RE: Dutch Court Orders Bill Gates to Appear in Person to Defend against Charges of Crimes Against Humanity

Hi again,

thank you.
I will refer to the subject of 'governing'. Maybe I will find my time to also include what else you said, not sure.

i believe in non-coercion thoroughly. which is why i reject government entirely. there is no logic behind a government, other than the fear narratives we keep hearing, the "but ifs"

I do believe in coercion, but in a well measured and most responsible way. I will exchange the term with other words, like: 'consequence', 'discipline', 'consistency' - which I all connote positively, not negatively in this context.

What if you break your thought in that sentence down to the smallest unit of human existence? The family.
Are you also in favour of 'no government' where the family is concerned? That I cannot imagine.

In my view, ‘governing’ begins there and means having an authority that you have as a father and mother through life experience and through your past experience as former children of your parents who exercised authority.

In this family alliance, those who have the best qualifications and have proven their life skills through their lifestyle and behaviour are in charge. Those who have not built up anything, who are not doing any useful family work, who are scraping by or who are still children (i.e. have yet to earn their right to co-determination) do not have a say.

Since a family always exists in a larger working net, the hierarchy here is that it is the municipal, then the metropolitan, then the state and then the federal government (I'm leaving out the EU).
When you talk about ‘no government’, which one do you think is superfluous?

I now assume that you nevertheless consider a set of rules for the coexistence of many people to be accepted. Is that correct?
Who in the family's local neighbourhood is responsible for upholding the rules, i.e. who is the executive and the judiciary? Who brings thieves, murderers, cheats, etc. to reason?

If, on the other hand, you are against the need for something like official police and courts, you would have to be in favour of self-justice.
Are you in favour of self-justice?
If every individual were authorised to carry out vigilante justice, what situation would that create?

As a matter of fact, there are reasonable and unreasonable minds in the world. Agreed?

The unreasonable must be persuaded by the reasonable not to get out of hand. This is only possible if they have to bear the consequences of their unreasonable actions themselves. Who denies them this experience is, in my view, acting unwisely themselves. It doesn't work without a conscientious form of enforcement.

Do you believe that all people, without exception, are capable of learning without pressure?

I definitely don't. (A so far lack of) Learning takes place by involuntarily receiving a consequence. If it were voluntary, there would be a paradox. Anyone who voluntarily bears a consequence for their actions - without any external influence - is already acting responsibly. This is my most important argument.
Do you agree?

In my view, enforcement, or rather consequences, are for sure necessary, because I know that there are foolish, evil, ignorant, unintelligent and stubborn minds. This consequence, measured as best as possible, must be understood as educational by those who receive it. It must humiliate them. It only so makes sense.

There are, have always been and will always be characters who, if they had to grow up as children without the intact healthy authority of their parents, will subsequently need to be educated as adults. Those who deprive them of this in turn think immaturely themselves because they fail to understand ‘consistency’ as something positive and out of love, they fear 'coercion' as something deeply bad. They may assume that something like this is not possible or not necessary and hinder the person being disciplined from receiving something extremely valuable.

Back to the beginning.
We have a federal government, as we engage in international trade far beyond our personal relationships. Which is modern standard.

If it is the case that you want to give up this standard (?), for example, you say that the federal government can go, but at the same time you would have to face the reality that other nations will want to keep/defend their national governments and we as small Germany (or whatever small country) would not have the slightest chance of protecting ourselves against invasion and takeover of our moral and physical values.

The German government is the one that must regain - from my current standpoint - both diplomatic skills and the responsibility for security in its own country at its external borders. At the moment we have no such government and it looks as if they are now anarchists. Indeed, all signs point towards that in reality, they have given up governing.

I would want to keep a republic, since going back to smaller units would be unwise - to say the least - and to go up to a world government is even scarier. What do you think?

Greetings.