The principle of the design of the Tang Dynasty's legal system is: "The law is not prohibited without clear texts, and the Tao is not violated by reason can be obtained."

This is both similar and very different from the Western universal legal system design, "If the law is not prohibited, it can be done without authorization, it cannot be done without authorization."

The two normative objects of legal design are: one is private rights and the other is public rights. That is, what private people should do and what governments should not do. The core premise is the rule of law: law is supreme.

Cui Xiuning is certainly very clear about the pros and cons of the legal design idea that law first lies in its pros and cons.

The advantage is obvious, which is to achieve a balance between private rights and public rights. Public rights serves legal private rights. It is summarized as: Legal public rights not only protect the right to legal private rights.

That is, law is supreme and private rights are the priority.

It embodies people-oriented dish-cooking liberalism.

According to this theory, the government exists entirely to protect legal private rights. The government's public power must be strictly restricted by legal private rights. Anything without clear legal authorization cannot be done. That is, "the law cannot be done without authorization."

The gene of origin of this theory is actually very ancient, which is the "anarchical liberalism" of the ancient Western marine commercial society.

In their opinion, the emergence of the government's public power is just a helpless act, it is a public contract to arbitrate everyone's private power and a bottom-line guarantee system.

Therefore, the law is supreme, and private rights are based on the premise of private rights. The pursuit of legality is to maximize the realization of the most fair personal rights.

This is the internal reason why later Westerners do everything they can to cook for their own dishes.

So, what are the disadvantages of Western legal design?

Both Li Luo and Cui Xiuning believed that the interpretation of "public" was incorrect.

The West regards "public" as a vassal of privateness or a private opposition. The public and private powers are defined as a zero-sum relationship.

The deviation in the interpretation of "public" is the fundamental reason for a series of social governance problems in the West in later generations. It causes the restriction of private rights on public rights to lead to vicious mutations in private rights.

For example, a criminal who was extremely guilty of killing several people in a row was not sentenced to death and even had to carry out humanitarian care.

Morality is the quality of private rights and the aesthetics of private rights. However, the Western idea of ​​using law as the only basis for punishment has caused a general moral decline, and in turn, it tries every means to operate the law and take advantage of the inherent loopholes of the law.

Whether a crime is committed does not depend on whether he has done bad things, but on whether the law can determine that he is guilty in the process. In modern Western countries, people often have cases where everyone knows that someone has done bad things but cannot be convicted at the legal level.

Because the manifestation of the law is quantitative. Since it is quantitative, there must be constraint loopholes. That is, "the legal network must be loose." The richer people in the West, the more they can use resources to find amplified loopholes.

But in the eyes of Li Luo and Cui Xiuning, using traditional Chinese philosophical thoughts and the theories of Taoism and Buddhism, what is Gong?

The public is the grand duke, and the public is also the grand private.

Public is big private, private is small private.

What is selflessness? Selflessness.

This is the transformation and derivation of the Yin and Yang of Tao. How could Westerners understand?

In short, the existence of public power is far more than just protecting private rights, but also optimizing the elasticity of private rights in quality, time and space and the spiritual and material civilization height.

Public power is for more private rights, greater private rights, better private rights, and longer private rights. Therefore, it is "big private".

When private rights and public rights conflict, private rights must be given up. When more private rights and public rights conflict, public rights will no longer be public rights, but will be transformed into private rights, and new public rights will arise.

This is the transformation of yin and yang.

The essence is Tao, not Dharma!

Public power does not need to be deliberately restricted, public power only needs to remain undeteriorated. That is, only false public power that degenerates into private rights needs to be restricted.

The power to keep public power undeteriorated is Tao, not law!

This is "the law is not prohibited from being evident and prohibited, and the Tao is not violated by the teachings of the law."

The criterion for judging public power is Tao and morality.

If a yamen, in a moral situation, exercises power beyond the scope of responsibility and exercises power beyond the scope of responsibility, it is legal public power.

Take Datang for example. The police department only cares about public security, regardless of engineering water conservancy. However, if the police department finds problems with the project, it can exceed its scope of responsibility and participate in the exercise of public power over the project.

This makes it impossible for the Ministry of Industry to completely monopolize the power of engineering construction.

The Ministry of Rites does not care about supervision. However, if the Ministry of Rites finds problems in supervision, it can also exercise supervision powers beyond its responsibilities.

In the Tang Dynasty, the public power of the department was not a special management, but a supervisor. The special management means that only I can manage. The supervisor means that I mainly manage.

No department has the power to take charge. Because special management means monopolizing power in a certain field. It is because you are the police department, and you are the one who manages the public security field? Why? Just because you have the police department sign? No.

It’s because you are the Ministry of Finance, you will be the only one who will take care of financial affairs? No.

If you hang a sign of the Ministry of Rites, you can monopolize the right to etiquette education? No.

Individuals do not have the power to enforce public security and supervise, but as long as they find related problems, they can overtake their duties and exercise public security and procuratorial power.

And there is only one criterion for judging whether you are exercising power legally: it is in line with morality.

So how do you see if the person involved is really moral?

Simply, it depends on what you do and the consequences you have after doing things, and whether they meet moral requirements.

A person can arrest criminals and report and investigate corrupt officials, provided that your process and consequences of doing things are good or bad.

If you catch the wrong person or report the wrong person, and you say you have done something bad with kindness, then you will be punished.

Because your results do not meet the moral requirements.

If you arrest criminals in your school, then there is no problem. You are exercising public power. But if this school catches the wrong person, then the school will be punished.

This is the public power of the Tang Dynasty. Doesn’t it sound very domineering?

In fact, this is how ancient Chinese politics has always been done.

The exercise of clan power is a kind of public power. In ancient China, the so-called public was never monopolized by the court and the government, and its criterion was public sentiment. That is, the so-called "for public and private".

The mutual impeachment and overlap of responsibilities of various departments in the Song Dynasty were also a manifestation of this public power. However, the Zhao official family did this to check and balance the power, while Li Luo did this to supervise each department.

So did the laws based on feudal morality in ancient China lag behind the times? Can we not evolve a better legal system than the West?

Of course not.

You will know after comparison. The public security environment in China later generations was obviously better than that in the West, and it was a developing country.

Why?

It is because of the inertia influence of the ancient moral governance legal system. To put it bluntly, the moral values ​​of Chinese people have always been stronger than those of the West.

Li Luo and Cui Xiuning were able to create a better legal design based on the Chinese tradition than in the West.

If a civilization like China is really so unbearable, it would have disappeared long ago.

Wouldn't it be good to create a set of things yourself and become the world's universal value in the future?

The checks and balances of public power can be completely broken through mutual restraint and supervision by various departments, and the custom of protecting each other. Weakening party struggles and line disputes, and replacing them with department disputes is more conducive to the administration of officials. When departments look for problems with each other, it will be more difficult for officials to be corrupt, and behaviors such as abuse of power, inaction, and loss of chastity in official affairs will be more likely to be exposed.

Isn’t this better than “the law cannot be done without authorization”?

"The law cannot be done without authorization" and there is no deduction that "the law must be done with authorization". The government can completely shirk responsibility and act deaf and dumb. Later Western governments believe that it is better to have less things than to do more in management, and even let it go, there is a basis for it.

Is it destined to choose Western civilization in history? It is nothing more than that when the West was developed in later generations, they first set standards and mastered ideological hegemony.

It would be too low if the two of them learned the West everywhere in ancient times. Anyway, the Tang Dynasty could not have a railway in later generations that could not be repaired due to private opposition. Cruel murderers could continue to live. Major epidemics could not be controlled. It was obviously a situation where public security in developed countries had been deteriorating for a long time.

Even when the late Qing Dynasty was poor and weak, and the West had already gained an overwhelming advantage, Zeng, Li, Zuo and Zhang, the other heroes, still advocated the use of Chinese style and Western style. Could it be that they must be wrong? Are they all fools?

If their failure does not mean that the Chinese body and Western use are completely ineffective. Just be able to be with the soul and Western use are not able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to be able to fail if their failure is a Han Dynasty?

As for the copper gui system that allows the whole people to participate in supervision, can the saying "Information becomes a trend, and everyone is in danger" be erased?

The essence of the copper gui system is the reporting and exposing system in later generations, and its function is similar to the camera monitoring system in later generations. Any unit in later generations, even a state-owned enterprise, has a reporting and exposing system.

This is why Cui Xiuning did not restrict the permission to set copper gui. Theoretically, even if it is organized by a private trading company, copper gui can be set internally!

This has indeed caused the trend of informing, but the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages. This is a constraint on those who hold power resources. Otherwise, if something illegal happens, can the court have so many eyes staring at it?

In later generations, tigers and flies were mostly caused by the role of the reporting and exposure system. It cannot explain the problem? During the Wu Zhou Dynasty, so many opposing Wu Zetian were still unable to become a climate. How much role did the copper gui play?

Therefore, Sifu Temple did not exceed its authority. Because the Fengyue Place was originally the jurisdiction of Sifu Temple. If the Fengyue Place did not set up copper gui, Cui Xiuning would feel that thanks to the hard work of this temple minister.

The various copper guis in the Tang Dynasty were written with the names of various government offices. Someone sent the report letter to the exclusive copper gui of Sifu Temple, which means that the reporter was a woman and needed protection from Sifu Temple. Shouldn't he be careful?

What kind of copper gui should the report letter be thrown into? The reporter is not sure what kind of copper gui in the yamen? If someone wants to report to the police hall, he will never be stupid enough to send the copper gui in the police department, but to the copper gui in the Censorate or Da'an Mansion, or even the copper gui in the Gendarmerie and the Ministry of Justice (Ministry of Justice).

The police department may shelter the police hall below, but how can Da'an Mansion or the Censorate hide the police? They wish that the police department would have problems, okay.

Similarly, when someone reports to the school, it is unlikely that he will submit the report letter to the Ministry of Rites in charge of the school, but may submit it to the copper gui of the police department. How could the police department cover up the Ministry of Rites? Of course, he would not wish that the other party would really have a problem.

Just say that Wang Qi, the dignified Minister of Rites, bullying the weak and eating "overlord meal", not only harmed the rights and interests of the parties involved, but also damaged the image of the court and caused bad influence. Isn't it a crime? This is a rebellion.

Even if the other party sued him for the slaughter, he had nothing to say.

Of course the woman doesn't want to give money. She just has to surrender under the oppression of power. It can't prove anything once or twice, but if it forces the other party to report it many times, it is a real violation of the woman's wishes. If it is handled with the highest standards, it will not be unfair to determine it as a "strong annihilation".

It’s just that Choi Soo-ning is unwilling to deal with it at the top. The Regent Queen is still “gracious and kind”.

Cui Xiuning knew very well why Yan Mei had the courage to report the powerful minister of the Ministry of Rites, of course, there was hard support behind this. So why did she have to attack Wang Qi?

It's easy to understand, too.

Because Wang Qi was a conservative official in the court and had been committed to deposing Sifu Temple, at least he had to turn Sifu Temple into a decoration yamen.

In Wang Qi's view, the court should dismiss all the few female officials in the court and let them not show up again.

Even Wang Qi was unable to accept the school's recruitment of girls, and planned to instigate conservative officials to request the cancellation of the school education for women.
To be continued...