3 hours ago, Linkey said:

https://kimgriest.medium.com/real-reason-the-american-middle-class-is-disappearing-901cb78ababf

So these 1% welthiest are the "nobles", while maybe the FED bankers are "monarchs".

I specifically asked you about the democracies in the UK, Germany and the Netherlands and by what mechanism this "elite" of yours controls candidate selection. You have not answered that, preferring instead to continue to give examples from the USA.

If you make a criticism of "western" democracies, you cannot just base it on cherry-picked examples from the USA.

14 hours ago, Linkey said:

So these 1% welthiest are the "nobles", while maybe the FED bankers are "monarchs".

What’s the terminology in Russian?

Thus, Credit Suisse and UBS report that the proportion of wealth held by the richest 1% of Russians equals 56.4% and Russia tops the world’s list by this indicator. As measured by the Gini coefficient for wealth, Russia (86.9) shares 10th place with the United Arab Emirates among the 164 countries surveyed behind several African countries, as well as Sweden and Brazil.

https://econs.online/en/articles/opinions/super-wealth-in-russia-uneven-and-invariable/

Maybe it’s not democracy that’s the problem

8 hours ago, swansont said:

What’s the terminology in Russian?

Thus, Credit Suisse and UBS report that the proportion of wealth held by the richest 1% of Russians equals 56.4% and Russia tops the world’s list by this indicator. As measured by the Gini coefficient for wealth, Russia (86.9) shares 10th place with the United Arab Emirates among the 164 countries surveyed behind several African countries, as well as Sweden and Brazil.

https://econs.online/en/articles/opinions/super-wealth-in-russia-uneven-and-invariable/

Maybe it’s not democracy that’s the problem

I wonder how Sweden made the list. I have always been under the impression that all of the Scandinavian countries were more egalitarian than most of the rest of the world

On 1/31/2026 at 12:14 AM, KJW said:

I was a believer of the idea that a fair society should be run by computers. But since then, having experienced glimpses of what such a society would be like, I no longer believe in a society run by computers.

When the inputs that benefits certain people, as in the current problem's with social media, is a glimpse that can be frightening; but the evolution of an AI, with a reasonable facsimile of the 3/4 law's of robotics, is potentially the closest approach to the sunlight uplands.

"The fundamental problem with dealing with computers is that one can't negotiate with them."

I see that as the fundamental reason a computer is beneficial to society; the judiciary shouldn't be negotiable...

8 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I wonder how Sweden made the list. I have always been under the impression that all of the Scandinavian countries were more egalitarian than most of the rest of the world

That may be true, but they still decide who gets to vote...

10 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I wonder how Sweden made the list. I have always been under the impression that all of the Scandinavian countries were more egalitarian than most of the rest of the world

Confusing, because the map in the Wikipedia page shows a coefficient <30

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gini_coefficient

It also points out that the coefficient changes whether you are taking tax and public assistance into account, and that demographics has an effect.

It also doesn’t appear to distinguish between overall standard of living - it’s possible to have a high value with everyone above some “poverty level” of minimum income covering basic needs, or everyone below that level.

12 hours ago, npts2020 said:

I wonder how Sweden made the list. I have always been under the impression that all of the Scandinavian countries were more egalitarian than most of the rest of the world

It also depends a bit on how the various coefficients are calculated. E.g., income vs wealth-based calculations. Generally speaking, most indices show increase in both elements across most countries in the world. That being said, among Nordic countries Sweden has been dropping in the rankings, including compared to OECD. They still have a strong social net that limits some of the more extreme outcomes, though.

Here is an article from a few years back https://oxfam.se/en/news/globalt-index-visar-sverige-samst-i-norden-pa-att-bekampa-ojamlikhet/

In various reports it was indicated that Norway is doing much better. I believe the Gini Index of Sweden is hovering above 30 while Norway is around 26-ish.

On 2/1/2026 at 9:36 AM, CharonY said:

Is it to suggest that the US is inherently more authoritarian, than, say Germany, UK or France? And then are the Netherlands, Iceland and Norway even less so?

I have already written, that Europe is close to USSR: it has more equality, but less freedom.

There is indeed often some correlation between the authoritarianism and the equality: for example, in China there is a large middle class now. Maybe the explanation is that since China is a hightly authoritarian country, its rulers are not afraid of the middle class (while in the Western world the middle class could overthrow the ruling elites, because it has more civil rights).

On 1/29/2026 at 10:43 PM, exchemist said:

I presume that even with a digital ID system you could always print out documents confirming your identity and keep a copy somewhere safe in case of problems.

How useful a printout of a digital ID depends on whether it is accepted as a proof of identity. One may need to get the printout authenticated by some official. But even if one does have a printout of a digital ID that is accepted as a proof of identity, it is still a physical ID.

On 2/1/2026 at 12:57 AM, dimreepr said:

The printing press is the start of information technology and was a liberation of information, a classic double edged sword.

Are you referring to what I personally call the "mixing chlorine with ammonia dilemma"? By this, I mean the dilemma associated with people knowing that mixing chlorine with ammonia is dangerous. Both chlorine and ammonia are readily available to ordinary people, so the likelihood of people without chemistry knowledge mixing them is not insignificant¹. Thus, for the sake of safety, people should be made aware that they should never mix these two substances. On the other hand, people with evil intent may choose to deliberately mix these substances together for evil purposes, and that the more people who know of the danger, the more likely it is that there will be someone who will do so deliberately with evil intent. Thus, there is a benefit to restricting the availability of such knowledge, in conflict with the benefit of widely distributing such knowledge.

¹ Although I'm aware of the chemistry, I have never actually mixed these substances and do not know what actually happens. I will admit to being tempted to find out. Chemistry tells me the result is anything from the release of toxic gases to fire and/or explosion, and that the precise conditions are important.

This is similar to but not quite the same as the case of scientists studying nuclear physics, where the benefits are not the opposite side of the same coin as the dangers.

On 2/1/2026 at 12:57 AM, dimreepr said:

The evil side of democracy is, even the fool's get a vote.

The good side of dictatorships are, the idiots can be ignored.

These are essentially saying the same thing. And they are both based on the fascist belief that some people are better and more entitled than other people. So the argument is actually begging the question. The fundamental problem with this fascist belief is that it is ultimately incompatible with peace as the "inferior" people decide to assert that the "superior" people are maybe not so superior after all.

On 2/1/2026 at 12:57 AM, dimreepr said:

The hidden authoritarianism in all societies is self, and it's never evil.

I'm not a subscriber to the view that evil is only subjective. One can axiomatically assert the "golden rule" and derive the notions of good and evil from that.

On 2/2/2026 at 11:56 PM, dimreepr said:

  On 1/31/2026 at 10:14 AM, KJW said:

The fundamental problem with dealing with computers is that one can't negotiate with them.

I see that as the fundamental reason a computer is beneficial to society; the judiciary shouldn't be negotiable...

About 30 years ago, I would've agreed with you. The appeal of computers was their ability to operate fairly, without benefitting one group of people at the expense of another group of people. However, I suspect you interpret "negotiate" to mean influential people using their influence to bend the system to their will. But I could've easily said that one can't reason with a computer. The example I gave (my inability to prove that I was not a robot) was of a computer being unreasonable.

Edited February 5Feb 5 by KJW

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

I have already written, that Europe is close to USSR: it has more equality, but less freedom.

There is indeed often some correlation between the authoritarianism and the equality: for example, in China there is a large middle class now. Maybe the explanation is that since China is a hightly authoritarian country, its rulers are not afraid of the middle class (while in the Western world the middle class could overthrow the ruling elites, because it has more civil rights).

If someone wrote a wiki on weaponized obtuseness, this post should be in it.

a) repeating an unfounded claim does not make it true, especially if you ignore a whole discussion that spawned from it.

b) let me think, what else could have happened in China in the last two decades? Was it the introduction of capitalism and massive growth? No, that would be against my narrative. Clearly, they have become much more authoritarian after the death of such liberal figures like Mao. Also, again you ignored examples like Russia.

11 hours ago, Linkey said:

I have already written, that Europe is close to USSR: it has more equality, but less freedom.

The issue is that you write fiction too much of the time. Unsubstantiated claims deserve little weight in these discussions.

19 hours ago, swansont said:

Unsubstantiated claims deserve little weight in these discussions.

https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-is-right-to-reject-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-says-iea-chief-fatih-birol/

Chancellor Friedrich Merz’s admission that Germany’s nuclear phase-out was a “serious strategic mistake” has won an emphatic endorsement from Fatih Birol, executive director of the International Energy Agency.

For me, this was rather not mistake but a crime: the closure of atomic stations has lead to an increase of oil consumption and buying the oil in Germany, and in fact this means that Germany is now funding the Putin's war in Ukraine (exchange with Saudi Arabia). And it is very possible that the decision to close the stations was payed by the Putin's lobby (as an example, Gerhard Schröder has been working in Russia for a long time).

Clean Energy Wire

Two thirds of Germans against shutting down last nuclear...

dpa / Clean Energy Wire About two thirds of Germans are against the country’s imminent shutdown of the remaining three nuclear power plants, a survey by opinion research institute YouGov

Two thirds of Germans against shutting down last nuclear power plants at this point – survey

Edited February 6Feb 6 by Linkey

10 minutes ago, Linkey said:

https://www.politico.eu/article/friedrich-merz-is-right-to-reject-germanys-nuclear-phase-out-says-iea-chief-fatih-birol/

For me, this was rather not mistake but a crime: the closure of atomic stations has lead to an increase of oil consumption and buying the oil in Germany, and in fact this means that Germany is now funding the Putin's war in Ukraine (exchange with Saudi Arabia). And it is very possible that the decision to close the stations was payed by the Putin's lobby (as an example, Gerhard Schröder has been working in Russia for a long time).

Clean Energy Wire

Two thirds of Germans against shutting down last nuclear...

dpa / Clean Energy Wire About two thirds of Germans are against the country’s imminent shutdown of the remaining three nuclear power plants, a survey by opinion research institute YouGov

Merkel took that decision in 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima accident and long before Putin's invasion of Crimea. At the time, Germany had not yet given up Russia becoming a civilised trading partner. It is true that, even at the time, many other countries thought it a misguided over-reaction, given the climate change imperative (not to mention the absence of earthquake risk in Germany!).

But there is no evidence of any "payment" to make this decision, so far as I am aware. This looks to me like just more of your (very Russian, trollish) obsession with conspiracies.

Edited February 6Feb 6 by exchemist

On 2/5/2026 at 10:17 AM, KJW said:

How useful a printout of a digital ID depends on whether it is accepted as a proof of identity. One may need to get the printout authenticated by some official. But even if one does have a printout of a digital ID that is accepted as a proof of identity, it is still a physical ID.

If memory serves, a North Korean dollar bill was a perfect copy, and like money it's dependant on trust.

On 2/5/2026 at 10:17 AM, KJW said:

These are essentially saying the same thing. And they are both based on the fascist belief that some people are better and more entitled than other people. So the argument is actually begging the question. The fundamental problem with this fascist belief is that it is ultimately incompatible with peace as the "inferior" people decide to assert that the "superior" people are maybe not so superior after all.

  On 1/31/2026 at 2:57 PM, dimreepr said:

The hidden authoritarianism in all societies is self, and it's never evil.

I'm not a subscriber to the view that evil is only subjective. One can axiomatically assert the "golden rule" and derive the notions of good and evil from that.

It depends on how deep you want to dig, it reminds me a of a Richard Feynman lecture, in which he tries to explain magnetism as a force.

"One death is a tragedy, a million deaths is a statistic" - someone famous...

On 2/5/2026 at 10:17 AM, KJW said:

About 30 years ago, I would've agreed with you. The appeal of computers was their ability to operate fairly, without benefitting one group of people at the expense of another group of people. However, I suspect you interpret "negotiate" to mean influential people using their influence to bend the system to their will. But I could've easily said that one can't reason with a computer. The example I gave (my inability to prove that I was not a robot) was of a computer being unreasonable.

ATM the future of AI is scarey enough to prompt societal push back, as in Australia banning children from social media.

The political pundulum will always swing towards the extreme; philosophically, a benign dictator is way to go, realistically a computer is our best chance of achieving that goal.

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

For me, this was rather not mistake but a crime: the closure of atomic stations has lead to an increase of oil consumption and buying the oil in Germany, and in fact this means that Germany is now funding the Putin's war in Ukraine (exchange with Saudi Arabia).

This wasn’t true last year when you claimed it and it’s still not. Germany’s oil imports are lower than when they started shutting down nuclear, and basically none of it is from Russia. So this is not only not a fact, it is a lie - a repetition of an untruth that was pointed out to you, yet you’ve repeated it

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/135990-anti-democratic-political-decisions-in-the-western-countries/#findComment-1290436

It’s also something whose connection to “less freedom” is unclear to me.

Your survey quote lacks an actual link, but here it is

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/news/two-thirds-germans-against-shutting-down-last-nuclear-power-plants-point-survey

“32 percent of those surveyed were in favour of the remaining reactors continuing to run for a limited period, and an additional 33 percent were in favour of an unlimited runtime extension. Only 26 percent fully support a complete phase-out nuclear power at this point in time”

So it’s the timing that’s the issue. Only a third wanted an unlimited extension.

4 hours ago, exchemist said:

Merkel took that decision in 2011, in the wake of the Fukushima accident and long before Putin's invasion of Crimea. At the time, Germany had not yet given up Russia becoming a civilised trading partner.

The shutdown plan predates that; it was made under Schröder and the first shutdown occurred in 2003. Merkel initially delayed it until Fukushima caused a pivot and she accelerated the plan.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

Germany’s oil imports are lower than when they started shutting down nuclear, and basically none of it is from Russia.

Before 2022, Europe bought the oil from Russia, and China from Saudi Arabia. After 2022 this reversed - Europe is buying the oil from SA, China from Russia. If Gemany bought less oil from SA, SA would sell its oil to China, so the China would stop buying the oil from Putin and this would stop the Putin's war.

21 hours ago, swansont said:

It’s also something whose connection to “less freedom” is unclear to me.

Ukraine is fighting for freedom (maybe even for all humanity), and supporting the Putin's war is really a crime.
And if the goverment of Germany conscieously ignores the will of Germans, this is evidently not the freedom.

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

Before 2022, Europe bought the oil from Russia, and China from Saudi Arabia. After 2022 this reversed - Europe is buying the oil from SA, China from Russia. If Gemany bought less oil from SA, SA would sell its oil to China, so the China would stop buying the oil from Putin and this would stop the Putin's war.

You went from Germany to Europe. That’s a different argument, but once again you have not actually supported this claim.

I don’t know what SA is; you don’t explain it, but as I showed, they are not importing more oil because of the nuclear shutdowns, which was your claim. All the rest here is moving the goalposts.

Russia invaded Ukraine in 2022, so basically Germany stopped importing oil from them when that happened.

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ukraine is fighting for freedom (maybe even for all humanity), and supporting the Putin's war is really a crime.

Which is a spurious argument, a non-sequitur.

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

And if the goverment of Germany conscieously ignores the will of Germans, this is evidently not the freedom.

But you haven’t shown that they did. You referred to a poll of today’s attitude (which didn’t show what you claim) and things don’t happen instantly. What’s relevant is the attitude when it was in progress.

“According to a 2015 survey produced by the Emnid, a polling institute for the German outlet BILD am Sonntag, 81 percent of Germans believe that it is the right decision to phase-out nuclear power, and only 16 percent think that it is wrong. This becomes even clearer when looking at those 14 to 29 years old—93 percent of this group support the transition.”

https://fee.org/articles/why-is-germany-phasing-out-nuclear-power/

If the attitude truly has changed, more than ten years later, Germany is free to decide to build new plants.

12 hours ago, Linkey said:

If Gemany bought less oil from SA, SA would sell its oil to China, so the China would stop buying the oil from Putin and this would stop the Putin's

This is not how markets work. China is free to buy from anywhere regardless of who else is buying. However, Russian oil got cheaper as others had stopped buying it, as we have established. This would have happened even if Europe for some reasons had reduced demand for oil.

On 2/8/2026 at 2:17 AM, swansont said:

But you haven’t shown that they did. You referred to a poll of today’s attitude (which didn’t show what you claim) and things don’t happen instantly. What’s relevant is the attitude when it was in progress

Ok, I have more arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

On 27 November 2016, a referendum by the Green Party was held that would have limited the lifespan of Switzerland's nuclear plants to 45 years, and in doing so, would close the three oldest reactors in 2017: Beznau 1, Beznau 2, and Muehleberg.[7] The referendum failed, with 54.2% of voters rejecting it.[8]

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, I have more arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

For those who just can't get enough of this thread, tune into BBC Brit - Channel 120 on African Dstv - and watch endless repeats of 'Pointless'

10 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, I have more arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

Well, no, not really. Switzerland is a different country.

And this is basically the same argument as before, about the timing of something vs the underlying sentiment; I see you omitted the paragraph that follows your quote, that shows the result of a vote to prohibit new construction.

These lame “arguments” are rather tedious. You’ve obviously convinced yourself of something, but it’s not based on any facts you’ve shared.

2 hours ago, sethoflagos said:

For those who just can't get enough of this thread, tune into BBC Brit - Channel 120 on African Dstv - and watch endless repeats of 'Pointless'

Nish Kumar, on BBC sounds, is far more entertaining...

11 hours ago, Linkey said:

Ok, I have more arguments:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-nuclear_movement_in_Switzerland

What makes you think that this is an argument?

Edited February 9Feb 9 by dimreepr

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently. For example, a frightening scenario of the near future is as follows: Trump dies or gets a dementia or becomes impeached by the US parliament, and the Americans choose a president of e.g. these two candidates - J. D. Vance vs Kamala Harris. A half of Americans will vote for Harris because they do not want the abortions to be prohibited, and another half will vote for Vance because they do not want transgenders in big sport. Possibly the choice will be even worse, because both candidates will not talk about cryptocurrencies (this will mean that they plan to forbid them), and they will promise to de-anonymise Meta and X (because people talk too much about politics in the social networks). Both choices will be terrible, and I am sure that the best vote in such situation will be NOTC, or, more exactly, spoiling the ballot.

The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately):

1) Ending of "gender diversity";

2) Full legalization of abortions;

3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties;

4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.

4 hours ago, Linkey said:

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently. For example, a frightening scenario of the near future is as follows: Trump dies or gets a dementia or becomes impeached by the US parliament, and the Americans choose a president of e.g. these two candidates - J. D. Vance vs Kamala Harris. A half of Americans will vote for Harris because they do not want the abortions to be prohibited, and another half will vote for Vance because they do not want transgenders in big sport. Possibly the choice will be even worse, because both candidates will not talk about cryptocurrencies (this will mean that they plan to forbid them), and they will promise to de-anonymise Meta and X (because people talk too much about politics in the social networks). Both choices will be terrible, and I am sure that the best vote in such situation will be NOTC, or, more exactly, spoiling the ballot.

The best thing Trump can do now, to prevent such a scenario, is the initiation of some all-US referendum with 4 proposals (each point will be voted separately):

1) Ending of "gender diversity";

2) Full legalization of abortions;

3) Legalization of cryptocurrencties;

4) Some declaration that the social network have all rights to make their users anonymous.

Your describing a functioning democracy, all be it a terrifyingly binary knife edge ATM, but what it's not, is a hidden authority; bc of those pesky journo's.

9 hours ago, Linkey said:

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently.

This is silly. You are basically saying that any compromise is authoritarian. Living in a society, heck, even just being a family requires compromise. According to your logic, there would only be two ways of living freely:

1) living entirely alone, abolishing the need for compromise, or

2) having a stratified society where everyone's decision fully align.

11 hours ago, Linkey said:

As mentioned above, the authoritarianism in Western countries is mostly based on package voting, where each choice the voters have has both some good and bad decisions, and they can't separate them to vote for each point independently.

You have a previous thread on package voting and alleged authoritarianism, which looped back to your thread on referendum voting. I’m not sure how this is anything new, which makes it soapboxing, and suggests it should be locked. You can discuss those details in the existing threads.

What is your definition of authoritarianism? Because there seems to be a disconnect here. Authoritarianism is about power vested in a leader or single group, with little accountability. Your beef seems to be with the fact that multiple viewpoints exist on multiple topics, and to some extent these topics are independent, so there a lot of permutations of pro vs con. That’s an issue of choice, which requires compromise (as CharonY points out) and doesn’t have much of anything to do with accountability.