18. Are you satisfied with the electoral system? Do you agree with all the pre-election positions of one party or you may like the position of one party in the economy and another party in foreign policy and maybe another party in education and labor? Would you like this to be reflected in the election result and to implement the will of the people for every sector of human life, or you are satisfied with the implementation of the overall wish of one political party?
  • A. Yes, it satisfies me. One party covers my choices and there is an identification of views on all objects-issues of everyday life and full agreement with its proposals for all areas of human activity 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B. No it does not satisfy me but nothing better can be done. It's utopian and not worth the effort. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • C. No, it does not satisfy me at all and something must be done. /It is not possible for one party to have the best positions on all issues and it is most likely that two different or more parties have better proposals for different issues! /I am not satisfied with choosing the one with the most preferable suggestions, instead of being able to choose the best suggestions for each area of life. /In order for this to be reflected in the elections, we would have to vote for each position on each item separately, instead of voting for one party collectively, as if one party had all the best proposals. Finally, each party with the best position in a sector of human activity should take over the respective ministry for its implementation. Our political leaders must find a way. Nothing is impossible… MORE… 67%, 2 votes
    2 votes 67%
    2 votes - 67% of all votes
  • D. Not sure or no idea 33%, 1 vote
    1 vote 33%
    1 vote - 33% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
March 18, 2023
Polls Archive

The decisions we make determine our lives. The point is to find how we can make the best decisions we can.

And the best decisions are the ones that are accepted by majority. That means by voting, with democracy and not by monarchy or oligarchy or tyranny, regimes that were tried and did not prevail.

But since it is not possible for everyone to vote for everything, we vote once every 4 years and we choose "theoretically" the best among us, so that they can implement a specific program and make these decisions, through a smaller model of proportional voting and again through the majority.

But these presuppose the existence of consciousness and the freedom of its expression.

However, at the level of elected leaders while voting in the parliament, the voice of conscience does not exist or rather is not heard. What is heard is the position of the party president, who determines the line of the party and under the excuse of party discipline and unity, along with the threat of deletion or other consequences, everyone agrees. Sometimes the parliament members are not even informed what they are voting for, an assurance from the competent minister is enough to convince them to vote.

Unfortunately, the political parties that are not an integral part of the functioning of Democracy do not function democratically! Democracy could function without parties, simply by electing the best individual representatives.

Just because someone belongs to a party does not mean that they have to agree with the party on everything and that when they disagree they should be treated as a foreign body or as a deserter.

Nowadays, the image of the infallible party has been created and politicians have confused "making the right decision" with "being able to vote for what we want" apparently under the illusion that they are infallible.

But is anyone infallible? Does anyone claim perfection? Mistakes are for humans and they are the actions that the smart ones do not do again but the idiots repeat.

…………………………………………………………………………………………..................................................................

The parties claim that if the first party does not have the autonomy needed to vote for what it wants and if it cannot pass a bill (a law draft), then there is a risk that the government will fall.

So under the pretext of not leading to anarchy and chaos, the law of enhanced proportional representation is applied, to favor the first party with more MPs so that it can carry out its work undisturbed. This is where non-elected MPs are appointed while the elected are rejected.

But how can a government lose a majority in parliament? Proportionality doesn’t change!

That is like, if in a family a father proposes something that the rest of the family does not want and in the end this is not done, then the father should disappear!?

If a government is not autonomous and proposes a proper bill that has been approved by the people it will not be voted on? Who will not vote for what the people have chosen? And citizens cannot judge? There will be no elections again?

But if it is autonomous and proposes a wrong bill, what will happen?

Unfortunately, the simple analogy, that is the true choices of the citizens in conjunction with the vote of conscience are not considered as a solution, because it is supposed to be like governing by an elected minority, which will determine by completing the required number of votes to pass (approve) the bills.

Here we are constantly discussing party power, party prestige, party collaborations and we continue to believe that everyone agrees with everything and there is no talk of differentiation and the conscience of the elected MPs.

To the mind of a man who in his life has not found any other man who agrees with him on everything, this sounds scary. Even with dear friends and relatives there is always the opposite view.

………………………………………………………………………………………..................................................................

This totality of the parties' disciplinary agreement on all issues is terrifying because it brings to mind other periods in history where the opposite view was feared and could even lead to death. Some call today's Republic… Elected Monarchy.

At best this system that has been imposed on our lives, the impersonal political parties (political companies) looks like party oligarchy.

But one could say that nothing different can be done from what is already being done! Suppose then, that the enhanced proportional system has its advantages in the occasion that a leading party has a clear lead and stands out from the other candidates in order not to be blackmailed by a minority.

But what happens when even with this premium electoral system a party cannot form an autonomous government?

Again, the leader of the first party is called upon to work with one or more party leaders to form a government! Again, however, the election is not proportional and based on voting, but based on the desire, the will, the judgment and the interests of one, instead of two, instead of three people parties.

Why, at least in this case, should not depend on the real desire of the electorate, since in this case, it seems that the people do not distinguish one extremely suitable for the leadership of the country in relation to the rest!

So why is he called upon to form a government with some other minority parties, who are probably just thirsty for power, as long as they outnumber the rival party and just make it useless?

After the appointment of MPs we also have the appointment of government parties. How is it that in this case the parties cooperate, while when they are not under the pressure of their small percentage they cannot let their members cooperate to achieve the best possible result?

And yet this has happened many times in the past when no party has achieved autonomy and when there has been a need to achieve a serious goal.

Then solidarity appears, Ecumenical governments are formed, governments of cooperation and wide acceptance in which all the party political formations of the country participate.

………………………………………………………………………………………......................................................................

But the selfish gene of the parties wants everything to be its own. Only when they risk getting nothing, they manage to cooperate.

It would be great if we lived in a perfect world and in all future electoral contests there would be suitable personalities and political figures for all the citizens of the world to inspire confidence, to deserve their vote and to gain the autonomy they so desire.

But perfection does not exist and if it exists it is only in what we mean, when we say in different languages God, Θεός, Dieu, Allah …

Parties urgently need to understand that they must accept democracy within themselves, respect for diversity, the conscience and belief of the people, abandon the arrogant behavior of the infallible, seek the best solution and cooperate with each other.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

13. In the late 19th century, when the people of the world were still fighting for their freedom, in order to express their love for the vital importance of the greatest good and to honor this fundamental human value, they envisioned and created a huge statue symbolizing Liberty. The statue of Liberty, which became a symbol of people's hope for a better life and today is one of the most famous monuments in the world, was completed thanks to the small donations of "ordinary people", even small children, since school students also gave what they could, from their faith from heart and soul in this high ideal./ Since then 150 years have passed and we, who have followed, we found what they left behind. We also found Freedom and her statue. Freedom is fortunately enjoyed by the majority of people on Earth, although the struggle for Freedom never stops. Neither for those who "conquered" it (so not to lose it again) nor for those who continue to fight for it. Do we have anything to leave to those who come after us? Do we have anything to say to them? If today they asked for our contribution, so that we could build a second statue, equal to that of “Liberty” (a sister we could say) which would symbolize the second most important human value, the one necessary for peace and progress in human societies, this that leads the free man to well-being and moral-spiritual elevation, would we like it? Would we do it? And what would this statue be?...MORE
  • A.I don't think I would like that. If we have freedom we have everything. That is all man needs. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.We could build a statue of "Plutus" dedicated to Wealth. This is what defines people's lives. The most important. This is the only value. This is the goal of people for a better life. 33%, 1 vote
    1 vote 33%
    1 vote - 33% of all votes
  • C.We should build the statue of Democracy because this is the state that brings Justice. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • D.We should build the statue of Justice, because without it there is no peace and progress. The primary need of free people is justice and that is why Democracy was created. Unjust and unfair chokes the throat, like the noose of slavery. Justice without democracy is a dream, democracy without justice a nightmare... MORE 67%, 2 votes
    2 votes 67%
    2 votes - 67% of all votes
  • E. Not sure or no idea 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • G.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
February 7, 2023
Polls Archive

The Statue of Liberty, this World Heritage Monument placed at the entrance of New York Harbor and officially unveiled in October 1886 to a standing ovation of the public for 15 minutes, welcomed more than 12 million immigrants (the European ancestors of Americans) holding in her upraised right hand a torch to enlighten the world and in her left a plaque inscribed with the date "July 4, 1776", (USA Independence Day).

The giant steel statue (its height without the base is 46.5 meters, while with the base 93) which is a gift from France to the United States, shows us what great things can be created with friendship and cooperation of the nations. It was created with money collected from small donations, from all the French and European immigrants who felt and became Americans. There must not have been a person of the time, who did not give even a few cents to build the Statue of Liberty, since the rich were not so willing to finance its construction.

It was especially encouraging for people all over the world to know that Freedom exists and is not just a dream, but a common human desire, since there was no people who had not fought for their freedom, while at the same time the struggle of the enslaved Greeks continued for liberation from the Ottomans with the slogan "Freedom or Death".

In a free society, however, something more is needed, for people to live in peace and to be able to look ahead and progress, and this first sign of civilization is...


In a free society, however, something more is needed, for people to live in peace and to be able to look ahead and progress, and this necessary condition is Justice.

So if we wished to create a second statue, equal to that of Liberty, this would have to be the statue of Justice, and a suitable place for it would be on the divided and long-suffering great island of Cyprus, which is near and between Europe, Asia and Africa!

A woman too, with a piece of cloth tied in front of her eyes so that she does not see and her judgment is influenced by looks or appearance or by any likes and dislikes, ready to weigh with the scale she holds (the same scale which all humans are gifted and carry within us to distinguish right from wrong, good from evil) the actions of men and to render the rewards and punishments due to each one, having in her other hand a naked sword, not to slaughter anyone but so that no one dares to question her.

So seeing the statue of Justice, we and our descendants will have the opportunity to remember and not forget the real values in human life, the ones we should strive for, the ones we should achieve in our lives in order to rise and improve, the ones we must follow to be able to live better and not lose our way following other temporary and insignificant goods, repeating mistakes of the past.

Socrates, the first philosopher, was sentenced to death by a "rigged" trial and a falsified court decision. Leaving he said to the Athenians "Now it is time to leave, I to die and you to live. Which of us goes to a better place, no one knows but God." He had a clear conscience, the others?

Although his disciples begged him to escape, he preferred to drink the poison and die in prison, rather than break the laws of his country, sacrificing himself to show the true meaning and value of Justice, in relation to the rendering of Justice by human courts. Such is the value of Justice that a just death is better than an unjust life!

About 2.400 years had to pass and in 2012 the trial of Socrates was repeated in modern Athens, by well-known lawyers and judges, using the laws of that time, and he was finally acquitted, justified!

It is the duty of men to bring the administration of justice by human courts (the laws and their application) to the measure of humans's sense of justice.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

12. The laws on the protection of personal data in Greece provide that the faces of criminals and illegals cannot be made public, with the exception of raping minors, or after a prosecutor's order, due to the fact that the image of the person is an expression of the personality and is protected absolutely. Do you think the measure is correct or should there be changes?
  • A.The measure is correct, one cannot publish someone's face without their approval. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.The measure is correct because an accused may ultimately be innocent and his image damaged. Provision could be made to release someone's image only after they have been found guilty by a court. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • C.The measure is wrong and needs many changes. One should think about his own rights before committing an illegal act. First of all, making public the image (seeing the face) of someone who has committed an illegality (even tax evasion) seems to be the minimum normal punishment that a person who commits an illegality should suffer. It is the sense of shame (if created) that can lead to remorse and compliance. Second it is still the right of people who are trying to live legally, to know from which people they may be in danger so that they can protect themselves. Another reason is that this face can be recognized by other people who may have suffered similar damage from the particular person or other witnesses of his actions and help in the better administration of justice... MORE 67%, 2 votes
    2 votes 67%
    2 votes - 67% of all votes
  • D. Not sure or no idea 33%, 1 vote
    1 vote 33%
    1 vote - 33% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
January 19, 2023
Polls Archive

Even in the event that someone is finally acquitted by a court of law, an apology can and must be made, all the necessary clarifications must be given and all the necessary actions must be taken to restore the person's reputation.

We are human and we make mistakes, the point is to be able to correct them and not repeat them, but also learn to forgive those who deserve our forgiveness.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

From posts:
11. Are you satisfied with the functioning and effectiveness of the European Union?
  • A.Yes, it is a very good and useful union of states, which has created a common market and formed a democratic coalition that has global power and it guarantees security, justice, progress and prosperity. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.No, I'm not satisfied and I think a lot of changes are needed. The EU institution is good, but it has ended up as another slow organization, with a large number of well-paid executives and officials, which is ineffective in difficult critical situations and is unable to fulfill its purpose. What I would like and would like the European Union officials and the leaders of the Member States to know is an essential union, with common rules, with a common policy and the ability to make quick and correct decisions, above all with respect for the human values of freedom, justice and love, but also with respect for the particularities of the peoples of Europe... MORE 100%, 3 votes
    3 votes 100%
    3 votes - 100% of all votes
  • C.No, it is a failed union. The European Union of Germany disappointed a large portion of Europeans, who believed in unity, brotherhood of peoples and human progress in peace and justice, and I would not mind if it disintegrated or if my country left it. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • D. Not sure or no idea 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
January 18, 2023
Polls Archive

For example, on the issue of immigration, various groups began to form, depending on the common interests of the states, which did not follow the EU decisions. They followed their own policy, especially in matters concerning refugees and immigrants from Muslim countries, forming like this smaller unions of states and erecting fences between states, instead of common policy and confrontation. This is not called union but separation.

Even on the issue of solidarity, there are many gaps between North and South, poor and rich, strong and weak. This is not called union but separation.

Especially with Greece, which is the difficult border of Europe and constantly has to deal with an aggressive and threatening neighbor, irrationally assertive, simply because they can due to power, since they have six times the territory and eight times the population of Greece, the critical moment when one would expect to see solidarity, the moral duty of helping each other, the obligation that the members of a group have to support and strengthen each other, what one sees is that interests prevail. The individual commercial relations of the states with Turkey appear to be the first priority. Even if it involves weapons systems in an aggressive state overarmed that can use them against allies, justice comes second and bulling between states doesn't count. As long as trade relations are not disrupted. This is not called union but separation.

Unfortunately, Greece is not the exception, since the affected Italy also felt helpless during the covid pandemic.

If there really were friendly fraternal relations between the member states, perhaps the British, those certainly European friends, might not have decided to leave the EU which they decided with a cold heart.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

From posts:
9. In self-destructive habits and especially in drug use, do you think that it should be considered a serious crime apart from illegality, and therefore the person who is a user should be imprisoned?
  • A. Yes it is a crime and the user should be jailed. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B. No it is not a crime because the user does not bother anyone, only harms himself. It is a pity that the prisons are filled with sick, weak, addicted, self-destructive people who in no way will improve themselves in prisons, on the contrary they will get worse. They could pay a fine (like those who don't wear a seat belt in the car) which even goes to a fund that will support drug addiction. 67%, 2 votes
    2 votes 67%
    2 votes - 67% of all votes
  • C. Not sure or no idea 33%, 1 vote
    1 vote 33%
    1 vote - 33% of all votes
  • D. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
January 14, 2023
Polls Archive

The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

From posts:
7. Do you think that the reality that was presented with “PANAMA” and “PARADISE” and “PANDORA PAPERS” is acceptable? With this revelation it becomes clear that millionaires around the world hide their income in “tax heavens” to avoid taxation and contribution to the common good, leaving the common people, the daily workers in the hell of everyday life, to pay for the operation and security of the state ...MORE
  • A. It's legal, therefore justified and acceptable. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B. It's not fair, but this is how the world works and unfortunately there is nothing we can do. 33%, 1 vote
    1 vote 33%
    1 vote - 33% of all votes
  • C. It's unjust and immoral and definitely needs immediate treatment, so that the injustice is stopped and such phenomena are not repeated again. In a world where critical security and justice services are underperforming, in a world of unemployment and hunger, such accumulation of wealth and concealment and avoidance of obligations, is absurdly unjust and disgusting, and the world community must take care to eliminate it immediately, even if many world leaders will be personally affected. 67%, 2 votes
    2 votes 67%
    2 votes - 67% of all votes
  • D.Not sure or no idea 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
January 3, 2023
Polls Archive

Journalists from all over the world worked together to uncover one of the worst realities in our lives. So they managed with difficulty, anxiety and risk, even for their lives, to reveal the PANAMA… PAPERS.

The leak of the names of the "Panama Archives" caused great concern to the "powerful" and the rich of the whole planet, as among the names were many heads of states, many businessmen, bankers, public officials, journalists, footballers, singers, actors and even rich people from illegal activities of common criminal law. And all these millionaires hid their income in the tax heavens, in order to avoid taxation and the contribution to the common good, but also to hide amounts that could not justify their possession by legal means.

One of the leading journalists in the shocking revelations of the Panama Papers scandals, the Maltese Daphne Garuana Galizzia, was brutally murdered in Malta, apparently as an example.

But people have shown that in the name of liberty and justice they do not even count death. A few days after her assassination, new revelations, new names of kings, prime ministers, presidents, companies, millionaires hiding their precious treasures in financial paradises, as pirates once hid their booty boxes in secret places, in some remote deserted islands and drew maps so they could find them again. Millions of such new "maps" were leaked after the continuation of the investigation of the global network of journalists (ICIJ) and this time they were named "PARADISE PAPERS".

Such is the power of people, that a man alone could change the course of the whole world! One alone could discover or invent something so important that would help or even save all the people on earth, while another, with a wrong pull of the trigger, could deprive the world of the previous man/woman, or with the wrong push of a button, could destroy humanity and the entire planet. After all, destroying is much easier than creating! You do not need special skills to kill a human "diamond", even a human "garbage" can do it.

This was the tragic result of the revelations. Instead of making people in every corner of the globe rise up and take the immoral ones with stones, the murders of journalists continued. They who were doing their sacred work, wanting to make the world a little better were hunted. One after another, journalists investigating global corruption were tragically killed, including 27-year-old Ján Kuciak, who was found dead with his unfortunate partner in their Bratislava apartment and sweet Victoria Marinova who was first raped and then brutally murdered in Bulgaria, but also many others around the world, most tragically of all the Saudi Jamal Kasogi, who was cut into pieces while he was alive in Saudi Arabia's Consulate in Istanbul and his dismembered body was scattered and never found!

The meaning that some people wanted to pass on, is that in order to become a star of journalism, one has to tell the news which will not bother the kings of wealth, while the real stars, the right and incorruptible journalists, went out unprotected. But it is a great pity that some people risk everything and sacrifice themselves to reveal the truth and in the end nothing substantial "comes out" of all this and no one is corrected.

The ICIJ recently revealed and the "PANDORA PAPERS" one of the largest lists that once again demonstrates the dimensions of global corruption. "So what, another list!" one could say!

How many more "PAPERS" must be revealed and how many journalists must be sacrificed, so that some measures can finally be taken. But by whom? Once again it becomes clear that there is no universal justice. Because no matter how fair all the states of the world are, if there is even a small spot on the planet (like the tax haven of the Cayman Islands) that remains out of control and outside the rules of law, then there will find refuge, the injustice of the whole world.

If there was anyone who could and should once again intervene in such global issues, it would be the UN with it’s organs, the International Court of Justice and the International Monetary Fund, but once again they are absent and once again stood below the circumstances.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

5. Do you believe that every person should have the right to self-determination and absolute control over the management of their life even in the case of ending it? Should a person have the right to refuse a treatment or the continuation of a treatment even if it endangers his/her life? Should wo-man be able to choose a dignified end? Is it ultimately a human right to choose Euthanasia, in exceptional cases of serious illness such as... MORE
  • A.People should not be given this choices and life-saving efforts and mandatory treatments should be imposed, even without the person's willing consent, when their life is threatened. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.There should always be a choice and if someone does not want a treatment, this should always be respected. But not in Euthanasia because doctors have sworn by the Hippocratic Oath that they will not give a lethal drug to someone who asks for it, nor will they give him such a suggestion. After all, Euthanasia is one thing and the choice or not of treatment is another, where the patient's consent is mandatory based on the laws. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • C.There should be the option of Euthanasia, but under very strictly observed conditions. Obviously, the person himself should wish for it, there should be the consent of the first degree relatives and a certificate from the treating doctor that there is no room for improvement, nor treatment of the disease (physical or mental)… MORE 100%, 3 votes
    3 votes 100%
    3 votes - 100% of all votes
  • D.Not sure or no idea 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
December 12, 2022
Polls Archive

When a person with a serious incurable disease, no longer has quality time in his life but only pain and fears.

When an elderly person can't walk, has incontinence, can't take care of himself, needs someone by his side all the time for support, feels shame and loses his dignity without enjoying anything in life.

When a doctor diagnoses that there is no cure and that in the limited time frame towards the end of a person the "journey" will be constantly worsening to the point of torture, while the patient himself feels that and does not want to live anymore?

What happens when even his-her loved ones can't bear to see him being tortured anymore?

In such cases a deadly medicine which may be given to a wo-man and under these circumstances, will not violate the Hippocratic oath, inasmuch as it will neither be prescribed by the doctor, nor given lightly by him to anyone who asks for it, but will be the result of respecting a conscious choice and fulfilling the human desire to be able to end an unbearable life.

We can't forcefully save those people who don't want to be saved, because if I save a person with my own data, I may help him survive but he feels unhappy and feels like he's living a torture, a daily nightmare of "constantly waiting for death" and then it is not really salvation, but excruciating torture.

In this case, euthanasia should be called euzoia. We were born without wanting it, without being asked and we lived not as we would like, but struggling to do as we want. At least shouldn’t we be able to choose, under reasonable conditions, to end our lives as we wish? With dignity?

Life is a gift from God and a right of every human being, not an obligation. Otherwise there shouldn't be heroes in this world, there shouldn't be people who sacrifice themselves for their beliefs and the common good. I don't want others to decide for my life!

Some are driven to suicide. Suicide usually under violent circumstances since there are no other options. The right to end one's life is not recognized. He must live as long as possible. To exhaust all possibilities even if he is tyrannized and feels that he is being humiliated and wants the earth to open and swallow him. How many more people must be tortured, and for how long, until we can find the right conditions under which an alternative solution could be created?

How many families must be destroyed, to support their seriously ill elderly parents or members, who do not even want this life? Even if the children feel sorry and if they wanted to help what could they do? Kill their own parents and then risk being accused of murder?

How many people must be condemned by devoting their lives to the care of a human being, who can be like a sick plant and which if could speak say "have pity on me, help me die".

How many people must be tortured unwillingly to live without wanting it!

How many times does someone have to enter the hospital without the hope of getting better and even occupying a bed, which is not available by someone else who wants to live, consuming financial funds for the non-existent treatment, or the involuntary maintenance of his life.

And finally this society wants to save those who do not want to be saved, or cannot be saved and cannot save those who try to reach out, those who struggle daily with diseases, with lack of money, with lack of work, with the lack of security and with the lack of justice.

The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

From posts:
21. What is your opinion on the permanence of civil servants?
  • A.It is correct because this has been happening for so many years and the public works well. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.It is not right, but it is a shame to drive away those who have made themselves comfortable somewhere. 33%, 1 vote
    1 vote 33%
    1 vote - 33% of all votes
  • C.It is unacceptable! Only those who deserve it should be in these positions! / One cannot sit in the position of teacher, professor, judge, policeman, soldier, doctor, civil servant, when they are not good at their job, while at the same time there are unemployed people who could offer much better services from them. / There should be a good evaluation and those who do not perform and do not offer as much as they should, should leave and hire the most capable and the best who wish to do so... MORE... 67%, 2 votes
    2 votes 67%
    2 votes - 67% of all votes
  • D. Not sure or no idea 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question yet. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 3
April 22, 2023
Polls Archive

But the bad thing is not limited to just two people. It's not just that one mathematician won't be a school teacher and doesn't have the job he deserves, while at the same time someone else has this job and he doesn't deserve it or doesn't value or just doesn’t fit for that job, for the simple reason that a math teacher should know not only math, but he should also have pedagogical (children’s) skills and love.

Unfortunately, not just two people are affected by this, but the whole world. All the children of the world instead of being taught valuable knowledge and instead of being exemplified by valuable people, they will learn bad lessons about Life, that there is no meritocracy, there are no people who love what they do, there is no appetite for work and it is not worth striving for the best.

Many citizens will leave dissatisfied with their service in ministries, many people will leave hospitals and courts disappointed and many injustices will follow.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

From posts:
19. People in the elections vote secretly so that they are not blackmailed or criticized for their opinion, while the Members of the Parliament (MP-congressmen) vote openly. Aren’t they blackmailed, aren’t they pressured, aren’t they judged by the parties to which they belong? Should the Members of Parliament also vote secretly to protect themselves, so that they can vote conscientiously, instead of being forced to obey the party’s commands?
  • A.No, MPs have great power and will and do not need the secret ballot. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.No, MPs should not have the right to secret vote, because they must obey the instructions of the party line. 50%, 1 vote
    1 vote 50%
    1 vote - 50% of all votes
  • C.Yes they should vote secretly, because many times they may be forced to vote something obeying the party line or thinking about the political cost, instead of voting by listening to the voice of their conscience. However, the concept of democracy is based on the beliefs and conscience of the people. If all elected MPs obey the orders of their leaders, then it ceases to be called democracy and is a form of elected monarchy. If again a Member of Parliament is persuaded to vote on the basis of what his party thinks the voters believe, then we are talking about a hypothetical democracy. What each MP votes should be a secret, it should be a purely personal matter and no one should make assumptions or raise suspicions or blackmail or even ask. Because all we have to care about is the total number of votes based on what the Members of Parliament believe, who have been elected based on what the citizens believe. 50%, 1 vote
    1 vote 50%
    1 vote - 50% of all votes
  • D. Not sure or no idea 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • F.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 2
March 24, 2023
Polls Archive

The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.

20. Do you think that for extremely important issues-problems that have not been foreseen (predicted) in the pre-election positions (commitments) of the parties and that arise after the elections, creating doubts, divisions and conflicts in the societies, the opinion of the citizens should be consulted (asked) or the elected government should decide as authorized?
  • A.I believe that the elected government should decide on all issues, because it has the mandate (command) of the people to do what they think is right on every issue. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • B.I believe that the opinion of the people should be consulted. I do not consider the elected government authorized for everything and I believe that along with the right information, alternatives should be given and the people should decide by electronic referendums. It is wrong for an elected official to be considered or rather to consider himself infallible and empowered by the world to make decisions on any critical emergency that may arise… MORE… 50%, 1 vote
    1 vote 50%
    1 vote - 50% of all votes
  • C. Not sure or no idea 50%, 1 vote
    1 vote 50%
    1 vote - 50% of all votes
  • D. Not interested 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
  • E.I don't want to answer this question. 0%, 0 votes
    0 votes
    0 votes - 0% of all votes
X.Other
Total Votes: 2
March 24, 2023
Polls Archive

When in an emergency-unpredictable situation you cannot convince of the necessity and just of measures and decisions, so that they are consciously accepted, you must impose them with fear and punishment. But the unjust measures or those that do not convince the people, bring denial, anger, outburst, uprising.

At least when there is public opinion, this is an indication of fairness and a consolation that comes from respecting the opinion of many. Otherwise it seems like arbitrariness, like a latent democracy.

A person's beliefs are not a joke, they are the person himself. Only when convinced, someone is obedient and cooperates. Anyone can respect fair laws, but not the opinion of governments that think they are expressing the public opinion.

The procedures should be modernized and done electronically, like direct-urgent referendums, to cost less, to have ease, transparency and to ensure the integrity of the process. As it happens with paying taxes and online shopping, so that it is done quickly, there is cross-check of data and fraud is prevented, so the investigation of the desire of the people could be ensured!

Democracy must become an evolving and self-improving system, otherwise it will end up like a museum, like Acropolis and Parthenon that you can only imagine the glory and the beauty they once had. Even the issue of elections, those with paper ballots must end and be modernized. Let us not forget that in ancient Athens the secret ballots were done with shells (fragments of pottery) but fortunately things evolved and we reached the electronic age.


The results of the voting do not represent the common opinion of the world or all internet users, but they carry the weight of the opinion of the number of people who voted in Cosmovote. When end if, a large-proper number of people vote in Cosmovote, then we will be able to claim that the voting represents the common opinion of the world.