Dear Hiveans,
as we had lots of politics in the last weeks, today I'd like to write more general about polital theory, and share some of my unpopular thoughts.
Democracy vs. Republic
- Republic: In a republic certain civil rights are unalienable (meaning that they cannot be taken away, transferred, or denied), like freedom of speech, religion, effective self-defense (=the right to bear arms) or property right.
- Democracy: first of all democracy is not a political system, it is a method for decision making. A pure democracy (meaning that everything can be voted upon) cannot grant rights to its citizens, as a majority (be it a simple majority, a 50% majority or a 2/3 majority) can override any rights and oppress minorities.
Thus, conceptually, I am a Republican, not a Democrat.
A Republic must ensure that the people can vote and peacefully remove politicians while preserving the people's unalienable rights. According to the brilliant physicist and philosopher David Deutsch, the first-past-the-post system (majority voting system like US, UK) has the great merit of facilitating the removal of bad leaders, while, contrary to popular belief, proportional representation (most of continental Europe) essentially hinders the removal of bad leaders (often handing disproportionate power to the third-largest party)(Popper's criterion).
Furthermore as any system, a republic should aim to preserve itself. For this certain people (public enemies) need to be excluded from taking power. Let's take a look at Germany. Angela Merkel was raised and socialized in Communist East Germany. She underwent all Communist youth organizations (Pioneers, FDJ) and was trained for 35 years to hate and fight West Germany (BRD/FRG, wiki). This led to some disastrous decisions between 2005 and 2021, whose consequences we shall see. According to wiki:
At the Academy of Sciences, she became a member of its FDJ secretariat. According to her former colleagues, she openly propagated Marxism as the secretary for "Agitation and Propaganda". However, Merkel has denied this claim and stated that she was secretary for culture, which involved activities like obtaining theatre tickets and organising talks by visiting Soviet authors. She stated: "I can only rely on my memory, if something turns out to be different, I can live with that."
In my opinion when allowing to take over the Chancellorship, the administrative state (Office for the Protection of the Constitution) failed to protect Germany. Where should be the boundary between "protecting the country" (preventing Merkel's rule) and "equal right to be elected"?
Voting rights
I always wondered why children aren't allowed to vote (via their parents). They are most affected by political decisions (as these decisions have long lags). In my opinion this shouldn't be controversial at all. Giving parents the right to vote for their children would inhibit crazy child mutilation based on insane gender "theories", and it would decrease the risk of a blatant robbing of the future generations via government debt.
On the other side one could ask if 95-year old people should be allowed to vote? Statistically they are scarcely affected by political decisions. But they may have precious wisdom. So don't take this point too seriously.
Heart and Brain
I've often heard the following quote:
Then I found the original from John Adams: "A boy of fifteen who is not a democrat is good for nothing, and he is no better who is a democrat at twenty".
I would reformulate: If you trust in the state at 20, you haven’t yet developed your brain adequately. If you still trust in the state at 40, all hope is lost for you.
What's your unconvenient thoughts about our state of politics?
Have a great day,
zuerich
Memes...
Liebe Hiver,
da wir in den letzten Wochen viel über Politik gesprochen haben, möchte ich heute etwas allgemeiner über Politiktheorie schreiben und einige meiner unpopulären Gedanken teilen.
Demokratie vs. Republik
- Republik: In einer Republik sind bestimmte Bürgerrechte unveräußerlich (d.h. sie können nicht weggenommen, übertragen oder verweigert werden), wie z.B. Redefreiheit, Religionsfreiheit, effektive Selbstverteidigung (=das Recht, Waffen zu tragen) oder Eigentumsrecht.
- Demokratie: Zunächst einmal ist die Demokratie kein politisches System, sondern eine Methode zur Entscheidungsfindung. Eine reine Demokratie (d. h. es kann über alles abgestimmt werden) kann ihren Bürgern keine Rechte gewähren, da eine Mehrheit (sei es eine einfache, eine absolute oder eine 2/3-Mehrheit) jegliche Rechte außer Kraft setzen und Minderheiten unterdrücken kann.
Daher bin ich vom Konzept her ein Republikaner, kein Demokrat.
Eine Republik muss sicherstellen, dass das Volk wählen und Politiker friedlich abwählen kann, während die unveräußerlichen Rechte des Volkes gewahrt bleiben. Dem brillanten Physiker und Philosophen David Deutsch zufolge hat das Mehrheitswahlrecht (wie in den USA und im Vereinigten Königreich) den großen Vorteil, dass es die Absetzung schlechter Politiker erleichtert, während das Verhältniswahlrecht (in den meisten Ländern Kontinentaleuropas) entgegen der landläufigen Meinung die Absetzung schlechter Politiker behindert (da es oft der drittgrößten Partei unverhältnismäßig viel Macht verleiht) (http://www.theopensociety.net/2017/03/poppers-criterion-of-a-democracy/).
Außerdem sollte eine Republik wie jedes andere System darauf abzielen, sich selbst zu erhalten. Zu diesem Zweck müssen bestimmte Personen (Staatsfeinde) von der Machtübernahme ausgeschlossen werden. Werfen wir einen Blick auf Deutschland. Angela Merkel ist in der kommunistischen DDR aufgewachsen und sozialisiert worden. Sie durchlief alle kommunistischen Jugendorganisationen (Pioniere, FDJ) und wurde 35 Jahre lang darauf trainiert, Westdeutschland (BRD, wiki zu hassen und zu bekämpfen.) Dies führte zu fatalen politischen Entscheidungen zwischen 2005 und 2021, deren Folgen wir noch sehen werden. Laut wiki (übersetzt):
An der Akademie der Wissenschaften wurde sie Mitglied des Sekretariats der FDJ. Nach Angaben ihrer ehemaligen Kollegen propagierte sie als Sekretärin für „Agitation und Propaganda“ offen den Marxismus. Merkel hat diese Behauptung jedoch bestritten und erklärt, sie sei Sekretärin für Kultur gewesen, was Tätigkeiten wie die Beschaffung von Theaterkarten und die Organisation von Vorträgen sowjetischer Gastautoren umfasste. Sie erklärte: „Ich kann mich nur auf mein Gedächtnis verlassen, wenn sich etwas als anders herausstellt, kann ich damit leben.“
Meiner Meinung nach hat die Verwaltung (Verfassungsschutz) bei der Übertragung der Kanzlerschaft an Merkel versagt, Deutschland zu schützen. Wo soll die Grenze zwischen „Schutz des Landes“ (Verhinderung der Herrschaft Merkels) und „gleiches Wahlrecht“ liegen?
Wahlrecht
Ich habe mich immer gefragt, warum Kinder nicht wählen dürfen (über ihre Eltern). Sie sind von politischen Entscheidungen am meisten betroffen (da diese Entscheidungen eine lange Wirkungszeit haben). Meiner Meinung nach sollte dies überhaupt nicht umstritten sein. Den Eltern das Wahlrecht für ihre Kinder zu geben, würde Kinderverstümmelungen auf der Grundlage verrückter Geschlechter-„Theorien“ verhindern, und es würde das Risiko einer eklatanten Beraubung der zukünftigen Generationen durch Staatsverschuldung verringern.
Auf der anderen Seite könnte man fragen, ob 95-jährige Menschen wählen dürfen sollten? Statistisch gesehen sind sie von politischen Entscheidungen kaum betroffen. Aber sie können über wertvolle Weisheit verfügen. Nehmt also diesen Punkt bitte nicht zu ernst.
Herz und Hirn
Das folgende Zitat habe ich schon oft gehört:
Dann habe ich das Original von John Adams gefunden: „Ein fünfzehnjähriger Junge, der kein Demokrat ist, taugt zu nichts, und er ist nicht besser, wenn er mit zwanzig ein Demokrat ist“.
Ich würde das umformulieren: Wenn man mit 20 auf den Staat vertraut, hat man sein Gehirn noch nicht ausreichend entwickelt. Wer mit 40 noch auf den Staat vertraut, für den ist alle Hoffnung verloren.
Was sind Eure unbequemen Gedanken zum Zustand unserer Politik?
Have a great day,
zuerich
Memes...
As always, a provocative post.
I don't know about this one, @zuerich. In the U.S. this would result in weighting the electorate toward the less educated and those who are observant (religious.)
I think a more educated electorate would yield better results, and I don't want the influence of religion in my country getting any stronger.
On average, 24% of women with a bachelor degree (or higher) have 3 or more children. More than 37% of those without a degree have 3 or more children.
Also, on average the religious (attend services once a week or more) have an average of approximately 2.2 children and those who don't attend any services have less than 1.5.
As a 78-year-old (next week will be my birthday), I take exception to this :)) I don't know anyone who isn't affected by political decisions. Plus, as I get older, I think even more about consequences to posterity. A young person has a narrow focus, one centered on individual prosperity. As an older person, I have a wider perspective. It's not about me so much, but about the future for everyone, especially my family.
Dear @agmoore,
thank you for your comment which I much appreciate.
Excellent points, @zuerich.
That these people have no system of belief simply does not stand up to close scrutiny. Of course they do, whether openly and honestly acknowledged or not.
I am highly educated, as these people view the word. And as an engineer. As such, intentionally avoiding ALL of the philosophical types of courses which are intentionally designed to subvert the minds of the young people passing through them.
As we are close enough in age and both American, @agmoore, I can agree with this:
Reading through your response, however, this might be confusing to some, as you seem to imply a significant part, of our country's challenges, is that we have too many children?
Or is it we just have too many of certain types of children?
Very good to read this from a European, @zuerich. It is easy to answer this question:
Long (relatively speaking) ago, during my years of political activism and visiting literally hundreds of people in their homes, I would start our conversation with a simple question:
Sadly, never ONE time did I receive anything other than some sort of affirmative response. Which led to my next question:
Which far too often resulted in something like - "What is the difference?" The damage done by America's public education system was / is hard to overstate.
And on from there ...
There is something profoundly sad about how people will not accept the responsibility of making a well-informed voting decision. No, in their prosperity and resulting comfort, they are far too complacent and apathetic. Using your sheep analogy, if they vote at all, they are "herded" to the polls, to vote the way they have been driven ("everybody knows!") to vote.
Thankfully, we are experiencing some long overdue correction of this sad state of affairs. What will the outcome be against all the challenges raised up to stop it? Only God knows.
As you rightly point out, the future of our children and their children is directly affected. Hopefully, we will be able to tell them some day what we did, while there was still time and opportunity to make a difference.
Politically, this is the most exciting times for many decades (at least since 1991). Let's hope it goes well 🙏
We will all find out soon enough. With family and friends, I have stated I believe Trump's two most significant contributions to our future, in his first term:
Internationally: Recognizing Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. And moving our embassy there. Permanently.
Domestically: Selecting 3 of the 9 justices of our Supreme Court. Then relentlessly backing them through the meat grinder of our Senate's approval process.
This latter point is now in clear focus, as he attempts to TRULY dismantle the "unelected 4th branch" of our massive administrative "empire." Many, if not all, of the legal challenges to this will end up in the Supreme Court.
Then we will find out how truly wise and discerning he was, in his first term when he selected these people.
[Yes, truly is restated over and over, as it has become increasingly more difficult to know what is true. And what is not.]
Lovely thoughts but as always the memes are the best bit😂😂😭
Congratulations @zuerich! You have completed the following achievement on the Hive blockchain And have been rewarded with New badge(s)
Your next payout target is 78000 HP.
The unit is Hive Power equivalent because post and comment rewards can be split into HP and HBD
You can view your badges on your board and compare yourself to others in the Ranking
If you no longer want to receive notifications, reply to this comment with the word
STOPGood day.
i wonder what are your thoughts regarding a Network State which uses a FOSS Layer Zero (cross-chain) Anonymous Decentralised Privacy Preserving Fractal Democracy system (like a Concentrated Consensus making factory).
Guten tag, Dear @zuerich !
East Asians like me generally think of Europe as having a socialist state system.
I thought Switzerland had a parliamentary democracy! But Switzerland is not a republic.
In fact, Switzerland is a republic.
It is a republic with democratic elements, one of which is a parliament, another one is federal referendums.
East Asians like me think that Europe is socialist and America is capitalist.
However, I felt that the political system of Europe is different from the republican system of America! Switzerland is a republic, but I thought it was different from the republican system of America. I'm not sure if I understood your English sentence!Dear @zuerich !
Many East Asians now speculate that the European economy is collapsing because of the war in Ukraine!
They think that East Asian economies will surpass Europe!
Danke!😃
I'm sure it will. People here are so complacent to not even realize their moral and economic decline.
!MEME
Posted using MemeHive
Credit: fun.miner
Earn Crypto for your Memes @ HiveMe.me!