“It’s a shame to be rich in a poor country, and it’s a shame to be poor in a rich country”
Volodymyr Machuskyy Sr.
The economic interpretation of the justice is a consequence of the socialization of capitalism and an attempt to justify a constant increase in wealth even without economic growth.
Hence the need arises to replace the concept of the law as a justice for the economic concept of the justice. If the concept of the law as a justice is a form of distinguishing between good and evil, then the economic concept of the justice is an assessment of the efficiency of labor and business activity in general.
At the same time, the increasing financialization of the economy, as well as the forced necessity of the overwhelming majority of people to engage in work that is disgusting to people, is shyly hushed up.
Moreover, trying to level the law to an ordinary instrument of economics, using the economic analysis of the law, the thesis about the inefficiency of the law in comparison with the market economy was thrown into the public consciousness.
Such an economic analysis of the law is an excellent example of a naive understanding of the law through casual personal perception. The application of economic approaches to the analysis of a legal phenomena leads to the following paradoxical results: a) recognition of the inefficiency of the legal system in comparison with the market system; b) recognition of the economic feasibility of using the death penalty.
(The death penalty is inherently a depersonalized surrogate of the blood revenge – the next post will devoted to this issue).
It should be noted that the law and an economics have different natures, and therefore different purposes. At the heart of the human relations is not economics, but the law and the religion, which have common sacred origins.
The world can easily exist without the economy, but the world cannot exist without the law because the law is a justice and a freedom, and the economy is not justice and the profit.
The economy appears exactly where and when there is profit and in a certain sense the economy is not a right disguised as an expediency.
Such expediency, brought to the highest degree, may appear to be a law in itself, but it is not a law. On the other hand, activity in the sphere of business is an economic activity and has an economic meaning. As a result of legal regulation, any economic activity acquires a legal form.
Thus, economic activity, at the same time, is economic by the content and a legal by the form.
It is clear that form and content can pass into each other, but the economic analysis of the law is the study of the form through the content, which in itself is nonsense.
The thesis proclaimed by economic law about the inefficiency of the legal system and legal norms has nothing to do with law. The legal system and legal norms belong to the legal regulation, but not to the law.
Too free operation, seemingly abstract and insignificant things, makes economic law even more repressive than criminal law, because it proclaims the economic expediency of the death penalty, since it is impossible to impose on the murderer costs equivalent to the amount of damage inflicted on the murdered.
It is obvious that the property equivalent of human life (namely the equivalent in the literal sense) does not exist and cannot exist.
And thus there is a transformation of the death penalty due to the development of the individual and society into such a legal construction that would allow the murderer to avoid the death penalty and thus to stop the immortal blood revenge.