Replies

It´s a great discussing style to accuse others of irrationality.

Noone can ever "throw" his dignity away. The human being has a dignity noone, even not himself, can be taken away. E.g. small persons wanted to make money by allowing others (for cash) that they may throw them as far as they could. The court ruled that this would violate Art. 1, the dwarfs were not allowed to continue.

The state needs to protect everyones rights and especially the dignity. So if you´re not allowed to give up your dignity on your own, how could the state take it away? Our highest court has decided that even a life-long imprisonment must not mean life long. The prisoner has the right for another chance, usually. However, there are made some exceptions which would apply to Osama bin Laden, for instance.

The state ALWAYS has to balance between the rights of the individual (yeah, this includes the terrorist as well) and the needs of the society (prevention, safety). We think we´re not bad at this. At least we provide everyone a fair trial, and don´t imprison people without a judges decision. And our murder/manslaughter statistics (in %) are half as high as in the US...

Just one example:
The FBI reported 16,000 murders in the US last year. The US has let´s say roughly four times as many inhabitants than Germany. We have ca. 2,000 cases of murder/manslaughter (including the attempts) per year.

It´s a great discussing style to accuse others of irrationality.

If I put forward a reasoned argument warning you that you are making the same mistakes some other people made 70 years ago and all you have to say in response is, "it's tasteless and disgusting" and then argue right past it--well, I'm sorry, but that pretty much exhausts my definition of irrational.

Noone can ever "throw" his dignity away. The human being has a dignity noone, even not himself, can be taken away.

OK, so if it's impossible to act undignified, why make dignity a constitutional requirement? I suppose the untouchability of human dignity has been placed in the constitution because it is possible to "touch" (i.e. disrespect) human dignity--possible, but not right.

The only rational basis for having laws is to provide a basis for punishing actions that you can, but should not, perform.

The court ruled that this would violate Art. 1, the dwarfs were not allowed to continue.

And you think this is a good thing??

The state ALWAYS has to balance between the rights of the individual...and the needs of the society

I see. So I have a right to my life ... but the state has to "balance" it with other things. If I'm lucky enough, the state will say my right to my life is weighty enough to be kept. If the state thinks some need of society (A public TV station? A new villa for Herr Kanzler? A little more Lebensraum for the Aryan races?) outweighs my rights--well, it's tough luck, but not to worry, it's all for society, and besides, we all know that Arbeit Macht Frei...