It is no sign of mental health to be adapted to a deeply dysfunctional society. (Jiddu Krishnamurti)
Will it still be possible to prevent a global ecosocial collapse? In earlier times, a global warming of 2 or 3 degrees would hardly have been dramatic. There would have been migratory movements and our ancestors would have opened up new habitats. Today, however, we live in a world at the limit, with much poorer tolerance for shifting climate zones and rising sea levels. The topic itself challenges and overwhelms our tolerance for complexity. So far, I have not found any contribution that would at least try to do justice to the problem in its entirety.
A sustainable economy is not possible with our existing systems. To transform the economy toward sustainability, we would need at least a tax system that prices in the real costs of the burden on ecosocial resources. With such a real-price tax system, decoupling economic growth from the burden on ecosocial resources should be at least partially possible, but a shift to such a system could well result in a temporary halving of economic output, as many existing business models would no longer be economically viable. Overall, a large proportion of bullshit jobs and bullshit consumption could simply cease. But just reforming the tax system would not be enough, as it is more closely linked to the other systems than is apparent at first glance. To put it bluntly, one could say: Mankind is in the process of mobbing itself into an ecosocial catastrophe with antiquated and ultimately still authoritarian systems. From my point of view it follows that a sustainable society with a sustainable economy must at the same time be a consistently violence-preventive society, and thus one that must finally begin to systematically replace extrinsic motivations with intrinsic ones. There are reasons for the violence against nature and the environment. Currently, discourses to change political actions towards an (eco)dictatorship are increasing and intensifying, which is accompanied by an increase of extrinsic motivations in many areas. With my 10-point plan I would like to make proposals to reverse these developments. To do this, it is important to understand that there are multiple close connections between extrinsic motivations and violent devaluations, between state violence and private violence, and between large wealth imbalances and maximized extrinsic motivations. Examples of this can be found in the education system through the Bologna reforms, in leisure through social media, and in society as a whole through an increasing economization or juridification of many areas of life. After the end of World War II, there was a pronounced awareness in large parts of societies that a significant reason for the enthusiasm for war before World War I was rooted in the extreme imbalance of wealth. War and natural disasters were historically the only known equalizers up to that point. We need to improve our incentive systems to motivate people to make better choices, instead of enacting more and more laws, regulations, and controls, and allowing the army of well-trained administrators, controllers, and advisors to grow immeasurably. As a consequence, I oppose both right-wing conservative law and order policies and left-wing state paternalism, for consistent ecological and social a
10-point plan for a future-proof society
fundamental administrative and legal reform:
1. criminalization of mobbing
1.1 Introduction of a general right to low-threshold personal assistance
1.1.1. mandatory body for conflict mediation in all organizations
188.8.131.52. it need not be located within the organizations
184.108.40.206. if necessary, close cooperation with the police
1.2. abolition of all criminal offences which are merely a special form of bullying
2. extended prohibition of slavery (prohibition of trade with personal data)
2.1. abolition of general data protection again
3. extended antitrust law (extension to data markets)
4. digitalization and partial privatization of administration (free of consultants)
4.1. companies must be non-profit or foundations
4.2. dismantling of existing Prussian-authoritarian administrative law
4.2.1. if necessary, establishment of round tables as a transitional solution
4.3. abolition of the civil servant status
5. creation of a politically independent anti-bureaucratic authority to monitor the state
5.1. Gradual abolition of the secret services
5.1.1. final stage when all states have such anti-bureaucratic authorities
5.2. tightening the separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches of government
5.2.1. mandatory separation of office and mandate
5.2.2 Reform of the judiciary
220.127.116.11. greater social integration of the judiciary
18.104.22.168. reduction of juristocratic aberrations
5.3. monitoring is carried out according to evidence-based scientific methods
5.3.1. organizationally as a mediating body between journalism, science and the executive branch
5.4. employment relationships with lifelong transparency obligations
5.4.1. training only via the 2nd educational path after at least five years of professional experience
22.214.171.124. selection by proposal system instead of application system
5.4.2. at least five-year ban on occupation when (re)moving to the controlled sector
Fundamental tax reform with reform of the financial system:
6. introduction of excise taxes based on product groups
6.1. setting of excise taxes by the anti-bureaucracy authority according to eco-social criteria
6.1.1. exemption or even negative taxes for ecosocially valuable products (e.g. Cradle to Cradle)
6.1.2. increased taxes on advertising would be largely equivalent to a digital tax
6.2. abolition of sales tax
6.2.1. as a substitute, in exceptional cases, offsetting or reimbursement of excise taxes
7. introduction of a transaction tax
7.1. abolition of inheritance and gift tax
8. reduction of public debt by means of a law on equalization of burdens (comparable to compulsory mortgage)
8.1 Abolition of wealth tax
9. introduction of a bailout tax for the gradual introduction of full money
Fundamental world trade reform with reform of the security system:
10. creation of an eco-socially progressively integrated trade area based on the EU internal market.
10.1. gradually expanded conversion funds
10.1.1. linking to conditions to the tax, administrative and legal system
10.2. gradually expanded customs duties
10.2.1. coupling to eco-social balances (comparable to climate club)
10.3. obligation for stepwise far-reaching economic blockades in case of assistance
10.3.1. gradual disintegration of world trade between inside and outside
10.4. gradual freedom of establishment
10.5. maintenance of far-reaching cultural independence
(antinarcissistic psychiatric evolution:).
A1. Recognition of the diagnosis "cumulative traumatic stress disorder" (bullying syndrome).
A1.1. outlawing of gaslighting in therapy
A2. Recognition of the diagnoses of "psychopathy" and "sociopathy".
(fundamental university reform:)
A3. wiser structuring of the faculties
A3.1. dominant role of philosophy in organizing the cooperation of sciences
A3.2. subordination of economic sciences to sociology
A3.3. subordination of law to sociology
This 10-point plan is a maximum of demands. The individual points, even in weakened form, should also be effective independently of one another, even if synergies may be lost in the process. All reforms should thus be able to be implemented step by step in a controlled manner, in the spirit of Karl Popper's piecemeal technique. The overall complexity of the demands is lower than that of comparable concepts, but the basal complexity is far above all considerations known to me. The willingness to accept a higher basal complexity has indeed increased in the last decades. However, if one forecasts this development linearly, the whole thing is rather a program for the 22nd century than for the 21st century. Major changes always require a change in consciousness in order to be sustainable and successful. In particular, simultaneous action against authoritarian structures on the one hand and bullying on the other requires a considerably higher level of maturity. One could still think about the reform of further systems, for a sustainable society it seems to me first necessary to get the self-destructive destructiveness under control.
Looking now at the discussions in and about the Club of Rome and "The Limits to Growth," the 10-point plan can only be the basis for future solutions. Many relevant questions have not yet been answered. The three major problem areas are climate protection, species protection and disease protection (infection prevention, delinquency prevention, crisis prevention). The most important variables are population growth, resource consumption, environmental pollution and wealth distribution (wealth distribution, income distribution). Wealth distribution is completely absent from the simulations of the Club of Rome's World3 models. Species conservation and disease control play only an indirect role. Perhaps more social scientists should have been involved in the elaborations. A common misconception is to think of the Club of Rome predictions as somewhat more comprehensive predictions by economists. Rather, they are modeling and simulation of highly dynamic systems comparable to the IPCC's climate models, but without even a remotely comparable solid scientific basis. The simulations could be considered a precursor to collapsology.
The diagnosis of bullying syndrome is probably the most uncomfortable of all psychiatric diagnoses for psychiatry itself. However, this is not a valid reason to deny the diagnosis. Similarly, criminalizing bullying would be extremely inconvenient for the current authoritarian criminal justice system. Similar to the reform of sexual criminal law in 2016, the need for more profound changes towards compensatory conflict resolution would become apparent. The provability of bullying tends to be even worse, and bullying is also always an indication of serious personality deficits in perpetrators and victims, as bullies prefer victims who do not fight back. However, the long-term impairment and damage suffered by victims is on a par with that caused by recognized criminal acts. In essence, it probably boils down to instances of conflict mediation that go beyond existing associations to include all areas of society, in addition to works councils and trade unions. Overall, therefore, the aim is to create a justice system that takes greater account of victims. In addition to the duration and intensity of the bullying, the extent of the health impairments is also a factor in assessing criminal liability. Since these impairments are often cumulatively the result of several cases of mobbing, it is difficult to determine a possible sentence based on this. Particularly in the case of mobbing, the focus must be on prevention. On the other hand, without punishability, the possibility of sanctioning especially severe or long-lasting cases is missing. Particularly in the case of hidden bullying, care is usually taken to ensure that no criminal offenses are committed. For this very reason, restrictive criminal liability for mobbing would be a game changer. There are already a number of successful projects in the area of conflict mediation, but they all have to contend with institutional hurdles.
Incompetent leaders, like corrupt ones, have a tendency to hire and promote employees similar to them because they are less likely to pose a threat to them. The resulting incompetence cartels and incompetence spirals regularly lead to the bankruptcy of entire firms. Since such purges are difficult to implement in socialist planned economies and within large hierarchical administrations, they tend to be very ineffective. (In the GDR, especially toward its end, the advice in many areas was: 'Get in good with the stupid. Tomorrow they could be your superiors.') Digitization and partial privatization of the administration should make it possible to reduce the financial requirements for it considerably in the medium to long term. Likewise, the existing impenetrable jungle of funding pots and subsidies should be considerably simplified through targeted (possibly negative) consumption taxes. A system change could also take place gradually, for example, by exempting all goods for which an excise tax is already levied from the sales tax in a first step. In return, the excise taxes would be raised in a revenue-neutral manner. As a result, this would lead to a simpler tax system and a dramatic unbundling of nested company constructions, due to shorter value chains, which would furthermore facilitate the assessment of eco-social footprints. The creation of an anti-bureaucracy agency would mean a considerable relinquishment of power options for existing policymakers, so it is hard to imagine such reforms without appropriate political pressure. Of course, politicians would still be able to set the broad guidelines vis-à-vis this authority, so developments toward a secular Guardian Council or an Orwellian Ministry of Truth are unlikely, but the ability to distribute individual electoral gifts would be significantly reduced. The former transfer of direct control over monetary policy to politically independent central banks could serve as a successful blueprint for this. Currently, legislators are attempting to profoundly control many areas of society with a long list of highly complex laws. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Supply Chain Act, the Anti-Discrimination Act, the Whistleblower Protection Act, and others are all increasing administrative burdens and legal uncertainty. An anti-bureaucracy agency could clearly consolidate many of these tasks and thus simplify administration. The Anti-Discrimination Act and the Whistleblower Protection Act in particular also appear to be attempts to combat mobbing. However, the effort and benefits are not in good proportion.
I expressly welcome the call for the convening of a European constitutional convention for new fundamental rights in Europe . However, I regard Articles 1, 2 and 4 in their present form as juristocratic presumptions that would create more problems than they solve. Article 2 has a paradoxical structure. Preventing people from being probed would only be implementable by prodding people. Moreover, in my view, we need expanded antitrust law for the emerging platform capitalism.
My suggestions would be:
- Human dignity
Every form of violence is an attack on human dignity. Every law and every regulation must therefore be examined for its violence-preventing or violence-enhancing effect.
Every person has the right to have public officials examined for their moral integrity in accordance with their powers. (see point 5)
- Digital self-determination
The trade with personal data violates human dignity and is therefore prohibited.
- Platform capitalism
Monopolies of tradable data by non-profit companies will be fought, if necessary such monopolies will be broken up.
Point 5.2.2. is perhaps the most difficult of all. It is always emphasized how extremely important the independence of the courts is, and how important it is that the executive must also abide by the law. In our current system, where authoritarian logics of rule continue to dominate democratic participatory logics, there is consequently no strict separation of powers between the legislative and executive branches. As a result, parliaments have only a limited ability to control the government. Since there is also no anti-bureaucratic authority, it is important to have courts that are as independent and powerful as possible, where authoritarian logics of rule must also dominate as a counterweight. A more participatory judiciary presupposes a different judiciary and a considerably higher level of maturity. The European Union will only have a future if it and its member states overcome the constantly worsening juristocratic crisis. The most important step for a sustainable jurisprudence will have to be a new synthesis of the existing legal traditions. Currently, there are four relatively independent European legal systems within the EU. It must be possible to unite these and at the same time develop them further. Starting from the British common law with its rule of law, this could be cleared out with the help of the systematics of German law with its idea of a constitutional state, i.e. a combination of bottom-up development and top-down refinement. From Nordic law, the orientation towards comprehensibility and simplicity should be adopted. We need less authoritarian practices in governance and jurisprudence, but also, and above all, to be able to convince China and the other emerging Asian societies of the advantages of democratic participatory systems. Our current systems are too authoritarian, too resource-hungry and too crisis-prone for that.