Is it possible to create an ideal law? points for and against. Regulations on the Moscow city student essay competition “Is an ideal law possible? Is it possible to create a perfect law essay

The question is formulated very vaguely. What laws are we talking about? For example, is the Periodic Law (Periodic Table of Elements named after D.I. Mendeleev) an ideal law? He is faithful. He is always fair. He has no opponents... . If we take the law of universal gravitation, it is probably not ideal. Many people are overwhelmed by gravity.

Thus, we come to the first conclusion: in order to answer the question posed, it is necessary to introduce criteria. What law can be considered ideal? Possible options:

A law that completely solves the problem that has arisen

A law that will be accepted by all society without exception (accept, here means, recognize as fair and will implement).

A law that everyone will like

Are there any other options? Possible. But it is immediately clear that these criteria are difficult to fully meet. Human society is so large and diverse that there will always be at least some exceptions, people who are dissatisfied with the law, who do not want to comply with it, who evade the law... . So it looks like we've come from the wrong direction again.

Let's try this approach. Slightly simplified for ease of presentation. The ruler makes the laws. If we accept this point of view, then the ideal law is the law that solves the ruler's problem in the most rational way, and with which the ruler is satisfied. It is difficult to argue against such a definition. What if many people may not like the law - the law is adopted for execution, not for pleasure. If the problem is resolved with the adoption of the law and the ruler is satisfied, the law can be considered ideal. At least for now the ruler is happy and the problem is solved.

Most people base their assessment of an organization's performance on self-centered criteria. Which store do we like? Where it's cheap and polite sellers. And does anyone think which store the sellers like? Which school do we like - where the teachers are experienced and attentive? And does anyone think which school the teachers like? The customer is always right! In the case of law, the law has only one client - the ruler. So, I guess the answer to the question: “What law can be considered ideal?” - simple. A law that is considered ideal by the ruler of the society for which the law is being adopted can be considered ideal. Is such an ideal law possible? Think. what is possible! For the simple reason that rulers exist to solve problems of governance. And since human society has existed for a long time, it means that rulers solve problems of governance, they solve them precisely by passing laws. Not always ideal, but often ideal for a certain historical period.

Is it possible to create an ideal law?
it’s impossible - the law is coercion in any case,
it’s impossible because any law will violate someone’s freedom
example: Let us note that the great revolutions of the past, inspired by the democratic idea, ultimately ended in dictatorships:
Jacobin dictatorship and Napoleon's empire in France;
Cromwell's dictatorship in England;
Bolshevik dictatorship in Russia;
one of the first documents of the Great French Revolution - the Declaration of the Rights of Man and the Citizen (1789) - proclaimed the human right to freedom, property and resistance to violence. However, in practice, the famous Jacobin M. Robespierre and his supporters used Rousseau’s idea of ​​the “general will” to justify mass terror. The main means of establishing the “general will” was the guillotine.
Even in Ancient Greece, they noticed that it is impossible to create an ideal law, as Cato wrote: “There is no law that would satisfy everyone.” But, despite this, humanity has been adopting more and more new laws for several millennia with varying degrees of success in an effort to improve the life of society, replenish the treasury, protect the weak, etc.
There is no law that would provide for all the circumstances of a particular case,
1) when considering a case, the court relies only on the testimony of witnesses and evidence provided by both parties
2) the court is not present at the crime scene.
Therefore, there is no law that would provide for all the circumstances of a particular case.
2. Officials do not benefit from an ideal law,
1) officials’ “hands are tied” (limited powers, less access to resources, etc.)
2) officials will still break the law, since officials will want to have more powers, greater access to resources, etc.).
This means that an ideal law is not beneficial for officials.
In this way it is impossible to create an ideal law.
It would be great if our legislators drafted ideal laws that would take into account all the nuances and anticipate all possible changes in economic conditions. But this is simply impossible. Moreover, it is impossible for any bill to acquire a different space for its future application than the actually existing one.
It is possible if the law, along with responsibility, gives a person freedom.
To a certain extent, “ideal” researchers call the draft laws being developed, which reflect all the most modern and effective theoretical developments, which contains answers to the numerous questions that already arise in law enforcement practice
One of the new and pretty effective methods public discussion began in the draft legislation procedure. This makes it possible to involve not only narrow specialists and experts from different fields in the discussion, but also to provide an opportunity for a fairly wide range of people to speak. Everyone’s opinion is taken into account, comments and amendments are brought to the most accurate content and successful form, the ideal law

FOR STUDENTS OF 8th-11th CLASSES

1. General Provisions

1.1. These Regulations determine the procedure for holding the Moscow essay competition “Is an ideal law possible?” (hereinafter referred to as the Competition) within the framework of the city project “Financial and Economic Literacy”, conditions of participation and composition of the organizing committee of the Competition (hereinafter referred to as the Organizing Committee).

1.2. The organizer of the Competition is the State Budgetary Educational Institution City Methodological Center of the Department of Education of the City of Moscow.

1.3. Information technology and methodological support for the Competition is provided by the City Methodological Center of the Moscow Department of Education on the website.

1.4. Objectives of the Competition: attracting the attention of participants in educational relations to legal education; unleashing the creative potential of Moscow schoolchildren; stimulating them to complete educational and research tasks; developing students’ cognitive interest in the subject areas “Social scientific subjects” and “Social sciences”.

1.5. Objectives of the Competition:

• identifying and supporting students who are ready for self-development and purposeful cognitive activity, formation of the ability to set goals and make life plans;
• increasing the level of legal awareness and legal culture of students;
• fostering respect for the law;
• formation conscious attitude to continuous education as a condition for successful professional and social activities.

2. Organizing committee and jury

2.1. To conduct the Competition, the Organizing Committee of the Competition is created, the tasks of which are:

• ensuring the conduct of the Competition in accordance with these Regulations;
• creating equal conditions for all participants;
• formation of the Competition jury;
• development of criteria for evaluating participants' competition works.

2.2. The duties of the Competition jury include:

• checking the competition works of the Competition participants;
• assigning points for completed tasks in accordance with the criteria for evaluating competitive works;
• determination of winners and prize-winners based on the results of the Competition.

2.3. Composition of the Organizing Committee of the Competition:

• Lebedeva M.V. – Chairman of the Organizing Committee, Director of the City Methodological Center of the Moscow Department of Education;
• Kuznetsova E.V. – Deputy Director of the City Methodological Center of the Moscow Department of Education;
• Borodin M.V. – Deputy Director of the City Methodological Center of the Moscow Department of Education.

3. Terms and procedure for the Competition

• November 21, 2016 – January 21, 2017 – acceptance of competitive works and registration of participants;
• January 22, 2017 – February 3, 2017 – evaluation of works by jury members;
• February 6, 2017 – summing up the results of the Competition.

3.2. The competition is held in absentia.

3.3. The competition entry must be a mini-essay-argument.

3.4. The essay is written by each participant individually in accordance with the criteria. The work must be typed on a computer in a text editor compatible with Word and saved in PDF format no more than 2 MB in size.

3.5. Participants upload the saved file to the Competition information system on the website and fill out the registration form on the website page.

4. Conditions of participation in the Competition

4.1. Students of grades 8–11 of educational organizations in Moscow can take part in the Competition.

4.2. Participation in the Competition is organized free of charge.

4.3. The results are summarized for two separate age groups:

• 8–9 grades;
• 10–11 grades.

5. Essay evaluation criteria

5.1. The essay is assessed according to the following criteria:

• relevance to the topic. The student reasons on the proposed topic, choosing the way to reveal it (for example, answers the question posed in the topic, or reflects on the proposed problem, or constructs a statement based on theses related to the topic, etc.).
• argumentation, use of literary and (or) legal material. This criterion aims to test the ability to use literary and normative-legal material (works of fiction, journalism, scientific works, normative legal acts) to construct an argument on the proposed topic and argue one’s position. The student constructs a reasoning, drawing on at least one literary and (or) legal source for argumentation, choosing his own way of using the material. At the same time, he can show different levels comprehension of the text: from elements of semantic analysis (for example, themes, issues, plot, etc.) to a comprehensive analysis of the material in the unity of form and content and its interpretation in the aspect of the chosen topic;
• composition and logic of reasoning. This criterion aims to test the ability to logically construct a reasoning on the proposed topic. The student argues the thoughts expressed, trying to maintain the relationship between thesis and evidence;
• quality of written speech. This criterion aims to check the speech format of the text of the essay. The student expresses thoughts accurately, using a variety of vocabulary and various grammatical structures, uses terms appropriately if necessary, and avoids speech cliches;
• literacy. This criterion allows you to assess the compliance of the speech format of the essay with the norms of the Russian language.

5.2. When assigning a grade, the length of the essay is taken into account. The recommended word count is 500, but not less than 200 words.

Imagine that in a certain country the law prohibits citizens from running in the streets or, say, wearing orange pants. Because the inhabitants of this country firmly believe: if people start running through the streets (wearing orange pants), nothing good will happen, on the contrary, something terrible will happen, the world will turn upside down! If you ask the people of this country how running in the streets (or wearing orange pants) can have a harmful effect on social order, they will certainly verbalize their prejudices, that is, they will say some words that, in their opinion, should explain the harm of running or wearing a certain pair of pants. colors. You can argue with them endlessly. During an argument, they will definitely mention the interests of small children, move away from the topic into abstract, high-flown reasoning, and in the end you will abandon the conversation, because you will notice one pattern: the longer the argument lasts, the more stupid the “arguments” of the opponents become, and the more stupid the “argument” “, the more difficult it is to “refute” it. Because, strictly speaking, there is nothing to refute.

In this regard, I remember a random conversation about weapons with one of my relatives. And she is no ordinary woman, neither more nor less - the head of a department at a university known throughout the country. And in five minutes of conversation, I heard so much incoherent nonsense from the head of the department that it would be enough for a thousand milkmaids. And it all started so innocently:

– What are you writing about now? – she asked.

- Yes, about the fact that in Russia it is necessary to legalize short-barreled weapons - pistols and revolvers.

- No, you can’t do that. Our people are so emotional. They'll shoot each other! Europeans have lived in culture for hundreds of years and are therefore law-abiding. But we are not ready.

– Are the Moldovans ready?

- Moldovans? No. Not ready either. Because they are also stupid on top of everything else.

– So the Moldovans will also shoot each other?

- Certainly!

– Meanwhile, in Moldova, pistols and revolvers have been allowed to be sold and carried for more than ten years. And they didn’t shoot.

- They'll shoot again.

And what is the answer? A person is closed in the shell of his ideas about the world and does not want to listen or perceive anything. Nevertheless, I continued the conversation and heard the whole standard set of idiocy that prohibitionists usually spout, plus a bunch of interesting, but irrelevant things:

about the fact that prostitution has become younger in our country,

that evil forces want to reduce the population of Russia, since our bowels are very rich in resources, and that is why they are imposing weapons on us,

that all people have some kind of astral energy, and so on.

What is there to argue about if all the arguments flow down the Teflon surface of human stupidity, without wetting the mind in the least? And can this be called intelligence?..

– Sasha, don’t you understand that when weapons are legalized, people will simply start shooting at each other at the slightest provocation? They'll argue a little and that's it...

- I don't understand. Because legalizing guns is not the same as legalizing wanton murder. And in general, in my life I argued with a lot of people, and until for some reason they killed me.

- Because there was no gun.

– Is it possible to kill only with a pistol? Why haven't they stabbed you with a knife yet?

- Well, it’s difficult to kill a person with a knife. You still need to approach him.

“And I didn’t go far during the argument.”

“It’s easier to kill with a pistol!” With a knife you need more force - wave your hand. And with a pistol, you just lift a finger.

– So, in your opinion, all people are very weak potential killers? Out of spiritual malice, they have long wanted to kill someone and would certainly kill them, but due to dystrophy they are not able to wave their hand - they can only move a finger? Only their frailty restrains them from killing their neighbors, right?.. But how do they walk, so frail, how do they move their legs?..

It is useless to talk to people in whose Teflon brains such pictures are born. And you don’t need to take them into account; they will stubbornly prove that wearing orange pants destroys public morality, harms children, and is contrary to our cultural traditions and will certainly lead to a socio-cultural catastrophe. This is their faith, and nothing can be done about faith. Therefore, to make a political decision, you need not listen to the chatter of housewives with a twilight consciousness - even if they work as heads of departments - but simply look at the experience of other countries. If in any - at least one! – the country was allowed to wear orange pants and the world did not turn upside down, which means the ban was empty, and it can be lifted in other countries.

Logical, isn't it?

For example, in all countries the speed limit on roads is limited by law. But in Germany there is no speed limit on motorways. And Germany has not disappeared from the face of the planet! This means that this ban is superfluous, unnecessarily infringing on people’s rights; we can do without it.

Drugs (except nicotine and alcohol) are prohibited everywhere. But in Holland they legalized marijuana, although prohibitionists of all stripes shouted that this would lead to disaster. It didn't work. The drug ban turned out to be an empty ban. Unnecessary. You can do without it.

In many countries, pistols are banned. And in some they were accepted and allowed. And the world didn't turn upside down. On the contrary, there was more benefit than harm - legal weapons save orders of magnitude more lives than they take. But even if this were not so! Even if everything were the other way around, this is not yet a reason to ban weapons, since one person cannot be discriminated against for the potential sins of another. Vodka does not save human lives, it only takes away. But for some reason it never occurs to anyone to ban vodka. Because normal people, of whom the majority cannot be responsible for small group alcoholic psychopaths who chase their wives and children with an ax. They are racing, but what do we have to do with it? Why should we give up the pleasure of having a drink at dinner? For the sake of a ghostly chance to save an innocent child of an alcoholic from the blow of his father’s ax? It is only in science fiction novels by bearded writers that a child’s tear outweighs everything. The real world is completely different.

And for the real world, you and I, as they say, without leaving the cash register, that is, right now, literally in front of the amazed public, we can create an ideal weapons law, using the experience of other countries - on the principle of sweeping aside unnecessary prohibitions that have experimentally shown their uselessness.

Summary table of weapons legislation in neighboring countries

(“-” – prohibited, “+” – allowed)

Table of “ideal” legislation

Some clarifications to the table may be needed. For example, about the absence of an exam. Now in Russia there is no exam for a person who decides to buy a weapon. Just as there is no exam for a person who decides to buy a juicer or a VCR. A weapon is simpler than a video recorder, and if in order to use a tape recorder it is enough to simply read the instructions, then the instructions are even more sufficient for handling a weapon.

“But a gun is dangerous, unlike a VCR!” – some people can and will definitely say. Electricity is also dangerous. It kills. But before letting a person into a modern apartment, no one requires him to pass a safety exam. Bought it and live. What carelessness! And this - despite the fact that twenty-five thousand people die from electric shocks in the world every year - the population of a small town. Many times more than from legal weapons!

And gas is even more dangerous than electricity! He kills not only the one who handles him carelessly, but also those around him. The gas is a formal weapon of mass destruction - the military calls it a vacuum bomb. Vacuum bombs, by the way, are prohibited by international conventions as inhumane weapons. But nevertheless they successfully break here and there...

“In the event of a domestic gas explosion. the building collapsed. The fire that arose was localized by the Ministry of Emergency Situations employees in less than an hour...”

“As a result of a gas explosion in a residential building in Voronezh, one person was killed and seven were injured...”

“Employees of the forensic center of the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Tatarstan identified the remains of two people who died in a gas explosion in a residential building in Kazan on January 9: this is seven-year-old Yulia Korochkina and her grandmother Nadezhda Korochkina, born in 1956...”

“Three children died in a gas explosion in the Rostov region...”

“Nine out of ten victims of a gas explosion in a multi-storey residential building in Dnepropetrovsk have already been identified. The blast wave blew out windows in three more houses. Earlier it was reported about gas explosions in four houses in the Pobeda residential area at about 11.00 on Saturday..."

Seventeen people, including four children and a firefighter, were injured Saturday night in an explosion at an apartment building in New York's Harlem neighborhood. According to the preliminary version, the cause of the incident was a domestic gas explosion, ITAR-TASS reports. According to eyewitnesses, the explosion partially collapsed the wall of a five-story, 20-apartment building...”

“Over the past week in Russia, household gas explosions caused the death of sixteen people. Let us remind you that eight people died on the night of January 9 in Kazan, six on the night of January 14 in Zheleznovodsk (Stavropol Territory), one also on the night of January 14 in Novokuibyshevsk (Samara Region)..."

“The death toll from a gas explosion in China has risen to 163...”

“In a five-story apartment building in Zheleznovodsk on Monday night there was a powerful gas explosion, as a result of which one of the entrances was destroyed. The bodies of six dead were recovered from the rubble, said the head of the Main Directorate of the Ministry of Emergency Situations of the Russian Federation for the Stavropol Territory, Major General Igor Oder... Sixty residents were evacuated..."

Explosions, ruins of houses, evacuation. Real war! But no one forces residents of houses with gas stoves to take exams on the rules for handling gas equipment. Although gas kills more than legal weapons.

There is a separate issue with weapons registration. The experience of Australia and other countries (which I have already talked about) showed the pointlessness of this event. Let me remind you that the gun registration law cost Australian taxpayers $200 million and did not help solve a single crime, because legal weapons are not involved in crimes.

In addition, let me remind you that registration is the first step before confiscation. This is why residents of many countries refuse on principle to register their weapons. For example, this happens in Canada, famous for its law-abiding nature, where the tightening of gun laws has caused a wild increase in crime. Canadians, taught by bitter experience, no longer register their weapons - more than 300 thousand Canadians simply ignore the law on mandatory registration of weapons. And they do it right! There is no need to enforce unjust laws.

By the way, ordinary Canadians are supported by local authorities, who are closer to the ground than the capital authorities, soaring in the pink empyrean. Thus, the governments of the provinces of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba at one time took and canceled the action federal law on gun control, which created a “paper civil war” with the socialists entrenched in the capital. And six Canadian provinces (British Columbia, Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, Nova Scotia and Ontario) simply refused to prosecute citizens who did not register their weapons.

In Germany, as you know, gun laws are very strict. And they are becoming stricter literally every year. In Germany, weapons registration was introduced in 1972. Sensing which way the wind was blowing, the Germans, famous for their law-abidingness, did not at all run to the local Fuhrer to register their guns. The government expected citizens to register between 17 and 20 million guns. And they registered only 3.2 million.

Similar things are happening on the other side of the ocean - in Boston, Cleveland and California. There it is necessary to register purchased “military” weapons with the police. However, in reality, only 1% of those who bought them came and registered their guns. By the way, what is a “combat” weapon? Well, for example, the same Kalashnikov assault rifle. American prohibitionists, who believe that there is an evil spirit in weapons that wants to kill all people, periodically come up with various prohibitions on the principle “we can’t ban weapons, so let’s at least restrict something.” And they limit. The limitation on magazine capacity, which I have already discussed, is their doing. Now, after service, a policeman takes out a 17-round magazine from his service Glock, inserts 10 rounds and goes home, because after the service he already becomes, as it were, a civilian, and a civilian is not allowed to carry more than 10 rounds. Very smart, isn’t it?.. It’s not clear what prevented the socialists from big stores. But there was no logic in their actions; their goal was meaningless restrictions. The same applies to “combat” weapons.

In 1994, under Clinton, restrictions on “military” weapons were introduced in the United States for a period of 10 years (I also talked about this: remember, it was then that Kalashnikov assault rifles doubled in price). The ban turned out to be empty, that is, it did not lead to any positive effect, and could not lead to it. It is not even clear what the Social Democrats wanted to achieve with this ban. But for law-abiding citizens, under certain circumstances, such a ban can significantly ruin the lives of law-abiding citizens. At what? Why might a law-abiding citizen need an assault rifle or a Kalashnikov? Is he going to lead? fighting inside the country? Yes, this happens, oddly enough. Here's an example for you...

This story began in March 1991, when the Los Angeles traffic police tried to stop a black man rushing at breakneck speed. The black man did not respond to the police’s demands, and after he was chased and pinned down, he jumped out of the car and rushed to fight with the police. The reason for this behavior was explained simply - the black man was stoned. Since the guy resisted the police, the police had to suppress this resistance. That's what they did - with blows from police batons. How else can you influence a stoned drug addict who doesn’t feel pain?

Unfortunately, a random witness filmed the process of forcing the black man to peace on a video camera and sold it to one of the TV channels. The TV channel was happy to demonstrate how racist police officers beat the unfortunate animal.

The stoned black man, whose name was Rodney King, instantly became famous. The beaten man's fellow tribesmen and white liberal Democrats were outraged. An investigation began, and in 1992 a trial was held, which acquitted the police. I hasten to note that this was not Russian “Basmanny” justice, dancing at the behest of the prosecutor’s office and big bosses, but a jury trial. That is, completely strangers and people who were not interested in anything, having familiarized themselves with the circumstances of the case, decided that the police did the right thing - they simply had no other choice.

After this, the uprising began. More precisely, a riot. Or rather, riots. Blacks and Latinos, who are a dime a dozen in Los Angeles, took to the streets. They don't like to work, but they like to rob stores. And then just the occasion presented itself - injustice on the part of the white oppressors!.. The rioters did not put forward any political demands, they simply ran through the streets, smashed shop windows and passers-by, raped women, burned cars and, of course, selflessly robbed, dragging owners out of small shops to the street and beating him half to death.

The blacks beat the whites and, oddly enough, the Asians - the latter on the principle of “they came in large numbers here.” And this is strange, because the blacks themselves were “brought here” from Africa. But this is what the struggle for justice looks like in the Negro way. As a result of the riots, the entire city burned (due to smoke obscuring the sky and reducing visibility, the Los Angeles airport even had to be closed), 55 people were killed and more than 2,000 were injured. And the damage was estimated at a billion dollars. (By the way, the walking cause of all these riots, Rodney King, ended up in prison a few years after the pogroms for his drug addiction.)

In short, the usual American hell was happening on the streets of the city of angels, similar to what was happening in half-flooded New Orleans. As you can see, excessive concern for the marginalized leads to their excessive reproduction and general marginalization of cities. It’s like propagating an infection in Petri dishes. Once upon a time, Ancient Rome stepped on this rake, breeding hordes of human bastards living on handouts - the so-called plebs. Now history is repeating itself.

During the pogroms, everyone did their job: blacks robbed, reporters flew in helicopters and filmed the riots and robberies of blacks. And here’s some interesting footage they managed to film (these footage was later broadcast on all TV channels): some Korean stores were not looted and burned, because the Koreans sat on the roofs and methodically shot the blacks who were trying to rob their store. It all resembled a war - black smoke, red fire from conflagrations, crowds going on a predatory attack. What weapons did the Koreans use in this “war”? In war as in war - combat, it is most suitable for the given conditions! The Koreans killed the blacks with Kalash rifles and semi-automatic rifles. It was very impressive and no less effective. Even the thoroughly liberal Washington Post was forced to admit through gritted teeth: “It is impossible to forget the images of people shooting at robbers and successfully defending their stores. It was a major blow to the gun control movement."

By the way, who was to blame for the Los Angeles tragedy? And those same liberal democratic leftists who control the American media and are anti-gun. They were the ones who committed the forgery by showing viewers footage of a black man being beaten by white police officers. The fact is that media liberals showed an edited recording on television: they cut off the part where it was clear that the police spent 5-8 minutes persuading the stoned King to surrender. They also cut off a piece that shows how Rodney King attacked the police, striking one of them several times. And it turned out that the cruel racist police stopped the black guy and, out of nowhere, suddenly began to beat him with batons. Hence the explosion of indignation, which turned into a nightmare for the whole city.

Fear the social liberals blue eyes Manilova!..

By the way, no one even thought of bringing the courageous Koreans who killed the robbers to justice. They were defending themselves.

Now remember the grandiose pogrom that football fans staged in Moscow in 2002 after the loss of their favorite team. As a result of the riots, one person was killed, more than a hundred were injured, dozens of cars were burned, windows in the State Duma building, the Hall of Columns and the windows of many shops were broken, and the shops themselves were looted. If the store owners or guards had shot a couple of bastards, their stores would have survived, because hooligans and rioters are like rats, they are cowardly and attack only the weak. But since our state protects not the owners, but those who want to expropriate this property, that is, criminals, the shooters would be imprisoned for fifteen years for premeditated murder. This is the difference between the Russian government and the American government.

But when I become president of this country...

Alexander Petrovich Nikonov will be in the Kremlin rewarding every shopkeeper who shot a petty robber who tried to steal chewing gum from his shop...

And in every city, dear electorate, your new president will order the opening of a special “dead gopnik corner” in the city cemetery - there they will bury the bastards killed by citizens in an attack on their life, health and property. And teachers will take schoolchildren on excursions to these “Gopnik Corners” for preventive purposes.

But these awards and excursions will not last long. Because in about six months to a year there will be peace and grace in the country. The gopota will practically stop robbing shops and late passers-by. And the sheriffs in small towns will have their say, cleaning out all suspicious elements.

| |

Moscow city student essay competition “Is an ideal law possible?”

Congratulations to 11th grade student Sonya K., who won the Moscow city student essay competition “Is an ideal law possible?” (Leader - history and social studies teacher O.E. Korobkova). The competition was held as part of the implementation of the city project “Financial and Economic Literacy” by the City Methodological Center of the Moscow Department of Education.

What did the student talk about in this essay? What will happen in a world without laws? Law plays a significant role in human life. IN modern society it regulates all areas, helps people understand how to do the right thing and what consequences wrong behavior can lead to. On the one hand, an ideal law is possible if it is based on universal human values. On the other hand, an ideal law is impossible, since it is adopted by a legislative body that represents the interests of different layers and groups of society. Modern legislators in democratic countries strive to create laws that will maximally reflect the interests of broad sections of the population. So is an ideal law possible? What is he like? What can and should it regulate? There may be no clear answer to this question. An ideal law is, first of all, one that will be enforced, that will make people and society better and fairer, and will help take a step forward on the path of progress. Then it is not just a law issued by the state. Perhaps it is a moral law that governs the behavior of each of us.