百家争鸣
[发表评论] [查看此文评论]    郭国汀律师专栏
[主页]->[百家争鸣]->[郭国汀律师专栏]->[开明专制与法治--极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的余地]
郭国汀律师专栏
·马克思恩格斯列宁之无产阶级专政辩析
·轮流强暴马恩之恶果——“无产阶级专政”
·郭律师就民运英友张林之女安妮被非法剥夺入学权事致习近平/李克强公开函
·郭国汀:批驳体制内文人俞可平严重误导国人的谬论
·父权政治公民政治及专制政治
·什么是我们为之奋斗牺牲的正义和自由?
·什么是自由主义?新自由主义?改革自由主义?
·《匪首毛泽东》20.野心恶性膨胀的邪恶致极的毛泽东
·中共政权的性质与现状
·Politics and truth
·Justice and pursuit of truth
·God and modern politics
·Why Federalism?Dose Federal system better to protect minority rights?
·Injustice as the root of terrorism: Social political and economic fact
·列宁之“无产阶级专政”批判
·ompare Analysisof Marx and Lenin’s Theory of the Dictatorship of the
·我的坎坷律师生涯(9):孤独的长跑者
·《我的坎坷律师生涯《我的坎坷律师生涯》(7):知青岁月》(7):知青岁月
·有关圣经翻译的若干问题
·郭国汀:论爱情
·錯帐俏曳傅模珨凳旰笥H自糾錯我還不偉大嗎?!
·文革教训原因考
·开放党禁与多党联合政治——回顾三大改造、三面红旗、反右、文革史有感
·论质、量互变关系
·学习与开放
·无产阶级领袖有感
·无产阶级领袖的重大作用
·勇敢地参政议政吧!中国律师们!
·郭国汀:从 “中国律师人”说开去
·中國律師朋友們幸福不會從天降
·律師的文學功底
·郭國汀:中國涉外案件沒有一起獲得執行
·南郭:堂堂正正做個真正的中國人!
·郭国汀:愿王洪民先生在天之灵安息.
·南郭:令郭國汀律師老淚縱橫的真情
·郭国汀:民族败类!你是否中国人?
·郭國汀:令我熱淚橫流的小詩
·郭国汀:专制流氓暴政本质的再暴露
·郭國汀:強烈譴責中共惡意迫害自由戰士楊天水 許萬平
·今天我絕食——英雄多多益善!
·一个中国人权律师的真实故事
·郭国汀:全球接力绝食抗暴运动的伟大意义
·郭国汀:闻律师英雄高智晟再遇车祸有感
·只有思想言论信仰结社出版新闻舆论的真正自由能够救中国!
· 南郭:自由万岁!新年好!
·志当存高远-我的理想与追求
·我的知识结构与思想
·人生 道德 灵魂/南郭
·男子汉的眼泪/郭国汀
·相信生命—郭國汀律師印象
·南郭点评
·Racism is the biggest enemy of Justice and equality
·The Essence Distinguish Between Marx and Lenin on the Dictatorship of
·Race Politic as the Enemy of Justice and Equality
·The Great Leap Famine: Natural Disaster or Political disaster or Murde
·Homosexuality: a legal or moral problem?
·1958-1962年中国历史上最具毁灭性的大灾难
·马恩列无产阶级专政研究手稿/郭国汀
·郭国汀:穷大律师与亿万富翁
·政治体制改革的实质与根本要件/郭国汀編译手稿
·台湾自由宪政民主之路/郭国汀编译
·Terrorism and state terrorism studying
·The Truth of Chinese Economic development studying by Thomas Guoting G
·Comparing Analysis of Marx and Lenin’s Theory on the Dictatorship of
·China overtake the USA becoming an economic superpower??? by Thomas G
·人性论:人性本恶或人性本善? 郭国汀
·《诗经》英译(精选)/郭国汀編译
·Running build up a sound man
·An top important massage sent by the Holy Spirit
·My special experience help me build up my faith to the God
·I saw five ghosts when I was eighteen
·My adventure in this wonderful world
·My cross road as the first Chinese human rights lawyers who has lost h
·Does Xi in nature(evil) is same as Hu?
·Art, painting, and Civilization by Thomas G Guo
·A great teacher on our time ?
·What kind of characteristic I have ?
·郭国汀律师业绩简介
·Guo's fighting for freedom and Justice will certify that "Freedom is n
·What Human rights lawyer Thomas G Guo had done and why he received suc
·中共在抗战期通日敌打国军卖国史实考证/郭国汀
·I always tears stopless without crying, am I still a genuine man???
·My sixty year struggle for freedom and justice
·My appreciation to all professors in the Uvic and friends in the world
·Is Thomas Guoting Guo really a great teacher on our time ?
·My sixty years struggle for freedom and justice II
·孙文和蒋介石与苏俄党国体制的原则性区别
·Probably the Last idealist of Chinese lawyer?
·What looks like Mr. Thomas G Guo in my eyes
·a virtues, righteous, wisdom, and courage,and distinguished lawyer
·郭国汀律师:法轮圣徒瞿延来为何令南郭敬重?
·专访郭国汀律师(下) :回首不言悔
·郭国汀律师:何谓真正的中国人权律师?
·My sixty years struggle for freedom and justice III
·思想、言论、出版、舆论、新闻的真正自由
·民族败类!你是否中国人?
·思想言论自由的理由
·思想言论出版新闻自由的价值
·律师的文学功底
·最高法院的院长们为何对郭国汀极为反感?
·反了你! 竟敢不尊敬我大法官!
[列出本栏目所有内容]
欢迎在此做广告
开明专制与法治--极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的余地

开明专制与法治:极权流氓暴政下决无法治生存的余地
   
   郭国汀
   
   正如所有的专制国家皆称自已是民主国家一样,世界上所有的国家,无论其是多么专制蛮横,都宣称自已是法治国家。“任何政府,毫无例外地在国际和国内事务上均宣称自已是法治,即便最残酷和臭名昭著的独裁者也会将任何他想得到的东西指向法律并使之合法化。每个政府均认为其在法治范围内,无论其是多么恐怖”。[1]胡锦涛、温家宝及秦刚之流皆大言不惭地称:我国是“法治国家”!甚至连民运理论家徐水良先生也认为:中国仅是法治服从人治因而中国也有法治!

   
   确实,国际上也有法学家称专制国家(君王)也可能有法治。例如:
   
   (1)“一般而言,法律是国家说明某种行为应受处罚或会有什么后果的规则实体。占主导地位的法治概念大多未言及法律本身的正义性,而仅涉及法律制度如何运作。按此种概念,一个非常不民主的国家,或一个不尊重人权的国家,也能够有法治,如现代好些专制国家。法治可以是民主的一项条件,但不是充要条件”。[2]
   
    (2)“从逻辑上看,在法治与专制主义之间并无茅盾。因为专制君主为了区分官僚作用及有效的分工的利益,他也能用法律来统治他的臣民”[3]。
   
   (3)“法治要求一个不同的政府职能部门。但此种要求乃历史或心理的要求,而非逻辑的要求。因为法治并非逻辑的结果,即便一个专制君王也可以实行法治”。[4]
   
   (4)即使一个法律规定统治者的意志至上的专制国家,在形式意义上也可以基于法治,因为是法律规定统治者的权力[5]。
   
   (5)“由于法治注重的是法律技术而非法律的内容,因此从理论意义上,专制国家也可能有法治,但在实践意义上,专制国家的法治,如果有的话,在涉及私法及刑法和行政法领域是以不直接触及政府为限”。[6]
   
   必须指出的是:上述五种说法,姑且不论其是否正确,他们皆仅提及“专制国家”“专制君王”及“专制君主”制下也能有法治。确实被称作威权政府的新加坡不但有法治而且其法治水准在国际社会名列前茅。但是“专制国家、君主、君王”与威权政府并非同一概念,与“极权流氓暴政”更相差十万八千里,前者有可能存在开明君主或开明专制,而极权流氓暴政性质远比专制恶劣百倍。迄今从未有过任何一位法学家提及“极权流氓暴政”下也有法治之说。问题在于中共政权是否“极权流氓暴政”?!答案是肯定的!其次,上述学者在言及专制国家(君王)也可能有法治时,其“法治”概念内涵有特定限制,正如政治理论家朱迪斯(Judith N. Shklar)说,“法治一词由于意识形态的滥用和过份通常地被使用,业已变得毫无意义,但无论如何该词组过去有着特定和重要的意义”。[7]“当今许多法治理论家实质上确有拒绝区分法制理论及其法院实践的趋势”[8]。法治的实质乃是:任何权力,无论是君王的、政府的还是贵族的或是人民大众的权力,均必须限制;及立法至上,法律至高无上。开明专制国家及君王若依法限制其自身的权力且立法至上,在此意义上做到法治当然有可能,问题在于极权流氓暴政下,决无任何可能限制极权流氓当权集团的绝对权力,也根本不可能做到立法法律至上,否则它就不叫“极权流氓暴政”了。
   
   法治与恐怖统治两者的区别在于: “ 法律若无效力一文不值。为使实在法成为法律,必须使之有效力。但这并不意味着无论何时法律事实上有效力,均是法律为王(法治),因为法律亦可以仅因为恐怖为王(恐怖统治)时产生效力。仅是任何事形式上合法,并不意味着恐怖已被排除;仅是非法获取政权的事实,并不意味着法律为王(法治)不能实现。如果人民并非完全自愿遵守规则,而是由于恐惧或威胁,至少在该时,可以有法律,但没有法律为王(法治),显然仅有恐怖为王(恐怖统治)。此种恐怖统治的社会注定不稳定,因为人民之间永远相互争斗,迟早人民其中的一部份会发生分裂”。[9]
   
   权力与法治及恐怖统治及民主选举之间的关系如下: “ 如果有权力,人民不反对或不能反对它,即有法律。若仅有权力,则没有法律为王(法治),但法律被滥用作为恐怖为王(恐怖统治)的工具;假如有权力和被统治者的同意,即有法治。质言之,任何国家未能提供自由的和充满活力的竞争选举,根本不可能证明它是法律为王(法治)的体制,不可避免地结论乃是恐怖为王(恐怖统治)的体制。此种国家可以有法律,但没有任何意义上的法治”。[10] 亦即民主虽然不是法治的充要条件,但是民主确是真正意义上的法治的必要前提。没有选举民主条件下的法治是有限的不完全意义上的法治。
   
   “ 如果没有任何强制,决不会有规则和法律。在每桶苹果中总会有一些烂苹果。如果国家不保护公众对抗其公敌,公众成员将不得不自已执行。这不是法治,而是恐怖统治。而恐怖只会孳生更多的恐怖。它不是文明法律,而是丛林法则。试图取消一切强制,并未引导共产主义国家消除恐怖,而是导致永恒的恐怖”。[11]杨佳事件及日前新疆“七五”暴乱事件的根源正在于中共专制暴政下不存在法治,因为没有独立司法,当然不可能有司法公正和社会正义。而一个没有司法公正,社会正义的国度,人民只有通过自已来执行强制的自然法则,因而导致恐怖。因此,必须尽早及时终结中共一党独裁极权专制流氓暴政,才能彻底解决中华民族大家庭的和平和谐相互尊重互助互爱的民族共处问题。
   
   “每个法律体制都必然包含某些强制和同意;如果完全不具有该两项因素,则根本不存在任何法律。没有某种强制,不存在法律,但没有被统治者的同意,便不存在法治”。[12]中共匪帮骗子国最大的问题即在于流氓中共蛮横无理盗国窃政60年来,一直凭据党卫军、及公检法司警特监狱等国家暴力机器,蛮横拒绝还政还权于民,中国实质上不存在被统治的人民的同意,因而根本没有任何法治生存的余地,而唯有恐怖统治。人民的同意必须体现为定期公开公正公平自由真实的民主选举。此种选举的对象,除了国家总统以外,所有的参众两院议员(包括省级议员),所有省长市长县长,全部必须按前述条件定期选举产生。西方自由宪政民主国家早已实现此种选举数百年。仅此一点便足以证实:中共专制暴政是个极端自私自利的流氓犯罪利益集团。中国人民决不能容忍此种下三滥的流氓犯罪团伙继续蹂躏欺凌我大中华民族!
   
   综上所述:开明专制国家(君主)制下有可能存在法治,没有民主选举的国家也可以有法治。真正完全意义上的法治,只有在选举民主制下才可能得以实现,而法治则能有效地保障民主政治的健康发展。民主虽然不是法治的充要条件但民主是法治的必要前提。单纯讲民主或抛开民主讲法治,既不可能有真正意义上的法治,也不可能有完全意义上的民主。无论如何,极权暴政和流氓暴政下决无任何法治生存的余地。因此,中共极权专制流氓暴政下决不可能有任何意义上的法治和民主。
   
   2009年11月1日
   
   [1] Naturally every government, without exception, claims to be under the Rule of Law, in international as well as in local affairs. Even the most ruthless and foul dictator will point to "the law" and the "legality" of everything he can think of。every government sees itself as being within the Rule of Law, no matter how much Terror it takes to do it.
   
   [2] Generally speaking, law is a body of rules prescribed by the state subject to sanctions or consequences.The predominant view is that the concept of "rule of law" per se says nothing about the "justness" of the laws themselves, but simply how the legal s-y-stem operates.As a consequence of this, a very undemocratic nation or one without respect for human rights can exist with a "rule of law" — a situation which may be occurring in several modern dictatorships. The "rule of law" or Rechtsstaat may be a necessary condition for democracy, but it is not a sufficient condition.
   
   [3] Logically, there is no contradiction between Rule of Law and absolutism. As the absolute prince distinguishes bureaucratic functions in the interest of an efficacious division of labor, so also can he rule his subjects by law.
   
   [4] the Rule of Law requires a differentiation of governmental functions.
   
   [5] even a dictatorship in a country where it is established law that the will of the ruler is supreme may in this formal sense be said to be based on the Rule of Law, because it is the law which gives the ruler his powers. Melvin Nord, The Rule of Law, 38 U. Det. L.J. (1960-1961) pages 316。
   
   [6] the principles of the Rule of Law will generally only be applied, if applied at all, in respect of the s-y-stem of private law and in respect of those aspects of the criminal law and of administrative law which do not touch directly on government.
   
   [7] the phrase 'the Rule of Law' has become meaningless thanks to ideological abuse and general overuse", but nevertheless this phrase has in the past had specific and important meanings.
   
   [8] It has been the tendency of many theorists of the Rule of Law to present the ideal as the actual, or at least to refuse to distinguish between the theory of rule by law and the practice of the courts.
   
   [9] law" is meaningless without the concept of effectiveness. in order for the "positive law" to be "law" at all, it must be effective. But this does not mean that whenever "law" is in fact effective, the Reign of Law prevails, because "law" may be effective for a time even though it is in effect only through a Reign of Terror. The mere fact that everything is, in form, "legal" doesn't mean that Terror has been put aside; and the mere fact that there has been an "illegal" seizure of power doesn't mean that the Reign of Law is not in effect. If they follow them, not on the whole voluntarily, but only because they are terrorized or coerced, we have "law," at least for the time being, but we do not have the "Reign of Law" or "Rule of Law." We have, obviously, the Reign of Terror. Such societies are inherently unstable, because people are permanently pitted against each other. Sooner or later, a breakthrough of the people, or some portion of them, occurs.

[下一页]

©Boxun News Network All Rights Reserved.
所有栏目和文章由作者或专栏管理员整理制作,均不代表博讯立场