in

Compromises - Column by Gery Seidl

Gery Seidl

A compromise is the solution of a conflict through mutual voluntary agreement, with a mutual renunciation of parts of the respective demands made.
That is how this word is defined. Sounds good, but unfortunately only rarely achieved. Especially the voluntariness and the two-sided waiver to achieve such. For me it's about responsibility.
When looking at our social development, however, I often feel that people are more and more willing to give up responsibility. Voluntary, because she will not take him by force. Still!

"For someone else to leave the responsibility in difficult matters sounds very comfortable, but you must not complain if the decision does not match your own idea - if you have one at all."

Passing on someone else's responsibility in difficult matters sounds very comfortable, but then you can not complain if the decision does not match your own idea - if you have one at all. If we give our state, or the group of states we have the right to decide over us, this thought will only accompany us with the feeling of security if we realize that we only want the best for us. In it I already see the first problem. What is the best and who is us?

Interests are often diametrically opposed to supposedly one and the same thing. Just think of the wage negotiations of the Metallers, TTIP or Ceta. Thousands of interests, lobbies, rope teams, possible winners and losers are found on such big topics. So how do you find a solution where there are no losers without revealing the whole truth?
Decision makers rely on experts. Experts rely on advice, and appraisers may be on a law, on what you know or where you want to go. "Man". Another variable.

The meat industry wants to feed the population with meat. With a lot of meat, which produces it as profitably as possible. The farmer in Paraguay would like to be allowed to keep only his field, with which his family has succeeded for generations to secure the standard of living. Who will win?

I give with the best of my knowledge and conscience from the responsibility, I can only hope that it runs fair between the profit on the meat market and the life of the farmer. However, since I realize that it is different, especially in this case, I have reservations. So what can you do if your representatives no longer represent you as you imagine?

Following possibilities:
1. I either only buy meat where it is proven to be a meat production I can represent with my moral values.
2. I stop eating meat.
3. I breed my cattle myself, slaughter and process it, or else
4. I upset my moral values.

Without substantiating it with statistics, emotionally is the fourth most used point. On the one hand, the production of meat happens in the public domain, since there is no great interest on the part of the state to bring us closer to the suffering of a sow from his birth until her death. The interesting thing about the cigarette is something else. Countless examples would have room here.

"If you were to earn money with peace, I wish all those involved great gains. But history teaches us that no one has ever got rich with the truth. "

Without wishing to make things too easy for me at this point, I suspect the factor money behind 100 percent of all decisions. Maybe that's alright and we just have to change the sign. If you were to make money from peace, I wish all those involved great gains. But history teaches us that no one has ever got rich with the truth. So our generation only has to write a new story. Do not stop asking questions when things are not clear until those who have forgotten that it is a "mutual voluntary agreement, with a mutual renunciation of parts of the demands made in each case", which is to ensure that ALL is well. That does not sound like reality, but a dream.

"Ask with each idea, where it comes from and with each organization, whom it serves."
Bertolt Brecht

I am so free and conclude with a Brecht quote: "Question with each idea, where it comes from and with each organization, whom it serves." I believe that alone we can prevent much mischief and take our fate again in the hand. The individual is not responsible for the whole world, but he is responsible for what he does. In this sense, we will act in the future in the way we would like our counterparts to do. The question of why we did not do anything - back then. It's definitely coming.

Photo / Video: Gary Milano.

Written by Gery Seidl

Leave a Comment