Opinions on a federalised Europe

I always wonder why there is no actual “freedom for the individual” party on the European scene. And I’m not talking of any extremes – just a right wing economical party, leaning on libertarian, that allows the individual to live his/her life according to their own devices. A party that doesn’t care what your religion is, what color you are, where you were born, how tall or heterosexual you are or what religion you have. A party that advocates freedom to pursue life as you see fit. That treasures initiative and entrepreneurship. One that does not seek to raise taxes but to find means and methods to allow private citizens and entities to invest in what constitutes infrastructure and development, but not because someone decides to, but because it is useful for the community. A party that advertises universal health-care. One should not have in this day and age to worry about healthcare. Equally important there should be universal access to education. And rule of law, advocating upmost and foremost that one’s liberty ends when it becomes a problem for another.

There should be rules. Of course there should. But not rules that seem to benefit some and not everybody. I find it stupid that a higher wage should bring with it a higher income tax. What if we stopped taxing incomes and reverted to taxing transactions. And maybe a discouraging tax on environment damaging industries. For crying out people, this is the XXI-st century not the 1800’s. We have technology for basically anything today. The only thing stopping us from actually doing anything about it, is ourselves. We are the only ones to blame. Just read an interesting piece yesterday about solar panel roads – that’s a brilliant idea. Like most regenerating energy sources I might add, but we managed to make them unpopular on a large scale by shifting costs to the average consumer and thusly killing it before it started.

We should pay taxes for police and armed forces, for safety agencies and generally for things that would improve our life. I’d pay 10% of my income for research. Why can’t we devise a system where we choose where the taxes levied on us go – sure, devise an algorithm that allows for balancing out options, but do it with incentives – learn a lesson from online based multiplayer games that offer gamers options – it’s the users choice of balance between cost & advantage that defines the system. If I’m going to contribute to a pension scheme, then it should benefit me directly – I pay when I want, and I pay for me. And I get back what I invested in my pension – The state should only intervene where there are circumstances that prevented me from contributing outside of my will.

Should we punish those that step outside of the lines? Sure we need to, but only if by doing so they are making it a problem for the rest of us. Alternative lifestyles should concern only the invidual. Of course this applies under a set of moral rules. But those moral rules should stem from our collective understanding of life. I’m not advocating renouncing tradition and history, I’m advocating moving forward. Over the course of man kinds history there have been plenty of examples where religion made good, and an equal if not grander set of examples where religion did us wrong. And might it be noted I am not talking of any religion in particular, and I am not talking of faith. Faith is also something that should belong to the individual, it should not be a consumer item and thusly it should not be marketed.

We are as a species quite proficient in picking out elements of history that we like, and ignoring others. It’s in our nature to resist change, to ignore things that bother us and acknowledge only those things that seem to best fit our ideas and frame of thought. It’s valid in any of our endeavors and I see it way to often around me not to acknowledge that this is a fact. The worst part about it is that we don’t stop there, but expect others to fall within our understanding of life, and thusly depicting everything they do with utmost possible grim.

In this respect boundaries today should no longer be about imaginary lines drawn on a map but by understanding that the way we choose to live our lives should not impose on the way others choose to live their lives. We have real problems around us.

I used to watch Star Trek. To a young kid barely out of a repressive regime that allowed only 2 hours of TV per day access to the fantasy universe of Star Trek was of unimaginable consequences. One thing that I got stuck with after all this years, besides a never ending passion for the Sci Fi, is the belief that what we should all collectively move towards, as a species and as a global community, is the social system imagined within Star Trek. Some would call it an utopia, but the mere idea of abolishing monetary gain over progress of society seems a worthy thing to consider. [just as a note I do know that in said imaginary universe forms of exchange existed but their purpose was different than today’s money].

And I have led you through all of this because it leads me to my point.

Change happens if we change. All matters of solid, growing over time, change occurs when society as a whole, as a sum of individuals, changes. And for that to happen we each have to change. We are at the point where a sufficient number of citizens believe in a certain path for the future. Many paths for many groups of citizens. But expecting the rest of society to just fall within our understanding of life is just as frail and unworthy as the rest of society expecting us to fall within their collective understanding of life. This point is valid for all groups. Therefore expecting a certain type of candidate to pop up on an election, a candidate that encompasses what we believe in, and that we could call perfectly votable is wrong.

That candidate will appear when a sufficient mass of voters would have appeared to demand his or her existence. Candidates appear when the people call for them to appear. And this is not a straightforward type of thing. It is much more subtle. But subtle as it is, it is nevertheless clear that for now the candidate I am expecting, and I know for sure I am not the only one, cannot appear.

Therefore we have to argue for change. We have to take our beliefs and through our actions convince others – through actions and not propaganda, through education and not conflict.

So even though that candidate has not yet appeared and we might not feel enticed enough to go vote, we nevertheless need to go vote – not voting is in more ways than one allowing practices and actions we deem unworthy to continue. Change happens over time – even longer when we need to deal with very large groups of individuals that have for the better part of their life been under the influence of other beliefs. Seeing is believing. Through rightful action, over and over again, change can be introduced.

Vote and keep working. Change will inevitably arrive.

Author :


Leave a Reply