Currently, I am riding my bike through the Piemont with Barbara. It is pure pleasure, spring, exercise, a wonderful landscape, great food, everything is like a dream. It gives me time and leisure to think about what has made me sad recently. The following summary is the result.
Before you start reading, I would like to point out that we have freedom of thought. That is also true for mental experiments.
Let us start with a hideous saying from Nazi times. In those days, the masters of the Third Reich hung the sentence “Work Will Make You Free“ over the entrance of the Concentration Camps. Hatred was systematically promoted against persons and groups we disliked. These people were tortured and murdered from the leaders – with the agreement of the vassals. We rightly condemned what happened as crimes against humanity. Work will make you free – in those times that was sheer cynicism.
Today, we have the motto: “Money will make you free”. Since for most people their job is the source of income, you can say – and I do not mean this cynical at all – “your job will make you free”. Because only if you have a job that pays reasonably well, you will be a respected part of society. Everything depends on it.
If your job does not pay very much, this is not a problem. You simply have to have several jobs. That is quite possible. You will still remain a part of society. If you do not earn enough in your job, you will also be ostracized. Except if you have other means of income, for instance if you inherit a lot. With enough money, you will also be a respected citizen if you have no job. Since well-paid jobs will probably become scarce in the future, some sociologists demand the BGE (basic income without any requirements). It is supposed to give people a little more freedom, but above all, it is supposed to guarantee the preservation of the consumption society.
The best-paid jobs are in the HORGs (Hierarchical ORGanisations). Especially if you are stabilized and protected by collectively agreed wages, you can consider yourself in the golden cage. If you do not wish to work in a HORG (like yours truly), you have two options: you can become either a day labourer or an entrepreneur.
Day labourers can either earn quite a lot or be rather poorly paid, depending on what they can sell. If you need a better sounding word, you will call them freelancers (although they are certainly not free). And they are often persecuted as “fake freelancers“.
Trying to become an entrepreneur is risky, you can fail (as with everything in life). Except if you fail, you might not only end up without income but also without Granny’s Little House.
The VW managing director Herbert Diess has now also realized this, regardless of the fact that he is actually not an entrepreneur but more some kind of upper class system agent. He declared very appropriately: EBIT will make you free – and then he was surprised that they criticized him for this sentence (because of the historical fact that VW, after all, had quite a few forced labourers during the Third Reich). Since he is a nice Austrian who was born in Munich, he later said he was sorry if his choice of phrase was offensive.
Mind you, he was absolutely correct, because his enterprise will be a lot better off if “his enterprise” manages a nice EBIT every year. Believe me, I know what I am talking about!
Incidentally, not only the managing directors in the automobile industry know this – those in the pharmaceutical industry have also gotten wind of it. Mind you, in the pharmaceutical industry, you do not get such products as Tamiflu – that alone guarantees the EBIT – every year. The time of the Blockbuster is also something of the past and business in the chemical health industry gets generally harder.
That is why it is nice if google and facebook, for example, ban the vaccination enemies from their website. Naturally, compulsory vaccinations are an excellent cure for the EBIT of the producers. And the government, too, is now considering to introduce a law that makes it possible to make vaccinations compulsory. Because of the measles.
Since we are talking about compulsory measures: Especially in the medical sector, it would make sense in society to have many more compulsory measures. The first thing that comes to mind is the HIV test. Why do they not force everybody to do such a test regularly? That would give people the information whether or not they have Aids and consequently they can act responsibly. Would not some transparency make sense in the fight against the pestilence? And such a law would also be beneficial for the EBIT of the producer of the test.
Or, just as important:
Everybody knows that our planet has a huge problem. It suffers under too many people. Should we not really do something about the over-population? What about forced contraceptives?
Here is what the rules could be:
Every woman has to do whatever it takes in order not to become pregnant (without permission). Either through a known contraceptive or by proving that she lives in a monogamous relationship with a sterilized man. If there is a possibility that she is pregnant, she has to take the pill after. If the pregnancy has been confirmed, there must be immediate abortion. This is a medically very simple and harmless procedure that, in Germany, one out of four women underwent once or several times in their lives.
There would be exceptions for “applied for and approved” children. The approval has to be valid before the actual procreation. It will only be granted if the couple (hetero or homo sexual) can prove that they are able to provide a good social perspective for the child. What a Brave New World!
Well, the Federal Government has a lot of work to do. China already did it, because China had to cope with a drastic population growth. In India, it has also been discussed. They distributed radio receivers as a reward for sterilization. However, it did not work very well.
In general, the Chinese are a step ahead.
China already awards social credits for its citizens. Both negative and positive ones. In the end, the difference is calculated. This is how they want to realize the dream of a system of “relative justice” by rewarding good behaviour and punishing bad behaviour.
Thanks to digitalization, it is quite easy.
For instance if someone goes by underground train without having bought a ticket, he/she will get negative points. The same is true if you cross the street on a red traffic light or if you park illegally or drive too fast. If your negative points add up to a certain sum, you will be ostracized from society by a differentiated system.
Isn’t this better than our system?
If you go by underground train in this country without having bought a ticket, you are committing a crime and will sooner or later end up in jail. Since parking illegally is only a violation of a minor rule, you can throw away your ticket without having to fear jail. Is that relative justice?
In China, they have many rich and super-rich – and many poor. In our country, the polarization between rich and poor is not quite as pronounced as there.
This could soon end.
Because Germany is not the only country where the first article of the constitution seems to be: the preservation of your property is the highest priority. That is what the majority of people in this country take as the maxim of their thinking and behaviour.
The protection of vested rights feels like a new human right in Germany.
Consequently, the protection of property has been improved. It happens at all levels. Naturally, because, if 50% of the world’s capital belongs to fewer than fifty people, then these people want to stabilize their situation. And power is always in the hands of those with “the funny stuff”.
The copyright protection that originated in the last centuries is also regulated for the internet. Data are declared personal property and protected by laws. It induces a huge cost that could easily have been avoided if we had simply punished violations of the law.
I never understood the ado they made about data protection. How can any person own data at all? And why do they belong to him/her personally? I used to believe that data (like knowledge) belongs to all of us. At least to all those who know them.
What kind of society is this if my date of birth is a secret? To be sure, I am less than thrilled about my age. I would certainly like to be younger. But why should nobody know how old I am? Why should my sexual and religious orientation not be public knowledge? Why does everyone want to hide something?
My dream is a transparent and tolerant society. Free of violence. We would need no DSVGO as we have it now. Neither would we need upload filters that will now also come officially (we have had them in-officially for quite some time already).
They say that intellectual property needs to be protected. This is because you can earn a lot of money with intellectual property. I feel richer if I can share my ideas with others. I will not want the copyright to my ideas, simply because my ideas have usually been inspired or triggered by other persons.
There is one exception to how the government acts in favour of manifesting property. It is not about the womb that should belong to a woman. Now the government wants to initiate a law that allows them to take the organs of a dead person by default. In other words, if a person did not declare a priori (before he died) that he expressly forbids it or unless his next of kin à posterio gives a good reason why he is against it, the organs will be taken. This weakens the ownership of your own organs. Is that because your ownership terminates with your death? What about applying this reasoning to other property?
It really sounds very humane if you hear about poor people who have been waiting a long time for a donor because they need his organ. As always, however, that is not what it is all about. It is all about business. And business is always justified with reminding people of jobs.
Organ transplants are very expensive medical business cases. And there are quite a few hospitals and people working there who could earn a lot more money if they had more donor organs. The pharmaceutical industry would also benefit. Because people who have been successfully given a donor organ need a lot of medication afterwards in order to continue living with the strange organ.
Also, you are no longer (officially) allowed to own other persons. However, slavery, too, was not abolished for humanitarian or idealistic reasons. It was mostly abolished because it was not beneficial in the sense of profit maximization.
Now I wait for a regulation that protects the right to my own emotions. After all, they, too, can be violated or injured by others. We already have some interesting beginnings, for instance if you violate religious or German-Nationalist feelings (for example if you ignore the flag). This might well become a subject to regulation in the internet. Upload filters come to mind.
I am really happy that I do not have any religious or nationalist feelings. So nobody can violate them. On the other hand: if SpVG Unterhaching lost a match and a München-1860 or Bayern-München fan makes fun of it, he is definitely violating my feelings. And I think he really should be punished for it.
That is one of the problem we have in this society:
How will violations against future regulations be sanctioned?
More and more is forbidden and regulated – it is not only about vaccinations and having children. The planet, the bees, and Europe must be saved. And all of this will not be possible without severe restrictions and solidarity. And voluntary solidarity comes at a high price and will consequently cost a lot.
Consequently, you cannot follow the politically incorrect sentiment that, for example, you are opposed to a Europe that is dominated by nationalist countries and that dreams of a powerful army of its own with aircraft carriers. Just as violations against the environment need to be sanctioned if you want to stop the climate catastrophe.
This is where we come full circle. You will really need a well-paid job or be extremely rich if you want to pay all the fees and tickets you will get.
(Translated by EG)
I just read that the Bayerische Landesausstellung will be re-named “Stadtluft befreit“. The organizers of the event in Aichach and Friedberg in 2020 modified the original title ”Stadtluft macht frei“. Charlotte Knobloch had criticised that the title is hurtful and “poisoning people“.
The reason was that the old title violated feelings. If feelings are property that needs to be protected (because you can hurt them), then – following the current political concepts – you need a GSGVO (regulation for the protection of feelings) in the internet, too. And since we already have update filters, why not exclude everything that hurts your feelings? Such as city air will make you free. Or Haching is a shitty club.
In my opinion, “city air will make you free“ is a very important metaphor. Because the social, political, cultural and all other progress in Europe happened in the cities and through networking.