Thank you very much, I greatly appreciate a discussion partner who accepts different views or cultivates an elegant debating style.

I would once again contradict the mention of the myth you say is consistent. In no historical record does there seem to be evidence that there were benevolent rulers who ruled their people justly and for the good of all. From a certain magnitude - in which we live today - a consensus-oriented community does not seem possible. We all know the situation where no consensus can be found when the debate is hot and the result is inability to decide, even hostility. However, the fact that consensus can very well be found by means of a formal method and that these ideas have to be made public as practical examples in order to be understood and established in the long term is the detail I am talking about. I am not talking about distraction and compensation, but about innovation of social coexistence. Only when the meta-view has taken place and one looks at the systems a little emotionless (but not without compassion) can one move calmly in them. This view should, however, lead to practice, less in discussions about the new practice, but more in real experience.

Apart from that: The majority of the people, i.e. the citizens, are either tired or upset. I rarely see people who don't get upset, who read the headlines full of worries, who talk about injustice and dissatisfaction, who at the same time radiate an aura of inspiration and charm. Ordinary people know little or nothing about details. Now you don't have to accuse anyone of it, because the accusation is of little use.

The average person is the one who likes to criticize innovation the most, because he deals with the usual and familiar and doesn't want it any other way. I live with people in a city who want virtually nothing to do with what has not yet gained popularity and who simply reject ideas that are heard before their time because they are not interested in thinking them through in detail and consistency or do not understand them at all from the outset. Nobody can blame them for this either. I say this because I, too, am an ordinary person who, in parts, has conservative attitudes without perhaps really knowing about them. You can't investigate everything. That's why I've given up searching for culprits either horizontally or vertically; or try to :).

But if you ask me, the citizen is often enough himself the strongest enemy, less the rich or the unknown millionaire. Look at people's living rooms and gardens, their books, their furnishings, their desires and needs: You will find that they are very similar and the urge to adapt is very strong.

I remember when nobody knew UBI I was looked at very funny and smiled at. But I was only fascinated by it and went into a deep study of matter. This led me to take a far more differentiated view than I would have initially suspected. It was only after the confrontation that it became clear to me that there were no simple solutions. Not because they don't exist, but because people don't like to believe in them.

I like experiments and therefore I also like the idea of systemic consensus. It doesn't sound spectacular at all in theory. It's a very dull and seemingly incomprehensible word. But in practice! Oh, how nice it is to be a witness and experience such things!

This is an aspect of freedom that everyone in their group can try out. An experience and an idea that is so practical that you can try it everywhere. In the long run this may change something about capitalism.