Change is needed

The Economist published an article in the summer of 2013 discussing the diverse origins of protest marches. Each angry demonstration in that year – whether it occurred in Brazil, Bulgaria, the Arab Spring, or elsewhere – had its own unique cause for anger. Fast forward to today and we are facing an even angrier world. Demonstrations are not only happening in multiple countries, but the situation has escalated even further. In addition to the protests, there are now brutal violent conflicts raging in places like Ukraine, Syria, Israel, and Palestine, with more than 2,000 people dying every day. This widespread anger is not limited to specific regions; it is a global phenomenon and people everywhere are feeling incredibly upset.

Since Apple released the first iPhone on June 29, 2007, the world has changed drastically in many ways. Now that smartphones are ubiquitous, information is readily available. Today, we have more smartphones in the world than people and we can instantly report on what is happening anywhere. However, it can be difficult to determine its accuracy. Nevertheless, it has a significant impact on various aspects of our lives. In the Economist article mentioned earlier, the question was posed: How will the protests of 2013 unfold? One thing is certain: managing democracy has become more challenging. We happily observe that democracies excel at adapting when politicians recognize the public's desire for improvement and acknowledge the possibility of change through elections, as we have seen in recent elections in GB and France. It is evident that in countries where democracy prevails, it holds greater influence compared to dictatorships where demonstrations can be suppressed. While some may have been outraged by this power held by dictators, we can see today that leaders in Beijing, Moscow, or Teheran are no longer as concerned by this. Interestingly, now Western nations are feeling more uncomfortable with this reality.

Confiscate information again

Let's take a trip back in time to nearly 500 years ago when Spain took over (or “colonized”) what is now known as Peru. During this period, the indigenous Indians faced great mistreatment. One bishop, by the name of Bartolomé de las Casas, bravely spoke out against the emperor's actions, arguing that they were unacceptable and went against core Christian principles. He wrote and published several books and documents to raise awareness among priests and monks, who also denounced these despicable wars against the indigenous Indians, who have to work day after day in their own gold mines, who are exploited and who die by the thousands every month. Eventually, the emperor had a change of heart and confiscated all of Las Casas' writings and prohibited any future publications on this topic. What can we learn from this? First, if there had been a free Internet at the time, Martin Luther, who lived at the same time, might not have started the Protestant Revolution by nailing his thesis to the church door in Wittenberg in 1517. He was unaware of Las Casas' efforts or the issues in the West Indies that were being addressed by Dominican friars.

In addition to launching a counterrevolution, Luther would likely also team up with our Bartolomé de las Casas and the other Dominican friar to form alliances against the Church and against all events that took place during the Spanish conquest as well. This is comparable to what occurred in Europe during that time period. Today, we can draw lessons from this. Thanks to the Internet, we have access to information like never before. Not only does Internet technology have an unprecedented democratizing effect, since almost everyone has Internet access, it can empower the individual for the first time in history. Now we have with smartphones a possible tool in our hands to report instantly and send that information around the world, just as (removed “we) witnessed today with various new and differing information channels.

Despite the fact that almost every country has state media that releases censored information, we still have the ability to verify and confirm it. As we have seen in recent years - not only during COVID, but also in ongoing war situations in various countries - there are attempts to manipulate information. We live in a multipolar world where this applies to media as well. There are numerous emerging channels, such as Telegram, that present information from different perspectives. I am not implying that it is the absolute truth, but it provides us with a fresh outlook. This is what we need - multiple channels to view, comprehend, and recognize what is truly happening. Therefore, we now possess the capability to generate more diverse information than ever before. Are we utilizing this opportunity?

Lesson from the Blue Marble

On December 7, 1972, the Apollo 17 astronauts captured what is now known as the Blue Marble - a widely circulated image that has become the most famous image in human history. This remarkable photo shows our planet in all its glory, with no visible borders or distinctions between countries. As we reflect on this image almost 52 years later, it raises the question: What does it mean to us today?

Despite the technological advancements and exploration of space through missions like Voyager 1 and Voyager 2, we have yet to find any other forms of life in the universe. This realization brings to light the fact that we are essentially alone on this blue planet. It's a reminder that our resources, space, and capabilities are limited and forces us to consider how we can coexist peacefully on this planet.

But how do we achieve this? It's clear that we need a new way of thinking and approaching things - a new paradigm. While figures like John Locke had significant influence during the rise of liberalism almost 300 years ago, there is still work to be done because we have realized that liberalism is not the answer. We must redefine our relationship with equality and freedom as we move forward. These are issues that fall not only under the responsibility of the government, but we also need to get involved in this discourse. The development of individual freedoms often leads to a plurality of opinions, which can act as a counterforce against dogmatic rationalism. This approach was embraced by many Enlightenment thinkers, such as Immanuel Kant. Today, we have access to more knowledge than ever before thanks to technology and a growing interest in holistic education and professional functionality. However, at the same time, our society has become increasingly individualized. It seems that traditional ideologies like liberalism, rationalism, communism, socialism have reached their limits in terms of wisdom. Isn't it true that all isms are dead? Even the two opposing beliefs of conservatism and social democracy - one focusing on progress while the other focuses on preservation - no longer generate synergy. Unfortunately, arithmetical equality often leads to licentiousness and tempts us to be overconfident and overestimate ourselves. How can we arrive at a healthy understanding of individualism that is embedded in the community and families? “But when we choose freely, we are responsible for the consequences of each choice," wrote Victor Frankl. That is why small units are the only way to solve these problems, even on a communal level, and therefore a rejection of centralism, even if we have central problems to solve, because we can hold people accountable in small units.

By fostering a more understanding and tolerant society, we can create a better future for ourselves and generations to come. It's time for us to work together towards a brighter tomorrow. I am in favor of a novel strategy to promote the most promising ideas. In my opinion, there are numerous challenges in the world that demand our attention and collective efforts. These issues extend beyond borders, governments, or specific groups and require cooperation from all nations. Be it the developed regions or emerging economies like BRICS, it is essential for us to collaborate. Let me give you five major global problems to illustrate that we can only solve them together.

·?????? Firstly, healthcare has emerged as a global concern since the outbreak of COVID-19. It has impacted the entire world and cannot be tackled by one country alone in the future for any upcoming issues.

·?????? Secondly, we need to adopt sustainable methods for energy consumption. We cannot control the movement of natural resources like clouds between countries without a comprehensive approach involving all nations. This seems unattainable without international cooperation.

·?????? Moreover, immigration has become a major political issue in many countries, next to the USA including the UK, with more than 25 million people moving across borders.

·?????? Additionally, historically significant changes – such as the Industrial Revolution – have had both positive and negative consequences that necessitate global solutions. This is what can we expect from AI in the years to come.

·?????? Furthermore, even space exploration requires a collaborative approach; otherwise, those with greater resources will monopolize.

Why Peace Is Necessary

I believe it would be beneficial to consider the words of Ludwig van Mises, one of the great thinkers of the Austrian School of Economics. He mentioned in one of his lectures: ”We have no hymns, we have no flags, we have no uniforms, and we have no weapons, but what we have are the better ideas.” In light of this, shouldn't we prioritize the advancement of better ideas rather than continue toward possible extinction through a possible nuclear war?

Just as we entrust algorithms/AI to find solutions for medical and other problems, perhaps we should also seek their guidance in solving political issues. This could lead us towards the best solution/idea, which could then be voted on by the people in a democracy – direct democracy. From a trade perspective, it is important to note that trade has long been recognized as having a peacekeeping aspect by the Austrians School of Economics. In complex situations where conflicts are constant, it becomes difficult to sell anything due to the impact of soldiers crossing borders. This famous quote from Frederic Bastiat: "If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" underscores the damage done when trade ceases to exist.

What if we looked at this peacekeeping component as a better idea from a citizenship standpoint? Promoting fair trade agreements that benefit both sides could be achieved through AI, which the majority of the population could vote for, which in turn could at least reduce conflict situations in various countries. We must start thinking holistically about this world. We have to get over the stupidity of seeing someone as a friend or an enemy (building again like the post WWII a new iron curtain). We have limited resources that we all need, and we are all in this race together.

All our investments could disappear

From an investment perspective, it is worth noting that over the past 40 years, many countries around the world have invested a significant amount of money in future projects that have yet to be realized. This includes tourism infrastructure, such as airports that have become mini-cities, but it also includes surrounding amenities, such as hotels, museums, restaurants, theaters, concerts, and other cultural and entertainment venues. These are deliberately designed to provide travelers with enriching experiences and opportunities to connect. However, this entire ecosystem could easily disappear if we do not collaborate and work together. In his book The Road to Ruin, James Rickards warns us that we could experience societal collapse, similar to what happened during the latter stages of the Bronze Age civilization around 1200 BC. Within fifty years almost every major kingdom and empire crumbled. Do we want that again? Haven't we learned enough in the last century of two world wars?

Events like the Copa America and the Euro 2024 Cup, where thousands of fans peacefully gather to support their teams and explore new destinations, prove that the majority seeks a better life. Using the analogy of this summer's soccer tournaments, we all have our identity in our team/country, and we celebrate this with great enthusiasm because democracy has historically relied on nationalism as an identity-forming element, but in the end, we are peaceful in all the stadiums of the world without sacrificing our identity. Outside the stadiums, why cannot we achieve this in other parts of society?

As I travel a lot around the world, I see airports that are full of travelers enjoying the beauty of the infrastructure we have built over the last 40 years in order to explore and connect. No one wants to go back and just live in or experience their hometown alone anymore. As we have seen now with the anti-tourism protests in Spain and other places, it shows that we need a real balance between investment and the desires of over-advertised tourists. Shouldn't that be our goal instead of succumbing to the foolishness of politicians who create unnecessary divisions that disrupt our lives? Unfortunately, their actions are often motivated by the narrow interests of certain industries or influencers with their own agendas.

In light of recent developments, the power dynamic has shifted in favor of consumers. For the first time in history, we are no longer left out of the equation. As Victor Hugo stated, “There is nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come.” As consumers, we have now the ability to shape the direction of commerce by choosing what products or services we buy from local and global producers. This would demand that we have a real free market – one which we don't have today because most markets are totally regulated. If we would have fair and good trade agreements, this would put even more power in the hands of the consumer. This is a new opportunity for us to exert and benefit from our influence. Together, we should work towards a harmonious society where trade is conducted ethically and for mutual benefit. This would result in a world where people can enjoy and experience all the things they want, making buying and selling a peaceful process where both sides win in the end. This is the core philosophy of our company Pipeliner CRM – Win Together!

Get Practical - we can turn this around!

Let us go back in our article to the time of Bartolomé de las Casas. Today it is generally accepted that at the time of the arrival of the Europeans, there were about 57 million people in these countries, and there is also no doubt that around the year 1570, there were no more than 9 million people alive, and in Peru alone the number of inhabitants was reduced from about 9 million to less than 1 million. La Casa witnessed this atrocity with his own eyes, which is why he could no longer keep silent and published his observations of this cruelty. Then, like Philip II, and now, many have tried to suppress and censor these terrible facts, but thanks to the new media, this is no longer possible. However, it doesn't seem to wake us up and make us more upset as long as we can comfortably watch our soccer game and drink our beer with inexpressible sighs over the suffering. It reminds me of what Jesus said to his opponents, who wanted to kill him from the beginning because he accused them of their hypocrisy and cowardice, as well as of the heavy burdens (taxes) unnecessarily imposed on people: "If you were blind, you would not be guilty of sin, but now that you claim to see, your guilt remains”. Is it not our responsibility not only to educate ourselves about what is possible today, but also to take bold steps together? We are the majority, we can do it, we just have to want to!

Let's get very practical about what we would need to do for creating this new paradigm:

·?????? Free, unfettered access to information for everyone at all times

·?????? Unrestricted freedom of speech, because in the end only good ideas will find a majority.

·?????? A truly free and unfettered press and journalists who are able to report and disseminate this information.

·?????? We need to free the media from the influence of governments and big industry.

·?????? Fair, clear and open, simple elections where it can be proven that the voters are even allowed to participate.

·?????? A clear and strengthening structure for community and smaller units in society.

·?????? We need to strengthen the core of society, which can only be the family.