Archive of news and discussions

2020-08-29: Trump
Introduction: We know him. The way he speaks and acts should be reason enough to question why a single human being should politically have such enormous power. With our modern communication means, this is simply no longer needed. Every citizen shall have equal political regulation power - a pure direct democracy shall be established. Educated grown-up human beings do not need a leader or guru to follow. The elected state officials must be pure executives of the collectively agreed rules. They must 100% comply to those and the 3 laws and ideals; there is no such thing as immunity.

Questions and answers:

Q: But not all grown-ups in all countries are (well) educated. What about these?

Our answers/comments: Unfortunately, this is true. A community or geographic region where some 20 or so percent of all grown-ups are not educated according to the Stable State's standards (btw: reading and writing is a requirement but not sufficient) cannot properly function according to the Stable State rules. Education, practical competences and justified self-confidence are a must for citizens as we require them.

Q: Are you sure that all single details of decrees and regulations must be voted on by all?

Our answers/comments: Yes, if all people are impacted. There can be industry- or science-specific topics, e.g. in medicine, construction, transportation, ... where it is foreseen that the decisions are made by the community of the certified professionals. Note by ALL professionals democratically, not by some committee. Again, the modern communication means are such that it is NOT necessary to 'elect' or 'nominate' a small number of people. It is exactly this process of delegation of power and control that introduces security leaks and corruption into any system.

Q: But companies are more successful when a boss organises all, is responsible and the employees obey - why should this be different for a state/community?

Our answers/comments: Because you can choose to be employee of a company and 'quit the game'. But not with the state or community which by definition is a monopolistic organisation governing monopolistic processes and, hence, must be under the control of all. The laws and rules are the "boss" and the state representatives are the employees. Companies can work in whatever mode they want - provided their services/products comply to the promises. And among companies there is competition, this is also not true for the state. A state's objectives are not to be innovative, successful, ... but simply to assure, not the least by applying the armed forces monopoly-- that the ideals of truth, respect and peace shall be maximised for all in its confines.

2020-03-15: Corona Virus Pandemic
Introduction: By end of 2019, in Wuhan/China, a new type of Corona virus COVID19 appeared. It is contagious and about 10x more letal than the seasonal flu. What makes it quite dangerous are the facts that in many cases, mainly to healthy people, the infection does not make severe symptoms, that it survives for days on surfaces and that the incubation time is a long 14 days on average. So it may disseminate "unvercover". Elderly people, maybe with already ongoing other infections, are the most vulnerable. The virus infects the lungs and ultimately leads to respiratory failure. By begin-to-mid March 2020, it has reached many parts of Asia, Europe, the US, South America, etc. and is classified as pandemic by the UN. Many countries take severe measures to delay and decrease the infections wave, namely restrict travelling, closing schools, closing non-basic-supply stores, etc. The economic negative impacts are promised to be (partially) covered by the states.

Questions and answers:

Q: Is the state allowed to take and enforce measures?

Our answers/comments: Yes, not only is it allowed to but it MUST do so in time according to scientific advise i.e. the medical scientific advisory board. In general, the stable state is science-based whereever possible. There is no sense, in turning a rational science-based decision by a democratic (or autocratic, bureaucratic, ...) overruling.

Q: How can the negative economic impacts be mitigated?

Our answers/comments: The stable state's income is stable (sic!) because it is based on property and not turnover nor income. Therefore, financial support can be provided. On one hand, for persons the basic income is payed in the normal mode for the ones "laid off" by the measures. On the other hand, for corporations, applications for loans or subventions can be made to cover the fixed costs incurring while income drops. The latter, the stable state also foresees in normal times. The decision on those applications is democratic (!) and it is in the hands of all citizens to support rightful applications.

2020-01-06: Strikes in France
Introduction: Because of announced changes regarding superannuation many people in France, especially the train/SCNF employees, went on strike. The public life was largely impacted.

Question: Is there a right to go on strike?

Our answers/comments:

(A) You can only go on strike if you work under a valid work contract. So, this question must be answered in the context of work contracts and collective labour agreements. If your employer violates the work contract, e.g. does not pay you as agreed, you have the right to go on strike. This is not considered a breech of the contract. If an employer changes contracts under collective labour agreements only for 1 or few employees to get better conditions in a "salami" tactics way, then all employees under the collective labour agreement have the right to go on strike.

(B) However, in all other situations than (A), a strike is not allowed.

(C) In the mentioned case in France one root problem is that the president as executive power can change rules. We repeat that in the StableState, the executives are PURE executives and have no power for "amendments" or any even minor rules or parameter change or introduction. It is always the people that change the rules - not even elected representatives. The concept of a parliament or senate does not exist in the StableState. All citizens together define and change the rules with a democratic majority (cf. P percentage of citizens changing a rule).

(D) The second problem is that he has only announced the change. So, there is no right to strike. What the employee organisations, unions, could and should do is announce the non-agreement. If the employer still only offers these conditions by a certain date and terminates the old work contracts then the employees have the right to collectively not accept them. By the date they are hence no longer obligated to work and can kind-of go "on strike".

2019-11-23: Preparation of Federal Council elections in Switzerland (german: Bundesratswahlen)[edit | edit source]
Introduction: There are 7 Federal Councils in Switzerland. Together they form the highest executive body. One of them is elected President of the Federation for 1 year, but this title has purely representative character and does not imply more decisive power. Currently, the question of the representation of the Green party with 1 Federal Council is discussed with verve. The Green party has recently doubled its representatives and ends at 13% of the Federal Assembly. Normally, each party gets represented in the Federal Council to this proportion. But the Federal Assembly that holds these votes does not have any obligation to do so. Then, the candidate of the Green party is Regula Rytz from Berne, a canton that already has a Federal Council, Simonetta Sommaruga. Normally, each region should be represented in the Federal Canton and no canton have more than 1 member.

Observation: Now, a turmoil about Regula Rytz candidature is going on. Is it too early? The wrong person?

Our comments: In our eyes, the turmoil is an unnecessary and contraproductive waste of energy. First, we observe an unholy intertwining of the legislative and executive powers. In the StableState, the executives are PURE executives and have no power for "amendments" or any even minor rules or parameter change or introduction. But apart from this, we would recommend to remedy the turmoils with a clear rule to assure regional representation and a voting system that assures the political "parties'" representation. Although, the StableState does not officially know about parties. For Switzerland (higher order community) each of 7 regions (lower order communities) would have exactly 1 representative in the Federal Council. And the candidates and voting body would be exactly all current executives of the lower order communities according to State constitution. The key of this ruleset is, that every candidate must provide an ordered list of replacing candidates (= the "political friends") preferably 1 from each region. And if elected but the region is not fitting, then the replacing candidate from the correct region is elected.

BTW: the 7 regions should be


 * GR, TI, VS - Südschweiz - 826'436 inhabitants
 * AI, AR, GL, SG, SH, TG - Ostschweiz - 895'239 inhabitants
 * BL, BS, JU, NE, SO - Nordwestschweiz - 950'462 inhabitants
 * GE, VD - Les Welsches - 1'134'351 inhabitants
 * BE, FR - Die Zweisprachigen / les bilingues - 1'237'836 inhabitants
 * AG, LU, NW, OW, SZ, UR, ZG - Innerschweiz - 1'324'805 inhabitants
 * 1) ZH - Zürich - 1'332'727

2019-10-19: Parlament elections in Switzerland (german: National- und Ständeratswahlen)
We observe a mass of candidates with ads in all media and along the streets. The StableState does NOT believe in the necessity and utility of this. Instead, we promote the direct democracy for every rules and parameters decisions. No need to elect so-called representatives. The representative idea stems from times where transportation and communication was not as developed as today.

2019-02-23: Discussions on the EU-Switzerland institutional framework agreement
In agile democracy, there is basically no need for and therefore no treaties with other states in this respect. Such "treaties" pose the basic problem of enforceability or jurisdiction in the event that one of the countries fails to comply with the agreements. It would require a common jurisdiction and also a security organisation (police, possibly even military) agreed somehow between the countries if such treaties are really to function. But this is not possible according to agile democracy. Conclusion: You don't have to discuss it. Why contracts are not needed? You can look at what contracts with other states or alliances of states are about: demarcation, customs duties, movement of persons, education, research, military alliances if necessary, police cooperation, "clearing up" "old debts" if necessary (recuperation payments, ...). All important things. But agile democracy provides for pre-defined, non-negotiable and thus stable rules for all these questions. Demarcation: The rules of State constitution#SC.03 Define the confines apply. Customs duties: There are none. But democratically decided price war distance limits apply, which ignore national borders, i.e. if e.g. a price war distance limit of 50 km is fixed for bakery products, then bakery products at a place of our state, which lies close to the border, e.g. 5 km, can still be competed with cheaper bakery products by foreign bakery product providers, which are closer than 45 km. As soon as the distance exceeds 50km, however, the supplier must offer more expensive, whether he is at home or abroad. I.e. he must convince with the quality. The rules of State constitution#SC.05 Free trade apply. Passenger traffic: There are no restrictions. But the rules of State constitution#SC.06 Free persons travelling apply, which prevent unlimited numbers of inactive persons from staying with us in the medium or long term (no reason important: cannot find a job, cannot, does not want to, ...). Education/research: No restrictions apply, but the trainee/researcher must comply with the rules on the movement of persons and education/research (Culture sports science). Military alliances: none are possible. If we wish to form a military alliance with another state, then a state merger can or must take place in accordance with the democratic rules in a state constitution.

Why are these treaties not needed (Part 2)? In agile democracy there are no secret treaties; there are also no persons who could obtain the special competence to conduct negotiations. No one, not even the president or "minister", is authorized to do so. Exceptions only apply in times of war. An agile democracy in peacetime is absolutely neutral and treats every foreign state equally. We are convinced that this is central to peacekeeping. However: Due to the natural conditions and the rules for free trade with price war rays, which can extend into neighbouring states, neighbouring or geographically close foreign states are somewhat preferred.

Is there a difference between "contracts", "agreements", "treaties" or "alliances"? No.

Which treaties are allowed with other states? Only those concerning the permitted use of our state's territory by airplanes, ships, tunnels, ... or for transit traffic purposes, which are not considered as entry into our state ("overflight", ship passage, car/railway passage, and analogous uses). The regulations of the State Constitution, Section SC 03 (State constitution#SC.03 Define the confines) apply.

Deutsche Version:

Diskussionen zum institutionellen Rahmenabkommen EU-Schweiz: In der agilen Demokratie gilt, dass es grundsätzlich keine diesbezüglichen Verträge mit anderen Staaten braucht und ergo gibt. Es besteht mit solchen "Verträgen" nämlich das Grundproblem der Durchsetzbarkeit bzw. Rechtssprechung im Fall, dass eines der Länder die Vereinbarungen nicht einhält. Es würde eine irgendwie zwischen den Ländern vereinbarte gemeinsame Gerichtsbarkeit und auch Sicherheitsorganisation (Polizei, ggf. sogar Militär) benötigen, wenn solche Verträge wirklich funktionieren sollen. Doch so etwas ist gemäss der agilen Demokratie nicht möglich. Fazit: Man muss nicht darüber diskutieren

Warum braucht es die Verträge nicht? Dazu kann man schauen, um was es bei Verträgen mit anderen Staaten oder Staatenbündnissen geht: Grenzziehung, Zölle, Personenverkehr, Bildung, Forschung, ggf. Militärbündnisse, Zusammenarbeit der Polizei, ggf. "Aufräumen" von "alten Schulden" (Rekuperationszahlungen, …). Alles wichtige Dinge. Aber die agile Demokratie sieht für alle diese Fragen vorgegebene, nicht verhandelbare und somit stabile Regeln vor. Grenzziehung: Es gelten die Regeln von State constitution. Zölle: Es gibt keine. Sondern es gelten demokratisch entschiedene Preiskampf-Distanzlimiten, welche aber Landesgrenzen ignorieren, d.h. wenn z.B. für Backwaren eine Preiskampf-Distanzlimite von 50km festgelegt ist, dann können Backwaren an einem Ort unseres Staates, der nahe an der Grenze liegt, z.B. 5km, noch von ausländischen Backwaren-Anbietern, die näher als 45km sind, mit günstigeren Backwaren konkurrenziert werden. Sobald die Distanz aber 50km überschreitet, muss der Anbieter teurer anbieten, ob er im In- oder Ausland liegt. D.h. er muss mit der Qualität überzeugen. Es gelten die Regeln von State constitution. Personenverkehr: Es gibt keine Einschränkungen. Aber es gelten die Regeln von State constitution, welche verhindern, dass sich beliebig viele nicht-erwerbsfähige (Grund spielt keine Rolle: findet keine Stelle, kann nicht, will nicht, …) ausländische Personen mittel-/längerfristig bei uns aufhalten. Bildung/Forschung: Es gelten keine Einschränkungen, aber der/die Auszubildende/Forschende muss die Regeln zum Personenverkehr und Bildung/Forschung (Culture sports science) einhalten. Militärbündnisse: es sind keine möglich. Wenn wir uns mit einem anderen Staat militärisch verbünden möchten, dann kann bzw. muss eine Staatenfusion gemäss den demokratischen Regeln in State constitution erfolgen.

Warum braucht es diese Verträge nicht (2. Teil)? In der agilen Demokratie gibt es keine Geheimverträge; es gibt auch keine Personen, welche die Sonderkompetenz erhalten könnten, Verhandlungen zu führen. Niemand, auch nicht der/die Staatspräsident/-in oder "Minister", ist dazu befugt. Nur in Kriegszeiten gelten Ausnahmeregelungen. Eine agile Demokratie in Friedenszeiten ist absolut neutral und behandelt jeden fremden Staat gleich. Wir sind überzeugt, dass dies für die Friedenssicherung zentral ist. Allerdings: Durch die natürlichen Gegebenheiten und die Regeln zum Freihandel mit Preiskampf-Rayons, die sich in Nachbarstaaten ausdehnen können, sind benachbarte bzw. geographisch nahe gelegene fremde Staaten etwas bevorzugt.

Gibt es einen Unterschied zwischen "Abkommen" und "Verträgen"? Nein.

Welche Verträge mit anderen Staaten sind erlaubt? Nur solche betreffend der erlaubten Nutzung von Hoheitsgebiet unseres Staates durch Flugzeuge, Schiffe, Tunnels, … bzw. zu Transitverkehrszwecken, die nicht als Eintritt in unseren Staat gewertet werden ("Überflug", Schiffsdurchfahrt, Auto-/Bahndurchfahrt, und analoge Nutzungen). Es gelten dazu die Regelungen der Staatskonstitution, Abschnitt SC 03 (State constitution#SC.03 Define the confines). Home