German police require racial profiling

[Machismo]

My imaginary definition is what you quoted to me. I am actually arguing in my second language here, aber wir können das auch gerne auf Deutsch machen. Wenn ich von Bewegungsfreiheit rede, meine ich damit - wie der rechtliche Kontext im Allgemeinen - nicht die körperliche Möglichkeit sich zu bewegen, sondern das Grundrecht auf Bewegungsfreiheit. Dieses wurde von der Polizei hoheitlich eingeschränkt, indem Personenkontrollen durchgeführt wurden. Die Einschränkung dieses Grundrechts kann per Definition nur durch den Staat erfolgen. Das heisst nicht, dass nicht jeder irgendwen fesseln könnte, sondern das die grundrechtliche Einschränkung ein Ausfluss des staatlichen Gewaltenmonopols ist, welches im Grundgesetz verankert ist.

Die Legitimation des GGs hier auszuführen ist etwas bescheuert, von daher lasse ich es. Wenn du das immer noch nicht schnallst, kann ich dir auch nicht helfen. Anarchistische Pseudophilosophien haben eigentlich wenig Aufmerksamkeit verdient, aber hey, bis jetzt wars ja ganz lustig. Nun widme ich mich aber lieber interessanteren Dingen, ich habe z.B. das dringende Bedürfnis... woanders zu posten. Bis dann.

Then we are dealing with the difference between a right and a freedom. Rights are granted and protected by a government. Freedoms are more universal, and surpass borders. On that note, an individual can still take away someone's right, although that is far more difficult. That involves one with power enough to counter a government. As for freedoms, they can be taken by just about anyone.

[Kalis]

And any sensible voluntary government would take that into account. The simplest solution to it would be that anyone not a part of that government who causes harm to that government, would be considered an act of war.

It would not really be all that voluntary then, as you would be somewhat forced to partake out of fear of them creating laws that fuck you over if you leave.

[Machismo]

So remove them by force, if they don't adhere to the order that has been established, that is even more extreme than what we have today.

There's no need to remove them, unless they have caused harm. Even then, the solution for a government is to protect its citizens to the fullest, which is why I support the "act of war" mentality.

[Slant]

Then we are dealing with the difference between a right and a freedom. Rights are granted and protected by a government. Freedoms are more universal, and surpass borders. On that note, an individual can still take away someone's right, although that is far more difficult. That involves one with power enough to counter a government. As for freedoms, they can be taken by just about anyone.

Dude, do you even know why you're arguing at this point? :P

[Machismo]

It would not really be all that voluntary then, as you would be somewhat forced to partake out of fear of them creating laws that fuck you over if you leave.

If someone were to create a law, then leave before it.

Of course, that very thing happens all the time in countries across the world, with no chance or choice to leave.

- - - Updated - - -

Dude, do you even know why you're arguing at this point? :P

I'm arguing the differences between rights and freedoms, what are you talking about?

[Combatbutler]

There's no need to remove them, unless they have caused harm. Even then, the solution for a government is to protect its citizens to the fullest, which is why I support the "act of war" mentality.

Precisely and to protect most of its people a few must sometimes be treated unfairly, like having their id's checked despite the fact that they might not have done anything.

[Slant]

I'm arguing the differences between rights and freedoms, what are you talking about?

I'm trying to stay on topic of the police having check points that are not racial profiling and the left throwing a big and pointless tantrum over nothing. All the while you're diving into a hissy fit about state sanctioned oppression and the end of the world. Talk about losing perspective, man. :P

[Kalis]

If someone were to create a law, then leave before it.

Of course, that very thing happens all the time in countries across the world, with no chance or choice to leave.

How would you leave if you have already left? You would be subject to the laws of whoever had the most power, as you wouldn't be able to stop them just taking your stuff, which is pretty much where we are today.

As I said earlier, all you would do is end up creating what we already have, which makes the entire idea utterly pointless and why I deemed it to be crap.

[Machismo]

Precisely and to protect most of its people a few must sometimes be treated unfairly, like having their id's checked despite the fact that they might not have done anything.

Not at all. You made a huge leap. Otherwise, we should resort to imprisoning all humans, to protect them. If you want to jump down the slippery slope, then you may as well go all the way. Not once did I support taking away the freedom of an innocent person, which is where you took a leap.

- - - Updated - - -

How would you leave if you have already left? You would be subject to the laws of whoever had the most power, as you wouldn't be able to stop them just taking your stuff, which is pretty much where we are today.

As I said earlier, all you would do is end up creating what we already have, which makes the entire idea utterly pointless and why I deemed it to be crap.

It's not the same, because you actually have a choice. As it stands, you don't really have a choice. You are under duress from the day you were born.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm trying to stay on topic of the police having check points that are not racial profiling and the left throwing a big and pointless tantrum over nothing. All the while you're diving into a hissy fit about state sanctioned oppression and the end of the world. Talk about losing perspective, man. :P

And the topic is the restrictions of freedoms, it's what we've been talking about for hours. You claimed only the government can do it, and I disagreed. The definition of the word, combined with any number of scenarios shows that people can easily restrict the freedoms of other people.

[Kalis]

It's not the same, because you actually have a choice. As it stands, you don't really have a choice. You are under duress from the day you were born.

You have a choice now, you can live apart from society and its rules.

Obviously the established society will say 'Bollocks to that, pay your taxes and live by the rules we have laid down', which is what would happen if your crap idea was implemented, so you end up with what we have now. You pressed the reset button for no apparent reason.

[Combatbutler]

Not at all. You made a huge leap. Otherwise, we should resort to imprisoning all humans, to protect them. If you want to jump down the slippery slope, then you may as well go all the way. Not once did I support taking away the freedom of an innocent person, which is where you took a leap.

Nope I did not, you want to declare war on public dissidents, while today we just intimidate them to behave according to social norms and that is what this is all about in the end maintaining order and as such society.

So lets look at your idea

Lets say you want to create such a society for people like yourself, you need territory, which means you have to take it from a different society and you expect them to just go quietly along with it, despite the fact that you just stole their land, then you expect the citizens of your country to adhere to the laws of your society makes, despite the fact that there will be hundreds if not thousands of different opinions and finally those who break the laws are declared war upon, getting deported or end up killed.

Or the even more unrealistic scenario the world giving up their borders, and people traveling freely around the world without discriminating each other living the life and listening to a proactive government, which will be filled with tens of thousands of people with many wanting to go into a different direction, to form their dream society.

What you propose is not freedom, it is nothing more but the illusion of freedom, which has no place in reality and would be on the same level as Syria in terms of authoritarian use of force.

- - - Updated - - -

You pressed the reset button for no apparent reason.

Not quite right, like-minded people would be calling the shots of society and the undesirables disappear if they become inconvenient.

[Kalis]

Not quite right, like-minded people would be calling the shots of society and the undesirables disappear if they become inconvenient.

Until some people come up with the idea of freedom of expression, then let the undesirables stay within their society, as long as they obey the consensus rules.

[Combatbutler]

Until some people come up with the idea of freedom of expression, then let the undesirables stay within their society, as long as they obey the consensus rules.

Hence why it all is a cycle, history tends to repeat itself after all ;P

Some people believe they invented the best system, others rise to challenge the rule, cast the elites down replace them and end up being cast down themselves at one point.

After all the entire argument was pointless from the beginning but I had some spare time ;P

[Kalis]

Hence why it all is a cycle, history tends to repeat itself after all ;P

Some people believe they invented the best system, others rise to challenge the rule, cast the elites down replace them and end up being cast down themselves at one point.

After all the entire argument was pointless from the beginning but I had some spare time ;P

The bizarre thing is that they originally argued for no borders, but borders are the most practical solution when it comes to differing law codes, so their system would require far more borders than we have today in order to have any possibility of functioning at all.

[Combatbutler]

The bizarre thing is that they originally argued for no borders, but borders are the most practical solution when it comes to differing law codes, so their system would require far more borders than we have today in order to have any possibility of functioning at all.

Humans are just very different and continue to change, which is why their creations nations, cultures,religions etc. rise and fall as well. Humanity is an ever changing tangled mess and each and every culture tries desperately to save itself, despite the fact that they are doomed the moment they are born, quite funny if you think about it.

[Zython]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/artic...nt-new-attacks

So apparently it's OK to use racial profiling now because according to the police certain ethnic groups are more likely to commit crime according to them? Is this not against some German constitution or something?

Probably.
/10char

[Machismo]

Nope I did not, you want to declare war on public dissidents, while today we just intimidate them to behave according to social norms and that is what this is all about in the end maintaining order and as such society.

So lets look at your idea

Lets say you want to create such a society for people like yourself, you need territory, which means you have to take it from a different society and you expect them to just go quietly along with it, despite the fact that you just stole their land, then you expect the citizens of your country to adhere to the laws of your society makes, despite the fact that there will be hundreds if not thousands of different opinions and finally those who break the laws are declared war upon, getting deported or end up killed.

Or the even more unrealistic scenario the world giving up their borders, and people traveling freely around the world without discriminating each other living the life and listening to a proactive government, which will be filled with tens of thousands of people with many wanting to go into a different direction, to form their dream society.

What you propose is not freedom, it is nothing more but the illusion of freedom, which has no place in reality and would be on the same level as Syria in terms of authoritarian use of force.

- - - Updated - - -



Not quite right, like-minded people would be calling the shots of society and the undesirables disappear if they become inconvenient.

Actually, the public dissidents declared war on "us."

The "territory" required could simply be any land that was not within a sovereign state. The land itself would belong to those who owned it.

[Combatbutler]

Actually, the public dissidents declared war on "us."

Maybe I should show the next anarchist I meet the same kindness, his way of life basically declares war on my society after all. ;P

The "territory" required could simply be any land that was not within a sovereign state. The land itself would belong to those who owned it.

The only place left not officially claimed is antarctica and there are international treaties in place, that keep it that way. You never own the land you buy, ultimately it still belongs to the state, you simply gained more privileges on it for money.

[Machismo]

Maybe I should show the next anarchist I meet the same kindness, his way of life basically declares war on my society after all. ;P



The only place left not officially claimed is antarctica and there are international treaties in place, that keep it that way. You never own the land you buy, ultimately it still belongs to the state, you simply gained more privileges on it for money.

I don't know many anarchists. Most people who claim to like anarchy, are just assholes.

You stated a fundamental problem to beginning voluntaryism, that catalyst that would kick it all off. In the current paradigm, it is basically impossible. It would require significant world and personal change, which will take a very long time.

[Deleted]

I was actually surprised that the German police did this, since it was obvious that it would cause a lot of controversy and outrage.
After what happened there last year, it's understandable that they do not want to risk it happening again.