Aleksey Muravyov: lawlessness within the boundaries of logic

Alexey Muravyov

New laws are designed to limit our citizens who have eared by the impunity of citizens in the hope of raising consciousness and responsibility in them. Intuitively, most of our people will say - this does not rush! Why? And there is a space for some reasoning. In principle, restriction is one of the main legal mechanisms, the normal way to design the space of the permissible. Sunt Certi Denique Fines (“The limits are clearly defined”), as the ancient poet said. In principle, our people do not see these boundaries as Fines, apparently, this is partly due to the unconscious of the borders in general, in ontology. Including, unfortunately, the boundaries between good and evil. G. Lubarsky noted in his cognitometry, which we do not talk about good and evil as certain things. And what is not said about - he is not. Ethics is the reverse expression of ontology, and law is the formalization of ethics. And this public registration does not really decorate anything with us. There are no limits, the fins are not certi, because of it, we have the main social type - the lawless.

The lawmakers are those for whom there are no intelligible and certain concepts, then there are no groups of concepts, but there are universals that set these groups. What does it mean? There is an idea of ​​a “law”, but there is no intelligible and universal matrix formalization. There is a written “law”, but it is not connected with the universal “law”, so they can and should be neglected. How to be? After all, the universal works somehow? And it works through an agreement. An agreement is such a short -term and narrowly determined space in which a bilateral obligation acts. Inside one domain, obligations can be more stable, then they are called “concepts”, “canons”, “internal routine” or somehow more. Imagine, for example, two populations of rodents. One marks the territory that the other strives for. In the course of some contact, the boundaries of the territory are fixed and this contract is observed until a stronger and more impudent male and its support group will begin to extend the boundaries with a fourth way. This means that the “contract” has been exhausted and a new one is necessary.

Since we have established that the contract is a crastric (= non -absolute) form of social connection, symbolizing the idea of ​​the law in the absence of its formalization in absolute terms, it becomes clear what is “restriction” in this system and why it is pointless. The restriction, as we said above, is the marked space allowed through the movement of borders or a concretization of the application group. For a society consisting of lawmakers, the boundaries do not exist by definition, so that they live in a quantum space - it changes faster than ideas about it are created. The restriction is seen as an attempt to apply stringent norms to such a changing space. Therefore, restrictions are ignored. Where it seems to us that laws are in force, the system of contracts actually operates through the complex mechanism of social ties and contacts.

Limiting the amount of alcohol, restriction of ppm, restriction of meter, restriction of freedoms is understood in the boundless world as a signal about the need to revise the old contract on new terms. This is what we incorrectly call “corruption”. The subject of such a restriction is always the state, as if announcing: “Pay - and live calmly!” Paternalism is only one side of this issue, the second is short -term, and with it unpredictability.

Now we compare the last two initiatives - the return of tax on childlessness and intoxication as an aggravating circumstance. Everyone sees in them the “return of the scoop”, but in fact these are different things. In fact, they are not in the old logic of the ban. The tax on childlessness is the redistribution of responsibility in society, but the weight of responsibility for drunkenness is a classic restriction. A childless person shifts his responsibility for public reproduction to the state. The technical revolution, coupled with the desecalization of the theme of the floor and the related childbearing, shared the concepts of family and responsibility. The generation of Childfri arose - a whole huge population of active and free citizens who did not see the point in concluding an agreement with society (marriage, Matrimonium), the subject of which are children. Children (the growth of the people) ceased to be perceived as a mandatory object and turned mostly into an element of comfort (“we can allow - we cannot allow”). Therefore, the new introduction of the inconsolation tax transfers the increase again into the category of the obligatory. This is indirectly related to the problem of orphans-unclaimed or non-Affordable children again return to the space of public attention.

The proposed return of the norm “drunk - double lashes” is an attempt to deal with alcoholization of the population through restriction. However, there is its own difficulty - alcoholism is a social disease that exploits several mythologies at once. He drinks from grief, which means drunk - poor (like Dostoevsky) - the first of them, it is connected with the idea that drunkenness is an asceticism by a fortuneteller. He drank everything - lost everything, became “free”, but captivated by himself. The second is betaubung, anesthesia: "Life is so hard that you can’t help but drink." And finally, the third is oblivion as a form of a parallel life of the people. This is the most archaic representation, which comes down to the fact that the mind of a drunk person abides, as it were, “outside”, he goes into oblivion and in this perhaps the amonical, as V. Solovyov or L. Karsavin would say, the state is not subject to laws. These mythologems protect the alcoholic from public restrictions, withdrawing every case with a crime by booze from the space of the law into the space of the contract: “Let him go, he is drunk!” Agreements apply where the ideas about the social structure and behavior are underdated and are kept on mythologems.

And here we can highlight the general focus of all the contractual connections that formalize our public life. This is self -defense from extinction . Therefore, all contracts depend on threats and short -term. We have already said that in our classes, some legitimate norms-consoles can act locally. But when trying to generalize them, they stop working, running into infinity. You can do several things here - destroy, erode the estate structure, depriving the bonus estates of privileges, on the one hand. This will lead to the release of estate norms to a wider level. On the other hand, we need a mechanism for formalizing ideas about ourselves and a society that would dry mythologems that confuse the rule of law with its justification.

Formal concepts - and there is the very intermediate environment that will allow you to express the idea of ​​the law not intuitively, but quite verbally. The formal language, by the way, was previously the language of the Christian tradition “sin”, “righteousness”. Now they can be the language of culture and the language of mathematics. Having mathematized legal representations, we cut off mythologems and get a language at the output for which various renewable short -term contracts will not be needed. And thirdly, the whole society should become a generating subject of law. Then the restrictions will become a simple formal clarification procedure - “amendments”, and the instructiveness will be by obligation, not a bonus.

See also: The Ministry of Justice suggested that you intoxication with an aggravating circumstance