"Wonderful books are better than flowers, full of confidence. This article is not only a beautiful concept in form, but also includes six classics: power struggle, death pact, renewable energy by contract, private law, the role in the implementation of private law, and attaching importance to contract and harming interests. The power of classics is eternal, and many financial classics are a furnace, carefully written and really thick. My friend can't help admiring. The law books I don't like in this article are dull in my imagination. On the contrary, I was deeply impressed by the ideological content of the theme, the profundity of reasoning, the myth and the rigor of logic. All these articles have beautiful and exciting sentences to study pain; Strict logic and profound jurisprudence, such as awakening Hu's feelings suddenly.
To be honest, when I first read this article, I felt that this "right to struggle" was more like an empty concept or slogan. Although exciting, it is ideal after all, and it is a flesh and blood without a skeleton. As Ye Lin said, as a position manager, I really realized how excited and heavy the words "fight for rights" are.
For a simple example, I remember that Shuang fine read a news that a man argued for a subway ticket of 2 yuan for two years, spent more than 20 thousand yuan, and finally won money from four hospitals. Then, I think this person is sick. However, after reading the book "The Struggle for Rights", I understand the significance of his actions: his actions, rather than just staying in the dispute (litigation addiction), actually paid a high price, and he also had to think about other aspects that tend to be angry and impulsive, but came from an injured legal feeling. The struggle of litigation here is not a simple matter of interest calculation, but the moral pain is illegally violated. "For despicable contempt procedures, the plaintiff defends his rights, regardless of whether the subject matter is trivial or not, but the emotional litigation with the ideal goal and method of advocating individuality cannot be illegally tolerated", "all expenses and the rights of intruders, and all means of compensation." I really appreciate that Ye Lin didn't break the law. "Compared with before, the people they contact are generally harmed by evil forces, and corruption is" excusable "and cannot be angry. I can't help but lament the weakness of China's national character and reconciliation, hoping that more people will come out, because he didn't stubbornly adhere to the principle. However, sometimes the parties are stubborn and incomprehensible. I doubt whether to draw a clear line by giving up the right to struggle. At least for now, reasonable laws have been applied so far to avoid futility. Because sometimes giving up rights properly may bring better consequences.
Those who appreciate "Fighting for Rights" only seem to put forward the proposition of "Fighting for Rights" and expound the feelings of law and law enforcement, but they don't take part in criticizing Gerlind as a legal defect. In my opinion, this is just the part that benefits me the most. If the right of fire prevention is yelling before, in the sixth chapter of the book "The Struggle for the Rights of Modern Roman Law", yelling strongly criticizes the existing law, which is a fundamental mistake representing the rights of both superiors and subordinates. This kind of criticism is undoubtedly the most realistic, because the failure and deficiency of legislation will undoubtedly bring more common and fatal harm, and the struggle is to fight for one's rights. "Evil law is an advanced form, but also a more basic form." State rights are to protect people's rights, and it is inevitable that people whose feelings are violated by people's rights and anti-state forces will give up legal channels! "
& lt/ For example, evidence is equivalent to illegal disagreement. One of the requirements of evidence is legality. According to the provisions of judicial interpretation, evidence obtained illegally without consent cannot be recorded and videotaped by the other party. Here, it will be "illegal" and "disagree" will be equated. It is illegal without consent, but the question is, why is it illegal without consent? In the case of excluding the privacy of a few people, in order to confirm the existence of debts, it is neither illegal nor can it prove the facts. Why can't creditors be accepted as evidence? If we say that in the past, this weak protection law was at the expense of the debtor, and its tilt balance method, then in the credit crisis of modern society, let us reflect on the creditor or the debtor? Is it dominant? It can be clearly seen from Uncle who borrows money and grandson who owes money: "Today, Yang Bailao stood up, became a master, became a mother, and then the borrower became a poor man, so today's debt is in a favorable position. How to strengthen the legislation of contract law to protect the creditor's subrogation right", the provisions of cancellation right proved this and became the focus of people's attention. The procedural law insists that "illegal = no legislation", which is not conducive to protecting creditors. Strict creditors borrow money without writing IOUs, instead of making telephone recordings, which proves that the protection of the court is indeed a disaster for creditors and debtors. Such a provision, suspected of excessive tolerance, is a blatant disregard for the interests of the debtor's creditors, leading to the debtor losing confidence in the law, unable to save himself, and thus going to crime. Once, I heard that the creditor was allowed by the court because of the secret record, and the debt collection failed, so I angrily hired the underworld to kidnap the debtor and forced him to write an iou. Therefore, this case is in prison. Here, we can't just blame the weakening of the debtor's legal consciousness. It seems that the law itself should also review whether it is too biased and creditors are too harsh on debtors. In addition, some scholars pointed out that the formula that also violates international practice is a misunderstanding of the "exclusionary rule of illegal evidence". Rules usually only apply to criminal trials, but not to the act of privately storing evidence in civil legal proceedings. In the west, as long as the act of private preservation of evidence does not constitute a crime, the evidence obtained can be used even if it is illegal. The principle of "whoever advocates gives evidence" in prosecution, such as not recognizing the video evidence secretly recorded by citizens, directly limits the burden of proof of the parties and narrows the rights of all parties to preserve evidence. In fact, you can't prove it from the interests of creditors. Unprotected
For another example, the requirement of indirect evidence rule in China's Civil Procedure Law should not be such an opinion in the study of criminal procedure law. In practice, it is often used. The application requirements of the evidence rule of people's action are not strict, and an uninterrupted chain of evidence needs to be formed, but to what extent should it be proved? What is the rule of preponderant evidence? There is no doubt about it. This is only a theoretical study to prove the guiding role of bad phenomena in the judicial practice of civil litigation. In addition, in order to strengthen the protection of creditors, someone sued? On the other hand, the burden of proof of indirect evidence, the reasonable distribution and preservation of property and the exercise procedure of subrogation need further study and necessary improvement.
It is precisely because of this that we should learn how to use the law and bravely fight for our rights. "I believe that as long as each of us has this belief, our laws will be more perfect and our country will be stronger!
1872, Ye Lin delivered a speech entitled "Struggle for Rights" published by Vienna Law Professors Association, and later wrote a short book. As the theme of this book, the author also appeals to everyone and each of us to fight for our rights, the legal rights he advocates. This book is not only of far-reaching significance to legal and non-legal people, but also worth reading carefully.
Struggle has no legitimate rights and interests of strangers, and struggle is a means of legal rights protection. Visit all legitimate rights in the struggle to wrest opposition from the hands. With the unremitting efforts of the people, this method has experienced the law of legal capitalism and socialist construction from slavery to feudal legal system in human history. The author believes that "the law of the law is self-sufficient? Self-breakthrough, from the past to make himself young Satan, devouring his own children. In fact, the development and evolution of human history can not be separated from the struggle of competition, and there are more violent and bloody scenes. The birth of a child is compared to the law of childbirth, usually accompanied by severe labor pains. Some people think that their struggle for rights should be regarded as a matter of fundamental interest. In my opinion, interest is the only factor to consider. If you realize that the benefits are just unprofitable or the cost is higher than the cost of the struggle, then the struggle will pay a price and people will quit. In fact, we know that this is a very narrow view. There is such a news on the Internet: a ticket worth 2.5 yuan was returned to the train station the day before the use date, and the train station actually charged 2 yuan a refund fee. Considering that the amount of refund fee charged by the railway station is not in line with the relevant provisions of the state, he sued the articles of association and report of the passenger transport company of Linxi 'an Railway Bureau in Prague Junior Middle School, demanding a refund of the refund fee of $65,438 +0.5. There may be many other examples, but I don't want to list them all. I just hope that through these examples, interest is the only factor that they don't have and should be regarded as a means for them to fight for their rights. In my opinion, fighting for rights has become a personal problem, and fighting for the rights of one's own obligor is the right. The author also argues that the self-protection of rights is a moral responsibility-completely giving up this obligation is moral suicide. In my opinion, it is indeed an obligation to fight for their rights. If everyone is unwilling to fight for the state organs whose rights have been violated, if you don't fight back, then it is more likely that none of us will have the right to speak. In reality, we can see that our rights holders' awareness of safeguarding rights is not enough. When our rights are violated by state organs, the people will not resist. Their thinking means that bucket officials never have the wrong idea of not winning. Just imagine, if everyone is unwilling to fight for rights and just sticks to things that don't matter, then I am sure that one day, we will become more dictatorial rulers, and when we want to claim rights, it has become a sleeping thing in short supply. Giving up a person's rights is like a person running away on the battlefield, and most people who try to stop running away may not be affected by the war, but if more and more people fight each other unintentionally, the situation seems to get worse and worse. Since the burden of resistance falls on others, the war will eventually be lost. Similarly, it is another struggle with the same people for our rights. We can't give up our rights, which will help the enemy's courage and arrogance to strengthen their strength, because it will make our burden heavier and heavier. In addition, the authenticity of claims or collective obligations. The right to exercise, the right to realize his responsibility and mission, but if he doesn't realize it, he will give up not only his own interests, but also the interests of the whole society.
If the country goes to war purely from the perspective of balance of interests, if it is not enough, but a square kilometer of land, resulting in the loss of life in the war and the destruction of all people, a square kilometer of land will offset the cost, and we will still resist for our own sovereignty and dignity. The same is true of people who fight for rights, but the fact that they fight for rights is bumpy on our road. For example, in the right to petition, civil rights, voting rights and representative elections, freedom of speech and the right to know, and the Ding Yuan incident, we have a complete opportunity to complain that China's right to visit was also deprived, and Ding Yuan was finally overthrown, but I don't think a Ding Yuan fell down to petition and complain about their rights, because there are countless organizations behind him to catch petitions and black organizations like Ding Yuan, involving rights, voting rights and being elected. Perhaps this is the political right most closely related to our people, but it is also different from a dead letter in implementation. Not long before checking the news, in Jiangxi Province, the woman petitioned said: However, the thing that Ping Liu's candidate was rejected by the National People's Congress was that she initially met the qualifications stipulated by law. After those who supported her in the election and interviewed Liu Pi's own reporters, she also said that Liu Ping was not qualified to be nominated because there were not enough people to support her. Finally, after investigation by relevant departments, this incident was controlled by foreign anti-China forces. We can't help but sigh, where are the constitutions and elections of our democratic voting rights? This also shows that the workers at the bottom have no real right to guarantee, no right to vote and stand for election, and only the right to stay on paper. Speaking of freedom of speech, I saw a picture of an invisible hand in the hands of a reporter, his hand and his lawyer. We know that these two occupations are very important in a country ruled by law. However, in fact, our reporter covered his mouth and couldn't speak. Our lawyer has become a famous multi-fee. Finally, talk about rights. If you know, there is no doubt that the service-oriented government should make government information public and let the public have the right to know. However, judging from Ren Kan's time, China Offshore Oil Corporation concealed many oil spills, and subjectively never tried to conceal more absurd arguments. Recently, the Wenzhou bullet train rear-end collision accident did not give up in the case of endless arguments. In order to better rescue the buried body, the accident happened. In addition, the accident was caused by Raytheon. Blindly pursuing high development, ignoring people's life safety and treating life so cheaply, no, even if we the public have the right to know, it is also deprived. These specific rights are closely related to economic, public, political and cultural life. Why can our country fight for a square kilometer of land and the possibility of being deprived of it abroad? Let's fight for our rights. The Guardian, a powerful national government official, can be said to have done the most. But we know that we can't indulge ourselves and give up our rights, because this is our obligation, and maybe there is no little power to change it? The overall result, but in the process of this struggle, we must be able to infect the public, improve people's right to self-protection and build a sand tower, concentrate resources, and every small step of creativity has far-reaching significance. Is it hard to imagine that one day, our public rights can be better exercised, our country can become bolder, and it will also be reflected in our country on the premise that our public believes?