Every citizen of his country has the right to freedom and protection of his rights, this is exactly what the rule of law highlights, which Robert von Mol speaks of in his statement.
To confirm the correctness of this statement and our point of view, let us turn to the theory from the course of social science. The rule of law is a state based on the rule of law and law, the main activity of which is the recognition, observance and protection of human rights. Its main features are guarantees of human freedom, the rule of law and rights, mutual responsibility of citizens and the state, separation of powers and a democratic regime.
Let's take an example from a history course. In our country, in Russia, there is protection of human rights. Everyone in our country has a certain freedom, which our state gives us. Accordingly, Russia is a state of law, and it follows from this that human freedom is directly related to the rule of law.
Let's give a similar example, only from a geography course.
Sweden is a legal state in which the protection of the rights and freedoms of the inhabitants of this country is carried out. In this country, not only people are protected, but also animals, where their rights and freedoms are valued, which undoubtedly makes Sweden a true representative of the rule of law.
Let us conclude that the rule of law state would not be legal if it were not for the freedom that the state gives citizens.
Updated: 2019-05-05
Attention!
Thank you for your attention. Useful material on the topic
If you notice an error or typo, highlight the text and press Ctrl+Enter.
Thus, you will provide invaluable benefit to the project and other readers.
“The true equality of citizens lies in the fact that they are all equally subject to the law” (J. D’Alembert)
The statement I have chosen is devoted to the problem of the rule of law as the main criterion for the rule of law. This issue is as relevant today as ever. The fact is that right now most states are striving to achieve this ideal state of the rule of law.
The figure of the Great French Revolution, Jean d'Alembert, believed that "the true equality of citizens lies in the fact that they are all equally subject to the law." In other words, on the one hand, the author emphasizes the rule of law as a fundamental feature of power and the resulting equality of all before the law and the court. On the other hand, he says that, in turn, people should also be "subject to the law", that is, they are obliged to reckon with it. I share this point of view and believe that in some way it can be called a formula for a democratic state based on equality and the rule of law.
So, let's turn to the theoretical substantiation of the problem. In modern social sciences, great attention is paid to such a concept as the rule of law. Under it, it is customary to understand the state, limited in its actions by law, subordinate to the will of the sovereign people, expressed in the constitution, and designed to ensure the fundamental rights and freedoms of the individual. In other words, D’Alembert also singles out the basic principles of the rule of law: “true equality of citizens”, or the equality of all before the law and the court, and “equal subordination to the law” - the rule of law.
The Constitution of the Russian Federation defines our country as a constitutional state. It formalizes such provisions as the rule of law and the priority of human rights, which exactly corresponds to the formula derived by d'Alembert. However, unfortunately, since the democratic system in our country is young, it is still developing, we can only talk about the initial stage of the rule of law, which has not yet fully developed in the public consciousness.
However, as mentioned earlier, not only the authorities, but also the citizens themselves are involved in the implementation of this formula. If they are not ready for such a system, are dissatisfied with the current state of affairs, or simply do not support the ideas of a rule of law state, then we are faced with such a concept as legal nihilism. Under legal nihilism in modern social sciences, it is customary to understand the denial of law as a social institution, a system of rules of conduct that can successfully regulate people's relationships. Such legal nihilism consists in the denial of laws, which can lead to illegal actions and generally slow down the development of the legal system.
In addition to theoretical arguments, we will also consider specific actual examples. Let us turn to the history of the Great French Revolution of 1789, which infected all of Europe with its ideas. The main slogan of the French revolutionaries was the following: "Liberty, equality, fraternity." Moreover, by equality they understood precisely that aspect of socio-political life, to which even in our time the majority of states strive. For the leaders of the revolution, this equality consisted primarily in the equality of rights and freedoms, and therefore in the equality of all before the law and the courts, without which no rule of law state is possible.
Another example is the state of affairs in tsarist Russia. The judicial system at that time was represented by a set of class courts, that is, each class was under the authority of “its own” court, and, of course, the demand was also different from everyone. This is a prime example of a lack of equality in rights. Human rights were vested depending on the position he occupied in society.
You can also give an example from personal social experience. I believe that it is possible to draw some kind of parallel between the state and the school, or even an ordinary school class. Thus, the school class will much more appreciate the teacher who treats everyone equally and evaluates the students in fact, than the one who singles out “favorites” among the students, for whom general laws turn out to be softer. In other words, the first type of teacher inspires respect and a desire to follow the laws in the children, while the second type is likely to lead to the rejection of the norms adopted by this teacher, the desire to violate them out of a sense of contradiction.
Thus, indeed, only that state can be considered a legal state in which the law stands above everyone and everyone is equal not only in rights and freedoms, but also before the law, in court.
C9.5. JURISPRUDENCE. DEMOCRACY IS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PEOPLE CHOSEN BY THE PEOPLE AND FOR THE PEOPLE. A. LINCOLN.
It is quite possible to agree with the author, who raises the problem of the implementation of democracy in the political system of the country, because democracy as a political regime is distinguished by the priority of human rights and freedoms, the election of representative bodies, the separation of powers, and pluralism. It is important that democratic values are most fully developed in a state governed by the rule of law, where the principle of the rule of law operates. For example, in the Russian Federation, the President himself is obliged to obey the Constitution and other laws on an equal footing with ordinary Russians.
In a democracy, the source of power is the people, exercising their political rights through participation in free elections and referendums. His opinion finds expression in the activities of the state apparatus, especially the legislative branch - parliament. Therefore, the citizens themselves are responsible for their choice, which gives government officials a wide range of powers.
However, even officials can be controlled by the people. This task is met by civil society, whose maturity is evidenced by the presence of active public organizations. Thus, in Russia there is the Committee of Soldiers' Mothers, the Union of Entrepreneurs, the Society for the Protection of Consumers: by defending the rights of the population in various areas, they develop responsibility to the voters in the state, form a powerful basis for guaranteed, not declared democracy.
C9.4. POLITICAL SCIENCE. DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE ABOVE THE LEVEL OF THE HUMAN MATERIAL OF WHICH ITS VOTERS ARE COMPOSED. B. SHOW.
The author touches upon the problem of the development of the political culture of citizens in a democracy. This type of political regime is distinguished primarily by freedom guaranteed by the state, and in various manifestations: from freedom of conscience to freedom of choice of the current government.
However, each of us understands freedom in his own way: someone sees it in the observance of laws, someone in defending his position, someone in the denial of the significance of the state - political nihilism. Therefore, it is important to talk today about the political socialization of people, within which potential voters can join the political sphere, get acquainted with the stages of the political process, political norms. The result of this process is the formation of the political culture of the inhabitants of the country. Whether it will be patriarchal, which is typical for a traditional society, subservient or activist, depends on the actions of state bodies. It seems that in the Russian Federation, which is a state of law, the authorities are interested in increasing interest in politics, increasing the number of electorate with an active civil position.
As well as possible, this is facilitated by the sphere of life of citizens uncontrolled by the state, called civil society. Public organizations are an intermediary between the state and citizens. Their influence on the political culture of the population is undeniable in legal education, the development of political information for people.
Thus, in a country that supports the political enthusiasm of citizens, the practical implementation of such principles of democracy as democracy, the rule of law, political pluralism, and separation of powers is really possible.
C9.5. JURISPRUDENCE. JUSTICE IS THE BASIS OF THE STATE. LATIN LEGAL SAID.
This statement highlights the problem of the formation of a rule of law state, which is primarily characterized by the implementation of the principle of the rule of law. For example, it is known from the media that the daughters of American President D. Bush were repeatedly punished for administrative offenses in the form of public works, and this despite family ties.
However, the Russian Federation is also an example of a rule of law state. In our country, human rights and freedoms are recognized as the highest value, according to the Constitution. The guarantor of their execution is the president himself, who is also under the control of the law. Some of his actions may be declared illegal: then the parliament has the right to express no confidence in the head of the countries, that is, impeachment.
However, the citizens of Russia have not only rights, but also duties, including the performance of military duty, the payment of taxes, the protection of the environment and cultural monuments, and the observance of regulations. Today they personify the mutual responsibility of society and the state, but history knows other examples. In the USSR, under the conditions of totalitarianism, the rights to life, freedom, and inviolability of the person were only declared, but the authorities made it impossible to fulfill them in practice. For an excessively free judgment about the party and the socialist system, one could be among the enemies of the people.
In the modern world, special attention is paid to the formation of public organizations that connect the inhabitants of the country with the state. Their vigorous activity speaks of the existence of a civil society. Its development and transformation into a serious political force is a matter for the future. Only in a democracy, when the media are independent, elections are free and alternative, people's rights are guaranteed, is it possible to talk about justice and fairness.
Thus, in this context, an opinion is expressed about the ideal of our modernity - the rule of law.
C9.4. POLITICAL SCIENCE. JUSTICE WITHOUT POWER IS HELELESS AND POWER WITHOUT JUSTICE IS DESPOTIC. B. PASCAL.
The author raises the problem of forming the foundations of democracy and the rule of law. I agree with him that the state, having a monopoly on the use of force, can use it exclusively in its own interests. So in the USSR, against the backdrop of declaring the rights and freedoms of workers, a personality cult of the leader developed, repressions were used, censorship was in effect, which indicated the formation of totalitarianism.
Fortunately, today Russia is a different example. According to the Constitution, which has the highest legal force, the source of power in the country is its multinational people, who participate in politics through a referendum and free elections. The inhabitants of the state are protected by the President himself, who is the guarantor of their rights and freedoms. Despite the diversity of the latter, citizens also perform duties in the form of paying taxes, performing military duty, protecting the environment, and complying with laws.
However, it is important that the population consciously obey the authorities, and not be afraid of its capabilities. Otherwise, a subordinate level of political and legal culture will be formed in him, the need for active participation in the political process, both from the point of view of active and passive suffrage, will be violated. If the normative acts of the state are aimed at protecting the interests of people, at helping them in their life, then the state system can be called legal.
Thus, the democratic values of justice, political pluralism, freedom are relevant in modern Russia, since the inhabitants of the country, by creating a civil society, support the government in its endeavors.
C9.5. JURISPRUDENCE. THE LAWS PROTECT US NOT ONLY FROM OTHERS, BUT ALSO FROM OURSELVES. G. HEINE.
The great German poet raises the problem of the meaning of law as a system of obligatory rules of conduct in human life and activity. I agree with the author in recognizing the importance of laws as sources of legal regulation along with legal customs and judicial precedents.
Normative legal acts, unlike other forms of expression of law, have a written form, national origin and legal force. So, for example, in the hierarchy of legal acts of the Russian Federation, the highest position is occupied by the Constitution, which establishes the foundations of the state system, the main rights and freedoms of citizens. The idea of the legislative base of the country distinguishes a person of high legal culture, because ignorance of the law still does not exempt from responsibility.
Today, Russia has a developed civil society, whose members consciously comply with legal norms, understand the need to maintain public law and order. The population gradually legitimizes the government, that is, approves its legal actions in various spheres of public life.
The rules of law regulating the same areas of social relations are combined into institutions and branches of law. They are clearly divided into public (regulates the relations of the state with citizens on the basis of coercion) and private (controls the fulfillment of obligations of citizens in relation to each other) law. But all together they also perform a protective function, which manifests itself in protecting the interests of ordinary people. An example of this is the observance of the principle of the presumption of innocence, when a person is not considered guilty until proven guilty. It symbolizes the legal nature of our state.
Therefore, the importance of law in the development of democracy is invaluable: citizens recognize laws as the basis for regulating public life.
C9.5. JURISPRUDENCE. IT IS A DISASTER FOR JUSTICE WHEN IN SENTENCES THE DECISION DEPENDS ON PERSONAL ARBITRACY. A.F. KONY.
The author touches upon the problem of the danger of violating the principle of the rule of law, which is the basis for the existence of a constitutional state. I agree with him, because often laws are used to implement the personal interests of individuals and those in power.
When the requirements of the legal system are the same for all citizens without distinction in property status, more favorable conditions are created for the development of the rule of law. For example, the nephew of the President, having started a fight in a public place, should know that he will be punished on an equal basis with other offenders.
This can be facilitated by the principle of separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial, the implementation of which is manifested in the independence of judges, mutual control of parliament and government. So in the Russian Federation, the President annually reports to the Federal Assembly, summing up the results of his work.
It is also important to remember the personal responsibility of citizens before the law and the state. By complying with legal acts, paying taxes on time, and fulfilling military duty, Russians demonstrate their law-abidingness and recognize the legitimacy of power. And state bodies answer them by providing guarantees of their rights and freedoms. The head of the country is personally responsible for their real implementation.
Consequently, a state that claims to be called a legal state must first of all comply with legal norms, acting in the interests of its population. The increasing cases of exposure of corrupt officials in Russia, covered in the media, testify to the operation of the legal system not only in relation to ordinary workers, but also in relation to officials.
C9.3. SOCIOLOGY. SOME UNWRITTEN LAWS ARE STRONGER THAN WRITTEN. SENECA.
An outstanding Roman philosopher raises the problem of the meaning of morality in modern society. I agree that morality as a set of human ideas about good and evil that arose in ancient times is necessary today as the basis for educating the younger generation.
C9.3. SOCIOLOGY. MORAL FORCE CANNOT BE CREATED BY PARAGRAPHS OF THE LAW. K.MARKS.
The famous German philosopher raises the problem of the meaning of morality in modern society. I agree that morality as a set of human ideas about good and evil that arose in ancient times is necessary today as the basis for educating the younger generation.
In the conditions of the information society, the norms of law established and protected by the state come to the fore as a social regulator. They are binding and have legal force. However, not all citizens understand the need to obey them.
Introduction to social norms begins with the family, where the primary socialization of the child takes place. Parents explain to children the rules of behavior in society, transfer experience and knowledge. Their actions are aimed at the formation of socially significant qualities that distinguish a person. For example, an older brother is required to take care of younger children, pick them up from kindergarten, feed and clothe, thereby developing the ability to take responsibility.
Although morality is not written down anywhere, it is an internal set of laws for a person. Rather, it regulates the thoughts and feelings of people, directing them in humanistic interests. Ethical norms find expression in our everyday life: for example, a boss who is meticulous about the performance of official duties by his subordinates can help them in a difficult situation with advice. Sometimes more important than legal obligations is the voice of one's own conscience.
In any case, morality is one of the criteria for social progress, an indicator of the level of development of society in general and the individual in particular. Each of us may be afraid of the action of written norms in the form of law, but he is always responsible for his actions only to himself in accordance with morality.
In this statement, the author reflects on the problem of the conditions for ensuring and exercising the freedom of citizens in the state. According to Rousseau, only a rule of law state can be considered strong, in which the rights and freedoms of citizens are fully realized.
I can only partly agree with this point of view of the French Enlightener. On the one hand, indeed, the highest degree of freedom of citizens is provided exclusively in the rule of law. Indeed, as is known from the course of social science, the rule of law exists and operates on the basis of legal norms established in the state itself. Compliance with the rule of law in such a state is the highest value, and the people are recognized as the only source of power (because the rule of law can exist only under a democratic regime). One of the main distinguishing features of the rule of law, in addition to the above, is the principle of separation of powers (into legislative, executive and judicial). The rule of law is an entire platform for the implementation of the activities of civil society institutions that help ensure various types of freedoms in society: freedom of speech and the press, ideological pluralism, freedom of religion, freedom of movement, etc.
A striking example of a strong rule of law today is the United States. Being developed from an economic military point of view, in the United States there is a high degree of development of civil society, whose institutions fully ensure the observance of human rights and freedoms (media, public associations, jurors). So, in some US states, in order not to infringe on the freedom of people of non-traditional orientation, same-sex marriages were legalized.
However, on the other hand, not only the rule of law state, in which the rights and freedoms of citizens are fully realized, can be strong. A prime example is the Soviet Union. Being a totalitarian state, the USSR won the Great Patriotic War, raised the country from ruins to the leaders of the world industry. The USSR possessed impressive military power and economic stability, included vast territories and a powerful patriotic ideology. But despite all this, the rights and freedoms of citizens were not realized at all in the country, there were constant repressions, communist ideology was forcibly imposed on citizens, the state controlled almost all spheres of public life.
Therefore, it is impossible to draw an unambiguous conclusion that only a strong state provides freedom to its citizens.
Will you be so kind -
"Citizen's freedom is the basis of the rule of law"
Provide evidence to support this view.
Of course it is. This comes from democratic foundations, if a person has freedom, then there is equality. If a person with other people is equal in rights, he is free and the state cannot dictate his living conditions, then the state can be considered legal. People and society build the state themselves, and what they decide: to be free or slaves and decides whether the state will come out in the end
On the Omnipotence of the Majority in the United States of America
and its consequences
The basis of democratic forms of government is the undivided power of the majority, since, apart from it, there is nothing permanent in democratic states. ..
Of all kinds of political power, the legislature best obeys the will of the majority. By the will of the Ameicans, its representatives are directly elected by the people and for a very short term. This forces them to express not only the founding views of their constituents, but also their transient passions. Representatives of the same classes can become members of both chambers, the procedure for their election is the same. In this regard, the legislative body is confirmed by the same rapid and inevitable changes as one single assembly. Having given the legislature such a structure, the Americans will hand over almost all the functions of government to it. ..
The law did not provide any stability or independence to representatives of the executive power, it completely subordinated them to the whims of the legislature. In many states, the formation of the judiciary was also given to the will of the majority, since it was elected, and in all states the judiciary depended on the legislature: the representatives of the people had the right to annually appoint a salary to judges. ..
In the United States a habit is spreading more and more which in the end may nullify the possibility of a representative form of government. Very often, when electing a deputy, voters outline a plan of action for him and give him some specific instructions that he is obliged to carry out.
Alexis de Tocqueville
1. What are the three branches of government named by the author?
2. With what words does the author characterize the connection between the legislative and executive powers, and with what words - the legislative and judicial?
3. Formulate any three principles of political power that are described in the text. Name an additional principle of democratic power not mentioned in the text.
4. The author writes that the best thing is to obey the will of the majority of the legislature. Based on the text and knowledge of the course, give two arguments that can support the author's point of view.
1. Legislative, judicial and executive
2. The law did not provide any stability or independence to representatives of the executive power, it completely subordinated them to the whims of the legislator. In all states, the judiciary depended on the legislature (people's representatives had the right to annually appoint a salary to judges)
3.-representatives of the legislature are directly elected by the people. -the rulers of the legislature are elected for a very short term, and in an effort to be re-elected, express the views of their constituents. - when choosing a deputy, the voters outline a plan of action for him and give instructions that he must carry out.
4.-separation of powers into legislative, executive and judicial. - bicameral legislature
Aristotle, discussing the role of the state in economic affairs, noted that "the goal of the state is a joint promotion to a high quality of life." Do you share this point of view? Justify your answer.
I share ... since the state benefits from the fact that people in this state have a high quality of life ... that is, when people feel good in it ... and the benefit lies in the fact that people do not create revolutionary parties that can later overthrow the old state and establish a new one ... according to them opinion that creates a better, higher quality of life. ..
The state should support the economy, which in turn improves the quality of life of the population
What is religion? How do you understand the expression: religion is a system of beliefs and actions, with the help of which the fundamental questions of human life are solved? What are the issues? Does mythology exist today? Do you believe in it? Prove your point. describe fetishism! Give examples of its manifestations today! When and why did animism appear? What religions are called world? Are beliefs and religious belief different? And where would you believe in UFOs?
Religion is a special form of understanding the world, due to belief in the supernatural, which includes a set of moral norms and types of behavior.
This means that there are many religions and each person has his own duties that she "interprets" i.e. It obliges one or another person to comply with these rules. Questions are resolved in a moral sense. Mythology exists, but I don't believe in it. .. The fact that all the developed countries of the world believe in one God. As for fetishism, the answer is simple, for example, Lenin in the mausoleum. The communists believed in him that he would soon rise again, this means faith in some subject. ..
When did animism originate? This is when a primitive man believed in spirits, etc. And why, because they believed that every animal has a soul, and if it is correctly influenced, for example, to draw and pierce it, then you can believe in a successful hunt. Religions are called world, which means that most of the world professes a certain religion. Belief means just believing, and religious means believing and trying to support it.
I would classify belief in UFOs as mere beliefs. ..
Help with social studies#1 What Kinds of Democracy Are There? How do they differ?
#2 What distinguishes the state from other political organizations?
a) the exclusive right to make laws;
b) determining the prospects for the development of society;
c) development of political programs;
d) promotion of political leaders;
#3 What conditions determine the citizenship of children?
№4 Can we say that when deciding on the citizenship of children, Russian legislation seeks to take into account the interests of the child as much as possible? Argument your point of view.
№5 A citizen of the Russian Federation married a citizen of Spain, they had children in Russia. A few years later, the couple divorced, the father left for his homeland. The mother and children remained in Russia. Children are considered citizens of what country?
#6 What are the main principles of law enforcement?
№7 What types of human rights and freedoms do you know?
№8 What distinguishes the constitution from other normative legal acts?
№9 What is the object of civil law relations?
№10 What types of subjects of civil law relations do you know? What characterizes each of them?
#11 What is the legal meaning of a family?
#12 What are the political rights of a citizen?
a) the right to privacy
b) the right to apply to the authorities;
c) the right to protection of motherhood and childhood;
d) the right to freedom of creativity;
№13 What is the economic rights of a citizen?
a) the right to free choice of profession;
b) the right to apply to the authorities;
c) the right to social security by age;
d) the right to a healthy environment;
#14 Which of the following is a crime?
a) causing grievous bodily harm through negligence;
b) consumption of narcotic drugs without a doctor's prescription;
C) campaigning for a candidate during the period of its prohibition;
d) evasion of compensation for property damage;
№15 Guess why the period of conscription in the army is counted in the insurance experience.
No. 16. Explain why caring for a disabled person of the 1st group, a disabled child, a person over 80 years of age is included in the insurance experience.
Thank you sooooo much in advance!
Dominant branch of government
parliamentary democracy. The government is appointed by the legislature. The government and its head (prime minister) may also be accountable to a ceremonial head of state (monarch, president, or special body). In a parliamentary republic, the head of state is periodically elected by the parliament, or this position is combined by the chairman of the government. Presidential republic. The President is directly elected by the people and is the head of the executive branch. there are also mixed systems.Regional hierarchy of power
unitary state. Political power is concentrated in the hands of the central government, which determines the scope of power of regional authorities. Federation. According to the constitution, power is divided between the central government and the relatively autonomous regional governments.Structure of the legislature
Unicameral Parliament. Normative acts are adopted at meetings with the participation of all members of parliament. bicameral parliament. The Legislative Assembly consists of two chambers, which are formed and function separately. Some regulations may require the approval of only one chamber, others - both chambers.The system of elections to representative bodies
Majoritarian electoral system. The territory is divided into districts, each of which has the right to one representative in the legislative assembly. The candidate who receives the majority of votes becomes the deputy. proportional electoral system. Political parties in the legislature receive a number of seats proportional to the number of votes they collect. Group electoral system. Certain groups of the population nominate their deputies according to a pre-negotiated quota.Number of leading parties
Two party system. The political spectrum is dominated by two major parties. Multi-party system. The appointment of a government is usually preceded by the formation of a ruling coalition of two or more parties represented in the legislature.
Choose one of the statements below and state your thoughts (your point of view, attitude) about the problem raised. When completing the task, use the relevant concepts of the social science course and, based on the knowledge gained in the social science course, as well as the facts of social life and your own life experience, give the necessary arguments to justify your position. The brighter individuality manifests itself, the more it strives for unity with everything that exists. (R. Tagore.) The higher the position of a person, the more stringent should be the framework that restrains the self-will of his character. (G. Freitag.)
The higher the position of a person in society, the more stringent should be the framework that restrains the willfulness of his character. In my opinion, the greater the speed, the more powerful the engine in the car, the more experienced the racer should be, and in life, when they put a person in leadership positions, he must correspond to his position; he took care of himself but also stole money from the state, he used the position from this, that’s all, and if such officials are like that, then what kind of state can there be a little war and everything will never happen to defeat, responsibility must be at the highest level
A person with a high position in society should always look appropriate for his rank - this is an old and well-known truth. But from my personal point of view, this truth is long outdated)
In the modern world, character is a kind of brand and with its help it is quite possible to reach certain heights. In your work you should bring a small share of your character and then your achievements will take on a more colorful look)
Thus, your brand or other type of work will become more interesting to people and you will become more respected in society)
Compare two statements: “What are kingdoms (states) without justice, if not big bands of robbers? .. There can be no law where there is no true justice. cannot be done rightly" (Augustine (354-530), Christian theologian) "From the standpoint of legal science, the right under the rule of the Nazis [we are talking about the German fascists] is the right. We may regret this, but we cannot deny that it was right. We may feel disgust towards it, like... To a poisonous snake, but we cannot deny that it exists "(G. Kelsen (1881-1973), Austrian lawyer) What is your attitude to these statements? Explain your point of view. From what positions do you proceed in your assessment? What is your attitude to these statements? Explain your point of view. From what positions do you proceed in your assessment?
Here we have collected 2 statements in one it says that there should be justice in everything without it, there will only be destruction and there will be nothing good, and in the second justice is different and this is an example of the fascists who wanted to create their nation with a pure fair current, but the ways of creation are different for everyone).
In my opinion, of course, 1 statement is more appropriate in our time, because there must be fair, there must be a law and everyone must comply with it, without it there will be only robberies and robberies. But if we analyze the fascists, after all, the goals they had were just good to create a single nation and a pure current, because they chose the paths of realization for everyone by means of murders, which is not good).
compare 2 sentences1. "What are kingdoms (states) without justice, if not big bands of robbers? .... There can be no law where there is no true justice. cannot be done rightly" (Augustine (354-530), Christian theologian) 2. "From the standpoint of legal science, the right under the rule of the Nazis [we are talking about the German fascists] is the right. We may regret it, but we cannot deny that it was right. We may feel disgust for him, like ... for a poisonous snake, but we cannot deny that it exists "(G. Kelsen (1881-1973), Austrian lawyer) What is your attitude to these statements Explain your point of view. From what positions do you proceed in your assessment?
In the 1st point of view, we are talking about justice, of course, there should be fairness, but as long as it does not threaten everyone, the 2nd points of view seem to be intertwined in the second point of view, justice turned into aggression against the whole world; you rightly pass a verdict so that there would be no robbery and no house, but it’s another matter when under justice people hide behind to kill
Law as a social regulator is, first of all, an instrumental value, that is, a value that acts as an instrument, instrument, means that ensures the functioning of other social institutions. However, it is important to emphasize that the right has its own value. In the most general way, the intrinsic value of law can be defined as the expression and personification of the right of social freedom and activity of people on the basis of orderly relations and in accordance with justice, the need to harmonize the will and interests of various segments of the population, social groups.
Even when the law acts as the right of the strong or the right of power, when its content often does not correspond to the needs of progress in its main characteristics, it still represents a socially valuable, albeit extremely limited, phenomenon in comparison with what opposes it. - with arbitrariness, with self-will, with the subjectivism of individuals and groups. After all, social freedom and activity of people can have a different character. Unbound by law, outside of law, they can develop into arbitrariness without barriers. In law, social freedom and activity to some extent reflect the unity of freedom and responsibility, exist within the framework outlined by law, in combination with legal obligations. The inherent value of law is directly conditioned by its social nature and very significantly depends on the stage of development of society, the stage of civilization, the nature of the political regime.
(S. S. Alekseev)
Tasks:
3. The author claims that “… even when the law acts as the right of the strong or the right of power…. It is nevertheless a socially valuable phenomenon. » Based on the text and knowledge of the social science course, give three arguments supporting the author's point of view.
4. The author argues that the inherent value of law depends on the stage of development of society, the stage of civilization, the nature of the political regime. Based on the knowledge of the social science course, other academic disciplines and social experience, give three arguments that support the author's point of view.
3.
1) Even when the law "works" not to its full "power" determined by historical conditions, and, moreover, even under authoritarian political regimes, when it acquires a statistic character, it acts as the right of the strong or the right of power, when its content is based on the main its characteristics often does not correspond to the needs of progress, it is still a socially valuable, although extremely limited phenomenon, in comparison with what opposes it - with arbitrariness, with self-will, with the subjectivism of individuals and groups.
2) After all, social freedom and activity of people can have a different character.
Unbound by law, outside of law, they can develop into arbitrariness without barriers.
3) In law, social freedom and activity to some extent reflect the unity of freedom and orderliness of social relations, responsibility, are embedded in subjective rights, exist within the framework outlined by law, in combination with legal obligations, in conjunction with guarantees, legal procedures. In this way, they are restrained to the point where freedom and activity can turn into uncontrolled action, arbitrariness, unlimited freedom, chaos.
4.
1) The intrinsic value of law is directly determined by its social nature and very significantly depends on the stage of development of society, the stage of civilization, the nature of the political regime and, accordingly, on the stage of its "humanitarian ascent" - the movement from the law of a strong to the law of civil society.
2) Law by its properties is such a social phenomenon that is caused by the need to introduce normative principles into social life, to organize and order based on the principles of social freedom, activity, responsibility, and therefore, by its nature, it resists arbitrariness and lawlessness.
3) And it is not at all accidental that in all historical epochs, reactionary political regimes in fact invariably acted as opponents of law and legality. It is precisely as a phenomenon that opposes arbitrariness and lawlessness and at the same time provides scope for orderly social freedom and activity, the law itself occupies a highly significant place in social life, acts as a factor in social progress.
