Technology and Progress
First and foremost, the Federal Republic of Germany has gradually and institutionally abandoned the principle of technology neutrality due to its citizens' growing irrational fear of climate change, environmental pollution and a growing world population. For large parts of the population in Germany, one can now rightly state that a latent technology skepticism has established itself in it - in my opinion, significant, politically active parts of the bourgeoisie are even openly hostile to technology and progress. A technologically and thematically biased research and investment funding also flanks this change in mentality in Germany and thus not only contradicts the state's principle of technology neutrality, it also promotes an educational effect on the population, the politically subjective desired and undesirable from the variety of objective facts separates and narrows the horizon of public debates permanently to certain scholarly opinions. This has a deep impact on the population, influences school teaching, teaching and research at universities, news reporting and, ultimately, the formation of political will in the parties.
The principle of technology neutrality is an important prerequisite for solving the above-mentioned problems such as climate change, environmental pollution and the potentially negative effects of a growing world population on our planet. Only fair and open competition for the best ideas as well as a technology, start-up, entrepreneur and science-friendly infrastructure can guarantee that a prosperously growing world population can continue to hope for individual freedom, material prosperity and a healthy and life-friendly, diverse living space in the future. Anyone who believes that a return of whatever kind to whatever traditional methods of agriculture, production or way of life or that one-sided, politically undesirable technologies discriminatory research and investment funding would save our planet, contradicts all historical experience and also has one wrong idea of the environmental conditions of the past. Instead, in history it has always been the technology-friendly and open approach as well as the optimistic view of the perfection of human society and its fundamental problem-solving capacities through technological and social progress that has ensured an average increase in prosperity and better, more environmentally friendly livelihoods for a steadily growing population, while every backward-looking, pessimistic and authoritarian state doctrine, distrustful of the free will of the individual or of technological change, made the reality of human life poorer and destroyed its livelihood and environment. I therefore call for the courage of the people for a great and new confession of freedom.
Today the Greens and Social Democrats are even calling for massive encroachments on fundamental rights, ostensibly in order to master climate change. The experience that the citizens of the Federal Republic of Germany tolerated a surprising number of restrictive measures and a policy based on emergency ordinances for a limited time during the pandemic has evidently aroused covetousness among some party officials. Comparable political instruments, which are actually only acceptable in an acute exceptional situation and for a limited period of time, should from now on also be applied to preferred, long-term policy areas of the Greens and those that ingratiate themselves with the emerging Greens, namely preferably climate Transport and more generally on environmental protection. These politicians are calling for this with the main argument, which has meanwhile largely been accepted as given in the public debate, that climate change and environmental protection are acute social emergencies comparable to the pandemic, which require immediate, radical action, including a policy of comprehensive restrictions on fundamental rights, and none at all To tolerate delay. Otherwise all people's livelihoods would have been destroyed in ten years at the latest. In my opinion, the fact that this thesis is hardly scientifically tenable or at least urgently needs to be questioned is hardly considered courageously. It already seems to me that, especially for people who earn their daily bread in the academic or political business, it is already associated with social condemnation if it is dared to ask the heralds of a truth that is perceived as incontrovertible judge. There is much to suggest that it is technological progress and the freedom to innovate of people that hold the key to solving our problems and not restricting their way of life. And there is much to suggest that we have more time for it than just ten years.
Property and Market Economy
As discussed above, I consider the free competition of ideas and technologies to be essential in order to solve mankind's problems at any time. That is why I defend the historical experience that the free, open and social market economy lays the foundation for this. And a free, open and social market economy includes respect for individual ownership of goods, companies and ideas as well as aligning all political measures with the principles of a fair and performance-oriented society. The parties put up for discussion here are increasingly impatient with this fundamental insight that private property and individual performance are among the cornerstones of an enlightened and livable society. From the ranks of the Greens and the Social Democrats, influential voices are growing louder who shoot far beyond the subject of social insurance, general prohibitions of discrimination and equal opportunities and, with their demands for expropriations, nationalization and unconditional basic income, obviously want to bring about a complete restructuring of society. I do not share this dogmatics, which is deeply rooted in socialism, but rather reject it for reasons of reason.
The Modern Monetary Theory, to which numerous famous representatives from Silicon Valley are now attached, promises a basic income for everyone financed by permanent new borrowing of the state in a beautiful new money cycle with negative interest for all eternity. This idea is becoming more and more entangled in the German political landscape, as it is too seductive. Proponents of this theory take the basically hedonistic argument that the required basic income emancipates people from the burden of unsatisfactory work and thus releases a hidden creativity among people. It is certainly a positive and optimistic view of the world, without a doubt. But I also consider it naive because it tries to override basic principles through scarce resources and is therefore doomed to failure. In addition, it contradicts the previously described findings about scarcity, which are produced elsewhere, however, from the same source by environmentalists and climate apologists.
Courage, Self-Confidence and Hope
These are only two important reasons why I left the parties presented here (first the Greens and then the SPD) and why I will no longer vote for them in the foreseeable future. Because I perceive in them a fundamental reactionary and authoritarian mentality change that has a long-term effect and does not reflect any short-term fluctuations in mood. In future essays I will go into more detail on individual aspects of the topics that have so far only been addressed in a more striking manner and explain in more detail my personal political views that have matured in me since I left the SPD. From this point I would at least like to encourage everyone to start tackling the questions that the future faces us with more self-confidence in their own reason and their own abilities, with confidence and imagination, without being discouraged by a disempowering piety in government subjugate, which the rulers only use as an excuse to seduce the enlightened, free and responsible citizen into permanent dependence and moral and material guilt. Instead, we should all once again opt for individual freedom, so that we can accept and master the challenges that the future will bring with it as responsible citizens.
