David against Goliath
Smaller shops are allowed to open. Is this good news? The storm of indignation from the larger shops is astonishing. Where is the socially detached solidarity with the small traders who do not have it in their leases that they are guaranteed turnover because of the location? Adidas already knew what they were doing.
It would occur to a normal thinking person that more distance should be kept in a larger space than in a smaller one, but leaving aside this physical nonsense (Merkel has a degree in physics), where is the law that allows shops to be opened by size and not by trade? Have we overlooked an aspect of the Infection Protection Act that has undergone more changes in the past months than the genetic code of primates in the past 2 billion (milli-arden; i.e.: two thousandths of an arden, a small unit comparable to the 'quantum leap' - see article) years?
Not at all, the term does not exist at all, since freedom of trade is a construct of the 'imagination of the authorities' and not anchored in the Basic Law or any other law. That would be as if persons were to appear in the road traffic regulations; protection against infection, the regulatory and/or trade authorities have chosen to invoke it, to raise the concessions and the power to issue directives to a new level. It is no longer common sense, but only the personal experience of the nephew of her third-grade schoolmate in high school that applies in assessing a risk of contagion for citizens who have the impudence to want to consume; not in order to live a dignified life or to feel freedom, but only to cause difficulties for the decision-making bodies as to how to justify it. Whereby the approach of finding a reason instead of simply determining it will soon go out of fashion anyway. Where would we end up if everyone suddenly wanted to ask why they should cough into the crook of their arm, wear a mask to disguise themselves or use a shopping trolley to redeem a deposit voucher?
If you protest against the rationing of hygiene items in the supermarket by lying down on the checkout conveyor belt, no one is allowed to touch you, as you could be infected with droplets or smear, which is a criminal offence, at least towards public service personnel.
Is the free democratic basic order now in danger?
You have to laugh at the headline. Who came up with these words? It implies that we are free and that there is a foundation. Complete nonsense. As long as the Basic Law still had meaning with catchwords like 'dignity', 'inviolability' and 'freedom' (for assembly, opinion, trade, ... and many other insignificant things that ceased to exist overnight), there would still have been a connection to be made between people and their self-determination and the Greek idea that power emanates from this smallest cell of the state. It is much more important that the originally elected government establishes 'rules' (mind you, not laws or regulations, that would take too long to secure legally), does not explain them and, above all, does not make them plausible in terms of basic social ideas or relate them to a temporal fixation. Then there needs to be a body that enforces these rules hierarchically, preferably unemployed chimney sweeps who use mobile phone apps to monitor how many people are in the shop, down to the immature consumer who is fed new information every hour. And when the numbers and the concern go down, new scenarios are created so as not to lose power over the uncertainty and disinformation.