[Skybird]

@ Lance, 1 of 2

And the state just skips the whole process and goes straight to monopolism. You can always legislate the break-up of a company, but how do you break up the state monopoly?

Through elections and a legally binding system of checks and balances, that's what power regulation in a democracy is about. But try to vote a monopolistic corporation out of power - it does not work. Try to get riod of one of the "bosses" - many names plagueing German ecomy on my mind, and you cannot and cannot get rid of them and they still sit on their chairs and open the hands for more. In some cases this goes for many years now.

The state is a monopolist in certain areas, yes, and he has to be, else the idea of state and nation does not make any sense. For example the state in Europe is demanded to hold the monopole of the executive, and a monopole of force. It's the only way how the people can execute a legally guaranteed ammount of countercontrol over tools of such force, police for example. at least that'S how it should be. An economic enterprise having such powers essentiaolly would be oputside the checks and balances, and would try to keep it that way so that it can have it'S ways for the sake of it'S maximising of profits. Beyond a certain scale of such companies, market regulation does not affect them so much anymore - usually the more the more they reach their goal of establishing monopoles.

And where market regulation comes into play - I do not say that it never works - , eventually it may work too late and too slow, and only at the price of too much damage being done until then. Microsoft is a harmless example. Environment-related contexts may serve as less harmless examples. I am not satisfied to leave it to nrepair the damge once it has been done. I'm about preventing it so that the need for repairs falls to a minimum.

That's true, for democracy I guess. Fortunately, the market knows no limitations of scale or size and it does not need to. The proof is all around us. Billions of transactions every day determine the prices of goods and the rise and fall of companies. You can even watch it in real-time courtesy of stock-tickers and commodities values. Everyone votes, and all the votes matter.

The market needs limitations. The whole Anglosaxon idea of economic globalization has gone very wrong for those having the idea - us, europe and North America. We have lost the lead in technologies we once had. We have exported our jobs to other nations. Capital of companies avoid taxation in our countries, although our countries pay for their rise, and compensate for their eventual losses. Profits gets exported to outside places. Rivals got strengthened. Home economies got weakened. Next month there will be a new mammoth conference at the UN, demanding this madness to continue and making it even more mandatory for western nations to drive it. I'm sure that China again will get plenty of "developement aide", for it is economically so weak and depending on our help. . On the one hand it is said that we should have a competing economy. On the other hand we cripple ourselves. The last thing one could say is that this is a contradictory thing. But okay, it's the UN, so no surprise.

Hell, years ago I wouldn'T have imagined that I ever would turn so extremely hostile to the UN. Maybe we can agree on that!?

I mentioned the freedom of private interests to pursue their own security affairs. That would include private security firms, which would be suited to those roles. Obviously the state still has a role to play, but private firms could perform certain jobs better, especially when company interests are at stake. Airport security would be a good of example of a role I believe they would perform better.

Help-Help!! Please do not leave national and communal security interests to private economy. It will compromise them, and making the understanding of "security" an item of profit interests of private parties. Unacceptable. As unacceptable as the outsourcing of military capacities to private enterprise, in the form of mercenary corporations. We have had that in europe, over centuries. It did a lot to make wars lasting longer, happening more often, since a status of peace was ruinous for such companies. A conditions of relative security would be ruinous for security companies today, too. therefore, they would push, invent, redefine "threats", to secure their profits and make sure they always will be considered to be needed. The American defence industry already works that way very much, and tries to maike itself indispensable by spreading it's proleductions to a smany states as possible, so that in case of cuts jobs would be lost in many states - which would bring a lot of governors wanting to be reelected on the side of such companies.

You are talking about a pure element of plutocracy when giving up the state monopole for the executive, in parts or in full. If the idea of a "tyrannis" in ancient understanding is okay for you, fine, just remember that that form of government is neither free and liberal, nor democratic. If the tyrant you have (in ancient understandingk, which id different to that context in whhich we use the term tyranny today) is a good and reasonable one, you'Re fine, eventually. If he is not, you have a problem. The same problem you have with feudal systems and monarchies - and democracy, too (being elected does not say anything about your competence and character. Maybe you got elected becasue your rotten character helped you to make them vote for you).

So, as long as you want to defend the basic ideas behind why people came to the idea of a democracy, at least in theory, then you are on a wrong track. I said myself that I cannot imagine democracy working well in too huge communities, and that kind of a feudal order maybe works the better the bigger the community is. Problem is, for a feudal system you depend on good personnel forming the leading feudal class, and we do not have that, and it often worked erratic in past centuries. Like democracy depends on reasonable people and good personnel being electable, too - we suffer the same lack today. Both systems are answers to one and the same problem: how to secure that only "good" people lead the rest, and their irresponsibility or selfishness can do only limited damage? turning to a profit-driven plutocracy cannot be the answer. we already have that, especially in the US it is a few very rich family clans projecting an incredible ammount of power and influence over all the remaining political scene. It really is some kond of a hidden new feudal class, isn't it. In europe, that part is taken over by the parties, in Germany at least. the interests and powerplays of political parties today dominate all and everything, and if that goes at the damage of the nation and the German people - so be it.

I'd go a step further and remove state prohibition of drugs, but that's another discussion in itself isn't it? It is a good example of the failure of the state to perform adequately against the market, however, even when endowed with vast resources.

due to the socially and economically damaging effect of drugs, it would be suicidal to allow them. You would remove state prohibition. I would make a list with drugs, and brutally execute everybody consuming these, owning these, trading with them, no matter the quantities. the small street vrtrader, the big fish in the background: it does not matter, delete them both from the screen of communal influence. Exceptions i only would make with very young people, that follow the youth's drive to experiment. Nevertheless: only if they get caught for the first time, and even then I would give very, extremely harsh penalties, but not execution. All second-time offenders, as well as all older ones: if you have contact with drugs on this official ban-list, your existence will end. In SE Asia some nations practice "draconic" prison sentences, much more exessive than we do in the West. They have made quite some good experiences with it. If you reduce the number of people on the street having access to drugs, and being in contact with them, you increase the difficulty to get access to them. Execution I understand as a means of fighting drugs, not as a "death penalty" here. It neither is about penalty, nor about revenge, but about national and communal self-defence. After long time of thinking about it, I also have found my position on whether or not soft drugs should be legalised, and I came to a determined "No". While psychologically in single cases it may make sense, it opens a lane to acceptance for a drug culture, that in the end is self-damaging to the national community.

I am aware that my draconic suggestion generalises a bit and ignores the single individual cases where people sometime chnage their minds and get away from drugs again. This possibility has to be weighted against the enormous damage done to the community by the immense drug trafficking taking place, and the vital threat it puts to our nations. Since I do not take it easy to demand such a draconic action, I also cannot compromise communal interests to the suicidal levels we currently have. It is a hard call in both cases.

It is called "war" on drugs. Then start to behave accordingly: start to kill. Else the term does not make any sense at all.

Or consider Islamic terrorism. A possible military threat - that currently there is none does not mean there enver will be any again. organised crime. Corruption of authorities. Lobbyism in legislation, damaging community interests for the sake of corporation interests.

As I said above, private firms could have a role in combatting terrorism. Combatting crime is a state responsibility I recognize, though at a limited extent on the Federal level. Still, it helps to have a gun when threatened by a criminal, whether he is organized or not
The last three there can be most effectively combatted by limiting state power. I have no doubt that the state will abuse any power it has to some extent, but limiting that power severely can also limit the damage they do.

We do not come together in our different assessments here. It appears to me that here and in later parts I used the term "security" both in your understanding - and a wider context as well, surpassing yours.