Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Propaganda is painting this as something different than it is. Here we consider speech for what it is: something you can express freely, within the limits of civil society. If you pass those limits, then you incur in problems. Germany let someone speak freely a tad too much in the twenties and thirties, and they don't want to make that mistake again. I understand the point of "absolute free speech", and I would subscribe to it if it wasn't that groups like AfD, or Trump's flavor of conservatism, hide behind it to achieve their authoritarian goals. To avoid that authoritarian result, you have to police certain types of speech like Germany does.

I say it again, it's nasty and needs a very strong set of counterbalances, which Germany - unlike the US - still has. Therefore this remains a much more freer country than Say-whatever-you-like-on-Rogan America. Freedom for us is free healthcare, a welfare state, an ethics-based concept of societal rights and obligations. We don't market ourselves as the beacon of free speech and FREEDOM by making both empty words fueled by extreme individualism. We still believe in Solidarität and on social-oriented policies, both on the right and left side of the isle. We have ferocious political battles about topics that are too violently policed, by the way, like right now about Palestine and Israel, and people take to the streets FREELY, despite some despicable police brutality episodes. We do have the contradictions and complexities of any modern western society.

Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.

AfD is against all this, and it is because it's provenly funded by Russia and other enemies of the west. They appeal to the Volk, but in reality are infested by double-standards, hate, and a specific type of political individualism and authoritarian views that need to be stopped with all legal and societally-acceptable means possible.



It’s worth remembering who actually made the strategic choices that strengthened Russia’s hand and left Germany dependent and militarily weak. Those weren’t the AfD’s doing — they came from the CDU–SPD coalition governments, the same lineup that’s currently in power again.

• 2011: Under Angela Merkel (CDU) and the SPD coalition, Germany decided to abolish nuclear power after Fukushima, dismantling one of the few sources of domestic energy independence.

• 2011–2015: The same governments backed and defended Nord Stream and Nord Stream 2, tying Germany’s critical infrastructure even closer to Russian gas — despite repeated warnings from Eastern European neighbors.

• 2011: The abolition of compulsory military service further weakened Germany’s defense capacity and NATO readiness.

These weren’t minor policy missteps — they systematically made Germany more vulnerable to Russian influence.

And it’s also worth noting a historical irony: Angela Merkel’s family moved from West Germany to East Germany in 1954, one of the very few families to go in that direction. Between 1949 and 1961, roughly 2.7 to 3 million East Germans fled the communist East for the capitalist West — virtually nobody went the other way.


> Yet we don't have too many runaway billionaires that are more powerful than governments, and we are still ALL a bit better off because of that. It's boring, but it works.

A literal millionare is chancellor.

> reedom for us is free healthcare,

Last I looked I paid 10k a year for government mandated healthcare. Where can I apply for the free one?


I wonder what is the point of debating like this on the internet.

I say billionaires, you mention a "millionaire" chancellor.

We don't have anything against becoming rich. But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.

He's a high-income lawyer who invested and has a net-worth of about 15 millions. If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.

Re: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you. That is how a social-democratic society work. The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.

Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.


You are arguing with a person who doesn't care what people say, facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs, the story is set in their head and thats it. Not a discussion really. Usual avoiding of hard facts that challenge their fantasies.

A fairly typical behavior I've seen countless times in topics about russian war in Ukraine in recent years. No point at all, a wasted time.


> facts are just other's propaganda against their emotionally held beliefs,

This is dishonest at best. It's a matter of opinion. I rarely - if ever - think of anyone who disagrees with me as spreading "propaganda". This is a dangerous narrative you have built in your head. I suggest you stop.


> But if you think that Herr Merz, who I haven't voted for and politically dislike, is anything close to a tycoon, well I think we're swinging in two very different planes of reality.

Of course I don't. I actually like his history, he is a successful man. But he is again so far removed from my own situation that I do not trust him to do what is best for me.

> If you think that's anything close to problematic, I don't know what to say. Maybe you should research the order-of-magnitude differences there are between a millionaire and a billionaire.

It is problematic. Yes, he studied and worked hard. But he has been wealthy for a larger part of his life than he has not been.

> e: free healthcare: if you have the means, and you work, you rightfully PAY INTO THE SYSTEM. If you can't and you are poor, it is free for you.

So it's not free.

> The system is not perfect and could be better, but that is what "Free" healthcare is.

I too, can redefine words beyond their meanings to fit my narrative.

> Also, we're so good at freedom that we do have private healthcare, so you could have payed into that system and gotten yourself your little indivisualim-tingling services.

You forget that people with chronic illnesses can just be declined of that option.


I’m far more concerned about a government led by people who have no formal education beyond high school, have never worked outside of politics, lack subject-matter expertise in the fields they oversee, and can’t even speak a foreign language — yet are sent abroad to represent the country — than I am about a self-made millionaire serving as chancellor.

Germany’s economy feels like a freight train rolling downhill — momentum without direction, and no one in the cabin who knows how to steer.

And no, the health care system is not “working.” It suffers from systemic distortion and ideological decision-making. Doctors face strict budget caps and fixed, low reimbursement rates for treating regular patients, but those limits don’t apply when treating certain publicly funded cases — where compensation is higher. That incentive structure inevitably leads to unequal treatment. I’ve experienced it firsthand with my own child and couldn’t believe it. As in: they denied taking my kid in but took in two “publicly funded cases” while I was there.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: