So, in our opinion, the so-called historical essay in the “courses” is a completely unnecessary element in an essay treating about rights, just as the absence of a doctrine about the properties and nature of law is a completely inexplicable shortcoming of an essay. But for completeness: let us turn to the second part of the “course,” containing “Overview of various branches of economic activity,” where the author includes: 1) mining industry, 2) agricultural, 3) manufacturing, 4) trade, 5) facilitating turnover, 6) spiritual with folk enlightenment, 7) activity that provides income, and 8) activity called economic social economy. Everything is said here about activity, although it is not indicated at all whose activity it is, and to whom it belongs, with the exception of food, attributed to local society, or populated, of course, by virtue of the provisions on zemstvo institutions. But, although the affiliation of these different groups of activities is not indicated at all, it is obvious that the activity of individuals and societies is implied everywhere. and the people, as organs and subjects of these Forms of human duration. And here it is no longer possible not to note the clash and not to indicate the relationship in which the active subjects of activity must be located - individuals, societies, people, on the one hand, and the state, on the other hand; In fact, the question of the meaning of police law should be resolved in the first stages, or, perhaps, in practice5. Individuals, societies, and populations act, but the government, the state, also acts.. Let's see how our author teaches how to resolve the possible antagonism of forces acting in one schema. The first chapter is devoted to the issue of hunting, about which the author says the following: hunting is different according to the difference between “savage peoples and peoples living in a common society with an established civil order.” There it constitutes a somewhat exclusive trade, but an uncertain one, depending on the vastness of the land and the abundance of game. Among the new Jewish peoples, hunting was originally the right of the supreme power, or the privilege of important classes. Restricted hunting rights in the West were detrimental to the land and prevented harmful animals. In the 20th century hunting has entered the realm of private law, and laws on hunting are limited by regulations with the following objectives: to prevent extermination, to prevent! careless handling of weapons, to protect the rights of property owners and to benefit from government funds. In our legislation, the right to hunt is limited to: a) lands owned by the hunter, 0) a period, c) designated places, etc. Polishi is ordered to observe this. Currently, there is a desire to constitute an insignificant source of folk wealth.
Here is a brief complete presentation of the teachings of G. Prohessor\
Bunge about hunting. We will focus on this accounting of sweat-`
We know that the principle used by the author here is repeated more or less with any other question in “bozzren1ya.” Subjecting the author's position to a logical analysis, it seems that one should come to a conclusion. What is in this short, stated and understood in a lot of funny ways. Here