Fighting for the apparent good - Robin Hood Syndrome

When prehistoric man was surprised by an enemy, his body released adrenaline. His heart would beat faster, his breathing accelerated and the blood pressure increased.

Man was ready for a fight or flight in this mode. When man decided to fight, the excitement gave him enormous power and could lead to disinhibition, which allowed him to defeat the enemy.
The ability (disposition, drive) to fight enemies with great commitment is deep within all of us and was essential for survival. When the will to fight was weak in a tribe, it would perish.

While we live in the 21st century, the predisposition to fight against enemies is still fully developed.

In my “Peace” post in December 2017, I described how wars were waged almost continuously over the last 3000 years. 

The Heidelberg Institute for International Conflict Research counted 20 wars and 385 conflicts worldwide in 2017.

         Most people now desire peace.

But this also applies:

"The devoutest cannot live in peace if the evil neighbor does not like it."
But when there is conflict, when does a state that has a fully defensive predisposition have to say: up to this point and no further?

The conflict between the West (USA/Western Europe) and Russia is particularly suitable for discussing this in concrete terms in a current conflict.
    In 1989 the western border of the GDR was the border between NATO and the Soviet Union. In 2004, the Baltic States, Slovenia, Slovakia, Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO, moving NATO’s border closer to Russia’s. But that went further in 2008.
     Jack Matlock, former ambassador to Moscow, said: “In 2008, NATO decided to put Ukraine on a track to gain membership. A country deeply divided internally, right on Russia’s doorstep.”

In September 2008, Ukraine and the EU reached an agreement on an Association Agreement.

This sparked fears in Russia. Russia began supporting rebels in the Donbass, whose population was predominantly friendly to Russia. And Russia annexed Crimea. How can Russia justify this step? Sevastopol, Russia’s most important naval port on the Black Sea, is located on Crimea. Crimea was assigned to Ukraine only in 1954 by decision of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR. Elections in 1994 revealed that the majority of Crimean citizens are friendly to Russia. Only Russia declared the 2014 elections (after annexation) as valid.

To secure peace, one should always try to understand the enemy's point of view.

     What would happen in the reverse, if Russia tried to organize a military alliance with Canada and Mexico? The USA rightly reacted vehemently when Russia concluded a military alliance with Cuba under Fidel Castro.

In 2018, all 29 NATO countries spent around 963 billion dollars on military armaments. Russia disarmed (also because of the crisis) and spent 61 billion in this area (Sipri).

Given these figures, can Russia really be dangerous?

Is it justified to start talking about a Cold War, again?

Since they could carry weapons, humans have waged wars. Must this continue in the 21st century?

Or is the rule now: If you don’t have enemies, you go out and find some?

Or rather: If you aren’t with us, you’re against us?

Russia is aware that it has nothing to offer that is on par with the Western arsenal. Based on military logic, it is thus understandable that Russia restarts a nuclear armament. Do we want to die in a nuclear war unleashed under unfortunate circumstances?

Wouldn’t it better to come to terms in a peaceful coexistence? The Eastern European states worry that Russia could once again try to “protect” the Russian minorities living there. So couldn’t one speak openly about these fear at a conference and make Russia promise to not move any borders in the future?

An objection may be that Russian agents kill critics of the regime. We cannot allow that. But can we really achieve anything by means of economic sanctions and the Cold War?

We have only reached one thing: Rearmament has returned.

          The predisposition to want / be able to fight enemies with great commitment is not equally pronounced in all people. Anyone who wants to follow this “urge” these days can play violent computer games, join a soccer fan club or join a left- or right-wing extremist group.

Be it peaceful or militant - what matters is the resistance. This saying was expressed by a left-wing extremist movement, but could also come from a right-wing extremist group.

Based on a readiness to fight enemies, the disposition developed to be able to also fight evil.
Leftist organizations convey to their adherents the conviction that they are fighting against evil (capitalism) and are thus standing up for good. This is very appealing to young adults and many fall for the Robin Hood syndrome.

The young bourgeois parties have a much harder time. They need to strive to find the best path on which the market economy can thrive while incorporating as many social components as possible.

In a grouping in which all share the same world view, the group members feel secure.

That "we-feeling" contributes to a positive attitude to life. All are on the same level and can fight together against people who dissent.

It is often overlooked that the good that is fought for is only supposedly good and often such engagements have catastrophic consequences. I described examples in the post titled “The problem with do-gooders” in March 2018.

Citizens are more important than the economy

It is a truism:    

If there is a workforce shortage, immigration won't do any good!

Immigrants require more shop assistants in the grocery shop, more doctors, more bricklayers for new houses, etc.

This fact is suppressed by the business-friendly newspapers (e.g. NZZ in Switzerland) and the rose-tinted, left-leaning newspapers (e.g. Tagesanzeiger in Switzerland) do not mention this truism, because they want to open the borders completely for immigrants, due to ideological reasons.

Immigration is very beneficial for the economy. Companies want to grow and have the largest possible selection of a cheap workforce.

Citizens desire secure jobs and well-paid work.

The citizens want to avoid that immigration overloads the infrastructure and that their local natural recreation areas are covered in concrete and developed. In little Switzerland, 29 km2 are developed annually, which corresponds to the area of Lake Brienz. In 1960, Switzerland’s residential population totaled 5 million and has risen to 8.5 million today. Now we are forced to densify our construction.

Business lobbyists claim that when immigration is restricted, jobs are outsourced abroad (aspect A). That cannot be ruled out.

However, these lobbyists conceal the obvious aspect (aspect B) that unemployment decreases and wages rise when there is a shortage of labor.

So the question arises: Which aspect will override the other?

I believe that by sensibly managing immigration, the economy can flourish and the development of the countryside can be reduced.

The economy is fueling fears that jobs may be lost out of self-interest. But why don't the Left point out that there is also a second aspect?

There is an unholy alliance between business and socialist-minded politicians that is formed in this matter. Only in recent months have the unions exited this unholy alliance.

They finally realized that they represent not the urban, well-earning left-wing voters, but the low earners, who despite all the rhetoric, know that their wages rise less because of the immigrants.

The title can often be found in the media: “The economy profits from immigration” and it is implicitly suggested that the citizens are automatically better off because of it. But economic growth in Switzerland lowers our feel-good factor and our quality of life.

Companies are to grow in their foreign branches, so that unemployment in Switzerland can continue to fall and wages can rise with controlled immigration, without businesses having to forego growth.

The Dance around the Golden Calf

in German published 2019-02

Weird relationship dramas are currently playing out in Europe. Although the starting position in Switzerland and the UK is different, there are striking parallels. In both countries, large sections of the population are against a new deal with the EU.
For the EU, enforcing its ideology is a priority, while EU citizens are secondary.

The EU is a project of do-gooders who take no account of non-members.

The EU has a democratic deficit!
What would the result be if all EU citizens were asked in a vote whether they want the EU to be a confederation or a federal state?

The EU has had bad experiences with direct democracy in the UK. The opinion will be consolidated in Brussels that the voters are not to be trusted.
The relationship between the EU and direct democracy is full of irritations.

The basic idea of the single market is widely accepted across Europe. But 
 u n r e s t r i c t e d  freedom of movement divides Europe. The EU's demand that everyone play only by its rules seems to be an imposition on sovereign nations that do not have to ask themselves if they share blame for the outbreak of the two world wars.

Countries that do not understand the inseparability of the four European freedoms are threatened with exclusion from the single market. The EU acts as a monopolist for the European internal market, but shows no trace of remorse. For me this is another example of how people who dogmatically support a “good” idea cause a lot of mischief.

If Britain and Switzerland do not comply with the dictates of the EU, they have to reckon with partial exclusion from the internal market. Prosperity may be less rapid in both countries for some time afterwards. Both countries do not know what “punitive measures” they can expect from Brussels, but since intra-European trade is also determined by WTO rules, the impact will be smaller than the EU supporters claim.

But is it the highest of all goals to optimize our wealth?

Is the dance worth it for the golden calf?

Are there no higher values than economic growth? Shouldn’t politicians advocate that the people can live according to their own rules and not be determined by others?

In the long term, however, prosperity will be higher if we don't become fixated on the golden calf.
Should we look at the planning of the Berlin airport, rigid French centralism or Italian chaos as a model? Isn't Switzerland the most successful European nation?

The Cherry Picker

in German published 2019-01

The British and the Swiss are called cherry pickers.

       As I already said in my October 2017 post, I love Europe, but I have problems with the EU in its present form.

Many EU supporters insist on the inseparability of the four freedoms. Unlimited freedom of movement may not be broken. And anyone who tries is called a "Rosinenpicker" or cherrypicker.

You often find statements like this on Twitter: Europe doesn't need CherryPickers

However, from an economic point of view, nothing speaks for the inseparability of the four European freedoms. It would be different, for example, if a country wants freedom of movement of goods without committing itself to comply with the environmental protection agreements.

If a country were able to restrict the free movement of persons, the other member states would have no economic disadvantage.

The EU euphoricists want to enforce the four freedoms with a kind of compulsion. What a contradiction!

The idea of a united Europe is often promoted with ideological zeal. But shouldn't especially the Germans realize that political zeal can lead to catastrophes? Is zeal always good for the Good? No, “The opposite of Good is often well meant”

      Shouldn't more consideration be given to the needs of other countries? Dogmatic stubbornness and know-it-all-ism will destroy the EU!

Brexit would not have to happen if the EU showed more flexibility!

       The EU has a democratic deficit, and more and more citizens see Brussels as a bureaucratic Monster.

Direct Democracy

in German published 2018-06


Can citizens have enough say on important questions indirectly in a representative democracy? For example, if someone wants to strengthen the EU, they can elect the appropriate politicians.

But whom should voters elect if, for example, they are for the abolition of Hartz IV, against abortion and for more restrictions on immigration?

So the claim that in a representative democracy the voter can sufficiently express their will is utterly absurd.
Only a few countries are ripe for direct democracy. Direct democracy is the highest and most demanding form of Government.

                       Combination of direct and representative Democracy
                                            Representative Democracy
                                       Democracy with limited elections
                                        Democracy with bogus elections
                                          Dictatorship without elections


 It is argued that many citizens are overwhelmed when voting on substantive issues. That may be true, but experience has shown that many citizens just follow party slogans. This requires the parties and the media to explain to people exactly how they want to solve the problems with regard to a substantive issue. That makes the citizens better informed, and then they cannot say that politicians do what they want anyway. Elections on substantive issues are the best remedy for political disenchantment.

The initiative to ban minarets in Switzerland is often cited among the opponents of direct democracy. A majority overruled the rights of a minority here. But Muslims can continue to meet everywhere and continue to build mosques.

You will only be able to judge whether the ban on minarets is good in 20 to 50 years. The headscarf ban, which applies in some European countries in some circumstances, is also a restriction on the rights of religious minorities.

And even the ban on smoking in the restaurants, which was introduced in Bavaria in 2010 by a referendum, restricts the rights of a minority.

For more than 10 years, the anti-nuclear movement in Germany has led to major demonstrations, violent riots, blockades and confrontations with the police.

If the opponents of nuclear power could have launched an initiative to phase out nuclear energy, this conflict would probably have been resolved peacefully.

Conflicts are fought on the streets when it is not possible for politically active groups to make their voice heard through a direct democratic path.
The EU has a democratic deficit. Many mistaken developments in the EU would have been avoided with more democratic participation of citizens. The southern European countries would certainly not have been included in the eurozone. The introduction of the euro was forced by euphoric and ambitious politicians. The people make more pragmatic decisions.

 No meaningful international treaties should be concluded without the consent of citizens in all European countries.

The Members of the European Parliament do not really represent the citizens they were elected to represent because most of the time, only politicians who are convinced by the EU in its current form stand for election. EU skeptics are unlikely to pursue such a post in Brussels.