8) He is silent, although a third of the proposed questions urgently require such an answer. This third question should form the subject of the main study of the properties and dimensions of rights, or the power of the subject of police law over his subjects or object. And so, accepting the author’s position, here we must explain what power the state has regarding people’s industries, industry, education, etc. p.; in a word, regarding the people's welfare, or human well-being, in the words of the author. What we call happiness, speaking about a separate person, we designate with the word good, well-being, or well-being, speaking about the people. But the essence of both concepts is the same, and among other things is that, as for a person, there is no happiness in his outlook! and I am convinced that well-being for the people should be a product of their will. In a word, both are subjective, although in a different sense. Our personal and national good always comes first and foremost; which, for the same reasons, is necessarily subjective both among individuals and among nations. There can be no happiness, no good, no right imposed on individuals or peoples in the sense of true, reasonable good and happiness. Even so, violence is imposed, which destroys the very basis of every action and every right - the freedom of an individual or a people. What kind of power should be recognized for by the state for its influence on our participation, or on the well-being of the population and people - therefore on its life, and on everything that constitutes both the purpose and the price of this life, or, as R. Mol puts it, on the complete human development of a person, or how else can this be called on the entire culture and civilization of the country and people? The author in his “preface” mentions “the principles that form the basis of social relations, which are: subordination to the state, personal freedom and general personal forces,” and, as he himself says, he pays his main attention to these principles when presenting economic sciences. But to resolve such a question, it is not enough not only to mention, but also to present in detail various views; criticism of views is necessary, it is necessary to search for a higher law that breaks up the struggle of views; it is necessary to go into theoretical research about the relationships that should exist between a person and the state, between a person and society, or the people, as well as between the state and between the people, with its people's industry and with its people's education. In such an exploration it is impossible to avoid abstraction, without which law is unthinkable, and what is less conceivable is the presentation of the science of law, which is completely abstract. The science of improvement requires more than just an acquaintance with life, which the author of the “course” talks about in his introduction, or studying the general questions that arise from it; she must understand the very beginnings of life and, based on them, establish the guiding questions of life.
We will not touch on the fourth question, which the science of law cannot ignore and which consists in how rights are acquired, lost and protected, seeing from the previous one that the author of the “course” mentions rights only in the title of the book, relating his police law to political economy. We have already talked at length about what is not in “cursive;” Let's finish by discussing what is in Sochipe and Prohessor Bunge. Let's start with his “outline of economic doctrines.”
A"
Under the title: Historical sketch of economic doctrines, the author presented a lively and comprehensive overview of the history of the literature of political economy, starting with the ideal of Plato and the politics of Aristotle. At the same time, the author finds that it was produced!
ical Philosophers and politicians are filled with scientific polo-,