Democracy - A failure?

[Primo]

In the last time I had to think alot about democracy, and any form of goverment. While in theory democracy is the best form of goverment, including the opinions of "normal" people, it fails in practice.
For example, Germany:
Starting with the nuclear disaster in Japan, and the constant media message "Very short before meltdown, but none happened till now" the completely policy of the whole country changed in a 180° degree.

After hearing those news, various experts where asked in the media how they judge the danger of nuclear electricity, and - surprisingly - every single one of them stated german nuclear power stations are very unsecure both to earthquakes and other disasters or terrorism.

This is my first point: I do agree with it that the people should be informed - but if the people are informed, this knowledge is public knowledge, accessable for everyone. I would bet everything that various terroristic organisations asked themselves if they should go for it - and maybe there were even attempts to do it, that we never heard of them does not mean they don´t exist.

Publicating knowledge is that long ok as it won´t danger the country, after my opinion.

The criticism of nuclear power stations became something almost religious, and it would be a save bet to say that more than 75% of the entire population would have directly turned off all power stations.

In Baden-Württemberg were at that time elections for the "Landtag" and the "Grünen", having an anti-nuclear party policy, almost trippled their votes, and do now govern this Bundesland instead of the CDU, which governed it the last 50 years alone and unchallenged.

The aftermath shows that the greens were not ready for governing the Bundesland, and this election, shadowed by the nuclear disaster, was a disaster itself, for the population aswell as for the party.

Elections should never be made on the base of recent events - politics have to considered on a long-term base, not out of the weekly opinion.

But it even went more extreme: Merkel, not being able to hold against the current public pressure, gave in and turned off the first nuclear power stations. An Interesting article about it is here, and I just want to quote a specific thing:

In contrast to her excessive caution in the step-by-step rescue of the euro zone, she showed no hesitation in reversing her original decision of just last autumn to prolong the life of Germany’s nuclear plants. Now, she has committed Europe’s largest economy, a leading exporter dependent on keeping industry competitive, to shutting down the source of nearly a quarter of its electric power.
In the view of supporters like R. Andreas Krämer, director of the Ecologic Institute, an independent research organization in Berlin, this decision “will be seen as historic.”

An even more extreme desicion, crippling the countrys economy, based on an event which couldn´t even be felt in germany, apart from the constant pressure of the media.


A few weeks later, the media finally confirmed the nuclear meltdowns - and no one cared. The 10 minutes "Brennpunkt" became a 1-Minute message, no experts were interviewed anymore about how dangerous the current situation is, and it became a historic event.


Estimated damage to the country: 1 Billion €.


And now, let me tell you: At the end of the next year germany will have all nuclear power plants turned on, with just single, lonely voices calling for turning it off. It already begun - we had since turning off the nuclear power plants to times already no electricity, just for a minute, but it will happen more often and longer, and when a Company like ENBW then states "We are sorry, but without nuclear plants we are unable to garantuee electricity supply" it is over and they are turned back on.


This is just my guess, but I am pretty sure it will happen that way.


Now, this is one example of many, where media and brief events influence the people to the extent that the system of democracy (the people decide) is rendered useless as in fact the media decides.

And as long as there is free press this will never change. Yet a media controlled by the state is the exact same thing, just used for other propaganda.

So the question is: If a people needs to be informed - even if this public knowledge could endanger the country - and the only way to inform it is media, which always uses its power for propaganda, if free or not - Can democracy in its full essence ever be achieved? Or is it bound to remain a mere theory, an Illusion, to be used by the ones who are really in charge?

[The Juggernaut]

Marked I don't know, because I truly don't. The problem with most modern democracies is that they are governed by the people, and in many cases the people are either misinformed, ignorant, lazy, or some combination thereof. Many democracies have a fairly short period between elections;4 years sounds like a lot for president, then you realize he starts campaigning for re-election at the 2 year mark, and suddenly, his policies change. This means that in order to make sure they remain in office, they have to do what's best in the short term, and the long term consequences can be someone else's problem. That's how the United States got into the mess it is in right now; thinking in the short term, without regard to the future.

My recommendations are two-fold. One, increase the length of a single term (10 years for a president sounds good to me) but decrease the number of times they can run. If someone can serve for a long time, but can't run again, they can afford to make unpopular decisions that will be beneficial in the long run.

Second, make sure the population is educated, and that those that aren't don't vote. By this, I definitely don't mean that only someone with a Ph.D. can vote. What I mean is that voters should know enough about the candidates (their positions on issues, their previous offices, etc.) and about the issues themselves to make an intelligent decision. In the words of Thomas Jefferson "If a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilisation, it expects what never was & never will be."

And... end rant.

[The excited one]

are you giving the extreme left and right a platform to explain how democracy is bad and how their system is the best alternative? then you had done a great job at encouraging those extremist to spread their ideas

[Primo]

are you giving the extreme left and right a platform to explain how democracy is bad and how their system is the best alternative? then you had done a great job at encouraging those extremist to spread their ideas

Nope. It is just what I thought, with sources and a text which explains it. Nothing more. What you follow out of it is not my problem.

Also since you obviously disagree with what I wrote, maybe you care to point out where I made an error.

[Condottiere 40K]

Ever since Three Mile Island, a good proportion of the electorate has always been nervous about atomic power, and what to do with the waste material; Chernobyl just intensified that feeling and Fokushima was the final straw. It's not as if lengthening the operational time of the older plants was popular among the German people, but since they had faith in their technicians (who weren't Americans nor Russians) they tolerated it, just barely.

The Japanese are renowned to be very anal about technology and safety as well, witness their extensive preparations for Earthquakes, and they failed to prevent the meltdown of their plants; the electorate took that lesson to heart.

Democracy isn't perfect, and the only way you can get it to function is if you have an informed electorate.

[Primo]

Ever since Three Mile Island, a good proportion of the electorate has always been nervous about atomic power, and what to do with the waste material; Chernobyl just intensified that feeling and Fokushima was the final straw. It's not as if lengthening the operational time of the older plants was popular among the German people, but since they had faith in their technicians (who weren't Americans nor Russians) they tolerated it, just barely.

The Japanese are renowned to be very anal about technology and safety as well, witness their extensive preparations for Earthquakes, and they failed to prevent the meltdown of their plants; the electorate took that lesson to heart.

Democracy isn't perfect, and the only way you can get it to function is if you have an informed electorate.

You got a point there. But giving away all informations endangers the country, which isn´t in the interest of the people.
Also, while the german policy regarding nuclear power was heavily discussed, Merkel could never have pressed it against popular opinion, she got no backbone and fears that an unpopular decision would cost her the re-election.

[The Sweeper]

It depends what you take as 'true' democracy. The form of democracy I believe we use in Western civilization (I speak mainly about Britain, where I live, and America), is not, at least in my view, 'true' democracy. 'True' democracy, to me is where every citizen within the nation has the ability to participate, beyond occasionally throwing your vote at someone and electing them to make every decision for you. Although my view is that that is idealistic, and accepts as a true that every citizen within the democratic nation has the ability to cogitate adequately enough to actually know what they were doing if they did have more 'hands on' participation. In my view that's almost impossible, even if some would argue education is the key there. Others on the opposite side of the argument would probably put forward that not everyone should be allowed to have such an influence, because they are too stupid, or they oppose the conventional opinion, and that these 'plebs' should be kept quiet until an election process where we can give them the information we want to and get their 'consent' to make decisions, supposedly in their interests.

It's all very well saying educate the population and that any who aren't sufficiently 'educated' on the subject should not have their opinions registered, but what do you do? Some kind of quiz before you vote? Get less than 70%, and you're not permitted to participate in the democratic elections you are supposedly entitled to? I can imagine that causing problems...

I think you sum it up fairly well NM, "Or is it bound to remain a mere theory, an Illusion, to be used by the ones who are really in charge?". In my view, true democracy is now unattainable without a major revolution of common thought. People generally don't mind the 'false' democracy that they live in. Or at least, they are not so outraged by the fact all they do is give consent, that they want to rise up and change things.

[Primo]

It depends what you take as 'true' democracy. The form of democracy I believe we use in Western civilization (I speak mainly about Britain, where I live, and America), is not, at least in my view, 'true' democracy. 'True' democracy, to me is where every citizen within the nation has the ability to participate, beyond occasionally throwing your vote at someone and electing them to make every decision for you. Although my view is that that is idealistic, and accepts as a true that every citizen within the democratic nation has the ability to cogitate adequately enough to actually know what they were doing if they did have more 'hands on' participation. In my view that's almost impossible, even if some would argue education is the key there. Others on the opposite side of the argument would probably put forward that not everyone should be allowed to have such an influence, because they are too stupid, or they oppose the conventional opinion, and that these 'plebs' should be kept quiet until an election process where we can give them the information we want to and get their 'consent' to make decisions, supposedly in their interests.

It's all very well saying educate the population and that any who aren't sufficiently 'educated' on the subject should not have their opinions registered, but what do you do? Some kind of quiz before you vote? Get less than 70%, and you're not permitted to participate in the democratic elections you are supposedly entitled to? I can imagine that causing problems...

I think you sum it up fairly well NM, "Or is it bound to remain a mere theory, an Illusion, to be used by the ones who are really in charge?". In my view, true democracy is now unattainable without a major revolution of common thought. People generally don't mind the 'false' democracy that they live in. Or at least, they are not so outraged by the fact all they do is give consent, that they want to rise up and change things.

You are right there, and I do define democracy the way that really everyone has the ability to participate, to have influence.

Once we begin selecting who can vote and who can´t, we don´t have democracy anymore.

[The excited one]

i know politicians are bastards who tend to change their direction and policies especially when an election comes up and also grid lock within the parliament as well the time that is wasted on debates when a policy needs to be implemented like immediately, there are lots of inefficiencies.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. ~Winston Churchill

quoted from Winston Churchill this is the only the best or worse (depends what you think) since us humans had tried most systems are they had problems and democracy is the only system that is the best for the people at this moment.........

[Primo]

i know politicians are bastards who tend to change their direction and policies especially when an election comes up and also grid lock within the parliament as well the time that is wasted on debates when a policy needs to be implemented like immediately, there are lots of inefficiencies.

Many forms of Government have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of Government except all those others that have been tried from time to time. ~Winston Churchill

quoted from Winston Churchill this is the only the best or worse (depends what you think) since us humans had tried most systems are they had problems and democracy is the only system that is the best for the people at this moment.........

The form of goverment who can be the best and the worst one at the same time is monarchy - A wise Ruler with much power can definitly better his country in an extent no democratic party can ever hope to achieve. At the same time, if we get a bad, evil or just a stupid/naiv ruler he can ruin his country to an extent a democratic party can never achieve, too. History shows that rulers tend to be the latter, thats why monarchy is commonly seen as "Dictatorship" or "Tyranny".
Edit: Ups, sorry for double-post.

[slider]

You have to be a Democracy first. The US is a Republic. Politicians like to get the words wrong to throw you off.

[Diamat]

You have to be a Democracy first. The US is a Republic. Politicians like to get the words wrong to throw you off.

I am pretty sure Nightmare Moon was referring to the democratic process, not a Democracy in the literal sense.

In any event, democracies as we know them today (i.e. liberal democracies) fulfill their historical role. Anyone who thinks that such a system is better than all others is a bigot. Anyone who says that democracy is the worst kind of system is a bigot too.

[Condottiere 40K]

Monarchy just defines the title of the head of state; the English Saxon nobility could proclaim one of their number as King, giving the previous King's wishes it's due.

You can label a sausage what you like, it's how that sausage is manufactured, that's important.

[Enemy of the State]

In a democracy, the state is public. The people who control the state don't own the capital value, they are simply temporarily put in charge of the apparatus of compulsion. For thousands of years, the state was privately owned. The state was seen as the private property of the king, who could do as he wished with it. People prefer goods now over later, and will only sacrifice present goods if they believe it will lead to an increased supply of goods in the future. Since kings would pass on the state to their children, they had an incentive to maintain the capital value of the state. This meant kings would for the most part leave society alone. Keeping taxes too high and overspending would lead to a decreased supply of goods in the future. But in a democracy, there is no such incentive. Those in charge of the state have only a few years in power. This has lead to increasing centralization and violence. Politicians will try to plunder as much as they can as fast as they can, since if they hold out on their reward, they may never get it at all. We've seen a tremendous increase in the size of the state since the birth of modern democracy. And wars have become more brutal as rulers try to grab as much power and resources as possible as quickly as possible. I'm not saying monarchy is good, and democracy is evil. Either way, we're dealing with a parasitic entity upon society.

I strongly suggest the book "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe to everyone.

[Diamat]

I strongly suggest the book "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe to everyone.

I have to check this out. Thanks!

[Primo]

In this country democracy has failed. Politicians do not keep true to their promisses, do everything the public does not want and there is nothing worthwhile to choose from, again and again.

So? This argument stands for every land with democracy, I just used a german example as I live in germany and know more about the local politics.

In a democracy, the state is public. The people who control the state don't own the capital value, they are simply temporarily put in charge of the apparatus of compulsion. For thousands of years, the state was privately owned. The state was seen as the private property of the king, who could do as he wished with it. People prefer goods now over later, and will only sacrifice present goods if they believe it will lead to an increased supply of goods in the future. Since kings would pass on the state to their children, they had an incentive to maintain the capital value of the state. This meant kings would for the most part leave society alone. Keeping taxes too high and overspending would lead to a decreased supply of goods in the future. But in a democracy, there is no such incentive. Those in charge of the state have only a few years in power. This has lead to increasing centralization and violence. Politicians will try to plunder as much as they can as fast as they can, since if they hold out on their reward, they may never get it at all. We've seen a tremendous increase in the size of the state since the birth of modern democracy. And wars have become more brutal as rulers try to grab as much power and resources as possible as quickly as possible. I'm not saying monarchy is good, and democracy is evil. Either way, we're dealing with a parasitic entity upon society.

I strongly suggest the book "Democracy: The God That Failed" by Hans-Hermann Hoppe to everyone.

I will check this book out. And you made quite a few good points with which I can just agree.

You have to be a Democracy first. The US is a Republic. Politicians like to get the words wrong to throw you off.

So? I talked about democracy. The UDSSR was a democracy. The nazi-regime was a democracy. And the US is a democracy. Democracy has various forms of goverment in itself, like the republic form, but has one essential approach: The people decide. Since the US claims that the people decide, it is a democracy, even if I stated above that actually the media decides what the people decide.

Monarchy just defines the title of the head of state; the English Saxon nobility could proclaim one of their number as King, giving the previous King's wishes it's due.

You can label a sausage what you like, it's how that sausage is manufactured, that's important.

I was over-generalizing in my post, but had neither the time nor researched enough to include every aspect.

[Astaroth]

@Enemy of the State: Unfortunately, your hypothesis goes against what basically every historical monarchy has shown in the past. Let me analyze this step by step:

In a democracy, the state is public. The people who control the state don't own the capital value, they are simply temporarily put in charge of the apparatus of compulsion. For thousands of years, the state was privately owned. The state was seen as the private property of the king, who could do as he wished with it. People prefer goods now over later, and will only sacrifice present goods if they believe it will lead to an increased supply of goods in the future. Since kings would pass on the state to their children, they had an incentive to maintain the capital value of the state. This meant kings would for the most part leave society alone. Keeping taxes too high and overspending would lead to a decreased supply of goods in the future.

It is simply wrong that kings cared more about spending because they "would pass on the state to their children". Countless monarchs have bankrupted their countries during their reign and didn't give a damn about their successors. Being born as a monarch, especially as an absolute one, encouraged people to become megalomaniac and crazy about spending. See Louis XIV of France who essentially bankrupted his country.

But in a democracy, there is no such incentive. Those in charge of the state have only a few years in power. This has lead to increasing centralization and violence. Politicians will try to plunder as much as they can as fast as they can, since if they hold out on their reward, they may never get it at all.

There is a big incentive -- it is called reelection. And there is another massive difference: politicians can't just do whatever they want, unlike kings. Why's that? Because there's a system of checks and balances. There are different branches of government, you have the legislative, executive and judges, you have the media and so on. A leader of a government can't just go and put the state's money into his own pockets. And those who do so are tried in a court of law, see Berlusconi in Italy.
In a democracy you have accountability and there are many other people who have an interest in you failing (namely those who belong to another party). If Obama took money from the American people and used it to build a private yacht for him he wouldn't just get away with it. If Louis XIV did something similar, the people couldn't do about it.

We've seen a tremendous increase in the size of the state since the birth of modern democracy.

Uhh yes, that's because the living conditions of everyone have improved drastically. Of course the state is going to be bigger if it supports the weak, old and sickly, if it helps the unemployed and doesn't let people starve or die because they cannot afford a doctor.

Back during the times of monarchies, basically the whole tax money was used on a) the military, b) prestigious building projects of the king (and no, that doesn't mean a great infrastructure for everyone but pointless statues and the likes) and c) the household of the monarch. People died at age 30 because they couldn't afford a doctor, but who cares. At least the state was small! What bogus.

And wars have become more brutal as rulers try to grab as much power and resources as possible as quickly as possible.

This is just complete nonsense. The bloodiest wars ever were WWI and WWII. Do you know who started both of them? WWI was started by the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Russia. And there's a simple connection between all of them: they were all monarchies, surprise! But what about WWII? It was started by Nazi Germany, a dictatorship. See a pattern there?

The 30 years war was even bloodier than both world wars (not in terms of total numbers but relative to the size of the population). It was primarily fought between the monarchies of France, Sweden and Austria Hungary.

Democracies actually result in less wars and less deaths. Now of course you might bring up an example like Vietnam. But the thing is: the US pulled back from Vietnam due to the enormous public outcry. Going just by their strategic situation and financial power they could've kept fighting (and a king would probably have done that), but the fact that so many people openly opposed the war majorly contributed to its end. Same goes for Iraq and Afghanistan. Due to the increasing disapproval the public has for them, the American leaders have no choice but to pull back slowly. Also, a war against Iran is most likely not going to happen, again due to the lack of public support.

This is based on Kant's views on democracies and war btw. People are unlikely to support wars in which they or their own relatives and friends will have to suffer and die -- unless there is a very good reason to go to war (such as defense -- Afghanistan; the crimes of the Nazis in WWII and so on). But even if they do support a war initially, public support for it will almost inevitably decrease constantly over time.

The UDSSR was a democracy. The nazi-regime was a democracy.

This is simply complete nonsense. The USSR was a dictatorship under the disguise of a communist system. The Nazi regime was simply a dictatorship. The people did not have any power in the state, neither directly nor indirectly.

[Primo]

This is just complete nonsense. The bloodiest wars ever were WWI and WWII. Do you know who started both of them? WWI was started by the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Russia. And there's a simple connection between all of them: they were all monarchies, surprise! But what about WWII? It was started by Nazi Germany, a dictatorship. See a pattern there?
This is based on Kant's views on democracies and war btw. People are unlikely to support wars in which they or their own relatives and friends will have to suffer and die -- unless there is a very good reason to go to war (such as defense -- Afghanistan; the crimes of the Nazis in WWII and so on). But even if they do support a war initially, public support for it will almost inevitably decrease constantly over time.

It is long proved that germany has not single fault in WW1, their enemys had their fair share too and they were all democracys.

This is simply complete nonsense. The USSR was a dictatorship under the disguise of a communist system. The Nazi regime was simply a dictatorship. The people did not have any power in the state, neither directly nor indirectly.

Then explain this to me
and why Hitler was elected by the people? Yes, elected. He was democratically chosen to be the Führer. In every pure essence democracy. The people elected their Führer, which means they had power in the state.

Democracies actually result in less wars and less deaths. Now of course you might bring up an example like Vietnam. But the thing is: the US pulled back from Vietnam due to the enormous public outcry. Going just by their strategic situation and financial power they could've kept fighting (and a king would probably have done that), but the fact that so many people openly opposed the war majorly contributed to its end. Same goes for Iraq and Afghanistan. Due to the increasing disapproval the public has for them, the American leaders have no choice but to pull back slowly. Also, a war against Iran is most likely not going to happen, again due to the lack of public support.

This just proves a democracy can´t enforce its foreign policy, and is by no means anything good. Every people will grow tired of war - either it shouldn´t start it, or it should end it forever, but to start it and then leave it is the worst option

[Vanoi]

It is long proved that germany has not single fault in WW1, their enemys had their fair share too and they were all democracys.

Things like militarism, imperialism, nationalism, and oppostie alliances are the real blame of WWI.

Then explain this to me
and why Hitler was elected by the people? Yes, elected. He was democratically chosen to be the Führer. In every pure essence democracy. The people elected their Führer, which means they had power in the state.

The Weimar Republic had a flawed consitution that allowed a dictator to b elected into power. He may have been democratically elected, but eh turned the government into a dictatorship.

[Primo]

I even specifically stated that "WWI was started by the German Empire, Austria-Hungary and Russia." Of course the whole situation contributed to the problem, but the main reasons for the actual outbreak of the war were A-H's expansionism on the Balkan, Russia's support of Serbia and Germany's full support for its Austrian allies. All of those countries were monarchies. France did not start the war.

I even specifically stated that the enemys of germany had their fair share of fault, too, and since this isn´t only france, you simply ignored that part while accusing me of the same. Interesting discussion method.
See, you can blame every war on monarchys, but that doesn´t make it right. Wars are those faults who lead them, not the govermental system.

There is a massive difference between the political theory of Marx and the actual system of the USSR. The USSR was simply a dictatorship, period. Nothing else to say. The "people" had zero power, zip.

The Supreme Soviet (successor of the Congress of Soviets and Central Executive Committee) was nominally the highest state body for most of the Soviet history,[38] at first acting as a rubber stamp institution, approving and implementing all decisions made by the party. However, the powers and functions of the Supreme Soviet were extended in the late 1950s, 1960s and 1970s, including the creation of new state commissions and committees. It gained additional powers when it came to the approval of the Five-Year Plans and the Soviet state budget.[39] The Supreme Soviet elected a Presidium to wield its power between plenary sessions,[40] ordinarily held twice a year, and appointed the Supreme Court,[41] the Procurator General[42] and the Council of Ministers (known before 1946 as the Council of People's Commissars), headed by the Chairman (Premier) and managing an enormous bureaucracy responsible for the administration of the economy and society.[40] State and party structures of the constituent republics largely emulated the structure of the central institutions, although the Russian SFSR, unlike the other constituent republics, for most of its history had no republican branch of the CPSU, being ruled directly by the union-wide party until 1990. Local authorities were organized likewise into party committees, local Soviets and executive committees. While the state system was nominally federal, the party was unitary.[43]

The party was democratically elected or not not elected, if the people still can´t make themselves felt the problem lies within democracy itself. But per definitionem it was a democracy, zip!

Read this. Hitler was only elected after his SA and other cronies had terrorized other parties and his political enemies for a long time already. Many of those who opposed him were arrested and calling the election a "democratic" one is honestly simply laughable.

So you say a minority terrorised the majority into giving in? So we are again at a problem of democracy.
But since the Nazis didn´t win the election, it is save to assume it was democratic, for a non-democratic one would have been won by the Nazis (logically).
The Era of Nazi germany is sorrunded by thousands of lies and silenced truths. You should still try to be reasonable, tough.

And Hitler was not "democratically chosen to be the Führer", that's unhistorical nonsense. He was elected as Chancellor of Germany, after which he quickly turned the whole country into a Führer-state, removing all opposition and becoming dictator. A country with a dictator for lifetime is, by definition, not a democracy.

He was democratically elected for live, which is per definitionem a democratic election How he managed to do that is not important for the definition of democracy.

No, it proves that democracy helps prevent and shorten wars. Only wars that are completely necessary (defeating Nazi Germany) or can be won without huge casualties (Libya this year) are politically viable, which is a good thing.

Libya was a very bad thing, but that would be off-topic. And sorry, but failing the wars is not in my definition of shorting them. Also, Nazi Germany wasn´t defeated because of its crimes, it was defeated because its power was feared - It was feared so much that the allied even tollareted an annexion of a country - later this was called the noble "appeasment"- politic but instead it was fear. Nothing more, nothing less.

Things like militarism, imperialism, nationalism, and oppostie alliances are the real blame of WWI.


The Weimar Republic had a flawed consitution that allowed a dictator to b elected into power. He may have been democratically elected, but eh turned the government into a dictatorship.

The Weimar Republic was a land with ultimate freedom - you could call for murder in the newspaper, for example - and freedom tends to be abused.
With the first part of your post you are right, of course.