Yan Jirong
Real Property Law fight does not arise from social conflict — Beijing University
2 March 2006年 Source: Nanfang Zhoumo
近期，北大法学院巩献田教授的公开信———《一部违背宪法和背离社会主义基本原则的物权法草案》引发了广泛的争论。该教授的言论赢得一些网民的赞同，认为他是敢于为穷人说话的”民族脊梁”。
Recently, widespread controversy has been aroused by an open letter by Professor Gong Xiantian of the
在评价这场争论的时候，有人认为物权法的争论源于社会深层矛盾。
In assessing this debate, some people argue the controversy over the Real Property Law stems from deep-level social conflicts.
“物权法关涉人民群众切身利益和我国基本经济制度，人们意见的对立是改革开放以来所逐步形成的不同利益群体之间的矛盾”
“The RPL touches on the people’s vital interests and
(《中国青年报》2006年2月28日文章：《物权法争论源于社会深层矛盾》)。
(China Youth Daily, 28 February 2006: “Real Property Law Argument Stem from Deep-level Social Conflicts”).
但仔细分析，这种说法并没有点到“穴位”，反而会让人误以为在物权法立法上确实存在两种”立场”和”路线”，让人感觉目前草拟的物权法确实是保护了一部分人(富有阶层)的利益而引起了另一部分人(弱势群体)的不满。
Analysed carefully, this view misses the “acupuncture point”, but may mislead people into thinking there really are two “standpoints” and “approaches” in the RPL legislation, and think that the present draft truly protects the interests of some (the rich social strata) causing disaffection among others (the disadvantaged groups).
我想表达的是：目前在物权法问题上的所谓不同声音，与其说是弱势群体利益的反映，毋宁说是某种思维定式所致。
What I want to get across is this: the current “differing voices” on the Real Property Law question reflect less the interests of disadvantaged groups, than a certain mind-set.
立法的目的在于确立社会行为的”底线”，告诉人们哪些事情是不可以作为的。法律的根本在于公平。公平的法律一定是对所有人都一样地对待！法律的公平就是要排除任何特殊保护(特权)！作为一部普遍适用的法律，物权法会告诉我们：合法地属于你的东西就不该被别人(个人、组织或政府)随意剥夺，不管你是富是穷，也不管这东西是贵是贱。今天你穷得只有一间茅屋，你的茅屋不该因为破旧而随意被人拆除；
The legislation’s goal lies in establishing a “baseline” for social action, telling people what acts are not permitted. The basis of law lies in equity. Equitable laws definitely treat all people equally! Legal equity must remove any special protection (privilege)! As a universally applicable law, RPL tells us: you should not be arbitrarily deprived what legally belongs to you by others (individuals, organizations or governments), no matter how rich you are, or how valuable your possessions. Today you may be poor to the point of having only a cottage, but it should not be arbitrarily demolished by anyone because of its condition
明天你富得拥有了豪宅，你的豪宅也不会因为值钱而被人随意侵占。
Tomorrow You may be rich and own a mansion, and it to cannot be arbitrarily invaded by anyone because of its value.
有人以为保护私有财产一定是对富人有利而不利于穷人。如果穷人只想着通过劫富济贫来改变自己的状况的话，保护私有财产确实对穷人不利。有人以为保护私有财产一定会加大贫富差距而不利于社会的普遍繁荣。如果人们一心指望通过“不断革命”来实现平均分配的话，保护私有财产确实不利于缩小贫富差距。
Some argue that protecting private property benefits the rich but not the poor. If the poor were only thinking of changing their condition by robbing the rich, protecting private property really would disadvantage them. Some people argue protecting private property is sure to increase the wealth gap and do little for the common wealth. If people place all their hopes in realizing equal distribution by “permanent revolution,” protecting private property will do little to reduce the wealth gap.
18世纪中叶英国有一位首相，名叫威廉·皮特。在一次演讲中，他说过这样一句话，”穷人的寒舍风能进，雨能进，国王不能进”。这句话表达了财产权对穷苦人的重要性和神圣性。皮特作为政治家对财产权的尊重，表明他认识到了财产权对个人(包括穷人)的保护作用。他提醒人们，即使是穷困潦倒的人，在他的寒舍里也有对抗国王权威的权利。那么，是什么赋予了一个穷人以对抗国王的勇气和力量？
穷人的茅屋之所以能够成为抗击王权的堡垒，其原因就在于它被法律认可为”私人领地”，受到法律的保护，任何人的随意践踏都可能遭到穷人运用法律武器的坚强抵制。一介草民，他能够在达官显贵面前保持做人的尊严，他能够对国王的”进入”坚决说不，这样的勇气正来自于法律对他拥有茅屋的所有权的认可。
The reason that a poor person's thatched hut can become a fortress fending off monarchical power lies in its being recognised in law as “private territory,” in having legal protection, infringement of which by anybody will incur the strong resistance of the poor relying on law. The courage for a commoner to be able to retain his moral dignity before a high official, to firmly say “no” to the king’s entry, comes from the law’s recognition of his property rights to his thatched hut.
财产权和公民享有的其他自由权利共同构成了现代社会公民权利体系的基本内容。目前，财产权已经得到了普遍认可，各国宪法都有明确规定，并在实践中通过各种机制(包括类似”物权法”的机制)予以保障。保护公民财产权利的制度安排不仅是现代政治文明的表现，而且是社会繁荣发展的前提条件。
Property rights and other freedoms and rights enjoyed by the citizen together constitute the basic content of the system of rights of citizens in modern society. At present, property rights have been generally recognized, explicit provision for which is found in the constitutions of all countries, and safeguarded in practice by various mechanisms (e.g., the “Real Property Law”). Not only do institutional arrangements to protect citizens’ property rights embody modern political civilisation, they are prerequisites for social prosperity and development as well.
如此看来，制定物权法不仅是有利于富人的事情，而且对于穷人的保护意义可能更加切实。从目前发表的言论看，对物权法的发难其实并不构成真正的挑战，说物权法背离社会主义原则也只是一个假命题，因为，发难的一方并不是出于检讨物权法哪些条文是不是合理，而是源于对物权法的根本误读和曲解。如果有人非要把如此误读和曲解物权法的人当作是敢为穷人说话的”民族脊梁”，那他恐怕认错了人。声言代表人民说话却反对切实保护作为一个个个体的公民的权利的人，能算作人民的代言人吗？如果抽象地讲国家、集体和人民利益，但又不认可维护人民的利益需要从平等地保护每个个体的利益入手。这样的思维能算是正确的吗？
No comments:
Post a Comment