Mentality about having ideal solution is exactly what politics sell to us. Divide and conquer.

Thete is no ideal solution but we should talk about dependence on state, fiat money, increasing debt regardless of right/left politics, rising amount of bureaucracy, giving imaginary solutions by adding more regulations and vanishing freedom of individuals.

If you want more deep in problems connected with current politics and economy, I recommend authors such as Hayek, Mises, Rothbard, Popper... They give quite interesting view and arguments.

Solutions could be decentralisation of power, such as subsidiarity.

How is this not fatalism? I interpret this as "if we have ideas were dividing ourselves, so it's best to give up". At best, this could be determined as "all rally around one singular power and charge". But there's no suggestion of who such a power could be. I don't think anyone is so massively popular as to amass thst either.

But it doesn't sound like that's your interpretation either:

>Centralised planning is more or less compromise of mixed ideas that at the end do not satisfy democratic majority. Look how many minorities scream about their rights.

---

>Thete is no ideal solution but we should talk

How far has talking gotten us as of late?

And it feels this goes against your later ideology of "solutions decentralized power". By that mentality, we would need to pick one solution and razor down on it so hard that no one can avoid it.

But we run into the same problems you propose. There's no one solution we can get behind, and in fact the powers that be all have an incentive to crush most of these.

---

Lastly,

>Decentralisation of power, like principle of subsidiary, looks like a way.

I don't think any of us have this power. The theory of checks and balances as well as elected representatives from each state should act as a decentralization. There's no one person who should be able to overpower a branch of government, at lest not without another branch interfering.

But as we see, fear and propoganda (as well as general disenchantmentto participate) tend to make people yearn for one big power to tell them what to do, as opposed to having separate powers corroborate on issues.

This is "Divide and conquer" principle, that I don't understand why majority is not aware of.

How far has talking gotten us as of late?

Deep and meaningful dialogues leads to progress and change in society naturally. I don't believe in revolutions or simple solutions.

We live in times that information was never easier to get. Back then, people believe that king was a god (Egypt), later that king is human but connected to god (medieval times). Today? Would you consider electorate as somehow morally wise and respectable personalities somehow connected to greater good?