Charter Cities and Seasteading

The more people all over the world are geting sick of fake democracies, excessive corruption, political sleaze and an intolerably wide gap between the rich and the rest, the more diligently people are looking for ways out, either way. Some try to improve socio-economical conditions, others try to further corrode them. Just in one edition of German educational magazine GEO (October 2012, cf. p. 22, pp. 80-92, p. 150.) I found three articles dealing with different approaches.

Charter Cities

"Chicago Boy" economist Paul Romer's suggestion to establish city states (in host states like Honduras) governed by their own laws of pure market belief (see http://chartercities.org/).

Unconditional Basic Income (Basic Income Guarantee (or Grant, abbr. BIG)

Funded by a coalition of churches, labour unions and aid organizations, the inhabitants of the Namibian village Otjivero (Omitara) received monthly 700-800 Dollar per person, from January 2008 to December 2009 (see Global Basic Income Foundation, Basic Income Grant Coalition)

Floating Free States (Seasteading)

Kind of social labs at sea (sometimes called seasteads), outside the territory claimed by the government of any nation; autonomous ocean communities designed for performing social experiments with volunteers to find out the best way of government (see The Seasteading Institute). Proponents: PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel and Patri Friedman (grandson of economist Milton Friedaman)

Unfortunately, none of these projects were designed to run under scientific rules of experiment. Comprehensive data of the outcome of the BIG project in Namibia are missing.
Based on a totally different mindset, Charter and Floating Cities look like the ultimate outsourcing projects. Details regarding the living conditions of workers do no exist and those available are rather scary (it is half-way instructive to read both FAQs, e.g. in Paul Romer's vision of recruiting unskilled workers directly out of slums:

"Q: What kind of apartments could these workers afford?A: Small apartments. We know from existing data that living space varies linearly with income. As income grows, people will rent larger, nicer apartments. A city that starts by catering to people getting entry level jobs would start by building small, minimalist apartments and add larger ones with more amenities as incomes rise."

And in the Seasteading FAQ section, the question

"Are seasteading enthusiasts just a bunch of rich guys wanting to escape paying taxes?"

is already telling. Considering the lack of data in both projects, one has to rely on guessing, and my guess is that both are designed to acquire cheap labor slaves through a new legal back door, and yes, trying to create a new systematic loophole for escaping the so-called "regulators" - a term which the plutocracy likes to use for "legislators" and "executive authorities". (My guess is only based on what I found on their websites - which is very unspecific, leaving one with the suspicion that dubious reasons might be behind the lack of details.)

It's funny how well this mechanism of corroding modern democracies is working: first you do everything against the state (the bad regulator) and then you say it's the state that is responsible for the mess and that we have to minimize government (further corrode it). First you create international trading laws which favor large international corporations so that they can easily blackmail governments by threatening to move abroad where production costs and taxes are lower. At home, you proceed by corroding values like consumer and worker protection and introduce subcontracted labour. You reinvest your gains by employing lobbyists, think-tanks and mass-media infotainment who spread your gospel of the entrepreneurial saviour. Further you go by introducing outsourcing techniques - another blackmailing instrument. Finally, you end up by destroying millions of jobs in your own country by outsourcing to other countries, producing products with the help of cheap labor slaves abroad and selling these products overpriced back home, while at the same time tranferring technology to tother countries for free. Your own country is left to pay the price by being forced to pay all kinds of subsidies in order to save society from further disintegration and debt. And then you say the government is incapable of housekeeping.

If you firmly believe that such a downward spiral is good, it is only natural to assume that the final goal can only be your own entrepreneurial city state (or island) where you are the legislator and there are no limits, no rules, no regulations holding you back from doing business, whatever kind of business.

Seasteading's Patri Friedman comes straigth to the point when he finds democracy ridiculous in comparison with the allegedly high standard of entrepreneurial product innovation:

"Yet the governance technology that we use in most of the world - representive democracy - is 2 thousand years old. It originated in ancient Athens. And here in the US we use a constitution which is 200 years old. And that's ridiculous compared with consumer technologies, right? If you'd drive a car from 200 years ago, it would be a horse." (03:38)

Guess it's time to rethink some other more than 2000 years old concepts: e.g. rational thinking, deductive science, speeches in front of an audience, and - last but not least - brigandism and entrepreneurship. For some people with a certain mindset, Friedman's argument might appear compelling, but it's one of the weakest I have ever heard.

Democracy is a human longtime project like science - it is at any time only as good as its proponents, it is always prone to error and it is always improvable. Unfortunately democracy can be faked almost perfectly. (Scientists control each other, politicians do not.)



Related topic:
The Plutocracy Will Go to Extremes to Keep the 1% in Control

Die Last der Zivilsation II

"Um Platon zu verstehen, müssen wir uns die ganze zeitgenössische Situation vor Augen führen. Nach dem Peloponnesischen Krieg wurde die Last der Zivilisation so schwer wie nie zuvor. Die alten oligarchischen Hoffnungen waren noch immer lebendig, und die Niederlage Athens trug sogar dazu bei, sie zu ermutigen. Der Klassen-kampf dauerte weiter an. Doch der Versuch des Kritias, die Demokratie zu zerstören und das Programm des alten Oligarchen durchzuführen, war fehlgeschlagen. Nicht aus Mangel an Entschiedenheit. Der rücksichtslose Gebrauch von Gewalt hatte sich als erfolglos erwiesen, trotz günstiger Umstände in Gestalt einer mächtigen Unterstützung von seiten des siegreichen Sparta. Platon fühlte die Notwendigkeit einer völligen Rekonstruktion des Programmes. Die Dreißig waren auf dem Gebiet der Machtpolitik hauptsächlich deshalb gescheitert, weil sie den Gerechtigkeitssinn der Bürger beleidigt hatten. Ihre Niederlage war vor allem eine moralische Niederlage gewesen. Der Glauben an die große Generation hatte seine Stärke bewiesen. Die Dreißig hatten nichts Ähnliches zu bieten – sie waren moralische Nihilisten. Das Programm des alten Oligarchen, das fühlte Platon, konnte nicht belebt werden, wenn man es nicht auf einen anderen Glauben gründete, auf einen Glauben, der die alten Stammeswerte wieder herstellte und sie dem Glauben an die offene Gesellschaft entgegensetzte. Die Menschen müssen gelehrt werden, daß Gerechtigkeit Ungleichheit ist und daß der Stamm, das Kollektiv, höher steht, als das Individuum." Karl Popper [1945], Kapitel 10, Abschnitt IV

"Dieser Traum von Einheit, Schönheit, Vervollkommnung, dieser Ästhetizismus, Holismus und Kollektivismus, ist Wirkung und Symptom des verlorenen Gruppengeistes des Stammes68. Er drückt die Gefühle und Hoffnungen aller Menschen aus, die unter der Last der Zivilisation leiden, und er appelliert an diese Gefühle. (Es gehört zu dieser Last, daß wir uns der Unvollkommenheiten unseres Lebens, der persönlichen wie auch der institutionellen Unvollkommenheiten, immer mehr und immer schmerzlicher bewußt werden; daß wir vermeidbares Leiden, Verschwendung und unnötige Häßlichkeit in immer größerem Ausmaße bemerken; und daß wir zur gleichen Zeit erkennen, daß es uns nicht unmöglich ist, etwas zur Verbesserung beizutragen; daß aber solche Verbesserungen ebensoschwer zu erreichen sind, als sie wichtig sind. Diese Gewißheit vergrößert die Last der persönlichen Verantwortung: wir tragen das Kreuz dafür, daß wir menschlich sind.)" Karl Popper [1945], Kapitel 10, Abschnitt IV

"Ich nehme an, daß das, was ich die «Last der Zivilisation» nenne, dem Phänomen ähnlich ist, das Freud vorschwebte, als er Das Unbehagen in der Kultur schrieb. Toynbee spricht von einer Empfindung des Dahintreibens (A Study of History V 412 ff.), aber er beschränkt es auf «Perioden der Auflösung», während ich das, was ich meine, sehr klar bei Heraklit ausgedrückt finde (Spuren finden sich bereits bei Hesiod); – und das lange vor der Zeit, zu der sich das, was Toynbee die «hellenische Gesellschaftsordnung» nennt, «aufzulösen» beginnt. Meyer spricht vom Verschwinden der «Geburtsstände, welche jedem Menschen seine Lebensstellung, seine bürgerlichen und sozialen Rechte und Pflichten und mit dem ererbten Beruf zugleich einen sicheren Erwerb unabänderlich zuwiesen» (Geschichte des Altertums, 1. Auflage, 1901 III 542). Diese Stelle gibt eine gute Beschreibung der Spannung in der griechischen Gesellschaftsordnung des fünften vorchristlichen Jahrhunderts." Karl Popper, [1945], Fußnote 8 zu Kapitel 10.

Das ungenutzte Mehr-Augen-Prinzip in der Politik

"Obwohl ihnen wichtige Tatsachen oft nur in beschränktem Maße zugänglich sind, so sind doch die einfachen Leute oft weiser als die Regierungen, und wenn nicht weiser, so doch oft von besseren und großherzigeren Intentionen geleitet." Karl Popper 1954 in "Die öffentliche Meinung im Lichte der Grundsätze des Liberalismus" in Popper [2009, S. 166]

Wenn da nicht so viele Gegenbeispiele wären, wie die vom Nationalsozialismus verhetzten Deutschen und Österreicher, oder die von ihren jeweiligen Regierungen getäuschten Mehrheiten amerikanischer Bürger, die bei Umfragen für die nächste Invasion votierten. Aber davon sollte man sich nicht täuschen zu lassen.

Sicher läßt sich jede Bevölkerung unter gewissen Umständen zu dummem und irrationalem Verhalten verleiten. Eine der beiden Bedingungen, die sicher am häufigsten "die einfachen Leute" fehlleiten, sind Unwissenheit und Angst. Unwissenheit wird im Eingangszitat von Popper auch als einschränkender Faktor erwähnt.

Instrumentalisierte Geheimhaltung, ideologisch gefärbte Desinformation, alle Arten von Beschränkungen der Meinungsfreiheit und Unterbindung oder Marginalisierung der Entwicklung einer rationalen öffentlichen Diskussion führen zu Unwissenheit, die Fehleinschätzungen in der Bevölkerung bedingt. Ökonomische Programme (IWF), die den Sparstift zuerst einmal bei der Bildung  ansetzen, gehen aber genau in die falsche Richtung. 

Angst: Bei einer Bevölkerung unter zu starkem ökonomischen und sozialen Druck läßt sich die schrägste Politik durchsetzen (z.B. Deutschland nach dem Versailler Vertrag). Schaffe einen inneren und äußeren Feind (Kommunismus, Islam, Terrorismus), dann lassen sich mit Hilfe der durch die Medien verbreiteten Angst Bürgerrechte relativ problemlos beschneiden (z.B. verstärkte Überwachung der Bürger).

Vorausgesetzt, daß diese beiden Bedingungen - Unwissenheit und Angst - in einer Bevölkerung NICHT vorherrschen, spricht einiges dafür, daß sie als Kollektiv gute Lösungen für politische Probleme von schlechten unterscheiden kann. Als Stützung dieser These kann man das Mehr-Augen-Prinzip anführen. 

a) Zur Beurteilung von politischen Problemlösungen:

Obgleich nur wenige eine politische Konzeption entwerfen und durchführen können, so sind wir doch alle fähig, sie zu beurteilen. (Perikles von Athen, ca. 430 v. Chr.).

Den meisten Leuten aus der Privatwirtschaft ist das Vier-Augen-Prinzip bestens bekannt. Es wird immer dann angewandt, wenn es darum geht, das Risiko von Fehlern zu minimieren. Man verläßt sich auf die alte Weisheit, daß vier Augen "mehr sehen" als zwei, oder sechs mehr als vier. Dieses empirisch erprobte Verfahren findet man beinahe in allen Bereichen, von der industriellen Produktion bishin zum Korrekturlesen bei Verlagen. Es dient der Qualitätskontrolle. Auch in der Wissenschaft ist das Verfahren der gegenseitigen kritischen Prüfung ein unabdingbarer, integraler Bestandteil.

In der Politik verläßt man sich allerdings noch immer auf die Augen der Wenigen, die, weil sie meistens derselben Partei oder demselben "Beraterstab" angehören, auch noch jeweils auf einem Auge mit ideologischer Blindheit geschlagen sind. Schon die Selektion der "Experten" beruht meist ausschließlich auf esprit de corps. Dadurch wird die Qualitätskontrolle politischer Entscheidungen mehr oder weniger unterbunden. Wenn Fantasie und der Mut zu interessanten Lösungen vollends verlorengegangen sind, stehen am Ende nur noch TINA-Entscheidungen ("there is no alternative"). Im Gegensatz zur Politik käme kein Wissenschaftler auf die Idee seinen Lösungsvorschlag ausschließlich von seinen Freunden begutachten zu lassen. Hier liegt ein system-immanentes Problem von Parteiendemokratien vor. Die Wissenschaft hingegen lebt in dieser Hinsicht vom Mehr-Augen-Prinzip.

Vorausgesetzt wird hierbei natürlich, daß diejenigen, die überprüfen, dazu tatsächlich auch in der Lage sind. Übertriebene Anforderungen sind dabei aber fehl am Platz. Ein Software Tester etwa braucht keineswegs programmieren zu können. Tatsächlich beherrschen viele Software Tester keine einzige Programmiersprache. Obwohl gewisse technische Fertigkeiten für ihn sicher nicht von Nachteil sind, haben andere Kriterien für den Tester höheren Stellenwert, z.B. das richtige Verständnis der Logik von Testprozeduren, Erfahrung im Umgang mit Spezifikationen oder eventuell mathematisch-statistische Kenntnisse. Es gibt keinen Grund anzunehmen, warum die Anwendung des Mehr-Augen-Prinzips bei Vorlage von politischen Gesetzesentwürfen nicht erfolgreich anwendbar sein sollte. An der Komplexität von Rechtssystemen sollte dies nicht scheitern müssen. Wenn "einfache" Staatsbürger Gesetze nicht mehr verstehen bzw. beurteilen könnten, dann müsste entweder das Gesetz vereinfacht oder den Bürgern schon im Schulsystem politische Bildung bzw. ein Minimum an juristischem Wissen nähergebracht werden (was ohnehin nötig wäre). 

b) Zum Auffinden politischer Lösungen:

Selbst das Heranziehen einer Masse von Menschen zur Lösung eines Rätsels wird in Zukunft immer häufiger zur Anwendung kommen, wie etwa bei Solve Puzzles for Science oder wenn das FBI bei der der Dechiffrierung eines Geheimcodes sich um Hilfe bittend nach außen wendet). Warum sollte man solche Verfahren prinzipiell nicht auch auf politische Probleme anwenden können? Man könnte bei einem gegebenen politischen Problem so vorgehen: 1) man stellt eine Liste von wertneutralen Definitionen aller relevanten Ausdrücke, die notwendig sind um das Problem präzise zu beschreiben,  zur Verfügung; 2) man stellt eine Liste von Fakten (Statistiken, Tatsachenberichten, gesetzliche Vorschriften) zusammen, die möglicherweise zur Lösung des Problems notwendig oder nützlich sind; 3) man erstellt eine Liste von Desiderata, d.h. von Wünschen bzw. Bedingungen, welche die Lösung genügen soll (von welcher Seite auch immer); 4) man definiert, in welcher Form die Lösung angegeben werden soll, z.B. in Form einer Liste von Schritten (ähnlich wie bei einem Kochrezept oder einem Projektplan); 5) man wählt eine geeignete Plattform, die die Darstellung solcher Lösungsverfahren samt Begründung ermöglicht und offen Kritik zuläßt, einschließlich einer Bewertungsskala. Möge sich die beste Lösung durchsetzen!
Man kann Foren und Kommentarseiten zu Artikeln von Online-Zeitungen als eine ungerichtete Urform eines solchen Verfahrens betrachten.

Man könnte in Frage stellen, ob Millionen von Augen tatsächlich zu besseren Lösungen kommen, als die Geschulten, die "Experten", welche die Regierung bilden oder in ihrem Gefolge als sog. "Berater" dienen. Sehen vier Augen immer tatsächlich mehr als zwei, oder sechs mehr als vier? Sicher nicht. Rein logisch betrachtet ist die Anzahl der Köpfe nicht entscheidend. Aber die empirische Erfahrung in vielen verschiedenen Bereichen macht diese Technik der Risikovermeidung so wertvoll. Gibt es vielleicht eine Schranke, ab der nichts mehr zusätzlich geht? (Gibt es eine ungefähre, durchschnittliche prozentuelle Zahl, ab der zusätzliche Lösungssuchende keinen nennenswerten Beitrag mehr leisten werden?) Kommt auf das Problem an. Bei vielen politischen Problemen dürfte das eher nicht der Fall sein. Einen kleinen aber möglicherweise entscheidenden Fehler zu finden wäre schon ein Fortschritt.

Wenn man realistischerweise davon ausgeht, daß für jedes Mitglied eines Parlaments (samt seines Beraterstabes), das die Güte einer politischen Lösung beurteilen oder eine solche zu einem gegebenen Problem finden soll, mindestens ein Privatmensch (griech.: ἰδιότης, Idiot) existiert, der das ebenso gut kann, dann bleiben noch immer Tausende, Millionen, die das womöglich noch besser können bzw. einen wichtigen Beitrag leisten würden. "Experten" (echte und unechte) findet man überall. Vielleicht zählt ja Ihr eigener Steuerberater zu jenen, die eine adäquate Antwort auf die letzte Finanzkrise hätten. Das Ankreuzen von vorselektierten Ja-Nein Möglichkeiten bei Wahlen trägt dem Mehr-Augen-Prinzip und damit einer demokratischen Qualitätskontrolle jedenfalls kaum Rechnung.

Correct, Mr. Assange!

Today, Wikileaks founder Assange lost his extradition fight in London in the first round. Details to this dubious case can be found on Sweden Vs. Assange. Let's return to what the man stands for. Two remarks really touching a nerve made by Julian Assange in an RT-Interview, published on May 2nd, 2011. 

WikiLeaks Logo

Mr. Assange makes clear what he thinks of mass media infotainment production and their involvement and participation in war preparations. His bad experiences with the so-called fourth estate are clearly first hand, after the disappointing collaboration with mass-media proponents like The Guardian, The Independent, The New York Times and German Spiegel. Challenging the powerful has brought him and Wikileaks a witch-hunt orchestrated by the US and the blockade of WikiLeaks bank accounts by Visa, Mastercard and Paypal:*

"Our No. 1 enemy is ignorance. And I believe that is the No. 1 enemy for everyone – it’s not understanding what actually is going on in the world. It's only when you start to understand that you can make effective decisions and effective plans. Now, the question is, who is promoting ignorance? Well, those organizations that try to keep things secret, and those organizations which distort true information to make it false or misrepresentative. In this latter category, it is bad media.

It really is my opinion that media in general are so bad that we have to question whether the world wouldn't be better off without them altogether. They are so distortive to how the world actually is that the result is… we see wars, and we see corrupt governments continue on.

One of the hopeful things that I’ve discovered is that nearly every war that has started in the past 50 years has been a result of media lies. The media could've stopped it if they had searched deep enough; if they hadn't reprinted government propaganda they could've stopped it. But what does that mean? Well, that means that basically populations don't like wars, and populations have to be fooled into wars. Populations don't willingly, with open eyes, go into a war. So if we have a good media environment, then we also have a peaceful environment."

These are really questions worth to be considered. Of what use for the public are the mass-media, given the fact that selling information is done under the maximizing profit strategy of international corporations whose linkages to governments and other interest groups are highly dubious? And what are the alternatives? 

The internet is the most interesting stage where you can compare the opinions (and there are almost only opinions) published by the mass media with the opinions of the rest of the world. These two types are extremely diverging. One world of opinion seems to be publishing without investigations what governments, press agencies and others let out, and the other (mostly normal citizens but with common sense) wondering about the inconsistencies and absurdities of these published opinions. Warmongering is always a good example, another would be the half-religious beliefs of economy. The lies you get there are literally unbelievable but nevertheless repeated by the infotainment ad nauseam. On the other side, one should note that the rest of the world does not seem to let that go unchallenged. Most remarkable are some online newspapers having a mostly well-educated and critical readership (e.g. Austrian Der Standard): the articles and authors often being between average and ridiculous are court-martialled and shot by the readers in hundreds of comments in a most entertaining and often enlightening manner. The discrepancies between these two worlds becoming manifest more and more and in such a constant manner that it's really getting spooky.

The second thing Mr. Assange commented quite adequately is the role of the US in regard to international law.

"Obama has given up on closing Guantanamo and has decided to re-open the trial process. And we now have a situation where even the Obama administration says that 48 of those people still in Guantanamo are completely innocent and they should be sent somewhere, and they are not being sent anywhere. So, completely innocent people are incarcerated for years and years and years with no trial and no hope of relief. No country would agree to house them, including the United States. But the United States has made them its problem.

The United States was involved in rounding up these innocent people, setting up a process that was from the very beginning corrupt. There is a reason why they are in Guantanamo and not on the US mainland and not in an allied country. And that reason was to hide them and to keep them outside of the law. Just like you have Caribbean islands engaged in money laundering, the United States is engaged in people laundering."

Did you ever wonder about the US hegemon being called world's policeman? That's clearly a totally inappropriate euphemism: a policeman is supposed to execute law and to act according to law, but the US are trying to circumvent law whenever they can. So Outlaw seems to be fitting well.

*"The banking blockade against WikiLeaks is one of the most sinister developments in recent years, and perhaps the most extreme example in a western democracy of extrajudicial actions aimed at stifling free speech – made all the worse by the public support of numerous people sitting in the US House of Representatives."

Egypt: Revolution in progress - Empire - Al Jazeera English

In addition to the previous posting, this Aljazeera discussion gives you further insights into the ongoing efforts to establish a socially balanced society in Egypt after the overthrow of Mubarak:
Egypt: Revolution in progress - Empire - Al Jazeera English
(Click here for a transcript)

It's also highly recommendable to compare the current situation with the times shortly before the revolution started. Here's a report on the elections in Egypt in 2010 illustrating the typical absurdities of a fake democracy:

News from Egypt

Do you remember the Egyptian Revolution? Shouldn't the elections already been held in September? And what about the emergency law (since 1981), has it been already abolished? What happened after the first televised day of the trial against Mubarak? Is it going on? How did some people storm the Israeli embassy in Cairo? You might be surprised ...

Other posts concerning Egypt on base2014:

A Must See Chomsky Interview

Chomsky On the Ongoing Arab Spring

Mubarak Steps Down From His Throne

Friends of a Dictator

Egypt Uprising - Standard Routine for an Unusual Event

Smart Villages and the City of the Dead

Egypt's Cyber Dissidents

The Illusion of the Independent Dictator

At the end of a previous posting „Grown Men Do Not Need Leaders“ there was a question which is reformulated here: Although in most (Western) democracies there are independent institutions controlling the power of the elected governments (like e.g. supreme court, financial regulation or consumer protection), how come that it doesn't work the way Popper believed it should? (And how come that more and more people have the impression of being faced with a democracy solely on paper, a faked democracy?)

One of the replies to this posting was: „it doesn't work without leaders! People need a leader, a strong hand guiding them!“

One could have expected other objections like that - in practice - the mentioned institutions are neither free nor independent. Thus, the reply is surprising on the one hand. On the other hand, it is not surprising at all, because one can still hear it so often. If you go to Russia for instance, you will hear it all the time. Putin is said to be Russia's hero, because he's the strong hand Russia needs and he prevented the country (or the empire) from further breakdown – in contrast to the much hated Gorbatchov and Jelzin in the nineties. Also in the US, you can hear the call for a strong leadership in ever election campaign and people are often disgusted by fruitless congressional debates. The more chaos, the more demanding the wish for a strong leader. Sometimes it appears to be a kind of reflex … it seems you can't kill it. But it's not a reflex. It's an illusion.

Let's go back to 1944, when Karl Popper's „The Open Society and it's Enemies“ was about to be published. Hitler and Stalin were still in power and they were the epitome of strong leaders – no one can doubt that. Popper stated the theory of (uncontrolled) sovereignty as follows: „that political power is practically unchecked, or for the demand that it ought to be so; together with the implication that the main question left is to get this power into the best hands.“ (chapter 7/I)

But before he starts to argue against this theory, he calls in question the picture of the independent/almighty leader some people were still maintaining at that time. And it is these simple remarks questioning an old and problematic concept – not even arguing against it- which make Popper's writings still so valuable.

„Without entering into a detailed criticism, I wish to point out that there are serious objections against a rash and implicit acceptance of this theory. Whatever its speculative merits may appear to be, it is certainly a very unrealistic assumption. No political power has ever been unchecked, and as long as men remain human (as long as the ‘Brave New World’ has not materialized), there can be no absolute and unrestrained political power. So long as one man cannot accumulate enough physical power in his hands to dominate all others, just so long must he depend upon his helpers. Even the most powerful tyrant depends upon his secret police, his henchmen and his hangmen. This dependence means that his power, great as it may be, is not unchecked, and that he has to make concessions, playing one group off against another. It means that there are other political forces, other powers besides his own, and that he can exert his rule only by utilizing and pacifying them. This shows that even the extreme cases of sovereignty are never cases of pure sovereignty. They are never cases in which the will or the interest of one man (or, if there were such a thing, the will or the interest of one group) can achieve his aim directly, without giving up some of it in order to enlist powers which he cannot conquer. And in an overwhelming number of cases, the limitations of political power go much further than this.“ (Popper [1945], chapter 7/1)

Grown Men Do Not Need Leaders (Erwachsene Menschen brauchen keine Führer)

"The fact that our society is in part the result of deliberate reforms - this fact is not to be forgotten. It can guide us in going on reforming but - and this is now very important - each man intervening in politics in one or the other way, by maintaining theories or by supporting some ideology, should be fully aware of two things: He should be aware that he is carrying an enormous responsibility and he must be aware of the havoc he could wreak. He ought to remember that he knows nothing and has to learn to keep his mind open and that he ought not pretend to know when he does not. He must criticize himself and be capable of steadily improving his theories about state and society. The political "leader principle" ("Führertum") is rubbish. Herbert George Wells, the English writer, has once put it very nice and simple: "Grown Men don't need leaders". But they also should not try to appear as such."

Karl Popper, Vienna, May 1983 (cf. Popper/Lorenz [1985], p.109, translation from German by base2014)

Popper's „man, intervening in politics“: doesn't he stand in hardly bearable contrast to the traditional picture of politicians? For the latter it is impossible to admit failures, to know nothing or to learn from mistakes – since he will not be able to speak to the public of his failures without being forced to abandon his activities. To criticize himself is not a negotiable position for a politician without being  prompted to resign from office. The culture of „flawlessness“ is in fact so dominant that even the most obvious failures are being taken along into the grave – like when politicians to the last breath declare they would „do the same again“ as they did during their term in office.

Popper's ideal of the „man intervening in politics“ is the philosopher of his own thinking-style critical rationalism – a scientist of intellectual integrity. However, for this person it would be impossible to appear as a leader, since he would be under constant criticism of free and independent institutions, from a supreme court, a financial regulation or a consumer protection through to a free and independent journalism. It's these institutions – if not corrupted – that make this attractive thought of „grown men not needing leaders“ more plausible – because they would then decide themselves, each time after critical discussion.

So, when we take a look at the countries having free institutions, why doesn't it work the way Popper imagined?

Karl Raimund Popper

Karl Popper postings on base2014
Unasked Anwers, Unanswered Questions
Unhappy Teachers
The Modest Gardener
To Put Something Out of Your Body
Who Should Rule?

"Die Tatsache, daß unsere Gesellschaft zum Teil das Resultat von bewußter Reform ist -- diese Tatsache soll nicht vergessen werden. Sie kann uns dazu helfen, weiter zu reformieren, aber -- und das ist jetzt sehr wichtig -- jeder Mensch, der sich in Politik in irgendeiner Weise hineinmischt, durch Theorien oder mittels einer neuen Ideologie, sollte sich zweier Dinge bewußt sein: Er muß sich dessen bewußt sein, daß er eine ungeheure intellektuelle Verantwortung trägt, und er muß sich dessen bewußt sein, daß er auch Schaden stiften kann. Er muß daran denken, daß er nichts weiß und lernen muß, daß er seinen Kopf offen halten muß und daß er nicht vorgeben darf, daß er weiß, wenn er nichts weiß. Er muß sich selbst kritisieren und dauernd seine Lehren über den Staat und die Gesellschaft verbessern können. Das politische Führertum ist Blödsinn. Der Engländer H. G. Wells hat einmal sehr schön und einfach gesagt: »Grown men do not need leaders.« Auf Deutsch: »Erwachsene Menschen brauchen keine Führer.« Sie sollen aber auch nicht versuchen, als Führer aufzutreten."

Karl Popper, Vienna, May 1983 (cf. Popper/Lorenz [1985], p.109

Poppers „Mensch, der sich in die Politik einmischt“: steht er nicht in schwer verdaulichem Gegensatz zum herkömmlichen Bild des Politikers? Letzterem ist es unmöglich zuzugeben, nichts zu wissen oder (aus Fehlern) zu lernen – da er in der Öffentlichkeit nicht lange von eigenen Fehlern sprechen kann ohne seine Tätigkeit aufgeben zu müssen. Sich selbst zu kritisieren wird keinem Politker zugestanden ohne ihn gleichzeitig zum Rücktritt aufzufordern. Die Kultur der „Fehlerlosigkeit“ ist so dominant, dass sogar die offensichtlichsten Fehler mit ins Grab genommen werden – wenn Politiker bis zum letzten Atemzug beteuern „heute wieder dieselben Entscheidungen zu treffen“ wie während ihrer Amtszeit.

Was Popper als Ideal des „Menschen, der sich in die Politik einmischt“ vorgeschwebt zu haben scheint, war das Bild des kritisch-rationalen Philosphen seiner eigenen Denkrichtung … der Typ des intellektuell integeren Wissenschaftlers. Dieser Mensch würde allerdings nicht im Sinne eines Führers auftreten können, da er unter beständiger Kritik freier, unabhängiger Institutionen stünde – Institutionen wie einem obersten Gerichtshof, einer Finanzaufsicht oder eines Konsumenten- (Verbraucherschutzes) bis hin zu einem freien Journalismus. Unter relativ unkorrumpierten freien Institutionen kann man sich dann durchaus vorstellen, dass erwachsene Menschen keinen Führer brauchen.

Nun, wenn wir einen Blick auf die Staaten werfen, die über diese freien Intitutionen verfügen: warum funktioniert das nicht so, wie sich das Popper vorstellte?

Surveil Ordinary Citizens! (Überwache ganz normale Bürger!)

(English Version)
Shameless exaggeration of the dangers coming from the so-called international terrorism, communism or radical Islam etc, creates an external threat. Shameless exaggeration of the danger coming from collaborators of the former, critics and dissidents creates an internal threat (key word "sleeper cell"). What we get is Naomi Wolf's Principle Nr. 1: Invoke an External and Internal Threat! And from there, it's only a little step to her Principle Nr. 4 : Surveil Ordinary Citizens! Both procedures can be found in her "The End of America. Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" (2007), dealing with principles of how to destroy (real) democracies.

As she points out, it's not about observing and monitoring each citizen, keeping a dossier on him, and even less about total surveillance as in Orwell's 1984 (which turns out very costly). According to Wolf it's much more effective to create a notion of possibly being under observation. For dictators the purpose of surveillance is more of psychological nature, dealing with intimidation and finally with obedience and submission: by collecting all kinds of data of ordinary citizens  - starting with books they buy or lend, their sexual life, their financial decisions, right through to their telephone calls, joining demonstrations or  medical data - what is happening is a production of data which can be used against citizens and, if necessary, will be used against them. In her chapter 5, Wolf offers a lot of examples of these shady practices in the USA (before and after 9/11), Nazi-Germany, East Germany, China and the Sowjet Union. (Germany's surveillance fanatics of today are not mentioned.)

In the final analysis, Wolf's remarks in this chapter remain on a rather trivial level. No attention is paid to the collaboration of mass-media in spreading this kind of politics of fear. Nevertheless the mass-media take the leading role in this strange play, yet appearing so familiar through history. It's because the spreading of angst - the politics of fear - is only working successfully by uncritical (or intended) copy & paste forwarding of propaganda, typos included. And fear is needed for pushing through any of the restricions of citizen's rights Wolf is criticizing. Also, Wolf totally blocks out economical aspects though it is well known and easy to understand that the security sector is another winner of the politics of fear, world-wide.

Other postings on "The End of America. Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot" (2007)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (1)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (2)

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (3)

(Deutsche Version)

Die schamlose Übertreibung der Gefahr des sog. internationalen Terrorismus, des Kommunismus, des radikalen Islam usw., schafft einen äußeren Feind. Die schamlose Übertreibung der Gefahr von Kollaborateuren, Kritikern und Dissidenten bezüglich des ersteren schafft den inneren Feind.  Und schon sind wir bei Naomi Wolfs Prinzip Nr. 1: Beschwöre eine äußere und eine innere Gefahr! Und von dort ist es nur ein kleiner Schritt zu Prinzip Nr. 4: Überwache ganz normale Bürger! Beide Verfahrensweisen stammen aus ihrem "Wie zerstört man eine Demokratie. Das 10-Punkte Programm " (2010).

Dabei geht es nicht darum, tatsächlich alle Bürger zu überwachen, von jedem einzelnen ein Dossier anzulegen, noch weniger um die totale Überwachung wie in Orwell's 1984 (die sehr kostenintensiv wäre). Viel effektiver laut Wolf ist das Gefühl zu erzeugen, daß man überwacht werden könnte. Die Zwecke, die Diktatoren damit verfolgen, sind psychologischer Natur und drehen sich um Einschüchterung und letztlich um Gehorsam: mit dem Sammeln von allerlei Daten ganz normaler Bürger - von den Büchern, die sie kaufen oder ausleihen, ihrem Sexualleben, ihren finanziellen Entscheidungen, bis zu ihren Telefongesprächen, den Teilnahmen an Demonstrationen oder medizinischen Daten - werden Informationen produziert, die man gegen die Bürger verwenden kann und, falls nötig, tatsächlich auch gegen sie verwendet. Beispiele für diese Praktiken in den USA (vor und nach 9/11), Nazideutschland, der DDR, China und der Sowjetunion findet man in Wolfs 5. Kapitel zuhauf. (Die Überwachungsfanatiker im heutigen Deutschland werden nicht erwähnt.)

Letztlich bleiben ihre Ausführungen in diesem Kapitel eher auf trivialem Niveau. Der Kollaboration und der Initiative von Massenmedien bei der Verbreitung von Angst-Politik etwa wird keine Aufmerksamkeit geschenkt. Dabei kommt diesen die Hauprolle bei diesem seltsamen, aber doch so vertrauten Spiel zu. Denn die Verbreitung von Furcht - die Politik der Angst -  funktioniert ausschliesslich über unkritische (oder beabsichtigte) Copy&Paste Weiterleitung von Propaganda, inklusive Tippfehlern. Und die Angst der Bürger dient letztlich genau der Implementierung derjenigen Einschnitte in ihre Rechte, die Wolf so kritisiert. Auch wirtschaftspolitische Aspekte blendet Wolf beim Thema Überwachung völlig aus, obwohl der sicherheitsindustrielle Komplex dabei in weiten Teilen der Welt schwer verdient.

... coming together............ 'circling-the-drain'...: Oligarchs Rule

... coming together............ 'circling-the-drain'...: Oligarchs Rule: " 'When plunder becomes a way of life for a group of men, they create for themselves in the course of time a legal system that authorizes..."

Zeitgeist III - Moving Forward

Die Zeitgeist Filme - immer eine Diskussion wert: Hier der dritte und bislang letzte (2011) "Moving Forward" (engl. mit deutschen Untertiteln).
The Zeitgeist movies, always good for a discussion: Here's the third and latest edit (2011) called "Moving Forward" (english with selectable subtitles)

U.S. Citizens without vote/U.S. Bürger ohne Stimmrecht

How many U.S. citizens are lacking of voting rights?

This may appear as an odd question to stubborn and naive believers in the self-proclaimed status of the U.S. as main exporter of democracy, endlessly repeated by the Western mass-media. Fact is, more than 4 millions U.S. citizens are not entitled to vote, neither for the president, nor for a senator or representative in the U.S. Congress:

U.S. Commonwealth Territories	Population
Northern Mariana Islands	77 000 (2004)
Puerto Rico	3 941 459 (2007)
U.S. Virgin Islands	113 200 (2004)
American Samoa	65 000 (2005)
Guam	168 564 (2005)
TOTAL	4 365 223

data from Fischer Weltalmanach 2010

Puerto Rico has more inhabitants than almost half of the single 50 states and its residents pay practically all federal taxes (directly or indirectly). Nevertheless, since it is no U.S. state and only residents of a state are entitled to participate in elections, we may conclude that the U.S. conception of democracy does not even fulfill the most basic formal requirement.
--> Voting Rights in Puerto Rico

Democracy & Propaganda (1)

Let me begin by counter-posing two different conceptions of democracy. One conception of democracy has it that a democratic society is one in which the public has the means to participate in some meaningful way in the management of their own affairs and the means of information are open and free. If you look up democracy in the dictionary you'll get a definition something like that.

 An alternative conception of democracy is that the public must be barred from managing of their own affairs and the means of information must be kept narrowly and rigidly controlled. That may sound like an odd conception of democracy, but it's important to understand that it is the prevailing conception. In fact, it has long been, not just in operation, but even in theory. There's a long history that goes back to the earliest modern democratic revolutions in seventeenth century England which largely expresses this point of view.

Noam Chomsky [1991]

According to Chomsky, a democracy must fulfill at least the following three, vaguely formulated, conditions: (i) citizens have "the means to participate in some meaningful way" in the decision-making process and (ii) citizens have free access to information concerning this process and (iii) this information is "open" (true, uncensored, unfiltered). One might call in question whether the denial of (ii) and (iii) still leave the possibility of (i) but the latter is too indefinite to be tested and has to be further specified.

A clear representative of the „alternative“ conception of democracy is Edward L. Bernays – the godfather of the Public Relations industry. In 1928 he put forward his „invisible government“ theory of democracy by deniying each of these three „conventional“ conditions. In the first chapter of his book „Propaganda“, tellingly entitled „Organizing Chaos“, he maintains that it is practically impossible to match conditions (ii) and (iii) and therefore we should forget about (i) and/or be content with leaving decisions to our invisible leaders:

The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society. Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons — a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

Edward L. Bernays

It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four. In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite assayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time. 

In theory, everybody buys the best and cheapest commodities offered him on the market. In practice, if every one went around pricing, and chemically testing before purchasing, the dozens of soaps or fabrics or brands of bread which are for sale, economic life would become hopelessly jammed. To avoid such confusion, society consents to have its choice narrowed to ideas and objects brought to its attention through propaganda of all kinds. There is consequently a vast and continuous effort going on to capture our minds in the interest of some policy or commodity or idea.

Edward L. Bernays [1928]

We have grown accustomed to go around pricing – most of us do to some extent. We choose among the products offered in supermarkets or real estate agencies, or search for the cheapest flight to our envisaged holiday destination. We have grown accustomed to competition (and we are not surprised about the similarity of prices for similar products because we believe that competition is often not real). This is only possible because pricing is (in most cases) tranparent. If it would be not (and we know such cases), then we would really end up hopelessly lost as Bernays said. Instead, independent institutions for consumer protection have shown great impact to ensure half-way fair competition and free flow of useful information in the marketplace. None of these institutions, in Western Europe mostly set up in the 50s and 60, may be perfectly objective or independent. But this shows only that the independent intitutions monitoring/controlling the actions in a democratic system are always improvable. What Bernays had in mind, when he formulated his „invisible government“ theory in 1928, was a totally uncontrolled marketplace which was, at that time, reality. It was indeed dangerous for the consumer then, just think of German pharmaceutical groups promoting aspirin, heroin and cocain in cough syrup.

Who Should Rule?

Karl R. Popper

"It is my conviction that by expressing the problem of politics in the form ‘Who should rule?’ or ‘Whose will should be supreme?’, etc., Plato created a lasting confusion in political philosophy. It is indeed analogous to the confusion he created in the field of moral philosophy by his identification, discussed in the last chapter, of collectivism and altruism. It is clear that once the question ‘Who should rule?’ is asked, it is hard to avoid some such reply as ‘the best’ or ‘the wisest’ or ‘the born ruler’ or ‘he who masters the art of ruling’ (or, perhaps, ‘The General Will’ or ‘The Master Race’ or ‘The Industrial Workers’ or ‘The People’). But such a reply, convincing as it may sound—for who would advocate the rule of ‘the worst’ or ‘the greatest fool’ or ‘the born slave’?—is, as I shall try to show, quite useless. First of all, such a reply is liable to persuade us that some fundamental problem of political theory has been solved. But if we approach political theory from a different angle, then we find that far from solving any fundamental problems, we have merely skipped over them, by assuming that the question ‘Who should rule?’ is fundamental. For even those who share this assumption of Plato’s admit that political rulers are not always sufficiently ‘good’ or ‘wise’ (we need not worry about the precise meaning of these terms), and that it is not at all easy to get a government on whose goodness and wisdom one can implicitly rely. If that is granted, then we must ask whether political thought should not face from the beginning the possibility of bad government; whether we should not prepare for the worst leaders, and hope for the best. But this leads to a new approach to the problem of politics, for it forces us to replace the question: Who should rule? by the new question: How can we so organize political institutions that bad or incompetent rulers can be prevented from doing too much damage?"

Karl Raimund Popper in The Open Society and Its Enemies,

  [1945], Vol.1, Chapter 7: The Principle Of Leadership

One might not get Popper's idea at first reading. A democrat might easily object that there is no problem with this question „who should rule?“, because the answer is straight forward: „the one, who gets the majority of votes“. But with this naive answer the democrat just does not get out of the trouble. The whole point in Popper's arguments against the question „Who should rule?“ is that it does not even mention control of the souvereign. That the souvereign is not controlled or even should not be controlled – this is what Popper calls the theory of (unchecked) sovereign. According to Popper, each instance of this principle leads to an inconsistency. E.g. if the answer is „the wisest man“, then it might happen that this wisest man wisely decides the majority should rule, thereby giving up his own sovereign. The same holds for the naive democrat.

"[…] there is also a kind of logical argument which can be used to show the inconsistency of any of the particular forms of the theory of sovereignty; more precisely, the logical argument can be given different but analogous forms to combat the theory that the wisest should rule, or else the theories that the best, or the law, majority, etc., should rule. One particular form of this logical argument is directed against a too naive version of liberalism, of democracy, and of the principle that the majority should rule; and it is somewhat similar to the well-known ‘paradox of freedom’ which has been used first, and with success, by Plato. In his criticism of democracy, and in his story of the rise of the tyrant, Plato raises implicitly the following question: What if it is the will of the people that they should not rule, but a tyrant instead? The free man, Plato suggests, may exercise his absolute freedom, first by defying the laws and ultimately by defying freedom itself and by clamouring for a tyrant. This is not just a far-fetched possibility; it has happened a number of times; and every time it has happened, it has put in a hopeless intellectual position all those democrats who adopt, as the ultimate basis of their political creed, the principle of the majority rule or a similar form of the principle of sovereignty. On the one hand, the principle they have adopted demands from them that they should oppose any but the majority rule, and therefore the new tyranny; on the other hand, the same principle demands from them that they should accept any decision reached by the majority, and thus the rule of the new tyrant. The inconsistency of their theory must, of course, paralyse their actions. Those of us democrats who demand the institutional control of the rulers by the ruled, and especially the right of dismissing the government by a majority vote, must therefore base these demands upon better grounds than a self-contradictory theory of sovereignty."

Note that the theories of sovereignity only destroy themselves under certain conditions. It does not follow with necessity that the majority will finally vote for a tyrant. But uncontrolled sovereign might always end up this way (as we know).

Just for the record, what if the answer is that the capitalists should rule? Under which conditions would the capitalists decide to abolish the sovereign of capitalism?  

Arbitrarily Detain and Release Citizens (3)

"Homosexuality is a grave sin!"

In August 2006 during the annual Christopher Street Parade, a German hotel keeper in Munich had equipped a so-called popemobile with a puppet of the pope. The puppet of pope Benedikt XVI had blue-red make-up and a green condom in his hand; the scene was garnished with banners containing earlier quotations of the pope: “Homosexual relationships are deeply unmoral” and “We have to encounter homosexuals with mercy” and the like. The happening took place during a kind of euphoria in German mass media due to the upcoming visit of the German (in fact Bavarian born) pope, producing headlines such as “We are Pope”. Accordingly, the popemobile showed a banner “Are we Pope?”, referring to homosexuals. A priest, who had watched the scene, (some say he was a member of the notorious Society of Saint Pius X), called the police who immediately ordered the carriage to be taken off the road on the grounds that the pope had been insulted as gay (!) (Why would a gay insult someone as gay?) Later, the owner of the popemobile received a complaint for having denigrated a foreign head of state and slandered a religious confession. The charge was dismissed. The hotel keeper in return filed a lawsuit against the police for having curtailed his right for freedom of expression and art as well as the right of assembly. Bavarian higher administrative court dropped down the case in the first instance. Only the second try in 2009 was successful. Finally, since March 8, 2010, it is again legally permitted in catholic Bavaria to poke fun at the pope.

Three days before the pope's visit in Germany, September 2006, performance artist Wolfram P. Kastner dressed up as Papal Nuncio and Georg Ledig dressed up as Hitler went arm in arm walking through the inner city of Munich. Before the arrival of the honored son of the German Free State of Bavaria, Kastner and his co-partner wanted to remind people of the tight relationships between the Nazi party and the Vatican. Kastner reports that they were led to the next police station under the pretense of “finding a common clarification of how to choose practicable a way”. His costume was confiscated as “averting danger in respect to public order and safety”. When Kastner complained and told the police that they should rather concentrate on real dangers for the public and that their actions rather look like the actions of a police state than those of a democracy, one of the officers remarked “a little bit of a police state won't hurt”.

Kastner's report (in German) can be read here

In fact, for the Bavarian law 2 (!) citizens having a conversation on the street are enough to constitute an assembly, if the conversation is addressed to the public. If, as in the mentioned case, 2 citizens are performing a silent protest (or only one is speaking), this is not an assembly (see FAQ to the Bavarian Assembly Law)

About the same time, September 14, 2006, a street on the route of the popemobile through the small town of Freising, Bavaria: under a window a banner “DISCRIMINATION, DENIAL, … CHURCH – NO THANK YOU! The author of the banner was staying in the house with his mother and another person when two policemen entered the flat without permission and destroyed the banner, after getting rough and injuring the arm of the owner. No explanation from the police, except “executing an order” and, informally, “that the pope drops by in Freising every few centuries and so this should be well received in the public”. The attacked man went a long way to defend his rights but was not successful finally: the German Constitutional Court dropped down the case on a technicality. (-->whole documentation of the case in German language, including original documents)

That much on the unconditional love of the Bavarian police for “their” pope, Josef Ratzinger. One could fill books with cases of curtailing citizens' assembly in Germany, alone in the last decade. German blogs are chock full of complaints about the “surveillance state” or the “police state Germany” and one may concede the Germans some degree of sensibility towards “a little bit of a police state” - 65 years after the Nazi regime and about 20 years after the Stasi.

Some of these stories of German surveillance measures are almost too irresistible to keep back. Here's another goody (once described as the highlight on the journey to Absurdistan):

G-8 opponent in front of the court for being equipped with a gumshield during an otherwise peaceful demonstration – a weapon classified as “body armor” (“Schutzwaffe”).

Bavarian leather trousers

Another vague concept in German Jurisdiction that is open to free interpretation by the executive authorities. According to German law it is unclear whether famous Bavarian leather trousers may be seen as “body armor” or just the usual traditional clothing, since leather has a cushioning and isolating effect (in respect to electric shocks).

The truly highlights of German government's terrorist hysteria appeared when it came to prepare three critic-free receptions for George W. Bush in Berlin (2002), Mainz and Wiesbaden (2005) and Stralsund (2006). This is to be discussed in a later post.

Back to Naomi Wolf's The End of America – Letter of Warning to a Young Patriot. In Chapter 7 she only leaves a small part for:

        3.   Curtailing Citizens' Assembly

Dictators fear the power of mass movements and try to restrict assemblies therefore. Wolf gives examples from Mussolini's Italy, Mexico, Pinochet's Chile. Examples of the strength built up by marching in a mass:

“It is masses of people united who brought down the Berlin Wall; stood up to Chinese tanks; and overwhelmed a dictator in the Philippines. Massed citizens ended Jim Crow laws and brought the war in Vietnam to a close. It is so simple a tool, but so powerful.”

The only recent example of curtailing the freedom of assembly given by Wolf is that of Mayor Michael Bloomberg's administration banning protesters from the Great Lawn in New York's Central Park during the 2004 Republican National Convention. Eventually the case was settled in 2008 by ordering the city “to pay damages to civil rights and anti-war organizations for discriminatorily denying them the right to hold a demonstration on the Great Lawn”.

One might be surprised that only one example is offered. The freedom of assembly seems to be the one of the best protected rights in the U.S. (?)

Two more examples from Europe, the first of the effectiveness of mass protests, the second concerning another try to restrict the freedom of assembly:

It is said that in January 2009 several days of demonstrations of thousands of angry Icelanders forced Bjorgvin Sigurdsson – Minister of Business Affairs – to step down.

This possibly may not happen in London where Parliamentarians don't like to be disturbed by the masses and therefore banned any protests at close range since 2005 – thereby creating their own critic-free zone: see “How Parliament passed the Statute Law banning the right of Legitimate Protest within sight of itself and the Government”.