by Adrian von Ferency//
The discussion about the role of morality and rationality in politics is not new, but is becoming increasingly urgent in times of global crisis. In an interview with the "Club der klaren Worte" (CdkW), Prof. Fritz Söllner, financial scientist and critical thinker, sheds light on the challenges associated with a moralistic policy.
In an increasingly polarized society, media reporting is often perceived as one-sided and manipulative. Söllner argues that this biased journalism leads to a distorted perception of reality and influences public opinion. This undermines the basis of an informed and democratic society, which relies on objective information to make informed decisions.
The instrumentalization of crises to push through political agendas is another central theme in Söllner's critique. He describes how crises are used to implement far-reaching political changes that would be difficult to implement under normal circumstances.
Söllner is particularly critical of current climate policy, which he describes as a substitute religion. It places moral convictions above scientific facts and economic realities. He considers such a one-sided climate policy, which propagates national unilateral action, to be ineffective and harmful. Instead, he advocates a globally coordinated policy that makes both economic and ecological sense.
Söllner takes a differentiated view of the role of morality in politics. While morals and values provide important guidance, he warns against a moralistic policy that neglects rational considerations and cost-benefit analyses. Such policies can lead to irrational decisions that have negative long-term consequences for society.
The Very personal conversation with Fritz Söllner, Chair of Economics at the TU Ilmenau,
provides insights into the thoughts of a critical thinker on the moving issues of our time.
About the interview guest in the CdkW and his new book:
Fritz Söllner is a German economist and professor of economics, in particular finance. Söllner has held the Chair of Finance at Ilmenau University of Technology since 1998. He has also worked as a John F. Kennedy Research Fellow at Harvard University and was a Junior Lecturer at the University of Bayreuth. His research interests include migration policy, environmental economics, the history of economic thought and the theory and politics of fiscal equalization (Ilmenau University of Technology) (MCC) (Austrian Institute). His latest book "Die Moralapostel" is a reckoning with the moralizing policies of the current government.
English 
German 
Spanish
4 Responses
I am increasingly surprised that so many critical thinkers are ultimately unable to abandon the idea that 'politics' means well with the people and is striving to form a peaceful, liberal society. The opposite is the case, as you can clearly see from the cover-up attempts in the Cocolores case and the now partially redacted RKI files, as Sven Böttcher and Matthias Burchardt so beautifully call them. For me, this is the pink elephant in the room that only a few clearly address. This seems to be a particularly German phenomenon, although many countries around the world that have participated in this are struggling to come to terms with it, but not in the same way as Germany.
Thanks to Mr. Langemann for the, as always, confidently conducted interview:
Yes, I can't understand that either.
It is also not questioned that we do not have a democracy in the sense of the word, but a representative democracy, which has nothing to do with the idea of democracy:
Genuine democracy is understood to mean measures that are intended to avoid parasitic (anti-social) elite rule. Conceivable measures in this sense would be liability in the proportion in which I am given power/enjoy an advantage. So that I also exercise it in the interests of those I represent (clumsily: keeping "election promises"). Or, in other words, that I can be deprived of trust/removed from office/replaced if I do not act in the interests of those I represent.
But instead we have public prosecutors who are bound by instructions (automatic non-liability), representatives who are elected for e.g. 4 years, promise A and can do B. They are not liable for anything and are paid handsomely for it.
In other words, the exact OPPOSITE of what democracy is supposed to achieve.
Furthermore, the idea of democracy is also misappropriated by the fact that people believe it has something to do with elections and majority government:
On the one hand, this is obviously (apart from the above statements) practically not the case when minorities such as the Greens can impose their will on the majority (which did not elect them) through coalition cliques.
Rather, democracy means that the individual interests of people are respected EVERY TIME and attempts are made to arrange and harmonize them with each other. A VOTE is only intended as a last resort if no common agreement can be reached.
Real democracy in the political sense would also mean that people could make very concrete life decisions completely independently of any party programs:
For example, I may be traditional when it comes to buying a car and don't want to be forced into an electric car. And when it comes to another issue, I am in line with the Greens or another party.
In our representative form, however, I have to vote for a party that then only makes its program, without me being able to decide freely on an individual basis.
P.S.: Controversies
You have to differentiate: Between a genuine controversy and an ideology that is to be implemented and for which pseudo-scientific "evidence" may be cited. That is a difference.
You have to call it what it is: psychotechnics and manipulation or poisoned discourse.
Example: If someone wants to tell me that the "case numbers" have DOUBLED from 200 to 400 from one day to the next. But if I tested 1000 people today and 2000 tomorrow, then that is simply objectively and factually FALSE and a lie.
And has nothing to do with a different point of view or opinion that is to be respected.
The same applies if one fundamentally violates standard procedures of good and serious scientific work.
read the book "How to take the risk out of democracy" and you know the score
Politics is the extended arm of global finance capital to achieve the long-term goals of the world's real rulers.
And democracy is the cover-up tactic to sell us these goals as our own.
Very interesting the book "How to take the risk out of democracy"