Capitalism should promote competition, competition should be rewarded in the form of private property and market participants should be subject to as few controls as possible, so that in the end the system remains in balance for the benefit of all. So much for the simplified theory. In practice, the picture is often quite different.

Although there are many different forms of capitalism, such as the social market economy, neo-liberalism and state capitalism, to name but a few, they all share the basic idea of competition. Now competition is a euphemism for struggle and conflict, in the worst case by any means. If there is no suitable regulatory framework for unlimited competition, the consequences can be as unpleasant as desired for the losers of the capitalist system.

The losers are all those who were unable or unwilling to withstand the competitive pressure or were forced out of the market by unfair means. Because of the principle of competitiveness in any form of capitalism, a loser does not necessarily have to be bad; he is only, in some cases gradually, worse than the best. Bester also does not imply the height of the level. It is merely a comparative parameter that can be used as a basis for evaluating current human development. So a low level is possible despite competition.

Now, any system devised by man for man should only serve the great mass of people involved in this system. In this way, capitalism also increases the prosperity of many and promotes the equality of individuals. Provided that conflicts are always conducted in a fair and balanced manner, this basic principle would not be subject to much criticism. However, high competitive pressure in particular brings with it the temptation to reduce this pressure in its own interests as a dominant market player, often using disreputable means and methods.

Cartels, oligopolies and even monopolies, corruption, exploitation of nature and the weak, ruthlessness and even criminality can be the consequences of rampant capitalism. Without any controlling measures taken outside the capitalist system, this path of competition always leads to unequal distribution, exploitation and oppression of the weaker members of society.

The economic form of capitalism must be rethought from the ground up so that the few do not rule over the many, but so that everyone can live together in fair coexistence and at the same time increase prosperity for all.

The right to stand for election means that anyone of a certain age who is a German citizen and who has not been deprived of the right to vote due to political offenses may vote.

This minimum standard does not exclude retards, psychopaths and sociopaths, fanatics and zealots, as long as they have not committed a “political” offense. And the controls on delinquency are extremely lax. And this is precisely where the problem lies: with such a virtually non-existent standard, precisely those unsuitable people are attracted to politics who should never have become politicians in the first place.

A democracy can only function if it pushes the best people to make a contribution to society. And on the one hand, the best must be selected, so there must be an assessment standard that checks the prospective politicians for suitability and, on the other hand, the best must have a positive interest in serving society and their fellow human beings.

The standards to be applied could be determined by suitable scientific institutes on the one hand in feedback with a referendum on the other, so that the basis for filtering the suitable and the willing is laid democratically / professionally / scientifically.

The same should apply here: The higher the offices, the higher the standards that must be met. It is not enough to meet the minimum standards and then to have been a narcissist’s porter for 20 years in order to qualify for a high state office.

Whether there are still willing people who meet the standards and at the same time are prepared to work for a symbolic salary (current salaries of parliamentarians can be regarded as symbolic) is a question of social esteem.

People who have built up a reputation through outstanding political work will certainly be able to monetize this reputation after their political career. And whether this would be the only motivating factor remains to be seen.

If, as expected, no suitable candidates for political office can be found, either due to a lack of qualifications or a lack of pecuniary motivation, the result without representatives could not be worse than in the modern Berlin Republic, in which blind actionism does more harm to society than inaction ever could.

Knowledge of the world is the basic prerequisite for universal education, which is what makes an adequate human existence possible in the first place. Therefore, all world knowledge should be available to everyone in all parts of the world free of charge. However, this is still not the case in the 21st century A.D.[1].

Some sources of knowledge, such as the free encyclopaedia Wikipedia, are only accessible with technical infrastructure, and this is either cost-intensive or only accessible free of charge on loan in special locations, others are subject to a charge and sometimes expensive, such as academic books, whereby libraries are very often accessible free of charge or at minimal cost, but the effort to borrow the desired work is sometimes very time-consuming.

Irrespective of the effort involved in accessing knowledge, the world’s knowledge is fragmented, difficult to search and filter and at the same time incomplete, sometimes erratic and some areas cannot be understood without sufficient prior knowledge.

In order to educate responsible citizens, it is essential to make all knowledge accessible to everyone as cost-effectively as possible. Otherwise, knowledge is reserved for a privileged class that can use it to abuse power.

Knowledge must be freely accessible, free of charge and freely expandable, e.g. under the free document license

[1] Academia, Structurally Fxxked Up