Current location - Education and Training Encyclopedia - Graduation thesis - How to write the material about forest theft?
How to write the material about forest theft?
The Sixth Rhine Provincial Assembly Debate (the third paper). Debate on the Law of Illegal Logging is the third of several papers written by Marx in response to the debate of the 6th Rhine Provincial Assembly. 65438+ In Prussia in the 1940s, small farmers, short-term workers and urban residents kept collecting and cutting down trees because of poverty and bankruptcy, which was traditionally their "customary right". The Prussian government wants to make new laws and take severe measures to punish this kind of behavior which is regarded as "theft" by forest owners. The Rhine Provincial Assembly debated the draft forest theft law on June1841July 17, 2005. The amendments expressed by representatives from all walks of life in the debate tend to increase penalties in order to give more benefits to forest owners. In this paper, Marx made an in-depth analysis and research on the legal issues in history and Prussian countries, as well as the existing semi-feudal legal relations and legal viewpoints, criticized the views held by representatives of feudal classes, and stood on the side of the poor openly for the first time to safeguard their material interests. The writing of this paper promoted Marx's research on political economy for the first time.

1. Marx demanded the protection of the poor people's customary rights, believing that the roots of these habits were affirmative and legal.

Why should the poor be punished as theft for collecting and cutting down trees? A representative of the knight class thinks so. "It is precisely because stealing trees is not theft that this kind of behavior will happen frequently." Marx made a wonderful reasoning here according to the logic of this representative. "According to this inference, the same legislators should also come to the conclusion that it is because slapping is not murder that slapping has become such a common phenomenon. Therefore, it should be considered that slapping is a murder. "

"Stealing dead trees or picking up dead branches should also be classified as theft, and should be punished like cutting down living trees." In response to this view, Marx pointed out, "If this provision of the law is passed, a large number of people who have not intentionally committed crimes will inevitably be cut off from the living moral tree and thrown into the hell of crime, shame and poverty as dead trees. If the provincial Council vetoes this clause, it may hurt several small trees. Perhaps it doesn't need to be explained that the tree that was regarded as a god won, but people became victims and failed! "

Marx distinguished two situations: "one is to pick up dead trees, and the other is to steal trees with extremely complicated situations!" " "To possess a living tree, you must use violence to cut off its organic connection. It is an obvious violation of the behavior of the tree owner. " "Whoever steals felled trees is stealing property."

"Picking up dead trees is just the opposite. Nothing here is separated from property. It is just something that has actually been separated from the property. " "It can be seen that picking up dead trees and stealing trees are essentially different things."

"The law should not escape the universal obligation to tell the truth. Law has the dual obligation to do so, because it is a universal and true expression of the legal nature of things. Therefore, the legal nature of things cannot act according to law, but the law must act according to the legal nature of things. However, if the law calls an act that may not be called a violation of forest management regulations stealing trees, then the law is lying and the poor will become victims of legal lies. "

Marx believed that "the same crime has very different forms. If you deny the differences between these forms, then you will deny that the crime itself is different from the law, and you will destroy the law itself, because any crime has some aspects in common with the law itself. " Therefore, strict measures that do not consider any difference will invalidate the punishment because it will cancel the punishment as a legal result. This is a historical and rational fact. "

Secondly, Marx pointed out that the essence of the problem lies in the special interests of forest owners protected by law, that is, feudal nobles and privileged classes.

"When determining the punishment of property infringement, the importance of value is self-evident.

If the concept of crime needs punishment, then the reality of crime needs the scale of punishment. There are limits to actual crime. Therefore, in order to make punishment practical, punishment should have boundaries, and in order to make punishment fair, punishment should be limited by legal principles. The task is to make punishment the actual consequence of crime. In the criminal's view, punishment should be manifested as the inevitable result of his behavior, and thus as his own behavior. Therefore, the boundary of his punishment should be the boundary of his behavior. A certain illegal content is the boundary of a certain crime. So the scale of this content is the scale of crime. For property, this measure is its value. No matter what boundaries a person is placed in, he always exists as a whole, while property always exists only within certain boundaries. This boundary is not only determinable, but also determinable, not only measurable, but also determinable. Value is the civil existence form of property, and it is first a logical term that makes property gain social significance and transferability. Obviously, this objective stipulation derived from the nature of the thing itself should also be the objective essential stipulation of punishment. If legislation can only be based on external characteristics when it involves a large number of sizes, and it will not fall into endless regulations, then at least it must be adjusted. The problem is not to list all the differences, but to determine them. "

"Forest owners-we will talk about this in more detail below-not only require thieves to compensate for the general simple value; He even wanted to personify this value and demanded special compensation according to this poetic personality. ..... The actual forest owners judge things like this: a legal clause is good because it is beneficial to me and my interests are good. However, a certain legal provision should also apply to the defendant, because it is purely based on legal fantasy and is redundant, harmful and unrealistic. Since the defendant is harmful to me, it goes without saying that anything that makes the defendant suffer less is harmful to me. This is really a very practical insight. "

Marx pointed out the essence of customary law. "What we are asking for is the customary law of the poor. What we are asking for is not the local customary law, but the customary law of the poor in various countries. We have to further explain that this customary law can only be the law of these lowest-level basic people who have nothing. "

However, "the so-called privileged habit is a habit that conflicts with the law." Marx's analysis,

"Humans are divided into several specific animal species, and it is not equality that determines the connection between them, but inequality, which is determined by law. An illiberal world needs illiberal laws, because this animal law is the embodiment of illiberality, while human law is the embodiment of freedom. In the broadest sense, feudalism is a spiritual animal kingdom and a divided human world, which is contrary to the divided human world, because the inequality of the latter is only an equal color refraction. "

"When the privileged are not satisfied with making laws and resort to their own customary laws, what they require is not the content of the legal person, but the animal form of the law, which has now lost its reality and turned into a pure animal mask.

From the content, the form of aristocratic customary law and ordinary law is opposite. They can't have a legal form, because they are forms that ignore the law. Judging from their contents, these customary laws are contradictory to the forms of law, that is, universality and inevitability, which also proves that they are habitual illegal acts. Therefore, these customary laws cannot be required to violate the law. On the contrary, they should be abolished as the opposite of the law, and even the use of these customary laws should be punished according to the situation. You know, just because a person's behavior has become his habit, it is no longer illegal, just like the robbery of a robber's son, it cannot be forgiven because of his special family style. If a person deliberately violates the law, then he should be punished for it; If he breaks the law because of his habit, he should be punished for this bad habit. In the implementation of common law, reasonable customary law is just a habit recognized by statute law, because law is no longer a habit because it is recognized as law, but it is no longer just a habit. For a law-abiding person, the law has become his own habit; The lawbreaker is forced to obey the law, although it is not his habit. Law no longer depends on contingency, that is, it no longer depends on whether habits are reasonable; On the contrary, customs become reasonable because laws become laws and habits become national habits.

Therefore, as a special field coexisting with statute law, customary law is reasonable only when law and law coexist and custom is the pre-realization of statute law. So there is no customary law of privilege level at all. The law not only recognizes their reasonable rights, but also often recognizes their unreasonable demands. The privileged class has no right to foretell the law, because the law has foretold all possible consequences of their rights. Therefore, they insist on customary law, just asking for a territory that can make them have a little fun. The purpose is to make the content stipulated by law have a reasonable limit, and to find a place for activities in quirks and habits that are beyond the reasonable limit. However, these aristocratic customary laws are customs that conflict with the idea of reasonable law, while the poor customary laws are laws that conflict with the habits of positive law. "

"They canceled all kinds of local customary laws, but forgot that illegal acts at all levels appeared in the form of arbitrary demands, while the laws of people outside those levels appeared in the form of accidental concessions. ..... As long as these legislations think that arbitrary and undivided requirements have reasonable legal content, they will turn these requirements into legal requirements; Similarly, they should also turn accidental concessions into inevitable concessions. "

"These laws are necessarily one-sided, because the common law of any poor person is based on the uncertainty of some property. Because of this uncertainty, it is not clear whether these properties are private or public. They are a mixture of private law and public law that we saw in all laws and regulations in the Middle Ages. "

"Therefore, rationality cancels the property form with binary uncertainty and adopts the existing category of abstract private law with ready-made mode in Roman law. The reason for legislation is that it is reasonable for the poorer class to cancel the responsibility of this uncertain property, especially because it cancels the privilege of the state in property. However, it forgets that even from the perspective of pure private law, there are two kinds of private law here: the private law of possessor and the private law of non-possessor. What's more, there has never been legislation to abolish the state's privileges on property, but only to remove the accidental nature of these privileges and give them a civil nature. However, if we say that all forms of medieval law, including property, are mixed, dual and dual in all aspects, and reason has reason to oppose this contradictory provision with its own unified principle, then reason ignores a situation that some possessions can never have the nature of private property predetermined according to their nature. These objects belong to the preemption scope because of their natural nature and accidental existence, that is, such a kind of preemption object, which loses any other property because of this preemption, and its position in civil society is the same as that of these objects in nature. "

"As the habits of the whole poor class can understand this uncertain side of property with reliable instinct, we will see that this class not only feels the desire to meet natural needs, but also feels the need to meet their legitimate desires." Take the poor picking up dead branches as an example. "Just as there is no organic connection between the fallen snakeskin and the snake, there is no organic connection between the dead branches and the living trees. Nature itself seems to provide an example of the opposition between the rich and the poor: on the one hand, it is a dead branch broken from organic life, on the other hand, it is a deep-rooted tree and trunk, organically assimilating air, sunlight, water and soil, making them its own form and life. This is the natural expression of the rich and the poor. The poor feel quite similar to this and derive their own property rights from this similarity; The poor believe that since the natural organic wealth has been given to the pre-calculated owner, the natural poverty should be given to the need and contingency. "

"Just as the rich shouldn't ask for alms in the street, they shouldn't ask for alms in nature. However, the poor have found their rights in their own activities. The natural class of human society comes into contact with the products of natural forces and deals with them. This is the case with those wild fruits. They are only very accidental property accessories. This accessory is too insignificant to be the real owner's activity object. The same is true of customary law, such as picking up the ears of grain that fell to the ground after harvest.

It can be seen that there is an instinctive legal consciousness in these habits of the poor class. The roots of these habits are actually legal, and the form of customary law is more natural here, because the existence of the poor class itself is still only a habit of civil society, and this habit has not yet found its due position within the scope of conscious state system. "

The so-called "rich people" oppose the common law rights of the poor and "turn the common law of the poor into the exclusive rights of the rich." Because "the essence of things requires monopoly, because the interests of private property came up with this idea." The fashionable ideas that some businessmen who are obsessed with money come up with will not cause any opposition as long as they can bring benefits to the original Teutonic landlords. "

Third, deeply analyze the relationship between crime and punishment.

"In places where folk customary laws are suppressed, following these customary laws can only be treated as a simple violation of police regulations, and it cannot be punished as a crime in any case. The punishment for violating the police is a means to deal with the behavior that can be called external chaos according to the situation without destroying the permanent legal order. Punishment should not cause more ill feelings than fault, and the shame of crime should not become the shame of law. If misfortune becomes a crime, or crime becomes misfortune, then this destroys the foundation of the country. "

Marx satirized forest owners precisely because they maximized their own interests and pushed the legislature to make laws to punish the poor. "The soul of narrow, stupid, rigid, mediocre, shallow and selfish interests only sees what they have suffered; Just like a clown, because he stepped on a passerby's corns, he regarded him as the most hateful and despicable person in the world. He regards his corns as eyes for observing and judging people's behavior. He regards the contact point between passers-by and himself as the only contact point between this person's essence and the world. However, someone may have stepped on my corns, but that doesn't mean he is an honest person, or even an excellent person. Just as you shouldn't judge others from your stale position, you shouldn't look at them from your personal interests. Self-interest exaggerates a person's violation of it as a whole person. It turns the law into a rat catcher who only considers how to eliminate rats. Rath is not a natural scientist, so he only regards mice as harmful animals. However, the state should not regard those who violate forest management laws and regulations only as criminals and enemies of forests. Isn't every citizen inextricably linked with the country through a lifeline? Can the country cut off all lifelines just because this citizen cut off one without authorization? It can be seen that the state should also regard a person who violates forest management laws and regulations as a person, a living limb connected with his painstaking efforts, a soldier who defends the motherland, a witness whose voice the court should listen to, a collective member who should undertake social functions, a respected parent and, most importantly, a citizen of the country. The state cannot rashly cancel all the functions of a member, because every time the state turns a citizen into a criminal, it cuts off his living limbs. Moral legislators should first realize that it is the most serious, harmful and dangerous thing to bring acts that were not considered crimes in the past into the field of criminal acts. "

Marx further pointed out that "cruelty is the characteristic of laws made by cowardice, because cowardice can only make a difference when it becomes cruel." Self-interest is always timid, because those things that may be robbed and damaged at any time are the heart and soul of self-interest Who will face the danger of madness without trembling? If the highest essence of selfish legislators is something inhuman and heterogeneous, how can such legislators be humane? "

Fourth, the law becomes the slave of forest owners.

The law stipulates that "anyone who exceeds two miles away shall be appraised by the forest protection officer who comes to report it according to the current local price." "As a forest official, a ranger should safeguard the interests of private owners, but as an appraiser, he should also protect the interests of those who violate forest management regulations and prevent private owners from making harsh demands. ...... On the one hand, he is the embodiment of the interests of forest owners, on the other hand, he should be the guarantor of the interests of forest owners. " "Second, forest protection officials are informers. ....., the forest ranger lost his dignity as a judge, and the function of the judge was greatly insulted, because at this time, the function of the judge was no different from that of an informer. " "Finally, the forest protection official who came to report was employed by and worked for forest owners. No matter as an informer or a forest ranger, you should not be an appraiser. " The provincial Council turned a blind eye to the confusion in the role orientation of forest protection officials.

Some members think that "it is very unfavorable for small forest owners to trust the testimony of forest protection officials for life" and "protection should be equally effective for large and small forest owners." Marx used this question to uncover the class attribute of forest theft law. "Here, they don't want to protect forest owners and those who violate forest management regulations equally. They just want to protect forest owners, big and small, equally. When the problem involves forest owners, the complete equality of large and small forest owners becomes a theorem, while when the problem involves people who violate forest management regulations, inequality becomes an axiom. Why is Kobayashi mainly protected like Dalin? Because they are all forest owners. However, aren't forest owners and people who violate forest management laws and regulations all national citizens? Since all owners of large and small trees have the same right to ask for state protection, don't all citizens of the country have the same right to ask for such protection? "

However, the owner of Kobayashi asked the ranger to protect all the forest owners, and the ranger actually became the owner's employer. "The empty soul of private interests has never been illuminated and influenced by the concept of the state, and its extraordinary requirements are a serious and practical test for the state. If the country even drops to such a degree in a certain respect, that is, acts in the way of private property rather than in its own way, then it can be directly concluded that the country should adapt to the narrow scope of private property to choose its own means. Private interests are very cunning, and they will come to a further conclusion and declare their narrowest and most empty form as the scope and norms of state activities. Therefore, not to mention the greatest humiliation suffered by the country, the opposite result will be drawn here, and some people will use means that contradict reason and law to deal with the defendant; Because attaching great importance to narrow private property interests will inevitably turn into completely ignoring the interests of the defendant. Since the hope of private interests is exposed here, and the country is being degraded as a means of private interests, how can it be denied that private interests, that is, representatives of all walks of life hope and must degrade the country to the ideological level of private interests? Any modern country, no matter how inconsistent with its own ideas, will be forced to shout loudly once someone wants to actually use this legislative power: your way is not my way, and your thoughts are not my thoughts! "

"If the forest protection official who came to report, as you said, can't make him feel independent, confident and dignified when performing his duties, but let him lose all motivation to perform his duties, then once this person becomes a slave driven by you at will, can we still expect him to take a fair attitude towards the defendant?"

Marx profoundly pointed out that "this logic of turning the slaves of forest owners into state authority makes state authority become the slaves of forest owners." The functions of the whole national system and various administrative agencies should be divorced from the routine, so that everything becomes the tool of forest owners and the interests of forest owners become the soul of the whole organization. All state organs should be the ears, eyes, hands and feet of forest right owners, and spy, peep, evaluate, guard, arrest and run for the interests of forest right owners. "

Five, the law has become a tool for forest owners to exploit.

In response to the forest owner's demand for a fine for the so-called "thief" and compensation for its value and loss, "the violation of forest management regulations will be turned into the circulation coin of the forest owner, and the violation of forest management regulations will be turned into a kind of income, thus obtaining more favorable investment opportunities, because for the forest owner, people who violate forest management regulations will become capital." "Crime has become a * * *, and if the owner is lucky, he may even win the lottery. There may be extra value here, because even if he gets pure value, he can still make a sum of money because of a fine of four, six or even eight times; If he gets not only pure value, but also special compensation for losses, then the fine of four, six or even eight times will be completely earned. " "Now the punishment has changed from public punishment to private compensation; The fine was not included in the national treasury, but fell into the private pocket of the forest owner. "

"Forest owners with legislative power immediately confuse themselves as legislators and forest owners. On one occasion, as a forest owner, he forced the thief to pay compensation for stealing trees, and on another occasion, as a legislator, he forced the thief to pay a fine with criminal intent. Coincidentally, the forest owner got both the money. Therefore, what we see is not the general feudal forces. Through the era of public law, we have reached the era of dual and multiple hereditary rights. Hereditary owners use the rejection of the progress of the times they demand in order to steal the lynching inherent in the barbarian worldview and the public punishment inherent in the modern worldview. "

Marx further pointed out that "public punishment is to eliminate crimes with national rationality, so it is the right of the state. However, since it is the right of the state, the state cannot be transferred to private individuals, just as one cannot give one's conscience to others. Any right of the state to criminals is also the national right of criminals. The relationship between criminals and the state cannot become a personal relationship because of the intervention of intermediate links. Even if people allow the country to give up its rights, that is, commit suicide and die, it is not only a negligence but also a crime for the country to give up its obligations. "

Then, Marx pointed out that "it can be seen that forest owners can neither obtain the private right to impose public punishment from the state, nor have the right to impose punishment themselves." However, if I turn the crime of a third party into the main source of income without legal rights, won't I become his accomplice by doing so? Is it because he deserves it and I enjoy the benefits of crime that I am not his accomplice? If a private person abuses his power as a legislator and steals state rights under the pretext of the crime of a third party, his crime will not be alleviated. Stealing public funds is a national crime, isn't it also a fine? "

"Forest thieves steal forest owners' trees, and forest owners use forest thieves to steal the country itself."

After analyzing the law, Marx pointed out that "pure value and loss compensation only give forest owners the right to file private lawsuits against those who violate forest management regulations, and forest owners can file such lawsuits in civil courts." If the person who violates the forest management regulations is unable to pay back, then the forest owner is in the same situation as any debtor who is unable to pay back his debts. Of course, this situation did not give him the right to carry out forced labor and servitude to the debtor. In a word, it puts the debtor in a temporary slavery state. So what is the basis for the forest owner to make this request? All right. As we can see, since the forest owner demands that the fine be owned by him, he also demands that the state's right to punish those who violate forest management regulations be owned by him in addition to his own private rights, thus replacing the status of the state. However, while the forest owner owns the fine, he cleverly conceals the fact that he has the right to punish himself. In the past, he only said that the fine was pure money, but now he means punishment. Now he proudly admits that he turned public rights into his own private property with fines. People didn't flinch from this infuriating criminal conclusion, but they only used it because it was a conclusion. Although a normal person's reason comes to the conclusion that treating a citizen as a temporary serf and letting him be completely dominated by another citizen runs counter to our laws and runs counter to all laws, they shrug their shoulders and claim that the principle has been discussed-in fact, there is neither principle nor discussion. In this way, the forest owner cheated people who violated forest management regulations with fines. "

"It is a recognized principle to safeguard the legal significance and fairness of the interests of forest owners, and this legal significance and fairness is opposite to others; The property of these people is only the title of life, freedom, humanity and citizens who have nothing but themselves. "

"The state can and must say: I guarantee that the law will not be affected by any accidental events. In my case, only the law is eternal, so I use the elimination of crime to prove to you that crime will perish. However, the state cannot and should not say: the state guarantees private interests, certain property exists, and a forest farm, a tree and a branch (compared with the state, the largest tree is not as good as a branch) are eternal. The state can't go against the nature of things, and can't guarantee that limited things are absolutely unaffected by their conditions or accidental circumstances. It is impossible for the state to guarantee that your property will not be affected by any accident before committing a crime. Similarly, crime can't turn this instability of your property into stability. Since your private interests can be protected by reasonable laws and reasonable preventive measures, the state will protect your private interests anyway. However, the state cannot recognize any other rights except the right of private litigation, that is, the right of civil litigation protection. If criminals can't get compensation in this way because they can't pay, it can only be said that there is no legal way to get compensation. The world will not be destroyed, and the country will not be separated from just sunshine avenue. You should also know that everything in the world is temporary. However, because you are deeply religious, you may not think this is an interesting news. It will not surprise you more than storms, fires and fever. If the state wants to turn criminals into your temporary serfs, it will sacrifice eternal laws for your limited self-interest. This also proves to criminals that the law is doomed, and punishment should be used to prove that the law is eternal. "

Marx made a summary, "All our narratives show how the provincial council reduced the administrative power, administrative authorities, the existence of the defendant, the concept of the state, the crime itself and punishment to material means for private interests. Therefore, it is logical that people regard the judgment of the court as only a means and regard the legal effect of the judgment as an unnecessary burden. "

"The provincial council voted on the following questions: Is it to sacrifice the legal principle for the protection of trees, or to sacrifice the interests of protecting trees for the legal principle? -As a result, the number of votes obtained from the interests exceeded the number of votes obtained from the law. " "In this way, the provincial council has completely completed its mission. According to its own tasks, it has maintained certain special interests and taken this as its ultimate goal. As for the provincial Council trampling on the law here, this is the direct result of its task, because the interests are inherently blind, unrestrained and one-sided. In short, it has a natural instinct to ignore the law; Can something that ignores the law be legislated? "

Marx pointed out, "What can we expect from the hierarchical representative meeting to safeguard special interests once it is really endowed with a legislative mission?"

"The people of Rhine province should defeat the rank at the provincial meeting, and the people should defeat the forest owners. Legally speaking, provincial-level meetings are authorized to represent not only private interests, but also the interests of the whole province. At the same time, no matter how contradictory these two tasks are, they should not hesitate to sacrifice the task of representing special interests in order to represent the whole province in the event of conflict. "

"If trees and forest owners legislate by themselves, the difference between these laws will only be the geographical location of legislation and the language used in legislation. This dirty materialism, this evil against the sacred spirit of people of all ethnic groups and mankind, is the direct result of a set of theories being advocated by the Prussian national newspaper to legislators. This theory holds that only trees and forests should be considered when discussing forest law, and it should not be political, that is, it should not be linked with the whole national rationality and national ethics to solve every subject involving matter. "