Which party/philosopy is closest?

I live in EU and think that most parties are pretty much braindead - but maybe I just don't know of a good one. So, can anyone give a pointer to a party most similar to my worldview? I'll outline some points I find important about that party:

1) alcohol/tobacco/weed available for anyone 18+, psilocybin probably after a psychiatric evaluation
2) total intellectual property law reform - no software patents, reduced copyrights (20 years)
3) immigration laws should encourage immigration of motivated people, that will integrate themselves into society. Basically anyone can come, but should become a citizen (no criminal record (most misdemeanors are fine), pass language and culture exam) after 3 years or GTFO where they came from.
4) generally promoting science and making use of scientific results - all political decisions should be based on a few peer-reviewed papers (if there is no research done into it, then fund it?)
5) gun licenses should include automatic rifles too, but of course after a decent evaluation (much like how it's done right now in some countries - local police investigate your background and you pass medical checks)
6) higher taxes for richer people - after all they can pay more. There's a caveat, though: it probably wouldn't work in a country that just got started in capitalism, because when Sweden transferred to social democracy in the mid-1900's, they already had a few centuries of prosperity.
7) utilities (water, heating) should be government owned, but communications (transportation, telecommunications) should be left to the private sphere to duke it out between themselves.

Generally, I'd like to see a nice, common sense policy. So, is there such a party right now anywhere in the EU or for that matter, anywhere in the world?

I recently read through some coursework that there is a dire shortage of skilled workers in the Global South (developing world). In this particular case, it's the issue of transportation provision.

I wondered to myself, 'why would there be a shortage of skilled workers?'

There could be various reasons, and I'm sure there are various reasons. Perhaps they cannot afford to get trained, or perhaps they lack the necessary facilities. Or perhaps...a large number of skilled workers went to various first-world countries, as immigrants or otherwise. (Despite the threat of not even being able to practice that skill upon arrival).

This seems counterproductive: in developing nations struggling to build infrastructure, what could possibly be the benefit of shipping out your best and brightest professionals? I realize some of those professionals may send money 'home' once they are established abroad, but somebody still has to tend the sick and injured back 'home' and somebody still has to pave the roads, build the schools, teach the pupils, etc. Money sent home is great, but it cannot immediately fill vacant jobs if there are no skilled candidates to fill them. First-world countries that seek out skilled immigrants are predatory in this regard, for they keep the developing world in a never-ending cycle of poverty. More shocking still, is that many migrants seem to care little for the welfare of their fellow countrymen they are leaving behind. Indeed, it appears to be a selfish decision based on personal desires to get rich and prosperous.

Why are migrants fleeing their home countries? Because they are underdeveloped. Why are they underdeveloped? Because migrants are fleeing their home countries.

It would be hilarious if it wasn't so exasperating, but a certain employment cycle in the developed (immigrant-seeking) world goes like this:

   1. Shortage of labour: increase or manipulate immigrant quotas.
   2. Westerners forced out of labour-intensive jobs. (The jobs we supposedly won't do anyway. Because hey, we're all white-collar business executives, right?)
   3. Whites must all become white-collar business executives: long years of school and training. (I'm exaggerating a little, of course).
   4. Low-skill jobs outsourced to semi-developed nations. We become a tertiary society (heavily dependent upon education and training).
   5. Education goes up; fertility rate goes down. More immigration needed!

et cetera.

I'd like to know how undeveloped states can develop if they are too poor to afford to do so, and their most capable citizens fly the coop the first chance they get (if they get that chance). This perpetuates inequality in the most vicious of ways, and ironically it is all packaged from the developed world as 'helping people find a better life'.

The short-term solution is not the best one.
It's time immigrants gave some consideration to helping their own people 'find a better life', rather than just themselves. Long-term development will require skilled professionals (of any kind, I suppose) actually living and remaining in developing nations to promote the advancement of those states. As long as this brain-drain continues, poverty will persist.

OP here, I'm from one of the new EU member states (joined after 2000). For me, the problem is the lack of social guarantees in my country - minimum wage around here is about 300 euros, while food prices are at the level of the more-developed EU countries (Germany, Finland). The thing is that wages won't ever rise unless there is a shortage of skilled workers - we can already see that happening in the IT sector, where local companies have to keep their pay on EU level (2k-3k euros/month), because otherwise they'd have no employees.

So actually the 'brain drain' is helping to improve the life of people staying behind, because otherwise they'd have no leverage in wage discussions - we could see this during the recession, where 50+ people were competing for a single job in a local construction store. In a scenario like this, employers could abuse their personnel and nobody could do anything, because they were all afraid of losing their job.

You're most likely green, or at the very least Democratic Socialist.

Generally, I'd like to see a nice, common sense policy.
higher taxes for richer people - after all they can pay more.

Pick one.

>>5
You're funny. You should do stand-up comedy.

>>6
The "pick one" meme is actually pretty old >>5 has no wit.

Social democrat with a conservative political culture.

>>8
>>4
How? They hate nuclear energy, guns, encourage unlimited immigration, and want to censor everything they dislike (especially the Internet). Those people I can't identify with at all.

>>9
nuclear energy
Some are for it, some aren't.
guns
This is true.
encourage unlimited immigration
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thilo_Sarrazin There was a time when SPD and other social democratic parties throughout Europe didn't embrace this idea of unlimited immigration and multiculturalism.
and want to censor everything they dislike (especially the Internet).
Then they're not abiding by their own principles. One of the tenets of social democracy is to defend free speech.

>>9
guns
Norway and Sweden have long tradition of hunting. To do that, you need a gun, cos the one thing the licensing authorities hate more than guns, is bows and arrows. And just _try_ getting a crossbow license!

And so Scandinavia has a surprising gun density for a social democracy.

>>9
Conservatives don't hate those things and the social democratic framework would ensure weed is legal. The conservatives would also do a better job than you concerning copyright reforms and economic policy.