European Voters Know What They Don't Want
 

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...629433,00.html

The reactions especially from SPD politicians in German to their party's long-lasting fall, is most revealing. there was a demand from within their faction that we should get a mandatory legal obligation to vote in elections, and not doing so should become punished.

An election has a function that many people are not aware of, or do not care for. It does not matter so much which party gets voted. no matter whom you vote for, by participating in elections you legitimate and express support for the very system itself, and for the bureaucratic structure behind it that keeps it running and stays the same even when the names in politics are changing. And those calling for an obligational participation in elections want this legitimation being enforced. Opposing it should not be allowed, that is. If people do not voluntarily support it - force them to support it.

Sounds familiar, with regard to the way 480 million Europoeans are rejected to agree or to disagree to the Lisbon dictate, for example, and the rejection of the former constitution draft was refused to be respected by making only cosmetic changes and changing the order of the chapters, but leaving the substance, the content, and the objects of criticism untouched.

Don't ask them at all, or let them vote until they get tired and vote the way you want them to vote. If the Irish will say No again, let them vote a third time. And after all, are those few Irish right when letting fail what all others had said Yes to? the others that were not asked at all, that is?

Yes, the Irish have a right to do so, by the rules lined out and the rights legally given to them. Nobody has a right to cpmplain about nthem. Even more when it were not the often quoted european people who were asked in the other countries.

Wanting a mandatory participiation in votings shis says a lot about the political self-understanding of those demanding this. Most politicians that make a career beyond a certain level of national politics, are egomaniacs craving for attention , and pathologic narcissists, if not unscrupellous egoists. they can take anything: to be cursed, to be offended, to be opposed, to get slandered. But what they cannot bear is - to be ignored. Even hostility is a form of taking care of them, taking them serious, legitimising their very existence. But ignoring them...? How dare we...?

Demanding voting to be obligatory, is simply this: a declaration of moral and intellectual bancruptcy, and an expression of personal corruption. Plus: it does not help to prevent people making their voting tickets invalid. I personally would write L.M.A.A. on it, Germans know what it means.

Therefore I think we should end secret free elections and make it obligatory that people obey their duty to vote by letting them vote under close monitoring by an official who checks that they make their cross at the right position, and do not make their votes invalid. :yeah:

The outcome of the EU vote last weekend is somewhat paradox, however, although European people in general tend to favour a social and economical model that is more according to the left, they have voted centrist and conservative. I think it is expression of protest against individual national issues, and a consequence of the financial and economical crisis. the elctions probbaly say a lot more about natuonal conditions, than about Europe.

In Germany, we just have had the greatest company insolvence in German history, Arcandor. And this short after the debacle of Opel, where, almpost unnoticed by the public, the full dimension of the helplessness of the German government and the much higher hidden risks and costs have come to the surface). In both cases the SPD has called for massive state intervention, and blowing tax billions into it. And in both cases the new german economy minstre zu Guttenberg opposed that. Polls show that two third, three quarters and more of German reward zu Guttenberg'S stubborness to headlessly waste tax billions like this. the SPD's calculation to gain benefits in campaigning when subsidising jobs at all cost, no matter how high the costs may be, so far has turned out to be a complete and total Rohrkrepierer for the SPD.

And that is good.

On the other hand there are still plenty of elections this year, including national elections. And this will make a lot of politicians trying stupid things while campaining, and wasting money that is not theirs.

It is said that elections are a benefit of democracy and a sign for freedom. But especially in campaign times you can conclude that in the face of so much substance-less promises and stupid phrases and irresponsible wasting of taxes in projects to win this or that voter group - you could as well argue that elections are not a benefit of democracy, but it's curse and doom.

Even more so when considering that electing somebody does not mean the elected is competent and blesses with a sense of responsibility.

And me, well, I am highly political when not going to voting. I make a political statement, a statement saying that I refuse to legitimate what I am not willing to make myself guilty of legitimising. I say that they do not deserve neither my trust, nor my assistance, and that I do not believe their lies and selfish policies. And I say that I refuse to support their visions and ideas of how the world should become, and that I do not tolerate their plans for policies that I totally oppose and see as causing more harm than benefit, or being irrational and unrealistic. Some say it is wise to always choose the lesser of two evils. I say the lesser evil is still an evil, and wisdom sometimes lies in supporting none of the two. Else what you get is - evil.

The day they would decide a legal obligation to vote in elections, will be the day when this country/EU will have lost the fading rest of my sympathy completely and see it not as my home anymore, but an enemy like in war.

It's not a perfect world - far from it, is it.

What else do we have for a choice Skybird? Of course every system is a system of self-replicating elites, one can clearly see that in Slovenia, where the rule of the democratic centre-right existed for 4 years and then turning back into the bureaucratic system of Bolshevism, yet that is a tale for another time and place. Yet the question we should ask ourselves is, can obligatory voting do more harm to democracy and the republican ideal and just leaving the system be and the whole of electoral falling into general apathy. People have known democracy for a long time now and the important thing which has happened in most EU states is that they believe that they cannot change anything and that things remain the same. That might be true to some extent, yet can we really risk apathy of the electorate or is a new kind of democratic revolution necessary to bring once more that ideals for which our forefathers have fought and died for to all members of society, the ideals which I see rapidly falling into decline.

As far as the Lisbon treaty is concerned, well, lets just say that we have been over this so many times and while I do to a certain extent hope for further democratisation, that is making the EU more republican in nature (not be be considered in the sense as a singular state), yet where people express their opinions freely, that this opinions take taken into consideration by the politicians or whoever might be in power. Yet the Lisbon treaty is not the Treaty for the European Constitution, even though it might be similar in nature and might have certain part directly copied, it will do more harm to the further development and "democratisation" of the EU than the Treaty for the European Constitution by making things even more complex and difficult to understand. I know I had to spend many an hour studying EU law to just catch a glimpse of how things are done, now, they will become even more complex.

Just a question for you Skybird and all who oppose one way or another the EU. Are not states which make up the EU democratic? Are not their representatives democratically elected or at least chosen though representation? Is not the Parliament democratic due to being the sole elected organ? What everyone is forgetting that the EU is as supranational as states want it to be and as democratic as they want it to be, as they have, for the most part, the highest degree of representation of what is considered the democratic, yet not also republican, political system in member states?
___
I wished to respond to every one of your ideas Skybird, yet it is late and I must call it a night. I shall respond tomorrow if you do not beat me and respond first to what I have written.

A question for you, Respenius.

If 100 million "Alphas" elect 10 thousand "Betas", and these 10 thousand "Betas" then elect 100 "Deltas", and these 100 "Deltas" elect a council of 3 leaders,

and than three other groups like the "Alphas" in this example do like this, too,

and then the 4x3 leaders come together and form a gremium of 12 where the agree to have one superior leader -

is this one leader than democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas?

And if he decides and the gremium of 12 decides issues and policies that the 400 million different Alphas do not want and never have agree to and never have voted for - is it okay to say to them that they should accept it nevertheless, since the council of 12 and its leader are democratically legitimised by the 400 million Alphas?

And if this council at the top and it's leader than decides policies that never have been set up for election to the Alphas, can you say then the Alphas ever legitimised these policies?

And if these policies are even not only not legitimised by the Alphas, but even are in known and direct opposition to what a known solid majority of all Alphas want them to be, and if they reject them therefore, can one then say that they have no right to not wanting them since the nevertheless democratically legitimised them?

NO. Not in my book.

If I vote for soembody, who then votes somebody, who then votes somebody who then votes somebody - have I voted for the very final winner in that voting? Could I even have forseen that outcome and let them form my initial decision? Has what this final winner then makes and does, ever be a voting issue?

Again, the answer is a sounding No.

And in reality, the structure I somewhat abstractly outlined, is even more complicated, and gets distorted even more by a plethora of lobby groups and interest parties that neither directly nor indirectly have ever been set up for an election process at all.

Nobody in a nation gives an election vote for EU policies when voting his national government or the government of his federal state. and the Eu votes again get somewhat hijacked and reflect national issues again, not EU-wide issues.

The process I outlined above as an abstract "model", is the reason why people, as you say, do not care and lose interest in politics. It creates the apathy you warned of.

but why warning of it? Hell, I hope and wish that less than 5% of people would go to elections. then it would be totally obvious even for the blind cold stone buried under a moutain that the "winner" of those elections would not have any legitimicy to think he represents the people.

Did you know that in Germany in the past federal states elections, in half of the 16 federal states the turnout was such that no winner is there who could say he represents the simple 51% majority of all people that by law would be legitimised to vote? There are many who have scored a high victory in numbers, let'S say 40 to 25 or so - and still represent just a fraction of that majority.

BUT THAT IS TOTALLY IGNORED IN GERMANY. It is a taboo in Germany that we already have American circumstances. It gets nicetalked at best (if it ever gets mentuioned at all), and a picture is painted showing the winner of elections, forming local governments in coalitions, "representing the population". but fact is that they already have lost the population, and speak for maybe just every fifth or so only.

Lets bring this system to a fall - by refusing to participate in it, refusing to legitimise it, by civil disobedience, rejecting to pay attention to the established structures and groups, and ignoring the figures and blocking the lobbies. Let'S let them run into an empty void and slam the door behind them.

that is the only chance to bring change into these frozen structures. Participating in them, legitimising them by voting for parts of their internal structures - only makes sure that that they carry on like they did in the past, unchanged and unchanging.

The time is not yet ripe for this, too many people still prefer to be small and silent and afraid and think about their own day-to-day interest first, never looking tejn years ahead. But the future we are heading into, is grim and gloomy, dripping with conflict and elemental fight for survival. The change we refused to allow taking place in a somewhat evolutionary way and at slower speed by accepting it while still not having run out of time, now will come nevertheless, but since it finds us unprepared and unwilling to prepare and with no time left, it will come in a revolutionary way, brutally fast, and where we find ourselves without time to adapt, it will simply break us and roll over us. The shortening of oil, disappearing ressources in general, climate change, desertification, loss of humus worldwide, the poisening of the ocean and the dissapearing of fish, the shortening in sweet water, the rising mass migration of the peoples, the mass dying of people living in the third world in areas that are affected by climate change - all this is on a head-on-collision course with our excessively wasteful hyper-materialistic way of living. And where it finds us unprepared, it will break us and washes the pieces away, that simple. For the old order, that represents what we allowed our former well-meant ideals to pervert into, is just standing in the way of things to come.

In a way, both ecologically and culturally-civilisational, we are moving backwards, so to speak, and return to circumstances and conditions of earlier times that represent earlier stages of things on planet Earth, with less order and more chaos. the higher the life form, the earlier it will disappear, while the lower life forms it was made of, will last longer. Civilisational structures will go first, then supernational structures, nations next, accompanied by the desintegration of ungovernable cities. It will go step by step in the order of it's construction - just in reverse. It's as if you read a book on human civilisation and man'S history - from the last to the first chapter.

This finds us ill-prepared, and that'S why I am so extremely pessimistic. for example the negotiations in Bonn to prepare the big climate conference at the end of the year. The US fights over not reducing its CO2 emisions by more than 4% - until 2020.

Japan offers 8%.

The EU offers 20% reduction.

None of these smart, economically well-educated, highly intelligent minds has understood what is happening right now. The biggest storm in man's history is heading into our direction at highest speed - and while we see the trees already shaking wildly, they are fighting over wether to use the Celsius or Farenheit scale.

We are not just absurd in allowing that. We are suicidal on a civilisational level.

H.G. Wells had a very pessimistic view on human evolution, saying that it just forms the destructiveness that is set to destroy us. You can see that attitude in his novel "The Time Mchine". The older I become, and the more I see and experience, the more I tend to share his conclusions.

Yes, Skybird, he is. For a very simple reason. If the Alphas decided that they will allow such a system of representation to take place and to be the system used to decision making of whatever level, than the final leader, while kept in check by the 12, is democratically legitimised by the 400 million different Alphas. It is the same system we have today, to a certain degree. We still vote MP and they hold democratic legitimacy. The problem of this legitimacy is in my answer to the next paragraph.

Here I agree with you. No matter how "democratically legitimised" a system of representatives is, it can never and should never do something which is against the general wished of the population. The people should see which laws are being passed in parliament, see what the Government does and how it leads the state or whichever different form of organisation and decide on a "day-to-day" basis if they like or dislike the policies of the Government and if the MPs are truly acting as representatives or are they just a bunch of bureaucrats.

This is why I like France and the French people. While all states as the Governments are of the people, by the people and for the people, I believe that it is only the French people which takes the reins of Government and what laws are passed into their own hands and this is something which would prevent the further spread of apathy in Europe and democratise the democratic process, which has fallen into a bit of a crisis. This world has become so vast and difficult that it is hard for a citizen to follow all the laws necessary to lead a state and its complex structures. But more on that latter on.

DO you not believe this would set a dangerous precedent? Is only 5% of the electorate or even less vote than we have taken the first step to the dictatorship of the few, that is the people who go to the elections. The elected would still be democratically elected, yet the question of legitimacy would fade away, as this few voters would probably vote for someone who will bring them the biggest benefits. It would not be long before these elected people would change the law so that the few would govern, while others would need to follow their orders. And while this scenario is not entirely different from what we have today, we still have the possibility and the choice to go en mass and vote for those we believe will represent us the best.

Do you really believe that these frozen structures may be changed by people not going to elections? They are bureaucrats, they are politicians, they are not the people and they do not understand, for the most part, what morals and ethics means. A single voter or millions of them means the same to them. A million voters out of which most give out blank ballots, now this is something which will gain the attention of the politicians and not just the academia, that something is wrong and must be changed. The curse of democracy is, that you have a choice and that if there is only a single person willing to make this choice, it will be considered democratic by most.

I have nothing to add to this, as I completely agree, than this. Would it not be better to take an organised step into this unknown, to control this process and start living on a more manageable and sustainable local level, while retaining the cohesion needed on the bigger scale in order to secure trade and security from external threats. A system of semi-self-governing and inter-dependent autarkies, which would enable us to start living a more ecological life, a more democratic one and yet at the same time retain to the highest degree the right and privileges we have today and the technology which has helped this world become what it is. We have the technology now to return to a more "primitive", yet in a way more hospitable level of social cohesion, while loosing nothing we have today and augmenting the connections which have already been created. The idea of the united Europe is more bigger than states or the common market, it is a developing process which has helped us realise that we are not alone and that we must all work together to achieve this common goal that we al share, not just in Europe yet everywhere, that is a good life with enough freedoms to further develop our society, not merely in the technological and economic sense, yet also in the philosophical one, so that we may all live, although this will sound cheesy, happily ever after (to a certain degree of course, the human nature is irrational and as such prone to aggressive behaviour).

After this year or two of following your posts, I have realised what makes us different enough to disagree, yet at the same time share enough in common to cooperate, if I may use this word.

I do not wish you to take this the wrong way, yet your view on the world is too cynical for me. While I accept that we are consciously driving our world into ever greater ruin and that it will all end very, very soon if we do not do something, I consider myself to be an idealist and as such still believe with all my heart, that while man may be evil to a certain degree, society can change him to work for the common good and that society itself might and shall change to accept this virtues necessary to create this Second Golden Age of Men. Man is evil, yet he is also good, for both this disposition are as part of him as his organs are that we have seen that Europe has taken this first bright steps in the 50s, particularly with the Council of Europe to try and bring the best out of men. While political correctness has sometimes caused more harm than good, it is still a good foundation on which we can build and help change the world for the better, to bring light once more into the hearts and minds of men and to live in a rationalistic world in which all, man and nature, machine and plant will prosper.

No, you do absolutely nothing but display the ultimate form of laziness - called ignorance.

You have a problem with the EU? Well, the ballot was more than long enough :o to contain a few parties which are against the Union in any form - so why didn't you make your cross there?

This is all not meant personally, but i am really fed up by people complaining all the time but unwilling to spent at least a little bit of time to go to vote. But okay, the elections are always on Sunday and the TV program is way more important ...

As far as i know the "dictate" of Lisbon should fix many problems of the decision making process in the now larger EU. I cannot see what is wrong with that.

I voted, the party I voted for did ok, doubled it's seats from 1 to 2. Now you'll probably be able to work out which party I voted for. :DL

But overall EU-elections are almost always a disappointment, it's just a bunch of populists and famous tabloid people trying to break into politics by skipping the party politics-phase and going straight for the prize which is the fat pay checks from the parliament. Then it's 4 years of silence from these people, until comes the next election.

I have explained in length why I do not vote. In the past I also went voting but gave an invalid ballot - before I understood that by doing so I still would support and legitimise what I do not wish to support and legitimise. You nplay the same trick on me like every politician calling the voters to vote. He knows that he could not last if too many people would not legitimise the very system itself - by voting.

Regarding your hint at the EU constitution fixing the decision making in the EU, I hear a recall of politicians' paroles what they tell the public it does. But of the many hidden contradictions and in fact: weakening of democracy and decision making processes, you seem to be unaware. I have explained it before in several post, and at some point in my reply to Respenius again, one post below. Please note that these are points that in part are brought to the German Constitutional High Court - by nobody else than the former president of the German Federal Republic and former president of the High Court itself, Roman Herzog, a known and reputated expert for constitutional law. Also note that key figures in the original history of the EEC (the predecessor of the EU), Helmut Schmidt and Valery Giscard d'Estaing, raise massive criticism about what the EU has turned into in the past 15 years, and criticise the content and the way of handling the debate of the EU constitution as well. d'Estaing has publicy denied that the content of the draft has been changed after it first failed with european referendums, and chnages are cosmetically only, and critical cointent has been better hidden, and the order of chapters have been changed without editing the chapters themselves. Schmidt says that the EU is heading in a way where the chances for it failing and breaking apart again are greater than the chances it would stay together. Both also criticise the EU over its reorientation, saying that this is not what the founding idea of the union has been.

Well, these three voices are not just some nobodies, you know.

Maybe you are just a little bit too credulous and uncritical.

@Respenius, 1/2

You did not get my point, it seems. The point is that the Alphas originally have legitimised the Betas only - and only them. Any further alienating in the legitimation of any higher levels in a hierarchy, as represented by the Deltas, the council and it's chief, have not gotten their legitimation. Because for the Alphas did not get asked what the Betas should do if this or that situation occure in the future - that at the time of election was not to be forseen. And in case of the EU and the Lisbon dictate, since you said the Alphas allowed these rules to define the legitimation process - as a matter of fact the Alphas (the EU citizens) are actively hindered to express whether they want it or not, since it is no secret that most people reject it. And that rejection is what the Betas, the Deltas and the council do not want. - In my fictional example, the council does not wish to ask the Alphas on it's own existence, since they may say No to it, which then would be the end of the council on top.

Democracy, and legitimation of future decisions, only functions if expressed more or less directly. With each addition of in-between-levels in the higher hierarchy of decision levels (sorry, don't know how to say it better), the vote at the very basis loses legitimation, and loses it rapidly. After just one or two additional steps like that, you already have created a reality in leader hierarchy that nobody ever got asked about, that has no direct or indirect legitimation, and maybe even was impossible to be forseen for the voters at the basic level. Do you think any significant group of voters voted their national presidents and/or parliaments so that they should form the EU constitution to be like it is now in its draft, and make the voters' national votings meaningless in the future? Hardly.

Then consider that this very draft, which in content is still identical with the Lisbon dictate, rules that the EU commission shall have the right to rule by extraordinary rules that allows it to bypass the veto of the parliament, na din principle can govern completely by just using emergqancy decrees for an unlimited time and wiothiut any criterions defined what an emergancy is, and that the EU already has the power - and uses it massively - to set up proposals that national parliaments cannot reject anymore, but must let pass through due to legal obligations. But the voters in the given countries have voted for their national parliamnts during the past national elections, and maybe they voted for a given party so that it should not allow a policy like what the EU now is enforcing - the voter's legitimation only is regarding the candidates he sent into the national parliament - and there, his chosen candidate is doomed to be helpless more or less, and must nodd off what voters wanted him to never accept.

Sovereign parliaments? Soveriegn national coinstitutions? Forget it.

80+ % of all legislation and laws in the eurozone are EU proposals already, that never have seen any - even distant - legitimation by voters at all. These proposals for the most not even get created by the parliament or the commission, but the bureaucratic apparatus that stays the same even if the names in parliament or the commission changes. These high bureaucrats never have to face a legitimiation process by the public. But still they are enormously powerful and influence the commission to a huge degree. the commission tends to follow their input almost uncritically.

And this also is possible if the Lisbon dictate comes true: that governments in their countries face a blockade in parliament over an issue, hand the issue to the commission, which turns it into an EU proposal - and then it must be nodded off by the parliament that originally strictly opposed it.

THESE POSSIBILITIES, THAT IN PARTS ALREADY GET PRACTICED, MAKE COMPLETE MOCKERY OF THE SOVEREIGNITY OF PARLIAMENTS AND OF THE DECISION OF VOTERS WHOM THEY LEGITIMISE AND WHOM THEY REFUSE. - IT IS NOT ABOUT FULFILLING VOTERS' INTENTIONS AND WILL, IT IS ABOUT DOING A POLICY DECIDED IN A FEW CIRCLES AND LOBBY GROUPS AT THE TOP, AND DOING THAT POLICY DESPITE THE VOTERS, NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY AND VOTE FOR, IN COMPLETE IGNORRATION OF THEM. It is in the draft, read that damn thing, one of the most dangerous political pamphletes I ever heared of. There is a reason why it is so extremely complex and all the bad stuff is hidden not in the main text, but the appendices (roughly 600 pages of appendices to a document only around one dozen well-sounding but vague pages long???) Even most politicians do not understand it in full, and not a few admit they have never read it. They do not know what they are doing by agreeing to it, then.

But that is a problem in itself, since it interferes with longterm policies. Although I criticise that too many in-between steps in legitimation processes rapidly lose legitimation of the top, I still see and agree that in the relation between voter and that he directly voted for not all future decisions the latter will do, are forseeable at the time of voting. Also, stability and constancy only is possible if voters cannot interfere at every opportunity and time on the basis of daily changing moods. This is one argument often given why those being voted should be allowed to elect a superior gremium from there own within circle that is not available for direct voting by the voters. In principle I agree, since else too much daily moods and protests that are more against something than that they are in favour of something, would have an effect on national politics. One needs to find a balance there, and the slider has to be as close to the basic voter's level as possible.

I have argued in the past that I tend to think that democracies only work in relatively small communities. The bigger their size, the stronger the tendency of non-democratic oligarchic structures appearing from their middle and taking over the leadership and economy.

You see it still as a democratic legitimation, I do not, and while the result eventually will be the attempt by the few to establish an elitarist form of tyranny over the many (a feudal structure, in principle, and once can argue that we already have that), I see another result, spiced up by the pressure of the material changes in our environmnt as well: revolution.

A revolution may be successful in washing away the old order, or not, and it may be successful in establishing a new order, or not. It is risky business. But I see that sticking to the old order in the ways I criticse to vehemently, already has sealed our doom in the face of things to come. These very structures are the reason why we do not adapt as fast as we must. We need to get rid of it, or we are done in the longterm - of this I am more or less convinced. So, a revolution offers no guarantees, but at least a chance. Sticking with the old order guarantees chancelessness. We must not cry for it, since it has lost major parts of its democratic legitimation anyway, and is only a hollow facade of a democracy anyway, maintained to mislead the people who should be obedient and should vote - keeping on to assume their vote has a substantial meaning.

Obviously more and more people do not see their votes having a substantial meaning anymore. And differences between major opposing political factions like SPD and CDU in Germany, are disappearing. In some aspects, the conservative CDU is as left or even more left than the SPD ever was. Outside campaigning, the SPD has adopted some conservative hardcore economics. Voting only has a meaning if two conditions are fulfilled: you have the choice between a diverse set of different options, and those being elected fulfill the intention the voters have voted them for. If you have no real choices, or choices that only are represented by shorttermed and cosmetic differences, or those being elected, afterwards do what they want, then voting does not make sense. It only expresses an agreement with the system being like it is: distorted, hijacked, and constantly alienating itself more and more from the people.

@Respenius, 2/2

I am extremely sceptical about the chances for a civilised, peaceful change, no matter whether by voting or boycotting elections. In the present, people still feel cozy and lazy and are optimistic (which makes the other so sympathetic, isn't he a nice guy), and while we feel some pressure in form of threateend jobs most o f us think that the future is still far away and yes, there will be problpems, but it will be allright, don'T worry. but I think the transition to not as pleasant social living conditions anymore will not be a slow one, but at one point will abruptly win in pace and causing a sudden shockwave that shakes us awaken while we are still sleeping and rdeaming (the reasons why I think for such an abrupt change instead of a slow transition are so complex that they would be a topic in itself, so save me from explaining it here). As you said, the established structures are too strong as that they must allow the quesitoning of their powers without resisting and without manipulating. This is the historic basis on which revolutions grow: people either are desperate, or realise that the established order is at their cost, but is unavailable for them to change it by the established and/or allowed rules. And that's why revolutions tend to be so brutal and bloody. I once was asked what I think why the French revolution was so bloody for the standards of its time, and so unforgiving. My answer is still the same like it was back then: it would not have functioned any other way.

As already said, the established order, representing interest groups and lobbies of both power and money orientation, are too powerful as that they must allow this just to happen. I am extremely pessimistic here. I mean I think I see it realistic, but on this issue, realism depicts such a grim picture that you could as well mistake it with pessimism.

And one general fact there is you did not mention: WE ARE TOO MANY PEOPLE WALKING ON PLANET EARTH. 5-6 times too many, I estimate. the planet, the ecosphere, the biosphere, the environment sooner or later will take care of that in their own ways - and we will not like them. So, opur economies and politial system are just one part of an even greater problem. WE ARE TOO MANY, and our material needs and demands to the bplanet are too much, therefore, in every aspect, in every regard. And when saying "too many people, too much material demands", we do not talk about fractions and percentages, but about full factors. - On this level one must ask the legitimate and reasonable question if a democratic world order even would ever allow us to adress this basic problem adequately. Ask that question, and come to an answer most of us probbaly would find most unpleasant. - Now you know why the question never gets asked.

Add to this that certain processes man has caused in the environment now are running by a self-dynamic that would make them (and consequent developements) running on for a long time to come, even if the human variable and it's influence all of a sudden would be deleted from the planetary formula from one second to the next.

At least we are able to keep the talking friendly. that is much appreciated, really.

Cynical is a kind of venomous "humour" that derives from bad events and sad circumstances. It is taking a pathologic pleasure from seeing the bad and evil in things and people. I do not take pleasure from painting the picture in the dark colurs like I do. It's just that I look at things, see them like I do, and paint what I see. It certainly is a very grim, brutal future I see. I wish I would see something different, and I wish you would be right and I would be wrong.

You have my sympathy. I wish I would see things more like you do, it would be a more comfortable life, I assume, but I can't. I have spend three quarters of my life to learn to be a realist and see things like they are, not like I wish them to be. I taught and trained people for seeing that difference for several years. Living by an idea of the world disconnected from reality, maybe makes your living easier, and indeed many people chose this path for winning comfort and a feeling of control and safety. But it leaves people unprepared, for no matter what your ideals are, things still are what they are - ignoring or agreeing with your ideals. Depends on you ideals, you know. Life is neither something you control in full, nor are you ever safe from anything. Uncertainty is the rule. Safety is temprary and relative only. Living is changing, and thus: constant good-byeing to the old ways (a big pill to swallow for most of us, including myself). How can you find adequate strategies if you refuse to see problems like they are? You will always only treat illusions instead. And indeed, that is what common politics is about: it creates it's own realities, and ignores realities it does not feel fit to adress. By focussing on illusions, it gives the impression of omnipotency. And that not only leaves you unprepared, but also strips you off the thought why it is needed to be prepared.

The fate of being caught by surprise is self-made and well deserved, then.

Thank you for explaining in some greater detail you second post on which I commented and it did clear up some "difficulties" I had in understand the fundamental idea behind your reasoning. I do apologise for not commenting on every single issue you opened, I unfortunately do not have the necessary amount of time right now.

The main reason why I did not state this problem is because it is so contested. I know very well and am constantly worried by the large population Earth has to support, even some scientists are turning around and staring to point this problem out. While it may be easy to talk about it, it is nigh-impossible to solve it. How does someone propose to the Chinese or the Indians that they should reduce 80% or more of their population? Or anywhere also for that matter. That is why you are right that changes will be abrupt and will also pass over quickly, yet the destruction left behind is beyond imagining.

I appreciate it as well. I have no quarrel with you and I quite frankly enjoy in conversing with some who takes the time to explain his opinions in detail.

No need for sympathy Skybird. I pride myself in being a rationalist, someone who takes empirical evidence first and who does not dwell in dreams that things will change just because one wished it to be so. I know that hard work is needed to bring about any change, what I want to do is colossal in nature and I am also well aware that I cannot do it alone or that there is a chance that I newer will. Call it my youthful "irrational" thinking/wishing, yet I still hold the spark of joy inside of me, even though the fire is long out due to what I have seen happen in the world around me. I know very well I am not in control of the forces of life, nor do I dwell in illusions of fairy tales and castles, even though it sometimes appears to be the easiest way out, yet I have yet to the the easy road to somewhere. I know the world is dark, I know the never-ending fire of progress will consume us all, yet is it a crime to hope, to wish and to dare to change ones world for the better. If I add a year of life to this forsaken species, I shall be happy. Adding a generation would be an achievement of Gods and saving this world appears impossible for anyone but Nature and the Universe.

Yet my spark remains adamant and even though its lights does not always shine the brightest, it still lights the path amidst this dark and cruel world, hoping that one day the fire may be rekindled.

:nope:
You don't present your self very well when you take this kind of tone.

Will you please quote the paragraph in full before attacking me, Letum. In the full context, your quote imo is not like you make it appear now. I did not say he has my condolence (now that would be haughty), I said he has my sympathy, and I mean it. I really wish I would see a lighter and brighter future ahead for our childrenan. But I can see that only when ignoring too many things I consider to be "facts". And when I take them into account, what has appeared as light and bright, is gone. Did you think I take some sick pleasure from being like Cassandra all the time?

Respenius, I need to get some things done, but will check your reply this evening.

Perhaps it is something lost/gained in translation.

Letum,

here you are right. It got lost in translation indeed.

In German, "Symphatie" usually has not the wide range of meanings like "sympathy" can have in English. In English it can mean "compassion", and I assume this is where you criticism is coming from. But in German, that would not be "Du hast meine Symphatie", sondern "Du hast mein Mitgefühl". German "Symphatie" in meaning is more limited to the meaning of a positive attitude towards somebody. It eventually can express, indirectly, compassion, but that would be indirectly only, and very much accentuated from the context in which the word is used. As a rule of thumb, "Symphatie" in German means that positive attitude thing most of the time, and that was what I wished to express. If I would have meant "compassion", as an ignorrant German I would have used the word compassion or condolence, then.

Sorry if I messed it up, Respenus. My fault. After all, English is a foreign language for me, and sometimes I manage to trap myself badly in it.

I fear so, but as I said, the global contexts in which man is embedded will take care of the problem their own way sooner or later. And then we will stand aside in helplessness, and will not belief the ammount of suffering. Or we will not care, like we learned to do over the past 40 years and more. BTW, why do you think just the Indians and Chinese must reduce their populations? I do not exclude Europeans and Americans as well, no to mention Africans and South Americans. To me, dear old Gerjmany is an extremely crowded place. I know that it is even worse in other places, say Seoul or Tokyo or Los Angeles, but these nightmares are almost beyond imagination for me. At no cost I want to live there, not even for a million per year. :)

Please read my reply to Letum above. It seems I messed up vocabulary. My apology to you, if you had not realised all by yourself what I meant, and took my comment queer. It was my fault.

It is not so different with me, at least most of the time. Though I prefer to fight, and though I seem to know it will be in vain, I still do so with joy in my heart, maybe a little bit like those famous words that maybe are just put into the mouth of Luther: "Even if I knew that tomorrow was the end of the world, I still would plant an apple tree today!" . Because in the end this is my life, I need to confess to my own conscience, and if fate has placed me in this time and place, I may see the grim things to come, but still have no other choice than to make the best of it and make use of my options to influence the outcome, no matter how limited they may be. To me, this means not to comfortably hand over responsibility to foreigners by making a cross on a ballot, knowing that it is wrong, but trying to influence the individual that I meet face to face. For I am sure that any eventual improvement will only last if it bases on true insight and conviction of people, and is not acchieved by more economical tricks and media cheats. Some may argue it is more economical to work and raise millions, invest in a Tv station or a party and adress the wide public. But we have that - and what has it helped us? I have been engaged in voluntary work, and as a meditation teacher I worked for free over years. I have learned to meet all mass movements with utmost scepticism, and that nothing can replace the individual looking after the single individual person finding himself in search of answers. and where people have no doubts all by themselves, they are unlikely to accept new content. Besides other reasons, these are two of the most important reasons why I am so unforgivingly hostile to mass religions and cults.