Order is half the battle, as the saying goes. Organization is the whole of life, is the doctrine of current politics.

• Regulatory frenzy
• Overregulation
• Minor case specifications
• Individual justice
• Sanction allocation

All this and much more is an active part of the bureaucracy of a united Europe. If Europe were actually united as a result, this would be a small price to pay. Only the price is paid without receiving anything in return.

This does not make Europe more united, more understanding or even more united. It is only the rules that apply in all EU states, which the countries must adhere to, that provide a similar, sometimes meaningless, legal framework. But that doesn’t make for tolerant and positive coexistence.

Each country suffers individually from the excessive bureaucratic structures that apply to all of them. This shows once again that “more of the same” does not necessarily lead to a solution to the problem, and is in fact the problem.

Structures should be made for the people and simplify and improve cooperation and be designed in a way that benefits the majority. Fundamental structural reforms are needed here, even a new beginning, so that the achievements of the modern world can be used safely and helpfully.

Individual justice is an illusion whose absence must not lead to arbitrariness, but there must be ways that are understandable, acceptable and practicable for all members of society and yet are not “just” for everyone.

At the beginning of the 22nd century, people like to talk about freedom of opinion in a democracy. From the most diverse groups, interest groups and client lists. But it is precisely these people who are also practicing cancel culture, the attempt to silence dissenters.

There have been differences of opinion since time immemorial, which can degenerate into battles of opinion for various reasons. However, these differences of opinion do not disappear if one of these parties is to be silenced by media power, mainstream opinion and manipulation of the other side. The result is simply a hardened front that, in the worst-case scenario, can tear through society as a whole.

In the past, taboos were used to keep the dialog between opposing parties open without having to touch on sensitive topics that could lead to discord or even harassment. In modern societies, it should actually be possible to have a taboo-free discussion on all topics from divergent opinion groups.

But if you don’t give others room to think differently, if everything is always without alternative, then you have reached the end of any discussion.

Regardless of the topic, a discussion in a neutral, objective style should always be possible, as there can never be agreement on all topics in societies.

In many practical fields of research, the focus is not on stability, safety and foresight, but on feasibility, hoped-for future opportunities and financial viability.

This applies in particular, but not only, to the paradigms of program development. However, these can be taken pars pro toto

• Security? Too expensive and time-consuming!
• Stability? The customer / user informs us if something is not working!
• Future-proof? In times when only the new counts, the old can no longer be supported
• New functions? Of course. As fast as the Internet lines transmit the data.

Decisions on the global implementation or introduction of new technologies/research findings are not madeon the basis of risk-conservative standards of systemic equilibrium, but on the basis of the pursuit of short-term advantage.

The list of disasters is not limited to those triggers that underlie the above principle, but also includes those that do.

Financial feasibility and actual feasibility are sometimes mutually exclusive. More on this later in this blog.