[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

That's why I am against unregulated economies as well, and leaving it to the market.

I fear monopolies as much as you do, but a private monopoly still gives you the freedom to choose. There is always someone willing to fill the unsatisfied demand, notwithstanding overwhelming public demand that such a thing be brought down.

And what you say, is not only true for federations of states, or federal states, but one-body-states as well. Or governments of too big communal subunits within a national state.

I agree. This is why I argue for the empowerment of small government, and the realization of the rights of individuals. The individual is the most basic unit of any social organization, and therefore, with respect to individual rights, the only true basis for government.

What has led me in the past to saying that democratic principles only can avoid raising power monopoles of always the same class/elite/oligarchy and lobby rulerships, the smaller they are. They fail in this, the bigger they are.

Again, I agree. Everyone has the right to self-determination. I think that our system of government should reflect this, and I think a limited government best enables this principle. Every system of government conceived thus far has failed in that aspect.

In the end, whom the electorate votes for, is not so important. That it is given the information - instead of being manipulated and being excluded from information like it is today - and power to keep economy interest and politician's interest strictly separate, and that the single citizen can completely oversee all what happens within the communiy and realsis all conseqeunces of the one'S deeds onto all the others, and that priviliges for current rulers are not granted any decision-makers are no longer excluded from the conseqeunces of their decison so that they cannot differ between their own interest and the communal interest anymore - these things would be vital.

I think I'm missing some vital points of your argument, here. Please allow me some time to translate it back into German and then interpret it in English.

Ecologically, world population is too big. Politically, our states and communites are to big. They are ungovernable through democratic means by their mere size.

That's lazy thinking, Sky.

Much of what policies and diplomacy are about, is hiding and raising smoke screens so that the elctorate cannot see the realy deals. That'S why I support the Wikileaks idea in principle - because to me the trustworthiness of policy-making is about transparency, and free flow of information from and to everybody, everywhere. Only then decision-makers cannot form special deals anymore. Bribery and corruption can be tackled. Power abuse by elected people, and whole govenrments be avoided. Intel insiders point out that most of that business is about controlling the information available to own population. In other words: deception of the population'S own power elites' acting.

I can't really comment on this. I agree that public availability of information is an ultimately beneficial thing, but I also hate to see the fallen judged in such a light. I have a conflicted opinion on this.

Might I bother you to type it in German so I could re-translate it?

Transparency would render the whole diplomatic service useless. Because diplomacy is not about giving the other information, but hiding it from him

I agree, but how do you get from here to there without the creation of an international state? We are agreed upon the inefficacy of making one state out of many, so how would we ever achieve such a thing?