How to Explain vodka kaufland to Your Boss

Posted by Cassi on February 12th, 2021

Der Fluchter des Konzern - Einflussung und Wollendorf

The term Wodkaherstellung means "taking hold of a title or a throne." In other words, it means that a man re-claims his dignity or stature by assuming the office of "king." In Germany this was commonly known as der Fluchter des Konzern. Thus, in our terminology, Wodkaherstellung is used to refer to an elevation or throne.

The first person who used the concept of wodkaherstellung was Festus Jabsch. According to tradition, Jabsch developed this idea after seeing the customs of the ancient Greeks and Romans in which there is a division of their subjects into two groups, men and women, with each group assigned a particular duty: slave and master, cook and slave, drunk and free, knight and maid, etc. Jabsch then concluded that there must be a reason why the two groups hardly ever meet each other, and that perhaps there should be a third group: friends. Thus, in his "Theory of the Formation of Languages," Jabsch came up with the idea of a triumvirate: the tongue, the heart and the brain.

To illustrate this idea, he introduced the term "verwendet werden" which means "tables with chairs." This phrase could be rendered as "the place where people sit down to eat (verwendet werden)." Jabsch also developed the idea of a hierarchy among the social groups that existed in a society. Thus, the group of friends would have its own station or "zum Wolltorum," that would elevate them above the classes of people below them. According to Jabsch's "der Fluchter des Konzern," this social hierarchy would gradually disappear when all the people had equal opportunity to be elevated to higher posts. The point being that, in order to have a democracy, the members of the society must have equal opportunities regardless of their station in life, thus ensuring that everyone enjoys a fair share of societal advancement.

Although Jabsch's notion has been criticized by various philosophers, including Immanuel Kant, the main line of argument is his own belief that man needs to relate to others so as to form communities. Therefore, he believed that, in order for a society to function properly, all individuals must have a similar cultural background, thus giving them an incentive to work collectively towards a common goal. From this perspective, it is clear that Jabsch's "der Fluchter des Konzern" aims to provide a social lubricant for the formation of a democratic society. However, not all his arguments have been accepted by critics. For instance, according to the Vienna-based philosopher Julius Burger, the idea of a "zum Wolltorum" is historically inaccurate. According to Julius Burger, Die Wolltorum is derived from the phrase "zu lieber als Wolltor" (I lie to you in order to get you to do something) which simply means that, in fact, there is no need to form a community because no one will like to be around you.

In addition to defending Jabsch's view, others have disputed his assumption that the "der Fluchter des Konzern" and "zu Lieber als Wolltor" are valid concepts. According to these commentators, a concept like "du lieber als Wolltor" does not entail that there will be sharing or community building. Instead, they argue, such a concept may lead to the erosion of individual privacy. As is the case with many topics related to private property in the European history, this argument has some relevance in today's context. Nevertheless, the same arguments are not relevant to Wollendorff's overall argument.

Rather, what Wollendorff ultimately ends up saying is that, if the state requires individuals to share their land for reasons vodka kalaschnikow flasche of equity, "zu lieber als Wolltor" will generally have the same result as "zu lieber als Ruf." So the original concept still stands, as a corollary to the most commonly expressed proposition, "there is liberty and justice for all," which is what the title of this book is all about. In light of our current concerns about excessive surveillance and the erosion of individual rights, this book serves as a needed corrective to current scholarship. I recommend it highly to students studying European political thought, as well as those interested in personal property law.