an experience yesterday in the university Biblitothek history has made me doubt the real reason of the people. It gave me not only this event to sour, but also the subsequent evaluations of my score.
What had happened? I wanted, as so often use the computer Bilbliothek. I placed my backpack and my jacket off at the gate and took notes, pen and lunch in my hand. For the first time came the supervision of the door behind me and left me quite forcefully, but with the bread to go outside because it was banned here but eat. I wanted to already a "Shall be the 'come-ne?" , Slip out but I had so much control that I'm only a "This is now a joke, right?" escaped, knowing that they actually meant it. I still wanted to argue with the fact that there was indeed no bag of chips, but only a loaf of bread, but they could not be put off, so I went along reluctantly, and could only go back 20 sec later. It came over me somehow feel that this oversight a few days earlier and was chained at the Castor today mutates into a guardian of the law. This absurd situation continues, I told some people, although a large measure, the behavior of the supervisor correctly assessed and it urged me that I would get upset about it too.
That one, of course, would potentially damage or something dirty can make, of course, I see one - but that one must formulate it into a law, which is then also strictly controlled reveals itself to me rather less. Even if it would be in the decision of the individual, what one might take the library into it, one might expect however, that no beer or apple juice or a kebab or fried-sausage with would take to the library. Do I have to like because of a few idiots and a law to restrict the freedom of all? Would a Rule to follow for sound reasons, do not match much more than a law, they obeyed the only externally?
An example from road traffic, this is the speed limit on roads. Although rigid speed limits on roads leading to fewer deaths and injuries, of course, but so does the ability of the drivers to judge the road conditions right in its sole discretion. Which has always accepted rule that you adjust his pace the given road conditions and visibility will be, with a complex signs thus from out absurdum. One often hears of how to over speeders and Rowdies our roads will be bitching and hears the phrase, "I do not understand why there is no speed limit at this point." So rather than claim the prudence of motorists, we prefer to require new laws. We trust the legislature to more rational than the individual. And when it is also currently debating whether to help the children of the unemployed to more education, simply by paying more money or whether you are out education vouchers, then this is the question of how much reason the state trusts its citizens.
as 1789, the French Revolution on the principles of freedom - equality - fraternity was based, since the laws were primarily there to civil liberties to guarantee the people, for morality and decency were already there anyway. With the emergence überfürgsorglicher laws, however, while the loss of moral discernment connected, so that after constant erosion of our values and relativism eventually reached the point where the state begins its citizens from their own stupidity to protect.
And the worst is that we are in Germany now after two totalitarian systems on home soil at it again, to eliminate our freedoms. Paradoxical as it sounds: The supposed liberation from social taboos by the 68 has only led to that we bring in the back by laws have to (and even want!), which we can no longer pretend our morality. As both the Nazis and the Communists have their fascism on the grounds that they make by laws of decency either returned or are still new would create, so are we worse on the way to a new totalitarianism, but in a much, closely meshed sense than we have ever presented to us. The invincible, will be achieved if and only if we imagine no more differently and our poor, value-creating reason is stunted with all the recent unparalleled dictatorship, and if they helplessly on his back on the floor lies and says: "All value already been created, It is no "I will!" . Give more "- against this unscrupulous obedience to the law itself, Islam is heaven on earth ...
If we were together:
The laws are there for people to be and not vice versa, they are to preserve the freedoms of the individual and not prevent it. Therefore, a constitution, above all, of rights and less consist of prohibitions
A stove premium is precisely to reject such as education vouchers for the unemployed (quite apart from the fact that education is not a substitute for morality, but in the best case for morality leads -. but this is the formation desired by the government bonus probably too much training bonus). A burqa ban makes only so long Sense that a person can be forced to wear one; then it is superfluous as it is now basically been the ban on speed limits. An integration course ...
Anyone who has a small scale (as I am in the library) are against the laws of morality, law and the decline in values that make feed that should not be surprised in the Great when he falls asleep in a democracy and dictatorship in the wakes.
freedom is a risk and it is always abolished by those who trust the other less rational morality than himself and not notice that their own morality while committing suicide.
0 comments:
Post a Comment