Dexit – why Germany should leave the EU

Grexit was a topic for quite a while as taxpayers were frightened by the threat to pay for Greek elites plundering their public finances. Many saw a better alternative in kicking the whole Greece out of the EU – without solving any problem, of course. In fact the taxpayers now have to pay for – well, for bailing out the lenders to those corrupt governments, hence for rescuing banks once more. A sovereign default, truly not the first one in history, would have been a better solution – accompanied by some kind of ‘Marshall Plan’, to give the Greek people a chance to raise their heads again. However Grexit is no longer a topic, at least not for this reason.

As we obviously can get excited about on one problem at a time only, we switched to the refugee crisis – for now. And here we have yet another formidable example of a total failure of European politics with the potential to tear the Union apart. This failure was inevitable, as there is no real sufficiently empowered administrative body to take the necessary actions, swift and bold. The EU is just a loose a confederation of states, which tries to act like a federal state.

Consequently the introduction of the Euro was a premature step – at best. If meant to become a traditional currency like D-Mark, Franc and Lire had been before; it would have been prudent to prepare the necessary environment before, like unified financial politics. As history of currencies and their governance, national currencies and those of confederations alike, aptly demonstrate, this still would not have been necessarily a recipe for success. Well seeing the value of a common currency, a more exotic Bitcoin or Frederick Hayek like approach would have been a better fit. But this would have required an even more vanguard type of thinking. In its current shape however the EURO does more harm than good and may possibly even not survive.

No surprise therefore that the mood shifts. Brexit is the next looming issue. This time it is the British, or to be more precise, the English people, who feel deeply alienated by those obscure European power play games. Surveys show that there are majorities favouring an exit from the EU in other countries too.  Many citizens feel that Europe is moving to the wrong direction – without having any clue of what the ‘right direction’ might be. Confidence into the EU now in Germany and France is as weak as in the UK, not to talk about the eastern belt of EU states, which are giving rise to a new aggressive nationalism. And in many other countries, including Germany, the worst yet has to come.

No, folks, let’s face reality: game is over.

So better start a new one.

But which way to go? Back to good old times?

To my conviction there is no way back. There even have been no good old times. Nevertheless it seems prudent to take a look back – and learn from history. Let’s remember, that the whole idea of a unified Europe could only have thrived in the wake of the ultimate catastrophe of WWII. This was after the fact, when our fathers and forefathers sat on the ruins of the European countries as they knew them.

That doesn't mean that there had been no early warnings prior to the conflict.
There were quite a few contemporaries in those days, which were perfectly aware that the policy of all involved parties during the pre-war years would straight lead into a major conflict. Governments either were paralysed, busy with patching holes or simply not seriously worried. War in the pre-nuclear age was still thought, just being the continuation of politics, just by other means. The pains of its brutal outcome could not yet be imagined or even felt. A similar tragic prelude by the way preceded the First World War as well and even the financial crisis of our very recent past.

To make no mistake, there are sufficient threats and even more early indicators today as well. There is Russia flexing its muscles again and bite by bite carving out little pieces of other countries, even openly threatening to take ‘back’ the Baltics, the Ukraine anyway. There is the unreliable and probably decreasing inclination of the US to engage in smaller European conflicts. There is the collapsing Middle East, where a naively implied Arab spring consequently turned into a chilling winter – with all the foreseeable, however not foreseen, consequences for us. There is Turkey, the Wests false friend, increasingly causing trouble throughout the region. The list would become rather long, if I would attempt to complete it.

There was an article in the Wall Street Journal from Feb. 19, 2016 by Tim Montgomerie: “A Better Britain Outside the EU” where he writes: “Brexit—a British exit from the European Union—would give the U.K. self-determination and free it from the dysfunctional European project.”
Tim’s lucid diagnosis may be right. However there is no reason the share the optimistic outlook:
“Yes, for two or three years, a post-Brexit Europe will be bumpier and more acrimonious. But the temporary upset will be worth it if it transforms the continent from a collection of unhappy tenants of a would-be super state into vigorous, happy neighbours, cooperating where it matters most but otherwise operating as free, self-determined nations.”

There can be no doubt; no single European country is strong enough to survive all looming threats and coming crises. Each of them will be marginalized and suffer for its current follies.
If there is any reason to believe that human evolution goes forward and does not regress, oscillate or move in circles, this time we should be slightly more attentive and anticipate the obvious. Even more important we should be brave enough to act now instead of letting it happen a little later.
There might be a way forward – into uncharted territory.

The unification of Europe is one of the best ideas that have ever been created in this this blood-drenched continent. However, we did not make good use of the small window of opportunity, when the European peoples were still shell-shocked and hence susceptible for revolutionary change. Instead during implementation we put the cart before the horse. Instead of starting with the constitution followed by the decision-making bodies and finally the numerous decisions themselves, we tried to do it the other way round - and got stuck in the political morass when we were half way through. We should put an end to the absurd attempt to achieve consensus in a polyphonic chorus of national egoists and political egomaniacs in a variety of detailed questions.

But how to get out of this morass?

Our governments, while facing periodic crises and chronic dysfunction will most likely simply try to muddle through to somehow keep the show on the road. But their attempts will ultimately fail. Some countries may break loose; others will paralyse the Union with their increasingly aggressive tone and selfish demands. And whatever goes wrong, Germany will be blamed for it. But this sad fact opens a way for Germany to act independently as the critique can only marginally increase.
To my conviction there is only one way out: “Dexit”, Germany should leave the EU.

As this act of desperation should not be confused with a solution, we should turn it into a creative destruction and simultaneously come up with a new offer for a better Europe. This EU 2.0 would more resemble the United Nations of Europe sharing a common constitution, army, ministries of defence, external affairs and finance and of course one government elected in direct elections.

As most probably no country inhabiting English native speakers will join this new federal state, we should even use English as a common administrative language. Maybe by then the pressure exerted on the fragmented dwarf state landscape may gently nudge one or the other state to seriously consider joining the new and tighter union.

Otherwise we just have to wait – for the tsunami to come.

Knowledge is power

Knowledge is power. This is known since Sir Francis Bacon coined the phrase back in 1597.

Hence, knowledge about people is power over people.

Since we humans used to live in societies rather than alone and in isolation, we have to cede parts of our decision-sovereignty to the community. When living in a representative democracy, citizens delegate this part to elected representatives, who in turn form the governmental bodies.

This insight is neither new nor innovative. The right balance between a sufficiently empowered state and an inappropriate loss of sovereignty however is difficult to achieve. Traditionally a shift in one direction or the other direction is common and inevitable.

Although this task turns out to be challenging enough, not always resulting in the optimal solution to this conflict, the currently available information and communications technology adds yet another component to it. And here we even cannot draw from tradition.

Although innovative minority groups, such as European pirate parties, regarding themselves as the vanguard of an emerging political movement, addressed this issue several years ago and thus for a short period gained some public attention. Only recently the realization has become mainstream that our informational self-determination is at risk if not even already compromised. In the end it was triggered by the far-reaching revelations of secret practices by the US whistleblower and ex-NSA employee Ed Snowden.

The shock struck us hard. It raised the attention of a major part of many nations' societies and caused a lot of indignation. A lasting learning effect however, which would result in consequences to our political philosophy, could not be observed. Apparently, it is not an easy task to complement our basic understanding of self-determined life in the light of the new technical opportunities.

It is common understanding that the basic conditions for a civilised human life include the concept of privacy. We all need some room we call privacy, in which we are "amongst ourselves" where we can freely operate without having to ask someone's permission. By default the outside world should not have any insight here. At least we want to retain control to decide for ourselves who should know what.

The medieval law that "breathing city air for a year and a day” made you a free man was the lure that made whole generations migrate into the cities. And not only were they fleeing the feudal structures in the countryside. The promises of anonymity too directly translated into personal freedom. In the villages everyone knew (almost) everything about (almost) everyone. A foreigner was immediately recognized and met with suspicion. In the cities however, by default, everyone was a stranger. To encounter a familiar face, rather was the exception.

This precious anonymity from the outset was in conflict with governmental obligations. Some compromise had be found, a deal to be closed. In former periods too this deal was not always respected by the parties. The sovereign sniffed on his citizens, the citizens cheated their sovereign. It is not much of a surprise therefore that nowadays secret services, as well as parliamentary supervised institutions succumbed to the temptation to harness the new possibilities of global communication by grabbing all available information. Most puzzling however is that long after its unveiling the public already stands scared stiff.

The need for privacy varies greatly from individual to individual; even more so than the desire for physical freedom or the freedom of speech. On the one hand there are people who hide from the public, almost paranoid of any publicity. Others enjoy living their life publicly – thereby spreading all of their personal information.

As mentioned before, the issue is about setting minimum standards. Even if that should ever be achieved, it will not suit everyone.

Imagine we would, e.g. represented by the United Nations, like to let the world know about our demand for privacy, how then would this look?

As the most fundamental principle we would request that each person owns all personal information. Only he or she can authorize the use of this information by third parties.

Many services in a modern society however cannot be provided to anonymous customers. They require knowledge of some attributes of this person.

Again, we should say that in principle only the person may authorise the use of this data - bound and restricted to this particular service. Here, for the purpose of feasibility and efficiency this consent may well be given implicitly by using the service.

As a rule, the minimum principle applies here too: Only that information may be collected, used and stored, which is necessary for the provision of the specific service. And it may be kept only as long as this necessity lasts.

Any disclosure or sale to and use of by third parties – whether it be commercially or not - for purposes other than those authorized, is hereby excluded.

According to this philosophy these principles apply universally, thus to operators of search engines, social networks or other collaboration platforms as well.

Also these principles should apply to information that has been previously published by the person, however they may be spread across places and times.

The collection and collation of their data allows the generation of information, and in turn knowledge about a particular person. These aggregations and the resulting analysis of any subsequent analysis thus are also subject to the personal data sovereignty.

In order to exercise the right of ownership on information about oneself, another rule is required: a right to information. Contractors, who keep information about a person, in order to provide services, on request must be able to provide this particular information at any time.

On request this information then has to be deleted. Of course, such demand, issued prematurely, may lead to the termination of a business relationship and ultimately also to claims for damages. These secondary legal consequences, however, are seen as subordinate to the "fundamental right" to personal data sovereignty.

In principle this relationship towards third parties applies to states as well. In this sense they are regarded as ordinary contractors. As such, however, they may claim their freedom of contract and, where appropriate, refuse services (for example, to grant a visa or crossing a border), in case that the person is unwilling to provide sufficient information about themselves.

The relationship towards our own state however has to be viewed differently. To this authority we have collectively transferred the monopoly of power. In order to fulfil its associated obligations, it occasionally needs information about the person concerned that goes beyond the "usual level" even without that persons explicit consent. This may be the case in the course of a judicial investigation or a police action. In order to largely rule out abuse in these cases, this extended access to information requires a judicial authorization in each individual case.

This requirement appears so natural, that it is already fundamental to many legal systems. Here rather, it is imperative to find ways to ensure its practical implementation and to keep all parties' operations transparent.

Concluding, we demand legal systems of all countries of this planet to implement the following principles...

1. Ownership - The individual is the owner of her personal data


2. Control & Consent - Being the owner, he has control over his personal data. Any use by third parties requires his consent.


3. Minimal Disclosure & Constrained Use - In this case only those data may be used, which are necessary to fulfil the intended purpose. The data must be kept only during the designated period.


4. Justifiable Parties - Personal data, which has been released to a third party for a specific purpose, may be made available to the necessarily involved parties only.


5. Transparency - If personal data about an individual are held by a third party, this individual has the right to request information about the type of information and its use at any time. The means enabling him to do so, and it must be provided to him in a reasonable manner.


6. Revocation - The individual may withdraw his consent to keep selected personal data once given to third parties at any time.


7. Judicial warrant - If authorities equipped with sovereign rights feel an increased need for personal data, while they are pursuing their obligations with respect to the individual, a court order to allow this access should be required.

We deem it necessary to adopt these principles in respective national laws in order to ensure the civil rights, necessary for a free and enlightened civil society, in the digital space as well.

This seems necessary, as information can be derived from the combination of various personal data which in turn may result in knowledge about a person.

Knowledge however is power.

Hence knowledge about people equals power over people.

Consequently the control of their own personal information belongs into the hands of these very people.

Wissen ist Macht

Wissen über Menschen ist Macht über Menschen.

Da wir Menschen in Gesellschaft leben und nicht isoliert und allein, müssen wir einen Teil unserer Entscheidungssouveränität an die Gemeinschaft abgeben. In einer repräsentativen Demokratie delegieren die Bürger einen Teil dieser Macht an gewählte Volksvertreter, die ihrerseits staatliche Stellen besetzen.

Das ist weder neu noch originell. Die Balance zwischen einem ausreichend handlungsfähigen Staat und einem zu großen Souveränitätsverlust aber ist schwierig und gibt traditionell Anlass zu permanenten Verschiebungen in die eine oder andere Richtung.

Wenn das bereits schwierig genug ist und keineswegs immer das Optimum dieses Konfliktes gefunden wird, so fügt die aktuell verfügbare Informations- und Kommunikationstechnik diesem Konflikt noch eine weitere Komponente hinzu. Und in dieser haben wir noch keine Tradition.

Zwar haben innovative Randgruppen, wie die europaweit aufgetretenen Piratenparteien, sich als Avantgarde einer kommenden Erkenntniswelle verstehend, dieses Thema bereits vor einigen Jahren adressiert und damit kurzzeitig eine gewisse öffentliche Aufmerksamkeit gewinnen können. Mainstream geworden ist die Erkenntnis, dass unsere informationelle Selbstbestimmung gefährdet, wenn nicht gar schon kompromittiert ist, erst durch die weitreichenden Enthüllungen geheimer Praktiken durch den US-Amerikanischen Whistleblower und ex-NSA Mitarbeiter Ed Snowden.

Der Schock saß tief, hatte weite Bevölkerungskreise erreicht und für viel Empörung gesorgt. Ein erkennbarer Lerneffekt, der zu Konsequenzen in unserer politischen Philosophie hätte führen müssen, ist aber nicht zu beobachten. Offenbar ist es nicht leicht, unser Grundverständnis von selbstbestimmten Leben im Lichte der neuen Möglichkeiten zu ergänzen.

Klar ist, dass zu unserem Verständnis vom Menschsein auch der Begriff der Privatheit gehört. Wir alle brauchen einen Bereich, den wir Privatsphäre nennen, in dem wir „unter uns“ sind. In diesem Kreis wollen Dinge tun, ohne jemand anderes um Erlaubnis fragen zu müssen. Im Zweifel soll die Außenwelt davon nichts erfahren. Zumindestwollen wir selber kontrollieren, was sie erfahren soll – und was nicht.

„Stadtluft macht frei“ war der Lockruf, der neben materiellen Verheißungen, ganze Generationen in die Städte ziehen ließ. Und keineswegs war nur die Flucht vor der feudalen Herrschaftsstruktur auf dem Lande der Antrieb. Auch die Verheißungen der Anonymität wurden unmittelbar mit Freiheit übersetzt. Auf dem Lande wusste jeder (fast) alles über (fast) jeden. Den Fremden erkannte man sofort und begegnete ihm mit Misstrauen. In der Stadt waren, per Default, erst einmal alle Menschen Fremde. Auf ein bekanntes Gesicht zu treffen, war die Ausnahme.

Diese kostbare Anonymität stand von Beginn an im Konflikt mit staatlichen Aufgaben. Es musste ein Kompromiss gefunden, ein Deal geschlossen werden. Auch früher schon wurde dieser Deal nicht immer eingehalten, wurde von hoheitlicher Seite geschnüffelt, vom Bürger geschummelt. So ist auch nicht verwunderlich, dass Geheimdienste, aber auch parlamentarisch überwachte Institutionen, heute im Rausch der neuen Möglichkeiten der globalen Kommunikation reihenweise der Versuchung erlegen sind, nach allen Informationen zu greifen, die verfügbar sind. Die Dauer der Schreckstarre der öffentlichkeit nach dessen Enthüllung verwundert allerdings mittlerweile schon.

Stärker noch als der Drang nach physischer und Redefreiheit variiert der Bedarf an Privatsphäre stark von Individuum zu Individuum. Auf der einen Seite verstecken sich Personen vor der öffentlichkeit mit geradezu paranoider öffentlichkeitsscheu. Andere wiederum gefallen sich darin, ein öffentlich einsehbares Leben zu führen – mit all den Informationen, die sie damit über sich verbreiten.

Auch hier kann es also nur um die Festlegung von Mindeststandards gehen. Auch wenn das einmal erreicht werden sollte, werden sie nicht jedem reichen.

Stellen wir uns einmal vor, wir wollten unsere Forderungen an die Welt, etwa in Form der Vereinten Nationen, stellen – wie müssten diese dann aussehen?

Grundsätzlich sollte gelten, so unsere Forderung, dass die Informationen über eine Person eben dieser Person gehören. Nur sie kann den Gebrauch dieser Informationen durch Dritte autorisieren.

Viele Dienstleistungen in einer modernen Gesellschaft können nicht gegenüber anonymen Abnehmern erbracht werden. Sie erfordern Kenntnis einiger Attribute dieser Person.

Auch hier sollte gelten, dass grundsätzlich die Person, den Gebrauch dieser Daten - gebunden an diese Dienstleistung - frei gibt. Dabei kann diese Einwilligung aus Gründen der Machbarkeit und Effizienz durchaus implizit durch Inanspruchnahme der Dienstleistung geschehen.

Grundsätzlich ist hier die Einhaltung eines Minimalprinzips zu fordern: Nur die Informationen dürfen erhoben, verwendet und gespeichert werden, die für die Erbringung der konkreten Dienstleistung erforderlich sind. Und sie dürfen auch nur so lange vorgehalten werden, wie es notwendig ist.

Damit ist auch eine Weitergabe an Dritte, ein Verkauf und eine Nutzung – ob kommerziell oder nicht – für andere Zwecke, als den autorisierten, ausgeschlossen.

Diese Prinzipien gelten nach dieser Vorstellung universell, also auch für Betreiber von Suchmaschinen, sogenannten sozialen Netzwerken oder anderen Kollaborationsplattformen.

Und diese Prinzipien gelten auch gegenüber Informationen, die gestreut über Orte und Zeiten bereits einmal von der Person selber publiziert worden sind. Deren Sammlung und Verdichtung, erzeugt aus Daten, Informationen und daraus, wiederum Wissen über die betreffende Person. Diese Aggregationen und Analyseergebnisse fallen mithin ebenfalls unter die persönliche Datenhoheit.

Um das Eigentumsrecht an Informationen über die eigene Person ausüben zu können, ist ein weiteres Recht erforderlich: Ein Auskunftsrecht. Vertragspartner, die, um Leistungen zu erbringen, Informationen über eine Person halten, müssen auf Anfrage jederzeit Auskunft über ebendiese Informationen geben können.

Auf Wunsch sind diese dann gegebenenfalls zu löschen. Natürlich kann eine solche Forderung, vorzeitig ausgesprochen, zum Abbruch einer Geschäftsbeziehung und schließlich auch zu Schadensersatzforderungen führen. Diese sekundären Rechtsfolgen sind jedoch als nachrangig gegenüber dem „Grundrecht“ auf persönliche Datenhoheit zu sehen.

Prinzipiell hat dieses Verhältnis gegenüber Dritten auch gegenüber Staaten zu gelten. Dieser wird in diesem Sinne als gewöhnlicher Vertragspartner eingestuft. Als dieser kann er allerdings das Recht auf Vertragsfreiheit geltend machen und gegebenenfalls Dienstleistungen (beispielsweise eine Visa-Erteilung oder ein Grenzübertritt) ablehnen, falls die Person nicht bereit ist, ausreichend Informationen über sich selber bereit zu stellen.

Anders stellt sich das Verhältnis nur gegenüber dem eigenen Staat dar, dem wir kollektiv das Gewaltmonopol übertragen haben. Um seine damit verbundenen Aufgaben wahrnehmen zu können, benötigt er gelegentlich, etwa im Zuge gerichtlicher Ermittlungen oder bei polizeilichen Maßnahmen, auch ohne die Einwilligung der betroffenen Person über das „übliche Maß“ hinausgehende Informationen. Damit hierbei Missbrauch weitgehend ausgeschlossen werden kann, muss dieser erweitere Informationszugriff einer richterlichen Genehmigung im Einzelfall bedürfen.

Diese Forderung erscheint derart natürlich, dass sie in vielen Rechtssystemen bereits verankert ist. Hier sind eher Wege zu finden, die praktische Umsetzung sicherzustellen und die Vorgänge für die Beteiligten transparent zu halten.

Zusammenfassend stellen wir folgende Forderungen an die Rechtssysteme aller Staaten dieses Planeten …

1. Ownership - Das Individuum ist der Eigentümer seiner persönlichen Daten


2. Control & Consent - Als Eigentümer hat er die Kontrolle über seine persönlichen Daten. Eine Verwendung durch Dritte bedarf seiner Zustimmung.


3. Minimal Disclosure & Constrained Use - Dabei dürfen nur die für die Erfüllung des beabsichtigten Zwecks erforderlichen Daten verwendet werden und das auch nur während des vorgesehenen Zeitraumes.


4. Justifiable Parties - Einem Dritten für einen Zweck freigegebene persönliche Daten dürfen nur den damit notwendigerweise befassten Parteien verfügbar gemacht werden.


5. Transparancy - Werden Daten über ein Individuum von einem Dritten gehalten, so hat dieses Individuum das Recht auf jederzeitige Auskunft über die Art der Informationen und deren Verwendung. Die dazu erforderlichen Mittel müssen ihm in zumutbarer Weise zur Verfügung gestellt werden.


6. Revocation - Das Individuum kann Dritten jederzeit eine einmal erteilte Zustimmung zur Haltung ausgewählter persönlicher Daten wieder entziehen.


7. Judicial warrant – Wenn Stellen mit hoheitlichen Rechten in der Wahrnehmung ihrer Aufgaben gegenüber dem Individuum einen erhöhten Bedarf an persönlichen Daten haben, bedarf es einer richterlichen Anordnung, um diesen Zugriff zu gewähren.

Wir halten es für erforderlich, diese Grundsätze in entsprechenden nationalen Gesetzen zu verankern, um damit die für eine freie und aufgeklärte Bürgergesellschaft erforderlichen Bürgerrechte auch im digitalen Raum sicher zu stellen.

Denn aus der Zusammenschau verschiedener personenbezogener Daten lassen sich Informationen gewinnen und daraus wiederum Wissen über eine Person.

Wissen aber ist Macht.

Und Wissen über Personen ist Macht über Personen.

Die Verfügungsgewalt über die eigenen Informationen gehört also in die Hände ebendieser Personen.

Where are all the Aliens?

Not long ago a colleague handed me over a book. “Here read this, it’s a classic.” It was the famous Arthur C. Clarkes “Childhoods End”, a (science fiction) classic indeed. Here suddenly monstrous star ships arrived and positioned themselves above each major city in (our) world.

At first nothing else happened for a while. Then these others had learned enough to contact the UN and gently persuaded them to convey a message to us earthworms. From then on these ‘Overlords’ took over the oversight, guidance & stewardship as benevolent dictators, when they felt a need to do so. Although this was not often the case henceforth a golden age of mankind gently unfolded – leaving us happy idiots to some slight and creeping cultural degeneration until ….

Well I don’t want to tell the story here. It was about the year 1953, more than 60 years ago, when Arthur C. Clarke expressed this – rather common – expectation, that there should be higher civilisations out there, much further developed than we bloody earthlings. Hmm, should they? But where are they?

Brighter minds already noticed this anomaly, aka “the Fermi Paradox”, first introduced by physicist Enrico Fermi. He asked the question, “Where is everybody?” Or, more specifically, “Where are all the aliens?”

When we factor in the size of the universe, the number of Earth-like planets, and a range of other variables (as outlined in the Drake equation), there should be tens of thousands or more extra-terrestrial civilizations in the galaxy. And with the galaxy being around 10 billion years old, scientists say that intelligent worlds have had plenty of time to contact one another. So if aliens should statistically exist, why haven’t we encountered any yet?

In one of the plenty publications for believers the question has been discussed further (of course): 10 Reasons That We Still Haven’t Found Aliens.
The hit list ready like this:

1. Earth Is Special
2. All Intelligent Life Hits a Stumbling Block.
3. They’ve moved out Of the Universe.
4. Earth Isn’t As Great As We Think.
5. We’re living in a Virtual Reality.
6. We Live In The Cosmic Boonies.
7. We Haven’t Spotted Their Signals (Yet).
8. We Can’t Recognize Their Signals.
9. Super-Organisms Are Inherently Suicidal.
10. They Walk Among Us.

Now take your choice out of this rich menu.

My personal opinion? Well I think, the closest we ever come to shaking hands with our ET-counterparts will be stumbling upon their ruins, hence some kind of blended scenario of 2 and 9.

In 2013 in his lucid article “Primeval planet: What if humans had never existed?” Christopher Kemp asked the question “Is there some sort of inevitability on our having become what we became?

I think there is.

As individuals we are nothing more than hormone junkies with the illusion of a free will. As a species we are following a pre-set program, called the evolution of life. There is an underlying biological evolution. On top of that a cultural evolution takes over at a faster pace. And if not we humans did and do it, there still would have been selective pressure for some other species to go through the same kind of development that we did.

You may agree to it or not. But even, if you do so for us here on earth, will the same driving principles apply on totally different planets in distant solar systems? Are these driving forces truly universal?

You might have had the chance to watch Alien Planet, a video in which NASA shows how they would explore an exo-planet, called Darwin IV, with their future space technology. As they explain further, it also gives some educated opinions regarding the likelihood of alien life, and how we could study such life forms by some of the greatest scientists and astronomers in the world.

What is more even interesting however is what James Kirkland assumes about the likelihood of intelligence evolving from ‘common’ life: It will be the predators, those who thrive on pack hunting, which will first have the need for coordination, communication, a ‘cultural’ layer on top of their biology.

And they will be very aggressive, most probably so much so, that will be constantly engaged in fierce competitions, fights, wars. And – as they become more and more intelligent – they develop weapons, more and more powerful – until they will be easily capable to destroy, one another, hence themselves.

Sounds familiar, doesn’t it?

And there is something else, which does not support optimistic views. Life is a form of self-organization, far from energy equilibrium. Life needs energy. And the higher organized life becomes the more energy it needs. Predators prey on herbivores, which have to consume lots of low energy leaves and grasses. The predators benefit from the high energy concentration meat. Higher sophistication requires even more energy, as we experience in our daily life. This energy acceleration surely doesn’t happen just by accident.

There must be a fundamental underlying reason for it.

Energy is precious and a limited resource. Competition will be focus on it. In the end there will not be room for everyone.

Combine both driving forces and you will end up with a bleak outlook – not just for the ‘human civilization’, but for any alien civilization as well. And this might be the reason why we may wait forever, without ever getting into contact with any intelligent life form.

They are all dead already.

What fools these mortals be

Just recently I (again) read a shocking story about ‘How China's one-child policy has ruined the marriage prospects of its young men’.  How could this be? Such population growth measures just limit the population growth. They don’t have per se the potential to skew any gender distribution. – Well not per se, but … a bit further down in the article the innocent sentence “…, combined with a cultural preference for boys, …” reveals the total brutal truth. Chinese (and may other) parents simply don’t want girls – they want boys. So, if they are blessed with a female foetus, there is a tendency to simply kill it.

You may well call it murder. So the system works as designed: If you don’t want girls, you will never have women, which your proud boys, once they became men, could marry. It is that simple. So, where is the problem? No one can be so stupid, not to instantaneously see this simple equation.  The sad truth is, journalists can. Eric Schulzke even seems to be a Westerner. Nevertheless, only the hell is the limit to his stupidity. Well not all is wrong: He correctly points out, that, all these young men, without women, jobs and without future, do what young men in such situations always used to do. They start turmoil, civil unrest, even outright wars.

So, what to do?

As the academic and popular science author Jared M. Diamond points out in in his 2005 book “Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed”: there will be a solution. It might just not be a pleasant one.  Perhaps a collapse of the unpleasant kind?  Well, that sounds cynic. But it is just one of the options – one of the most likely ones.

You might have heard of the Earth Overshoot Day. In 2014 it was August 19, marking the date “when humanity has exhausted nature’s budget for the year. For the rest of the year, we will maintain our ecological deficit by drawing down local resource stocks and accumulating carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We will be operating in overshoot.”

The Earth Overshoot Day is just a drastic illustration of the results of the applied footprint theory:

• Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.5 planets to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and six months to regenerate what we use in a year.
• Moderate UN scenarios suggest that if current population and consumption trends continue, by the 2030s, we will need the equivalent of two Earths to support us. And of course, we only have one.

There are more fine-grained and scientifically better funded theories, e.g. like this one here.  However there is no way around the simple conclusion, that we are already too many. There is no chance, that all the emerging markets and developing nations will ever be able to reach an average ‘western’ standard of living. The necessary resources simply don’t exist – down here on earth. Even worse, even if we proud Westerners could be able to defend the great economical divide and keep all newcomers out, we will have to reduce our standard of living drastically.  The resources will not be available for long. We are simply too many.

So what can we do? Fortunately there is one country – only one – which acted prudently on this challenge: After several trials and and years of considerations it was the Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who in 1978 established the one child policy that limited the number of children people could have to only one.

Most probably this was the wisest decision in history of mankind – but it will not suffice. It came late and found no followers. The less prudent rest of the world happily switches to the overdrive mode – on the racetrack to hell.

The fertility tragedy

Since times immemorial young men do what young men are genetically programmed to do – they go to war. This universal truth finds its proof since uncounted generations, unless they are distracted by women or tied down by job to the more prosaic earthy world.

Angry young men, there are plenty of them currently in the Arab world, kept separate from the sedating effects of the complementing gender, unemployed and of course futureless.  They form an explosive potential for conflicts, welcomed as cannon fodder likewise by authoritarian potentates, radical insurgents.

This situation is all but new. Often following prospering ages, when population has grown, resulting in that fatal young male surplus, major deadly conflicts arose and raged until its fuelling sources had been dried up. These views are nearly too cynical to be written down. But even worse, they truly reflect reality, experiments on humans, performed by history, which means by us as a collective whole. Are those unavoidable, inevitable cathartic cataclysms? Will we face a similar backlash to modernisation attempts like the game changing catastrophe of the thirty-years-war, which between 1618–1648 (well, 30 years), exterminated about half of the population in its core war zone, vast stretches of Germany?

Will, what, in a total misconception of the recent uprisings in the Arab world, was euphemistically called Arab Spring, directly lead into one of the most destructive conflicts of the near and middle east, like the thirty year war was for European history? In its beginning the hopes were high. Even the word democracy was spread. Nowadays even the ages of the old dictators, many of them influenced by western leftist ideas, appear as the golden ages. They indeed led to a much higher standard of living, gender equality, non-religious schools and more non-traditional achievements – than ever before or after.

Well, sadly it looks like. The worst yet has to come for this huge, traditionally war torn, region. Sure, it has been devastated by foreign policy of European powers and later the US for centuries. But the veil, covering their awakening monsters, is just beginning to be lifted. Powerfully crammed with petro money, of irresistible irrationality and inconceivably cruel they are going to steamroll over the region, leaving nothing than devastation. And those will be genuinely native monsters.

The Radical European Manifesto

A European radical movement? Yes, exactly! Such thing, we think, is needed now. But why radical? Why European? Why movement? 

Ok, here come the answers − one by one

1 Why radical?

We are living in an era that shows all characteristics of a turning point where a paradigm shift becomes necessary. On a variety of new and old questions the old answers no longer fit. In day-to-day politics we can perfectly observe an increasingly cluelessness, a helplessness. Obviously, the old policies no longer suffice. Or are their roots just not properly understood? 

If there are fundamental shifts happening, it may help to fundamentally re-think the situation. We want to come up with radically new responses derived from a few basic philosophical beliefs. The basic moral foundation needs to be applied radically different than in our current political parties.

Radical? No, we do not intend to send violent extremists onto the streets, burning flags and shouting hateful slogans, build barricades and forming political street gangs to fight with others on the streets.

It's about the radicalism of thought, mentally go back again to the root (radix) and think through some important complex of social life once again - a re-boot so. That would be radical enough.

It should be very clear; there is no one else who can do that, except the all of us. It must be a grass-roots movement.

This approach appears to be sufficiently radical anyway.

2 Why European?

The question could be countered: "Why not act globally from the beginning? The problems our world is facing can be solved − if at all - globally only. "

That's true. States that do not represent political heavy-weights like China, India or the U.S. will probably have little impact on the future course of the world. But on one hand, the idea of creating a Europe wide movement is sufficiently megalomaniacal already.

On the other hand, there is something specific European, which is valuable enough to be declared to become the program: ideas going back to the thinkers of the period of Enlightenment like civil rights, freedom, equality, and - hmmm - with the fraternity, it seems to be not that easy - separation of powers and separation of church and state, liberalism, democracy, but are fundamental values of European origin. They need to become radically rethought and re-applied at least in Europe.

So we do not end but still self-inflicted immaturity.

What should be the geographical extend of this Europe? Until the Bosporus, the Ural, or just until the Vistula? After having expressed our guiding ideas it appears to be only logical to see Europe as a philosophical trademark. Anyone who supports these basic principles may join the European radical movement.

And who does not have the heart − my just stay outside.

3 Why movement?

The question can be split into

• Why a new movement?
• Why not party?

3.1 Why a new movement?

Because the current, more or less outdated, political parties which dominate the scene do not provide the right answers.

Let's examine them one by one.

Ultra-right-wing:

Here the distinction is easiest. Blood & Soil nationalist movements are not of yesterday, no, of pre-before-yesterday. No enlightened society can be built founded on crude ideas such as the Aryan race, chosen people or other archaic nationalisms. The political implications of the implementation of such a body of thought have so far proved to be extremely ugly. Unfortunately we do have sufficient experience to say so.

Hence the conclusion is clear: The brownish primordial soup needs to be locked away to the poison cabinet.

Ultra left-wing

"Heartless, who hasn't been a communist when young. Brainless, who is a communist when grown up." It can hardly be illustrated more aptly, that "good intentions" quite often end-up with contrary results - when not taking the principles into account which underlie the interactions within human societies. 

With left-wing utopianism too, we have enough experience, sufficient anyway to ban them and restrict them to a museum of failed policy models.

Conclusion: confined to museums so that future generations can learn from it!

C-Parties:

To our opinion Religion ('C' here stands for 'Christian') and politics should be strictly separated. Policy affects the public space: the res publica, religion must be a private matter.

Following this idea religious parties are a contradiction in itself. They convey yesterday's convictions, highly dangerous in their effect, simply not electable.

Additionally they claim to be conservative. Less that they were trying to preserve what is worth protecting, the foundations of our lives, for instance, but rather try to preserve outdated social models and future political structures. 

Conclusion: Politics and religion are an explosive mixture. Stay away - not electable.

S-Parties:

Historically interesting: they themselves once represented an international response to the urgent international problems. The "red" or "left wing" political spectrum who calls itself social democrat and socialist, is based on traditional social antagonisms whose boundaries begin to blur.

In their dualistic perception of the world in an ancient oriental tradition they recognize two fundamentally hostile powers, which cannot exist without each other's, workers and employers - the good and evil - are forever caught in an everlasting epic fight.

Since the S-parties always on are the side of good, they try, once in power, to abolish the evil - and more or less consistently - to replace it by the state. By doing so they usually make things much worse.

It is rather obvious the S-parties in their perception of the state again and again run into problems to keep the rule-making state and the actors in the market apart,

Conclusion: the world is not dual. The S model is old news. Thank you comrades! And the last one may please turn off the light!

Liberals:

The liberal idea is one of the most important and most viable philosophical movements of modern Europe, one of the few European products to which we can truly be proud of.

Unfortunately, the parties which hold up the liberal banner in many European countries are degenerated and generally in a bad shape. Dominated by ambitious career politicians with no moral content and clue of the founding forefather's guiding principles they are caught in dirty day-to-day politics unable to convey any message.

Meanwhile they fail to address the current policy issues that should preoccupy real liberals. Otherwise, would there be a Pirate Party today.

Conclusion: completely ruined, probably beyond repair, too bad!

Green parties:

"Its purpose is fulfilled club may be dissolved." It could be put bluntly. That doesn't mean that suddenly the world works sustainably. No, this goal still lies far ahead. To reach it perhaps some quite radical decisions have to be taken. "No nukes!", societal dropouts and romantic back-to-the-roots bio-farmers: when it came to protecting the environment, the green movement always had the right intentions, but not always the right answers.

By today they have finally been arrived in daily business. No longer are they young and hungry, but conceivably sated and established. The more senior parties have copied the topics of this one-product company and integrated them seamlessly into their agendas. Why not, it might help but can't do any harm!

And finally, such spectacular U-turns like the German energy turnaround for sustainability past the Fukushima disaster: A late success of the green movement perhaps. 

Conclusion: Obviously the greens have met their original the "purpose".

Pirates:

The pirate parties without any doubt currently represent the most interesting of all political moves: an international response to pressing international problems.

The introduction of the printing press later led to the series of fundamental social upheavals and in turn to changes. The Internet has potential of causing such a turning point as well. Started as a free and completely unregulated medium, it has the potential for Orwellian total surveillance of mankind, as well as to his liberation. Examples can be found for both directions already.

Good that the pirate parties do address this subject. It is quite easy to comprehend that they become recalcitrant when driven out of their digital paradise. Thankfully they tackle this thorny issue.

But is it just enough? It is noticeable that the pirates still lack the answers to many more traditional political questions. After being displaced from their digital paradise they still rub their eyes in disbelief and try to orient in this cruel dirty physical world. Still they are yet another one-product company, without firm moral base. Still they don't carry much historical burden.

Conclusion: In this case they are perhaps well advised to re-think things radically. We are ready to offer them a helping hand.

3.2 Why not a party?

The established political landscape − regardless of all international approaches - so far remained a purely national one. Few things are so regulated so tightly on national level, just as formation and management of political parties. And the elections, which these parties may participate in, also occur at the national level only. Take this as an indication, that the European "Union", that strange, half-heartedly integrated structure just has a very indirect democratic legitimation.

Therefore at European level, we currently can act only as an opinion-shaping movement. But if we want to be elected we will have go back to the institution of a political party. Done in a "tried and tested way" through the creation of many small parties in many small countries - until there will be one dine day a democratically legitimated political Europe.

4 The principles

All right, now just the content is still missing, right? Here it comes:

1. A radical European approach, because any European stat alone is just tiny little country on the edge of the universe. It cannot build a perfect world just for itself. The unification of Europe is one of the best ideas that have ever been created in this this blood-drenched. Unfortunately during implementation we have put the cart before the horse. Instead of starting with the constitution followed by the decision-making bodies and finally the numerous decisions themselves, we tried to do it the other way round − and got stuck in the political morass when we were half way through. We should put an end to the absurd attempt to achieve consensus in a polyphonic chorus of national egoists and political egomaniacs in a variety of detailed questions.
   
   
2. A radical secularism, which confines any religion, and other absolute authority claiming irrationalities to the private sector and prevents any outbreak into the public domain. Religions may be useful indeed for personal salvation. We should assign those movements a sheltered sanctuary in the private domain. If we don't want to write our history, but again with our blood, we must be very careful to ensure that they cannot leave their reserves.
   
   
3. A radical sustainability in all areas of life: in the finances, so we don't leave our children with unbearable debts, in the environment, so that posterity inherits a sound and healthy living environment, in economy, so that we neither accumulate garbage nor consume more resources, as sustainably grow.
   
   
4. A radically simplified tax system, a flat tax of, say, 25% without many additional rules and exceptions. Tax declarations must be possible again without employing a tax adviser − just on a single sheet of paper.
   
   
5. The end of the "politician" as a profession. We, who now have expressed our opinions, during implementation don't want to be undermined by career politicians, who synthesize their opinions from regular polls. With "leaders" on the other hand who are obsessed by their mission, don't have a good record as well. We should instead invest more energy into a good political system - "A system made by geniuses to be run by idiots" - and should less rely on our elected representatives.
   
   
6. A kind of separation of powers between state and economy whereby the state sets the rules of the game and the markets defines the players. We need this principle by a few simple and clear rules that must be strictly adhered to. Where there is a functioning market, neither the state may act as a player nor should a business lobby influence the rules.
   
   
7. Pirate goals, i.e. the protection of civil rights in the Internet age, as defined by the "Pirate Parties" regarding the topics civil rights, informational self-determination, transparency, open access, intellectual property and patent law, patents and education - in a sufficiently radical way. Who by incident grew up in a village may still know that there everybody always knew everything about the lives of each other's. Perfect monitoring. All of them were victims and offenders at the same time - and no one happy with it. Only finally "city air made free". Thanks to new monitoring techniques the global village our early visionaries dreamed about, could end up where it started − in total supervision. This must be prevented!
   
   
8. Future oriented - Our conviction is that we are living in times of radical change. This change still hasn't begun. But it inevitable will come, if we like it or not. It is investment where we should spend our money − not consumption. The best investment is education. There is no reason why a banker should have a higher reputation than a teacher. An education start much earlier: before establishing elite universities we should first have elite kindergardens.
   
   
9. Neutrality − Europe should not fight American − or anyone else's - wars at the Hindukush or in Iraq. Neutrality may appear to be an exclusive luxury for some small countries like Switzerland − who are surrounded by − well, more or less − friendly states. If a political unit is big enough however, like a united (cultural) Europe could, neutrality can become an affordable luxury.

Eine radikal Europäische Bewegung

Immanuel Kant

Eine radikale europäische Bewegung? Ja, genau! So etwas, so denken wir, brauchten wir jetzt. Aber warum radikal, warum europäisch? Warum Bewegung? Ok, hier die Antworten − der Reihe nach.

1 Warum radikal?

Wir befinden uns in einer Zeit, die Merkmale einer Zeitenwende trägt. Auf eine Vielzahl neuer und alter Fragen passen die alten Antworten nicht mehr. In der Tagespolitik beobachten wir zunehmend eine Ratlosigkeit, eine Hilflosigkeit. Ganz offensichtlich reichen die alten politischen Konzepte nicht mehr aus. Oder werden sie nur nicht mehr richtig verstanden?

Wenn es aber fundamentale Verschiebungen gibt, hilft es vielleicht, einmal fundamental neu nachzudenken. Wir wollen radikal neue Antworten von wenigen philosophischen Grundüberzeugungen ableiten.

Radikal? Das hatten wir doch schon einmal. Stimmt, hier: radikal. Das müssen wir mithin nicht widerholen. Für die Umsetzung im sogenannten Tagesgeschäft müssen wir uns dafür nicht "Radikalinsiki-Methoden" bedienen. Radikal aber ist dieser Ansatz allemal.

2 Warum Europäisch?

Die Gegenfrage könnte lauten: "Warum nicht gleich global agieren? Die Probleme, denen diese, unsere Welt gegenüber steht sind nur noch global zu lösen."

Das stimmt wohl. Staaten, die nicht gerade das weltpolitische Gewicht von China, Indien oder den USA haben, werden wohl wenig Einfluss haben. Aber zum einen ist die Idee, eine europäische Bewegung ins Leben zu rufen, bereits größenwahnsinnig genug.

Zum anderen gibt es etwas spezifische Europäisches, das wertvoll genug ist, um zum Programm erklärt zu werden: die, auf die Denker der Aufklärung zurückgehenden, Gedanken der bürgerlichen Rechte, Freiheit, Gleichheit und − hmmm − mit der Brüderlichkeit wird es schon schwieriger. Gewaltenteilung und Trennung von Staat und Kirche, Liberalität, Demokratie aber sind Grundwerte europäischen Ursprungs. Sie gilt es, wenigstens in Europa, radikal neu durchdacht, neu anzuwenden.

Damit wir nicht doch noch in selbstverschuldeter Unmündigkeit enden.

Wo soll dieses Europa enden? Am Bosporus, am Ural, oder gar an der Weichsel? Es ist nach den bisher geäußerten Gedanken nur konsequent, Europa als philosophisches Markenzeichen zu sehen. Jeder, der zu den Grundprinzipien steht, darf sich der radikalen europäischen Bewegung anschließen.

Und wer das nicht übers Herz bringt − der bleibt eben draußen.

3 Warum Bewegung?

Die Frage lässt sich aufteilen in

1. Warum eine neue Bewegung?
2. Warum keine Partei?

3.1 Warum eine neue Bewegung?

Weil die aktuell die politische Szene bestimmenden, mehr oder weniger alten, Parteien die Antworten nicht haben.

Gehen wir sie einmal der Reihe nach durch.

Rechte Ultras:

Hier fällt die Abgrenzung am leichtesten. Nationalistische Blut- & Boden Bewegungen sind nicht von gestern, nein, von vor-vor-gestern. Auf so krudem Gedankengut, wie arischer Rasse, auserwähltem Volk oder sonstigen archaischen Volkstümeleien lässt sich keine aufgeklärte Gesellschaft aufbauen. Die Begleiterscheinungen der politischen Umsetzung solchen Gedankenguts haben sich bisher als äußerst hässlich erwiesen. Damit haben wir leider ausreichend Erfahrung.

Damit ist das Fazit klar: Die braune Ursuppe gehört in den Giftschrank.

Linke Ultras:

"Wer in seiner Jugend kein Kommunist war, hat kein Herz. Wer als Erwachsener noch Kommunist ist, hat keinen Verstand." Treffender lässt sich kaum anschaulich machen, dass politische Ansätze, die "gut gemeint" sind, genau das Gegenteil von "gut" bewirken können, wenn sie die Grundregeln des Funktionierens menschlicher Gesellschaften außer Acht lassen.

Mit linken Utopien haben wir ebenfalls ausreichend Erfahrungen, genug jedenfalls, um auch sie in das Museum verfehlter politischer Modelle zu verbannen.

Fazit: Ab ins Museum, damit spätere Generationen noch daraus lernen können!

C-Parteien:

Religion und Politik sollten nach unserer Auffassung strikt getrennt werden. Politik betrifft den öffentlichen Raum: die res publica, Religion muss Privatsache sein.

Damit sind konfessionelle Parteien ein Widerspruch in sich. Sie sind von gestern, in ihrer Wirkung brandgefährlich, mithin nicht wählbar.

Dazu geben sie sich konservativ. Weniger, dass sie versuchten zu bewahren, was schützenswert ist, unsere Lebensgrundlagen etwa, sondern eher versuchen sie überholte gesellschaftliche Vorstellungen (Stichwort "Herdprämie") und überkommende politische Strukturen zu konservieren. Besonders gilt das für die kleinere der beiden Schwestern, die das politische Konzert Deutschlands immer wieder durch ihre Grunztöne aus den Bayerischen Wäldern bereichert.

Fazit: Politik und Religion sind eine explosive Mischung. Finger weg - nicht wählbar.

S-Parteien:

Historisch interessant: Das war auch einmal eine internationale Antwort auf drängende internationale Probleme. Das "rote" oder "linke" Parteienspektrum, das sich sozial bis sozialistisch gibt, baut auf überkommenen gesellschaftlichen Gegensätzen auf, deren Grenzen zu verschwimmen beginnen.

In ihrem dualistischen Weltbild altorientalischer Tradition streiten immerdar zwei fundamentale verfeindetete Mächte, die ohne einander nicht existieren können: die Arbeitnehmer und die Arbeitgeber − das Gute und das Böse eben.

Da die S-Parteien immer auf der Seite des Guten stehen, versuchen sie, einmal an der Macht, das Böse abzuschaffen − und mehr oder weniger konsequent durch den Staat zu ersetzen. Damit machen sie in der Regel alles noch viel schlimmer.

Klar, dass die S-Parteien in ihrem überzogenen Staatsverständnis immer wieder Schwierigkeiten haben, den regelsetzenden Staat und Akteure des Marktes auseinanderzuhalten.

Fazit: Die Welt ist nicht dual. Das S-Modell ist von gestern. Danke Genossen! Und der letzte mache bitte das Licht aus!

Liberale:

Der liberale Gedanke ist eine der wichtigsten und tragfähigsten philosophischen Grundströmungen Europas, eines der wenigen Europäischen Erzeugnisse, auf die wir wahrhaft stolz sein können.

Nur ist leider die Partei, die das liberale Banner in Deutschland noch hoch hält, inzwischen zu einer Karikatur verkommen. Dominiert von ehrgeizigen Karrierepolitikern ohne Inhalt und Bodenhaftung beschäftigen sie sich mit Fragen wie "Mövenpick begünstigen, ja oder nein?"

Die aktuellen politischen Fragen, die einen echten Liberalen umtreiben sollten, gehen derweil an ihnen vorbei. Sonst gäbe es vielleicht heute keine Piratenpartei.

Fazit: völlig abgewirtschaftet, vermutlich nicht mehr zu reparieren, schade eigentlich!

Grüne:

"Vereinszweck ist erfüllt, Verein darf sich auflösen." Könnte man bissig formulieren. Nicht dass die Welt plötzlich nachhaltig arbeitete. Nein, davon sind wir noch sehr weit entfernt. Das geht Vielleicht auch gar nicht ohne ganz radikale Weichenstellungen. "AKW nee!" und Aussteigerhöfe im Wendland: Im Punkt Schutz der Umwelt hatten die Grünen immer die richtigen Absichten, nicht aber die richtigen Antworten.

Heute sind sie im Tagesgeschäft angekommen, weder jung noch hungrig, sondern erkennbar satt und etabliert. Die älteren Parteien haben von dieser Ein-Produkt-Unternehmung die Programmpunkte kopiert und zwanglos in ihre Agenden integriert − schadet ja nix!

Und schließlich die Merkel'sche Energiewende nach der Fukushima-Katastrophe: Ein später Erfolg der Grünen vielleicht.

Fazit: Damit wäre der "Vereinzweck" wohl erfüllt.

Piraten:

Die Piratenpartei ist von allen noch die interessanteste Entwicklung: eine internationale Reaktion auf drängende internationale Probleme.

Die Erfindung, und vor allem die Anwendung, des Buchdrucks haben in der späteren Folge zu tiefgreifenden gesellschaftlichen Verwerfungen geführt. Dieses Zeitenwendepotential hat auch das Internet. Gestartet als freies und völlig unreguliertes Medium hat es das Potential zur Orwell'schen Totalüberwachung des Menschen, wie auch zu seiner Befreiung. Für Beides gibt es Ansätze zu beobachten.

Es ist gut, dass sich die Piraten-Parteien dieses Themas angenommen haben. Es ist sehr verständlich, dass sie renitent zu werden, wenn sie aus dem digitalen Paradies vertrieben werden. Sie legen dankenswerterweise den Finger auf die Wunde.

Nur reicht das aus? Es fällt auf, dass die Piraten auf viele traditionelle politische Fragen noch nach Antworten suchen. Die aus dem Paradies Vertriebenen reiben sich noch die Augen und versuchen, sich in der cruel dirty world zu orientieren. Noch sind sie eine weitere one-product-company ohne feste moralische Basis.

Fazit: Vielleicht hilft es da, einmal radikal neu nachzudenken. Das wollen wir gerne für sie übernehmen.

3.2 Warum keine Partei?

Die etablierte Parteienlandschaft ist − bei allen internationalen Ansätzen − bisher eine rein nationale geblieben. Und Weniges ist so sehr national reglementiert, wie eben die Bildung und Führung politischer Partien. Und die Wahlen, zu denen diese Parteien antreten dürfen, finden ebenfalls nur auf nationaler Ebene statt. Die europäische "Union", dieses seltsame, halbherzig integrierte Gebilde hat eben eine nur sehr indirekte demokratische Legitimation als Basis.

Auf europäischer Ebene können wir also zunächst nur als eine meinungsbildende Bewegung wirken. Wenn wir uns aber wählen lassen wollen müssen wir doch wieder auf das Institut der Partei zurückgreifen − in "altbewährter Weise" durch Gründung vieler kleiner Parteien in vielen kleinen Staaten − bis es einmal ein demokratisch legitimiertes politisches Europa gibt.

4 Die Prinzipien

Schön, dann fehlt eigentlich noch der Inhalt, oder? Aber da verweisen wir zunächst nochmals auf den BLOG Post von vor zwei Jahren unter "Und was ist zu tun?". Viel ist noch nicht dazugekommen − aber das kann ja noch werden.

IAM, a purely organizational task

Identity- & Access Management (IAM) quite often is regarded as just another part of information security management (ISM).

Information Security management in turn often suffers from its not totally positive reputation. Well, everybody agrees that some level of Information Security seems to be necessary after all. But on the other hand we have to carry the heavy burden of high cost and key person effort. Most often no one in the corporation is able to prove with reasonable certainty to what degree it contributes to the corporate success. On the other hand everyone can feel in his daily life that strict security measures slow down the affected activities and introduce inconveniences. Moreover vendors in the Information security arena tend to sell their products via the fear factor – putting unsavoury pressure on the top management.

Oh my god, not a very pleasant situation – for IAM as well.

But wait a minute, there is a solution – no, even two of them.

First of all there is a way to tie Information security measures to the corporate success – if done right on top of a delivering OpsRisk (see my previous post: http://horst-walther.blogspot.com/2010/07/no-risk-no-business.html).

Second, who said IAM is integral part of ISM? Well, IT needs to implement IAM controls in order to maintain a certain security level. There is some operational pressure to be felt in the IT being the last element of the chain. “Ok, if you need it fix it. Don’t bother us with such trivial down to earth tasks. We have to keep the business running after all!” might be a typical response from the other department. So again the big finger points at the poor IT people. They are in charge now; they have to carry the burden. And quite often they fail.

But why not IT?

IT people most often are technical people. When they think of IAM they think of implementing an IAM system. And more often than not IAM projects start exactly that way – looking for a system to solve the problem. And now the trouble starts. Having a closer look to the distribution of the efforts we can easily recognise, that the major part is sunk in processes, roles & rules, policies and responsibilities – pure organisational stuff.

But who is mandated to (re-) organize to corporation? Most often IT is not in charge to tailor and optimize business processes, define roles of process actors and issue business policies. If so, who then is?

For me it was fun to ask this question again and again to different companies. Quite rarely I received a convincing answer.

1. IT as pointed out most often is not mandated for corporate change.


2. ISM has quite a narrow focus on Information Security. Well, it’s their job. But they will not be of much help to unleash IAMs true power as an enabler for business automation.


3. HR could be regarded as the natural host for identities and their attributes. But HR people quite often don’t share this view. To make things worse they typically are not know for true real time behaviour but rather think in payment cycles.


4. The business departments on the other hand tend to have a narrow focus on their LOB and the operational business. They don’t feel in charge for conceptual cross corporate activities.


5. We found a better fit when it was assigned to the COO, Corporate governance, the corporate change function or similar high level cross company functions.

IT – unless mandated otherwise - you better focus solely on the implementation. Keep your fingers off the corporate change.

But in the majority of the corporations for some high level corporate functions there is still some homework to be done. May be they end up with a new function.

No risk no business

Just recently the Gartner group reported shrinking IT security budgets – by 3 – 6%. Only identity Management makes an exception. Identity Management – or, let’s be a bit more specific: Identity- & Access Management (IAM) - part of IT security? Hmmm …

Maybe the IT security budgets ware already inflated? Gartner further writes that on the other hand the related threats to IT security have increased. But allow rising threats for a satisfactory justification already? Well, not really.

No risk no fun we once tended to respond to our parents when they were hinting us at the dangers of life. No risk no business we could translate this term into the economical space. It’s true, that we can only have total online security if we cut all lines to the cruel outside world. And if we follow the advice of the IT security professionals in our own companies we could as well shut down our business.

But is there a right measure? There must be an adequate response to IT security threats, right? But how to find it?

Well the answer is simple. But it is not as easy to follow the advice: IT security measures can only be argued to be adequate if they are defined and implemented on top of a functioning operational risk management (OpsRisk).

This is not an easy task. That’s what we can conclude from observations in market sectors where (some kind of) risk management is mandatory, e.g. banking or the insurance sector. Let’s take the compelling suggestions from the Basel II accord to introduce a sound management for credit risks, market risks and – well, if there is still time and capacity – for the 3^rd pillar: OpsRisk. Or the insurance sector: risk management is the very heart of the insurance business. This is true for the probability of damages (=risk) to the insured objects like cars, houses or living human bodies. But when it comes to OpsRisk most of them find themselves barely covered.

Why?

1. At first risks are tied to a stochastic view of the world – rather uncommon for most of us – even the few mathematicians among us.


2. Second operational risk, as implied by its very name, refers to all operations which are performed in our day-to-day business – I dare to say often unconsciously. And those are quite a lot.


3. Third OpsRisk is a very basic discipline at the very basis of the corporate pyramid. It is hard work, touches a running business (which you should never touch) and doesn’t deliver quick wins.

But once we have established an OpsRisk Management function and made it running and – finally - delivering. When we have established a database covering all classes of damages that looks sufficiently long back to the past. When we have customized our risk model that hopefully goes beyond the common VaR approach and covers the “fat tail” of rare but high damages as well. And when business even understands the signals emitted those esoteric risk people. Well, then finally we have a valid basis to justify risk mitigation – and IT Security measures are just a part of it.

Are IAM investments then covered by this justification as well? Good question. But this post is already too long. So you better stay tuned and look for my next post.

It is different

I have been to several countries as travelling and exploring new countries, their nature and their people always was a kind of temptation and challenge for me.

Of course I tried to prepare myself as carefully as possible. I read through the available literature, interviewed people who have been there already or citizens of those countries who for any reason happened to visit my home town and so on.
So I felt quite well prepared when I started my trips. But when I came there my impression was different from what I expected to experience.

Why did this happen? And why did it happen again and again?

I think this difference is caused by our way of perceiving the world. We focus on contrast, on difference. We don’t pay much attention to the obvious commonalities. Instead all reports on foreign, “strange” countries focused on the exceptional, the sensational but quite rarely on the day-by-day life of the common people, on the little things.

I therefore quite often found myself being surprised of the quite normal bourgeois or middle class life going on where I was prepared to find extremes only.
So I learned, that in order to understand a country you have to go there and watch it from inside.

Regardless of all preparation efforts – it will look different.

radikal

Die „Politik“ hat versagt – mal wieder. Das ist – rückblickend betrachtet – schon häufiger passiert; nach Kriegen etwa (besonders verlorenen) und in Krisen.
Die „Politik“, was ist das eigentlich? Warum ist „die“ denn eigentlich so schlecht, wo wir doch gut sind? Die Politik, das ist die Summe der Überzeugungen, Äußerungen und Taten unserer Politiker. Und die haben wir selber bestimmt. Also haben wir alle, als Kollektiv, versagt ja?
Jetzt kommen gleich die wohlfeilen Einwände …

• Was sollen wir denn tun?


• Wir haben doch „eigentlich“ keine Wahl bei den Wahlen.


• Ob schwarz, grün, gelb, rot oder gar dunkelrot – in allen Parteien steigt doch immer der gleiche Menschentypus auf.

Die Liste ließe sich beliebig verlängern. Alle diese Einwände sollen entschuldigen, was unentschuldbar ist: unseren Fatalismus.
Immerhin, dass wir versagt haben ist wohl nicht mehr zu bestreiten. Wohin wir die „Schuld“ auch schieben möchten, es gibt hinreichend Indizien, um den Versagensfall ausrufen zu können.

• Erst strauchelten die (meisten) Banken, weil sie Geschäfte betrieben, die sie in ihrer vollen Wirkung nicht verstanden – oder nicht begreifen wollten. Und (fast) alle haben dazu beifällig genickt – bis es zu spät war.


• Bis auf ein paar (bereits gebrandmarkte) Außenseiter hat auch keiner aus der Kaste der Wirtschaftswissenschaftler den heraufziehenden Sturm gesehen – bis wir alle mitten drin waren.


• Jetzt gehen einzelne Länder in die Knie. Nicht weil die bösen Märkte gegen sie spekulieren – die decken die Schwächen nur gnadenlos auf. Nein, weil unsere, ach so seriösen, Staatslenker nach dem Motte „nach mir die Sintflut“ besinnungslos Schulden auf Kosten kommender Generationen gemacht haben.


• Und natürlich ist unter den jetzigen Bedingungen die so schöne Euro-Währungsunion nicht mehr zu retten. Es wird zwar niemand hergehen und sie beenden wollen. Nein, es wird überhaupt niemand etwas tun. Alle werden hoffen, dieses Gewitter zöge vorbei. Es wird aber stationär bleiben. Offen ist nur, ob die Eurozone mit einem großen Knall in tausend Stücke zerbirst. Oder ob nicht – wenn es schon fast zu spät ist – einzelne Staaten, vermutlich aus den Reihen der Nettozahler, schnell die Notbremse ziehen und aussteigen werden. Dann müssen sich ganz schnell auch die übrigen schlamperten Staats- und Wirtschaftsgebilde ihre alten Weichwährungen wieder zurück holen. Alles wäre wie früher, nur mit tiefen Narben. Und keiner hat etwas daraus gelernt.

Schöne Szenarien, nicht wahr?
Es sind offenbar nicht hektische Reparaturmaßnahmen, die wir jetzt benötigen. Wir brauchen neue Grundlagen: ein Fundament aus wenigen und radikal einfachen, dafür aber uneingeschränkt gültigen Regeln, an die wir uns alle halten müssen.

Wer soll das denn tun?
Nun, diese Frage ist einfach zu beantworten: wir alle. „Alle Macht geht vom Volke aus“ steht so schon in unserem Grundgesetz, dem besten, das wir je hatten. Klar, müssen wir uns organisieren, um unseren gemeinsamen Willen heraus zu bilden, zu zeigen und um wahrgenommen zu werden. Dafür gibt es Parteien. Per se auch nicht die schlechteste Idee. Aber danach wird es interessant: Die gedankliche Grundausstattung muss eine radikal andere sein, als bei unseren heutigen Parteien.
Radikal? Nein, wir wollen keine Radikalinskis auf die Straßen schicken, die Fahnen verbrennen, hasserfüllte Parolen brüllen, Barrikaden bauen und sich mit anderen Polit-Straßengangs Straßenschlachten liefern.
Es geht um die Radikalität des Denkens, gedanklich wieder zurück zur Wurzel (Radix) gehen und einige wesentliche Komplexe unseres gesellschaftlichen Lebens noch einmal neu durchdenken – ein re-boot also. Das wäre schon radikal genug.
Eins jedenfalls ist klar, es gibt Niemanden sonst, der das tun kann, außer uns allen. Die Bewegung muss von der Basis kommen.

Und was ist zu tun?
Es muss einiges radikal anders werden. Klar doch, aber was? Und wie? Etwa so:

1. Ein radikal Europäischer Ansatz, weil Deutschland, dieser Zwergstaat am Rande des Universums, nicht allein eine heile Welt für sich bauen kann. Die Einigung Europas ist eine der besten Ideen, die dieser blutgetränkte Kontinent je hervorgebracht hatte. Nur leider haben wir bei der Umsetzung „das Pferd vom Schwanz aufgezäumt“. Erst muss die Verfassung kommen, dann die Entscheidungsorgane und dann die Entscheidungen. Schluss mit dem absurden Versuch, im vielstimmigen Chor aus Polit-Egomanen und Nationalprofil-Neurotikern in einer Vielzahl von Detailfragen Einstimmigkeit erzielen zu wollen.


2. Ein radikaler Säkularismus der jegliche Religion und andere, Absolutheit beanspruchende, Irrationalismen in den Privatbereich zurück drängt und jegliches Ausbrechen in den öffentlichen Raum verhindert. Religionen mögen für das persönliche Seelenheil ja nützlich sein. Im Privatbereich sollten wir ihnen ein geschütztes Refugium zuweisen. Wenn wir unsere Geschichte aber nicht wieder mit unserem Blute schreiben wollen, müssen wir sehr genau darauf achten, dass sie ihre Reservate nicht verlassen können.


3. Eine radikale Nachhaltigkeit in allen Lebensbereichen: In den Finanzen, damit wir unseren Kindern nicht unerträgliche Schuldenberge hinterlassen, in der Umwelt, damit die Nachwelt noch eine lebenswerte und intakte Lebensumwelt vorfindet, in der Wirtschaft, damit wir weder Müll anhäufen und noch mehr Ressourcen verbrauchen, als wieder nachwachsen.


4. Ein radikal einfaches Steuersystem, eine flat tax von, sagen wir mal, 25% ohne viele Zusatzregelungen und Ausnahmen. Steuererklärungen müssen wieder ohne Steuerberater möglich werden – von mir aus auch auf einem Bierdeckel.


5. Das Ende des Berufsbildes „Politiker“: Wir, die wir unsere Meinung gebildet haben und verwirklichen wollen, wollen nicht von Karrierepolitikern unterwandert werden, die Ihre Meinung aus Umfragewerten synthetisieren. Mit „Führern“, die von ihrer Mission besessen sind, haben wir auch keine guten Erfahrungen gemacht. Wir sollten mehr Energie auf ein gutes politisches System verwenden - „A system made by geniuses to be run by idiots“ – und sollten weniger auf unsere selbst gewählten Vertreter vertrauen.


6. Eine Art Gewaltentrennung zwischen Staat und Wirtschaft, indem der Staat die Spielregeln festlegt und Wirtschaft die Spieler stellt und spielt. Dabei brauchen wir wenige, einfache und klare Regelungen, die dafür aber auch strikt eingehalten werden müssen. Keinesfalls darf der Staat als Spieler auftreten oder die Wirtschaftslobby die Regeln beeinflussen.


7. Piratenziele, also die Wahrung der Bürgerrechte auch im Internetzeitalter, wie sie von der „Piratenpartei“ - hinreichend radikal - zu den Punkten Bürgerrechte, Informationelle Selbstbestimmung, Transparenz, Open Access, Urheberrecht, Patentrecht und Bildung formuliert worden sind. Wer noch auf einem Dorf aufgewachsen ist, weiß, dass dort jeder Alles über das Leben der Anderen weiß. Eine perfekte Überwachung. Alle sind Opfer und Täter zugleich – und keiner glücklich dabei. Erst Stadtluft machte frei. Dank neuer Überwachungstechniken könnte unser von frühen Visionären erträumtes global village wieder genau dort enden. – Das gilt es zu verhindern!

Übrigens, was ich hier mache, nämlich auf Deutsch zu schreiben, ist natürlich ganz großer Mist. Denn genau das werden wir uns nicht mehr erlauben können. Global kann es für die nächsten 30 Jahre – bis wir alle Mandarin sprechen – nur eine sinnvolle Sprachwahl geben: Englisch.
Und da die skurrilen Insulaner, die uns da ihre Sprache leihen, ohnehin bei all dem hier geforderten nicht mitmachen werden, wird auch Niemand seinen einseitigen Vorteil aus dieser Sprachstandardisierung ziehen. Ganz im Gegenteil diese kühle, nüchterne common language, derer wir uns dann alle bedienen müssen wird mit der reichen gewachsenen Sprache der Muttersprachler nicht mehr viel gemein haben – gewissermaßen ein inverser Sprachimperialismus.
So Leute, jetzt müssen wir nur noch ganz einfach und ganz schnell ganz Viele werden, die dieser Meinung sind. Dann können wir an den Stellschrauben der Politik ein wenig nachjustieren.
Ganz schön radikal, was?

Erfolgreicher 1. Mittelstandsdialog Informationssicherheit

In der Zeit vom 5. bis zum 7. Mai wurde in München im Rahmen der European Identity Conference 2010 der 1. Mittelstandsdialog Informationssicherheit abgehalten. Fachliche Leitung und Moderation lagen bei Herrn Dr. Horst Walther, Senior Analyst, Kuppinger Cole und Leiter des NIFIS Arbeitskreises „Identity Management“.

Das neue mittelstandsgerechte Konzept „preisgünstiger, praktischer und auf Deutsch“ hat sich als erfolgreich erweisen und eine kleine aber sehr engagierte Gruppe angesprochen.

Der überwiegende Teil der Beiträge wurde von Anwendern für Anwender vorgetragen. Darunter waren Stadtwerke München, P3 Ingenieurgesellschaft, Berliner Stadtreinigung, AMAG Austria Metall AG, Kassenärztliche Vereinigung Bayerns, Henkel AG & Co. KGaA und SAP Deutschland.

Inhaltlich befassten sich die Beiträge mit Themen rund um IAM (Identity- & Access Managment), GRC (Governance, Risk & Compliance), DLP (Data Leak Prevention) und Cloud Computing.

Viel Beachtung fanden auch der Vortrag „Identity Management und das Gesetz - Entscheidungshilfen im Spannungsfeld von Datenschutz und Compliance-Anforderungen“ von dem Rechtsanwalt und NIFIS-Mitglied Dr. Michael Karger und die anschließende Forumsdiskussion.

Eingebunden war das Mittelstandsprogramm in die teils visionären key note Veranstaltungen der international ausgerichteten EIC2010.

Nach diesem gelungenen Auftakt soll die Veranstaltung im kommenden Jahr nach dem gleichen Konzept mit aktuellen Themen und einer verbesserten Sichtbarkeit weiter geführt werden.