They are considered to be agriculture and cattle breeding, or whose objects belong to the incorruptible family, for example, ancestral stones, metals and all inorganic substances. If, for example, with the increased activity of the known generation, metals were torn out of the earth; this would not threaten the subsequent coups with death, for they would have acquired these substances, these metals in the required quantities from the previous coups. So, the constant, tireless and unlimited production and development of these fisheries constitutes the same law of public law as the limited hunting, trapping and afforestation. Without explaining the rational basis for the operation of the laws of the country, no completeness of their presentation will help the DWL, and the presentation will seem purely mechanical. However, this question does not end. We talked before self about hunting, fishing, or forestry and agriculture, cattle breeding, etc. etc., as about fisheries or such activity that supplies food. All this can be done in other capacities, and it is quite conceivable to establish a company! for hunting, fishing, etc., where we will no longer be talking about food, but about wealth, which will require capital, knowledge, institutions, in general, such activity that is called industry, with its wide freedom and with its social status and industrial, factory, or commercial rights. This scientist did not attract the attention of our author at all, and therefore his “bozr!6n1e,” even in the sense of an economic, not a legal treatise, is very incomplete. Speaking about restrictions on hunting, fishing, etc., the author adds that surveillance of all this is provided to the police, leaving the question untouched whether it would not be better or more reasonable to provide such surveillance to communities and lands, through which the very reason for calling these laws police would be eliminated. Finally, one more drawback is felt when examining the work of G. Bunge published before the sale, this is the specialization, or the separateness of questions and their particular analysis.
In the “review,” each scientist is examined separately and independently, without attempting to unite what is homogeneous into special groups, and to find for the development of both institutions, institutions, principles. So the author talks in detail about hunting, fishing, forestry, in their tactical isolation, forgetting that there are many points of contact between them, such as. the space of land and water and their ownership, which has its influence on these fisheries, giving rise to exclusive property rights from hunting, fishing, etc. He mentions this identity of land and water when presenting each of the trades, but does not distract from this common element, does not derive from it a common principle, and speaks in detail about land and land ownership only in the study of agriculture, as if one can talk about hunting, fishing, or mining, without knowing the role played here by the land law of the treasury and various owners. The same applies to the doctrine of freedom and the right of serfdom, set out in detail in the section on land, as if the abolition of serfdom has only an impact on agriculture, and as if freedom is not as necessary and essential for the trapper, cattle breeder, as for the merchant, the farmer, and everyone else who is learning more and more often. Throughout the presentation of the course one can see a political economist who does not prove anything, but only shows, and is afraid to bore the reader with abstractions. Without these abstractions, it is impossible to build “police law.”
The best, clearest proof of this impossibility of doing without abstractions is the “course" we are discussing in what it is silent about and what it does not present. This is the teaching about population omitted by the author, which is found everywhere in other works of police scientists from Delamare and Berg, to Mohl and Stein. Our author is justified by the fact that statistics also speak about population and political economy. But we have already mentioned that statistics, like political economy, also speak 060 to everything set out in G.’s “course”.
Bunge, they say, of course, is not the same thing that should be included in police law. Statistics e.g. talk about the population; political economy that a given entity seeks to exceed the limits set by the population's means of food, & police 'law of Mol and others that the government is obliged: therefore containing