, although I'd rather make the State more accountable than privatize its functions.

Cringe

 * [[File:Nazi.png]] Nazism - Scum.
 * [[File:ML.png]] Marxism-Leninism - Filth.
 * [[File:Corp.png]] Corporatocracy - Vile.
 * [[File:PolState.png]] Donut Patrol - Fuck off.
 * [[File:Juche.png]] Juche - "The vanity and presumption of governing beyond the grave is the most ridiculous and insolent of all tyrannies."
 * [[File:Socdem.png]] Social Democracy - Please stop worshipping the right-wing authoritarian [[File:Keynes.png]] Keynes.
 * [[File:Hamiltonianism.png]] Hamiltonianism - Everything wrong with the United States can be traced back to [[File:Copeservatism.png]] cuckservatives like you bootlicking industrialists, bankers, landlords, and other such scoundrel.
 * [[File:Tradcon.png]] Toryism - You inspired Hamilton. That's enough for me to dislike you.
 * [[File:Conserv.png]] American Conservatism - Lol imagine bootlicking industrialists and bankers and then complaining about traditional values declining.
 * [[File:Klep.png]] Kleptocracy - What aristocracy, plutocracy, and oligarchy eventually leads to. Mexico and Russia both attest to this.

Best Friends

 * [[File:Saturnalian.png]] Melkor - One of the greatest individuals I ever had the pleasure of meeting. He's always there for me and I'll forever be grateful for his friendship.


 * [[File:Xenoassemblage.png]] Xenosystems - Another wonderful person who I've known for quite some time.

Based

 * - Not too far from what I am; we seemingly agree on a lot.


 * - Not bad. Not bad at all.


 * [[File:Glencoe.png]] Glencoe - Your views are tolerable, but central banking is cringe.


 * - I'm still sympathetic to anarchism and you seem like a fun person to chat with.


 * [[File:Syndmut.png]] Liam 09 - Considering how many distributists favor guilds and decentralism, we may not be too different ideologically.


 * - I like your emphasis on small-scale production, de-industrialization, and gift economics; although I'm not a market abolitionist. Good ideology.


 * - You've been friendly to me and we aren't that different ideologically.


 * [[File:Panth.png]] - Yeah, your ideology is pretty neat; and you're an agreeable person in general.


 * - Other than your conservative inclinations our views are identical.


 * - You have a neat ideology and you seem incredibly kind.


 * [[File:Silasf.png]] Silas - Based market socialism!


 * [[File:Mikolayism_Pixel2.png]] MedicsChaotics - I'm not a fan of the authoritarian aspects of your "moderate Strasserism," but our views are pretty similar otherwise.


 * - Calling everything a spook is fun and all, but you should take a stronger stance on industry. City life suppresses the ego.


 * - Okay, your views are absolutely based.

Mixed

 * [[File:Aldath.png]] Aldaðism - Your ideology is too authoritarian for my liking (you like North Korea!); but I enjoy discussing these topics with you regardless.

Cringe

 * [[File:NeoML2.png]] CynicalLibra - Yeah, that's a no from me, chief.


 * [[File:BoomerConserv-t.png]] Arctofire - Absolutely horrid ideology. My blood boils - cancer cells manifest and destroy my brain - the more I speak to you.

Comments
I will clear comments every so often.
 * - Please add me.
 * [[File:Vamp.png]] DerVampir666 - You've been added!
 * - Add me.
 * - You probably already know me on discord and reddit, also pls add me