German voters are set to lose their fleece this Sunday

[Letum]

If you don't like the choices; be the alternative or stay quiet.

[Platapus]

If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the precipitate?

Or something like that,

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

If you don't like the choices; be the alternative or stay quiet.

If you took any of the choices and see them doing what you should have known they would do, don't criticise them then. You enabled them to powers to do what they do.

If you legitimise the system, you have given up the legitimacy to criticise it if it just does what you had to expect it would do. You are an accomplice, then.

And if you expected it to do something else, than you cannot be helped, and maybe you should not legitimise it. EVERYbody today could and should know what to expect of politicians.

Interesting demoscopic finding first published around two weeks ago: the structure of non-voters has changed, and now include more private businessmen and more self-employed members of the middle class then ever before. Reasons given: a growing disillusionising about lacking abilities and freedoms of politics to act on behalf of the people. A growing number of people think poltiicians do not act on their behalf, but in explicit violation of people'S will (which is fact, btw.). A general feeling of uneasiness about the political going is wide-spread and growing and includes practically all social classes, but the educated middle class and the independent small business class grow faster in size than the other groups. Before the elections started, demoscopes expected the highest number of non-voters ever. It has constantly grown over the past elections.

People learn. Slowly, but they do.

[Letum]

So why not be the alternative?

If no one is voting because they don't like the choice, then stand up and
be an alternative choice. If you are right in what you say about the will of
the country, then you will be successful.

Or alternatively, just complain about it here and do nothing.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

So why not be the alternative?

If no one is voting because they don't like the choice, then stand up and
be an alternative choice. If you are right in what you say about the will of
the country, then you will be successful.

Or alternatively, just complain about it here and do nothing.

If you can tell how to be an alternative system instead of being a non-alternative inside the system, I as well as many others may consider that.
but what you really want is that we just submit to the system itself, becoming just another party amongst several, following the system mechanisms and keeping it alive that way. But right that is the very problem. In the assessement of people like me the system itself is the problem, and thus cannot generate any solutions anymore. You cannot revolutionise the system from within. It is designed to prevent exactly that - because the lobbying parties constituting it wants to stay in control. But people like me do not want that. We want it being destroyed alltogether, because we have understood that it is not forming solutions for our survival in the future, but is helping in preventing that.

As a matter of fact in the past years we see a tendency for a raise in local "Bürgerinitiativen" (grasroot movements, civil rights movements) here in Germany, and soemtimes these have been powerful enough to break through the blockade of regional government, economy lobbies and parties. I have been engaged in one such movement myself, as I have explained in the past.

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy. I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority? You underestimate the laziness and phlegmatism of the majority of people, then. I do not - and that is the reason why I am so extremely pessimistic about the future of man. even more so soince i know that already repeatedly societies of the past have killed themselves for these very same reasons.


The will of the country, you said. Well, obviously the will of the country still is such that it keeps the existing system alive, although the number of non-voters has reached a new record-high. This keeping-the-system is the problem. Obviously "will of the majority" and "being right" are not the same (one of the big mistakes in democratic thinking). Maybe that's why they say that numerical majorities are just numerical majorities - no statements about who is right and who is wrong. many socieites in the past have broken down with a majority of the population tolerating the processes leading to these falls for too long, until it was too late. I have just finished a second comprehensive reading ijn just some weeks about right this phenomenon, so don't try me, or I ripple-fire a whole list of failed socieites with stunning parallels to the modern present. Have these people of the past been right, just because they formed majorities "majorities"? Obviously not. Many saw their societies desintegrating in social rebellion, civil war and cannibalism, because the dissent led to rebellion to suicidal structures and processes just too late. Historic parallels to the events unfolding in the present count by the dozens, from the drama of the Pitcairn Island over the Anazasi and the Easter Islanders and the Maya to the Vikings . We could learn from these warning examples, if only we would want to. But, like you, the majority prefers to unknowingly repeat the very same mistakes many other people before us have fallen for in the past 1000 years, and probably also before these 1000 years.

And finally, many germans say that much of what the CDU does is more SPD-like than the SPD, and that the SPD has become greener than the Grteens, and some aspects of Green policies have become more conservative than the CDU. The last four years of grand coaltition did not help to keep the alternatives more ovbviously separate. there is no sense in having the choice if the difference between alternatives to chose from disappears.

It seems the CDU has won and will be able to form a coalition with the FDP. But they will face the same finacial misery like any other possible government, anf they will face the same prblems and will be hit by the same counterproductive variable. I tell you: the changes there will be, will be cosmetic only. the basic problems remain. The basic way of dealing with them will remain the same.

And in four years the number of non-voters will have grown again. Maybe hsitory will not remeber them as great geroes. But their decision not to vote will make sure they have become a little bit less guilty, than others - than that majority of yours, for example.

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

You cannot revolutionise the system from within.

Of course you can.

There is no limit on the ability of a majority government to change the system.
All constitutions can, and have, been changed or scrapped.

Originally Posted by Skybird

You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority?

Certainly not.
It would take a mass outbreak of stupidity before a majority voted for any of your ideas.

Obviously "will of the majority" and "being right" are not the same (one of the big mistakes in democratic thinking).

The will of the majority has a far, far better history than the will of
individuals and oligarchs. You don't need me to give examples!
That aside, it's not about if the majority are right or wrong, it's about
the majority being free to chose or be an alternative. As opposed to
being opressed under the will of the few or an individual.

So skybird is a revolutionary anarchist who can't be arsed with reolutionary anarchism...no wonder he sounds so pissed off all the time.
Its funny how in one breath he says he says the system can't be changed let alone from within and in the next he is on about how the system is being changed by those who have got within.
I do wish he would make his mind up, it is far more challenging to argue against someone whose views hold some sort of consistancy or at least make some sort of sense

[Lurchi]

Originally Posted by Letum

It would take a mass outbreak of stupidity before a majority voted for any of your ideas.

Agreed!
I hope this country will never ever be run (again) by a creature with a negative attitude towards life ... trying to destroy everything just to make his own failure more bearable.

Originally Posted by jimbuna

If you don't like the choices; be the alternative or stay quiet.

Well said!

[Onkel Neal]

Originally Posted by Letum

The will of the majority has a far, far better history than the will of
individuals and oligarchs. You don't need me to give examples!
That aside, it's not about if the majority are right or wrong, it's about
the majority being free to chose or be an alternative. As opposed to
being opressed under the will of the few or an individual.

Oh so true.

[Hakahura]

"It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others that have been tried"

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy. I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

I couldn't find a clapping one. Doesn't really matter. What matters is that Sky or me for that matter aren't anarchist, that is, we both (at least me) see society as a lawful one, where everyone is equal before the law and no-one is in any regard above it. The problem is that corruption has been around since the dawn of time and ever a true government by/of/for the people couldn't get rid of this, as individuals who seek power above anything else usually find willing accomplices in people who surround them or are "in power".

I would listen to Sky if I were anyone. His thinking and that of others might just save us from our destructive selves.

[Skybird]

I started a reply, and stopped it, for nobody wants to hear it anyway. the problem of some of you guys is that you mistake the ideal utopia of how things were meant to be on paper some time in the past, with the way they actually have run to their current state in reality. As long as you cannot fully comprehend that difference and realise how far dream and reality already are apart, you will carry on to actively assist the way we arrange our own civilisational fall - by processes and procedures that are nothing new in human history, and have led many civilisations before us to their self-made extinction, thinking until it was too late that if only they would follow the habits and old ways they were familiar with even harder, that this would save them. In fact it accelerated their extinction, because it strengthened their resistance to adaptation as long as they still had time. The final phase of collapse then often took just a second in history's time, and often it was no peaceful retreat, but chaos and despair.

And like they did, so do many of you. In good intentions, of course - but your good intentions will not save us if you do not realise the needs dictated by tough realities that we have, for the most, created ourselves. I am not talking about ideology and philosophy, like my quarrel with Islam, or freedom and peace. I am talking about elemental things like food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth. If you think i am crazy when putting these in doubt in the future, then you simply do not look far enough. you dream of emocracy worldwide in the future. I see revolution, civil war, government's authority collapsing, nations desintegrating - not about ideals and religions, but food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth.

These realities you ignore will reach you, sooner or later, you or your children. For more and more people not only in the third world, but already in the West, the lack of these qualities already are a fact today.

Originally posted by Randy Weaver

I am talking about elemental things like food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth. If you think i am crazy when putting these in doubt in the future, then you simply do not look far enough. you dream of emocracy worldwide in the future. I see revolution, civil war, government's authority collapsing, nations desintegrating - not about ideals and religions, but food. Water. Shelter. Medicine. Warmth.

[UnderseaLcpl]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I do not want another party. I want civil disobedience on a scale that deadlocks the state and chases the established party system away, breaking up the destructive alliance between policy and economy.

Bravo, Sky! I like seeing common ground between us.....

I want this on an international level, since a change in just one country means nothing, and cannot survive anyhow. The whole world order we have allowed to form up is against the future of man. That may sound pathetic, but unfortunately nothing less than this is true.

.....and then you go and say something like this.

As the old military axiom goes: "Amateurs study tactics. Professionals study logistics." The sheer logistics of some kind of worldwide revolution of thought concerning the proper course of action for the "future of man" are so mind-boggling that they might as well be impossible. There is only one force that transcends virtually all national/cultural/and political boundaries on a daily basis by virtue of its' very nature. Can you guess what it is?

For those who don't know, it is capitalism; the exchange of goods and services with a real or perceived (caveat emptor) mutual benefit to all parties involved.

Given this, in addition to your continual prophesizing of environmental and social catastrophe, I would think that the most efficient and successful course for the "future of man" would be readily apparent. The nations that achieve the best ratios of pollution to prosperity to birth rate are all the ones that have had relatively lassiez-faire capitalist systems in place the longest. Those same nations are the ones that continually embrace newer, cleaner, more efficient technologies, even in the absence of state compulsion. Negative birth rates coupled with more highly advanced industry is a recipe for the success of mankind. Even better, such developed nations attract immigrants from poorer nations, who then, through capitalism, eventually lift themselves out of poverty and also demonstrate lower birth rates. Furthermore, such nations eventually break the economic backs and political systems of centralist nations through economic competition, leading to more, beneficial, capitalist reform. All that is needed is a limited government that cannot easily form plutocratic structures but is given the power to punish fraud.

I realize that you think the planet is running out of time, and that the "slow" nature of this kind of reform (assuming you see it as feasible) may be too slow; but consider just how quickly lightly-reined capitalism has changed the fate of nations. If Deng Xiaoping or Adam Smith or Milton Friedman are not evidence enough of the success of the economically free nation, then you surely must be aware of the significance of the Wirtschaftswunder and Ludwig Erhard. That one man is principally responsible for affording Germany the luxury of contemplating the implication of far-reaching socioeconomic policy, and the reason that some there have the luxury of having trillions of dollars(US) to spend on failed socialist initiatives.

Perhaps you continue to disagree Sky, but your apparent disdain for the limited choices amongst government indicates to me that you should not. If the state has little power to introduce new and usually harmful legislation, there is little reason to be concerned with which particular party holds the majority in a democratic system. If individual freedoms are prized even above the rule of the majority, there is little reason to fear the loss of freedom or the pursut of destructive policies. There is only the truth of the market. Supply and demand. The market will force us to ultimately adapt a sustainable system, or go from one unsustainable system to another until a sustainable one is found. Until you can show me, or even yourself, a suitable system that offers more benefits, I cannot understand why you are unwilling to adopt some version of lassiez-faire capitalism.

You think this view of things is capable of winning a majority? You underestimate the laziness and phlegmatism of the majority of people, then. I do not - and that is the reason why I am so extremely pessimistic about the future of man. even more so soince i know that already repeatedly societies of the past have killed themselves for these very same reasons.

Going O/T for a moment, I have a question for you. If you do not believe in a God, and you are aware of the machinations of genes, and you are already unhappy with humanity, why do you care about the future of mankind?



My apologies for intruding on your discussion with Letum, but I do enjoy getting your perspective, even if you haven't convinced me yet.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by UnderseaLcpl

Going O/T for a moment, I have a question for you. If you do not believe in a God, and you are aware of the machinations of genes, and you are already unhappy with humanity, why do you care about the future of mankind?

Because I wish it to be different. Because I am part of that humanity.

On capitalism we could not be any more different, but we both know that by now, don't we. For you, it is the motor of human society and the holy grail in general. To me it is context-sensitive, and thus can be serving good in some social models, while causing havoc in others, since it offers potentials, but also enormous risks. But being that uncritical of it like you are, does not do any good, I would even say beign that uncritical topwards anything, no mattere what, always means greater risks than gains in the long run, since no situational conditions ever stay the same, everything is changing, and thus any solutions tried must be constantly checked, put in question, and either verified another time for the forseeable near future, or replaced with something different. For you, capitalism is the meaning. For me, it is a tool, and it is eclectically (?) to be used where helpful, and is pragmatically to be limited or abandoned where doing damage. For me it is no self-purpose, never, especially not in a situation as critical and dangerous as the one that human civilisation is in right now. It is not vulnerable to corruption and distortion like democracies are if growing into too big communal systems, but capitalism is the very cause and origin of corrupting democracies. Because being like that is it's very program and nature.

There is much much more than just the market, Lance, there are factors that have nothign to do with it, but still deciding the fate of human societies. I would recommend you read the first chapter in David Jared's "Collapse. How Societies Chose to Fail or Succeed", which deals on 60 pages entirely with the changes in the economic structure of the state of Montana, and describes how just your market philosophy and the freedom of people has helped to cause friction that has mounted big internal problems there and keeps Montana to be one of the poorest states in the union, despite it's great attractiveness due to its described beautiful landscape making it attractive for foreigners - which has proven to be part of the problem. It is written by an American with a great deal of love for the place, btw, so accusing the author of blackpainting or wishing the place any bad, is very absurd.

You simplify things too much, keeping them on the naive level of explanations that had been assumed by the founders of economic theory traditions in the following of the early Adam Smith. This materialistic, capitalistic mindset is a very typical symptom for the Anglosaxon culture that to these excessive ammounts never has been followed or accepted as valid anywhere outside the Anglosaxon world, but still effects most of the planet - and lets critical conditions climax pretty dangerously in many places.

With 7 billion+ people living on planet Earth, we simply cannot afford unregulated capitalism of the old school. It is suicide.

On your celebrating of perosnal freedom, if that freedom is interpreted by people in a way that maximises their personal profits/gains, then it defends the excessive spending and wasting and consuming we see in the Western world, and imagining that to be standard for 7 billion people (becasue the freedom you claim for yourself you cannot deny to the others) means the life-thretaening shortatge of global ressources even within our own lifespans, yours and mine, followed by global collapse and utmost desaster to gloal civilisation, which will leave no civilisational structure whatever unshattered. the Wetsenr lifestyle simply cannot be the standard for the world to follow. It could be that if we were only 500 million or at most 1 billion people living on all the globe and no population growth and stable birth rates that do not increase population but only replaced the losses from people who died. But for ongoing, generations-lasting "Nachhaltigkeit" (sustainability) in our economic system, I more and more get the impression that even 1 billion would be too much if modern Western consummation standards are becoming the standards for all the world. And this problem of suicidal rises in population sizes has been the reason for the fall of many civilisations of the past, all over the world. We couild learn from that - but for some reasopn that may have to do with our genes we refuse to do so, and instead do not look beyond the current day.

Who cares for the great flood tomorrow if there is sun today. Why thinking about sustainability and stockpiling reserves for bad days ahead, if one could party or have another baby today. the results coming from this irresponsible attitude are predetermined and home-made, and will not be avoided.