1) Ch. 22. 2) We think about this not in terms of terminology, but in the essence of the view of the so-called subjective-political rights and political ‘in society’
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
as if the claims to this lot were of the same nature as the claims to life, liberty and property. However, there is no relationship between the one and the other. Casting a vote, considered in itself, does not in any way ensure the life of the voter
—and is not at all comparable to the different types of freedom that have received the correct name of rights. If the integrity of his (individual's) body does not experience the slightest damage; | if it moves and moves, do not experience any
| obstacles; if his ownership of everything is contaminated | nerdy or otherwise pr!yubrftnoe vnolf is respected; if | he can give or bequeath anything - do anything, enter into contracts or have relationships with anyone he wants and whatever you want, adhere to whatever opinions and expressions you want | reap them verbally and in print, etc. - then send this to him | there is absolutely nothing left to demand under the name of “rights”,
if you give this name the proper meaning °).
| Where did the error come from, recognizing in. poly- | Are the technical rights of the same nature as the rights arising from the law of equally limited freedom?
| The misconception grew out of a generalization of the facts of the state | social life, the meaning of which is that the government, whatever its form, tends to act in favor of | There are many classes and persons from which it is composed. Having assigned itself a greater share of freedom, the government, as it were, receives more rights. When there was a distribution of government power between our majority, and in absolute democracy between all members of the state, then,
Due to this remaining view, they continued to think that every citizen received a special right. Moreover, they are accustomed to giving political rights even primary importance. There was a difference between the means and the ends.
People did not notice “the truth that the acquisition of so-called political rights is in no way equivalent to the acquisition of rights in the present meaning of this word” 1).
The first are the tools and support of the second, but they can be used or not used to fulfill these goals” ®).
Franchi's despotic bureaucracy, the arbitrariness of municipal authorities. The American United States is an example of this. Here, equality of political rights prevails, and true rights, resulting from equally limited freedom, are diminished. This comes from the fact that freedom and equality - two inseparable aspects of law - are substituted for one another. Equality does not entail freedom, just as freedom, if not limited, leads to the greatest inequality. There can also be equality of oppression. Freedom can also exist so that people surrender themselves to the yoke of oppression....
Where should we look for guarantees of the natural rights of the individual? Spencer directly poses this question, which is essential for individualism. Let's see if we can be so direct and answer him. For Spencer, to answer the question about the type of state that guarantees individual rights means to trace the evolution of the social form known under the name of the state - to grasp the correct direction of political life and show where it will lead or where it can lead. In other words 3) Spencer says that psychology would be useless if, in the end, it did not help provide for the future. However, the growth of new fruitful causes can only be foreseen in the most general terms.
If we turn to the observation of natural phenomena, then we will see that in all its regions the law prevails
1) 1. 2) No. 3) -25 ch. (Near future). Founding Soshcholomi 846.
transformative, i.e. changing the structure of an object without changing its substance. Nebulae and solid planets, polyps and jellyfish, larva and mosquito - these are examples of the wonderful transformations that can occur. increased almost infinitely.
Thayuya transforms. the nature of things leads the researcher to think about the evolution of nature and more complex, developed forms, such as human society.
Human society remains human society, whether by this term we mean a primitive community of savages, a horde of nomadic peoples, a rural community, an Indian genus, an ancient state, a medieval state, an absolute state. or modern constitutional. Is the nature of these human societies the same? There is hardly any other answer other than a negative one. And yet in all cases we are dealing with human society. But its structure is fundamentally different in each of the named forms.