Decentralization of power based on trust
Publish: 2021-04-27 10:49:37
1. blockchain is a technology, but it is not a single technology, but the result of the integration of a variety of technologies, including cryptography, mathematics, economics, network science and so on. You can think of it as a distributed shared accounting technology, or as a database, but the database is jointly maintained by all nodes in the chain, and each node has an account book. Because the account books of all nodes are consistent, different nodes can trust each other, and there is no doubt about the data, so we all say that the blockchain has realized trust technically. For detailed professional technology, you can consult some professional technology companies, such as Jinbo technology, which focuses on the development of blockchain related procts, professional R & D team and perfect after-sales service, and you can consult by telephone.
2. The concept of bitcoin was first proposed by Nakamoto in 2009. According to Nakamoto's idea, open source software was designed and released, and P2P network was built on it.
3.
The relationship between decentralization and authorization:
1. The scope of power is different. In this case, Zhang Feng's power to sign the reimbursement form and Sun Wen's power to direct subordinates to complete the task are all authorized. Decentralization is just the decentralization of decision-making and command
2. Authorization has a short-term nature, the task is completed to withdraw, and decentralization is a long-term nature, generally no problem does not withdraw
3. The givers of power are different. Authorization is the right of all managers. Li Ming and Wang Wei have different opinions in this case. Decentralization generally refers to the power of the highest owner of power
4. Different states. Empowerment is the foundation of decentralization. The premise of authorization is decentralization, which is the further embodiment of authorization
extended data:
handle the relationship between decentralization and authorization: authorization should be clear. Clearly state the ties and powers of the agent. Look at your work and make improvements, find out your problems and improve your efficiency. Establish an effective communication mechanism
when encountering problems, we should take the initiative to ask the subordinates for advice, find the crux of the problem in the subordinates' work, point out the problem, and put forward good suggestions to facilitate the other party's work. Listen to the opinions of subordinates. If there is any change, there will be no encouragement. Establish a reasonable reward and punishment mechanism to stimulate the enthusiasm of subordinates. Break authority, trust subordinates and keep close relationship with them
4. With the graal deepening of China's judicial reform in form and repeated in essence, whether the judiciary should continue to move forward in the direction of professionalization or turn around and take the road of democratization (popularization) has been widely concerned by the legal theory and judicial practice circles. Some scholars have also launched a fierce confrontation of positions and views on this issue{ 1} In the process of this academic debate, whether or not China's judicial democratization has always been the focus of controversy
in the history of the development of western justice, justice is only professional. The so-called ideas of judicial popularization and judicial democratization have never appeared, let alone the academic debate on whether justice should be democratized or not. The long-term existence of juries and justices of the peace who do not have the qualification of professional judges, in the view of Chinese scholars who advocate judicial democratization, is a sign of judicial popularization and democratization, but in the view of western scholars, this is not the case at all. The so-called proposition of judicial democratization (popularization) is a proposition with Chinese characteristics. At least in the west, it has never existed as an academic topic or as a historical fact
before reviewing this proposition, we should first have a deeper understanding of the relationship between justice and democracy. Otherwise, it is too subjective and fragmented to rashly propose or oppose judicial democratization because of the lack of basic knowledge. In view of this kind of cognition, the author does not speculate, tries to make this article, intends to present some opinions on the three kinds of relations between justice and democracy, in order to throw a brick to attract jade. It is hoped that the discussion of this paper will help Chinese scholars to have a deeper understanding of the essence of justice and democracy, and grasp the relationship between justice and democracy from a broader perspective, so that the so-called debate on judicial democratization, which is still in progress, will become clearer and clearer like truth< First, the essence of justice and Democracy: the main road is toward the sky, and each side is on its own.
before exploring the relationship between justice and democracy, we should first recognize their respective essential characteristics, and lack of in-depth understanding of their essential characteristics. Then any exposition of their mutual relationship is a kind of conjecture and assumption that lacks understanding
the issue of the essential characteristics of justice and democracy is actually a very old one. It should be said that the academic community has basically summarized its essential characteristics, and has formed a consensus in many aspects. Unfortunately, most scholars who advocate judicial democratization just don't pay enough attention to or even turn a blind eye to the consensus on the essential characteristics of justice and democracy, which makes the debate on judicial democratization fall into a discourse chaos with unclear basic concepts and essential characteristics. Therefore, we must first sort out the essential characteristics of justice and democracy, so as to bid farewell to this chaotic narrative of debate, and also argue about a clear field of discourse
judicature is a popular concept that spills over the academic circle and is often mentioned by the public, but rarely defined. In black's law dictionary, which is quite authoritative in the British and American world, the term judicial has three meanings: (1) a government department responsible for the interpretation of law and the administration of justice 2) Court system 3) A group of judges{ 2} The first meaning can be regarded as the basic connotation of the concept of "justice", while the second and third meanings are actually the main elements of the first meaning: the government department called justice is a court system composed of a group of judges
if the interpretation of black law dictionary is abstract, concrete and difficult to understand, the definition of justice defined by Japanese constitutionalist Professor Nobuyoshi arubu is much more specific and easy to understand. "The so-called judicature has always been regarded as" the role of the state in adjudicating specific disputes through the application and declaration of laws, "he said. If we define it more closely, we can say that justice is "under the condition that there is a dispute about a specific case between the parties, on the premise that the parties bring a lawsuit, an independent court, based on its jurisdiction, through certain litigation proceres, forms a judgment of what is the law to solve the dispute, and ensures the correct application of the law."{ 3} In short, Professor Lu Bu's definition is: the judiciary, the court's role in judging disputes in accordance with the law is also important. The main body of justice is the court composed of judges, whose mission is to adjudicate all kinds of disputes according to law. The biggest feature of its adjudication process is to strictly follow the established legal proceres and regulations. The so-called "judges are independent of official orders on the one hand, and subordinate to the law on the other"{ 4} In addition, judicial adjudication is initiated by the parties involved in the dispute. Without the active litigation of the parties, there can be no judicial adjudication. The so-called "by nature, the judicial power itself is not active.". If you want it to act, you have to push it. "{ 5} Therefore, passivity rather than initiative is another important feature of judicature, which is also one of the major differences between judicature, legislation and administration
however, the above general analysis is not only the external characteristics of judicial form, but also the internal characteristics of its essence. Scholars have always studied the external characteristics of the judicial form, but few people have paid attention to the internal characteristics of its essence. The relevant literature is very rare, so it is worth discussing here. The author thinks that the internal characteristic of judicial substantiality lies in the fact that what this kind of adjudication depends on or needs is not the natural rationality of human beings, but the technical rationality of law, which determines that the judges who are qualified to adjudicate cases are not ordinary natural persons, but judges who have received legal professional training and have legal professional skills and ethics. As early as 1608, Edward Coke, a famous British jurist, made the earliest and most classic exposition of this point to King James, who asked him to adjudicate the case "as king". "Indeed, God has endowed his majesty with excellent skill and talent," Kirk said; However, his majesty has not studied the laws in England. The cases involving the life or heritage, goods or wealth of his subjects should not be decided by natural reason, but by technical reason and legal judgment. Law is a skill that needs long time to learn and experience, Only one can be sure of it: the law is the golden benchmark and standard for the trial of subjects' cases. "{ 6} Although James is a king, he has no legal training, so he can't get involved in judicial decisions. After the contest between Kirk and James, Britain finally held the judicial bottom line of legal rationality rather than natural rationality, thus defending the rule of law in Britain
as far as justice is concerned, passivity and legal procere are important. However, once the judge lacks necessary legal training, legal rationality and professional ethics, justice will only have its appearance and form, and its spiritual core will be absent. The most important feature of justice is that judges have enough legal skills and rationality. Because of this, not everyone can be competent for the judicial profession, and not anyone with natural rationality can act as a judge to adjudicate cases. This is the most distinctive feature of justice which is different from legislation and administration< This is the nature of justice. What is the nature of democracy
there are numerous theories about democracy at home and abroad. Robert A. Dahl, an American scholar, once lamented that "all kinds of democratic ideas are like a huge and impenetrable Bush". However, Dahl himself succeeded in getting out of the bush of democratic thought and concluded that "effective participation", "equality in voting", "full knowledge", "ultimate control of the agenda" and "citizenship of alts" constitute the basic content of democracy{ 7} A careful analysis of these five democratic standards shows that the core of them is "voting". In democratic politics, the most important content of alt citizenship is the right to vote. Effective participation, voting equality and full knowledge are the basic elements and contents of voting. The key to the final control of the agenda lies in the final control of the voting process. It can be said that these five elements essentially revolve around voting, and voting is the center and essence of democracy. Therefore, Samuel P. Huntington said, "open, free and fair election is the essence of democracy, and is an indispensable and necessary condition."{ 8} But at the same time, we should realize that "election does not make policy; Elections only determine who makes policies. Elections do not solve disputes, they only decide who is going to solve them. "{ 9} If we have a full understanding of this, we can understand the "democratic theory of competing for political leadership" elaborated by the economist J.A. Joseph Alois Schumpeter, that is, "democratic method is the institutional arrangement for making political decisions, in which some people obtain the right to make decisions by winning the people's votes"{ 10}
to sum up, democracy is a kind of institutional arrangement that determines the specific exercise of political power through voting. The purpose of this kind of institutional arrangement is to defend people's freedom and rights, so that they will not be infringed or deprived of political power. The purpose of democratic voting is to avoid the appearance of totalitarianism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, autocratic rule and other terrorist political rules that trample people's freedom and rights. Therefore, Giovanni Sartori pointed out: "democracy is a system in which no one can choose to rule or authorize himself to rule. Therefore, no one can usurp unconditional and unrestricted power."{ 11} Recognizing the essential characteristics of democracy, we can well understand why "today in the United States, Europe and Japan, the most common meaning of" democracy "is typically the integration of the idea of people's sovereignty and the idea of indivial rights protected by law (but more often confusion)"{ 12}
through the above analysis of the respective essential characteristics of justice and democracy, we can see that there is actually no connection between them, {13} can be called "the road is facing the sky, each side goes". The judicial subject is specific, with the legal skill rationality as the condition; The Democratic subject is extensive, and any alt with natural rationality is the Democratic subject. It is the ty of justice to judge disputes, while democracy aims at electing better political power executors to avoid dictatorship. Although democracy also needs to avoid judicial dictatorship, history has proved that the best way to control and eliminate judicial dictatorship is by no means to let democratic election dominate justice. Tocqueville pointed out after examining the democracy of the United States that "the constitutions of some states in the United States stipulate that members of the court shall be elected and allowed to be re elected many times. I dare to predict boldly that this reform will have extremely bad consequences sooner or later, and that one day it will be found that this will weaken the independence of judicial officials, not only the judicial power, but also the democratic and republican system itself. "{ 14} Therefore, the democratic method is not suitable for the judicial field. There is no necessary connection between justice and democracy, and justice is the only way
in the history of the development of western justice, justice is only professional. The so-called ideas of judicial popularization and judicial democratization have never appeared, let alone the academic debate on whether justice should be democratized or not. The long-term existence of juries and justices of the peace who do not have the qualification of professional judges, in the view of Chinese scholars who advocate judicial democratization, is a sign of judicial popularization and democratization, but in the view of western scholars, this is not the case at all. The so-called proposition of judicial democratization (popularization) is a proposition with Chinese characteristics. At least in the west, it has never existed as an academic topic or as a historical fact
before reviewing this proposition, we should first have a deeper understanding of the relationship between justice and democracy. Otherwise, it is too subjective and fragmented to rashly propose or oppose judicial democratization because of the lack of basic knowledge. In view of this kind of cognition, the author does not speculate, tries to make this article, intends to present some opinions on the three kinds of relations between justice and democracy, in order to throw a brick to attract jade. It is hoped that the discussion of this paper will help Chinese scholars to have a deeper understanding of the essence of justice and democracy, and grasp the relationship between justice and democracy from a broader perspective, so that the so-called debate on judicial democratization, which is still in progress, will become clearer and clearer like truth< First, the essence of justice and Democracy: the main road is toward the sky, and each side is on its own.
before exploring the relationship between justice and democracy, we should first recognize their respective essential characteristics, and lack of in-depth understanding of their essential characteristics. Then any exposition of their mutual relationship is a kind of conjecture and assumption that lacks understanding
the issue of the essential characteristics of justice and democracy is actually a very old one. It should be said that the academic community has basically summarized its essential characteristics, and has formed a consensus in many aspects. Unfortunately, most scholars who advocate judicial democratization just don't pay enough attention to or even turn a blind eye to the consensus on the essential characteristics of justice and democracy, which makes the debate on judicial democratization fall into a discourse chaos with unclear basic concepts and essential characteristics. Therefore, we must first sort out the essential characteristics of justice and democracy, so as to bid farewell to this chaotic narrative of debate, and also argue about a clear field of discourse
judicature is a popular concept that spills over the academic circle and is often mentioned by the public, but rarely defined. In black's law dictionary, which is quite authoritative in the British and American world, the term judicial has three meanings: (1) a government department responsible for the interpretation of law and the administration of justice 2) Court system 3) A group of judges{ 2} The first meaning can be regarded as the basic connotation of the concept of "justice", while the second and third meanings are actually the main elements of the first meaning: the government department called justice is a court system composed of a group of judges
if the interpretation of black law dictionary is abstract, concrete and difficult to understand, the definition of justice defined by Japanese constitutionalist Professor Nobuyoshi arubu is much more specific and easy to understand. "The so-called judicature has always been regarded as" the role of the state in adjudicating specific disputes through the application and declaration of laws, "he said. If we define it more closely, we can say that justice is "under the condition that there is a dispute about a specific case between the parties, on the premise that the parties bring a lawsuit, an independent court, based on its jurisdiction, through certain litigation proceres, forms a judgment of what is the law to solve the dispute, and ensures the correct application of the law."{ 3} In short, Professor Lu Bu's definition is: the judiciary, the court's role in judging disputes in accordance with the law is also important. The main body of justice is the court composed of judges, whose mission is to adjudicate all kinds of disputes according to law. The biggest feature of its adjudication process is to strictly follow the established legal proceres and regulations. The so-called "judges are independent of official orders on the one hand, and subordinate to the law on the other"{ 4} In addition, judicial adjudication is initiated by the parties involved in the dispute. Without the active litigation of the parties, there can be no judicial adjudication. The so-called "by nature, the judicial power itself is not active.". If you want it to act, you have to push it. "{ 5} Therefore, passivity rather than initiative is another important feature of judicature, which is also one of the major differences between judicature, legislation and administration
however, the above general analysis is not only the external characteristics of judicial form, but also the internal characteristics of its essence. Scholars have always studied the external characteristics of the judicial form, but few people have paid attention to the internal characteristics of its essence. The relevant literature is very rare, so it is worth discussing here. The author thinks that the internal characteristic of judicial substantiality lies in the fact that what this kind of adjudication depends on or needs is not the natural rationality of human beings, but the technical rationality of law, which determines that the judges who are qualified to adjudicate cases are not ordinary natural persons, but judges who have received legal professional training and have legal professional skills and ethics. As early as 1608, Edward Coke, a famous British jurist, made the earliest and most classic exposition of this point to King James, who asked him to adjudicate the case "as king". "Indeed, God has endowed his majesty with excellent skill and talent," Kirk said; However, his majesty has not studied the laws in England. The cases involving the life or heritage, goods or wealth of his subjects should not be decided by natural reason, but by technical reason and legal judgment. Law is a skill that needs long time to learn and experience, Only one can be sure of it: the law is the golden benchmark and standard for the trial of subjects' cases. "{ 6} Although James is a king, he has no legal training, so he can't get involved in judicial decisions. After the contest between Kirk and James, Britain finally held the judicial bottom line of legal rationality rather than natural rationality, thus defending the rule of law in Britain
as far as justice is concerned, passivity and legal procere are important. However, once the judge lacks necessary legal training, legal rationality and professional ethics, justice will only have its appearance and form, and its spiritual core will be absent. The most important feature of justice is that judges have enough legal skills and rationality. Because of this, not everyone can be competent for the judicial profession, and not anyone with natural rationality can act as a judge to adjudicate cases. This is the most distinctive feature of justice which is different from legislation and administration< This is the nature of justice. What is the nature of democracy
there are numerous theories about democracy at home and abroad. Robert A. Dahl, an American scholar, once lamented that "all kinds of democratic ideas are like a huge and impenetrable Bush". However, Dahl himself succeeded in getting out of the bush of democratic thought and concluded that "effective participation", "equality in voting", "full knowledge", "ultimate control of the agenda" and "citizenship of alts" constitute the basic content of democracy{ 7} A careful analysis of these five democratic standards shows that the core of them is "voting". In democratic politics, the most important content of alt citizenship is the right to vote. Effective participation, voting equality and full knowledge are the basic elements and contents of voting. The key to the final control of the agenda lies in the final control of the voting process. It can be said that these five elements essentially revolve around voting, and voting is the center and essence of democracy. Therefore, Samuel P. Huntington said, "open, free and fair election is the essence of democracy, and is an indispensable and necessary condition."{ 8} But at the same time, we should realize that "election does not make policy; Elections only determine who makes policies. Elections do not solve disputes, they only decide who is going to solve them. "{ 9} If we have a full understanding of this, we can understand the "democratic theory of competing for political leadership" elaborated by the economist J.A. Joseph Alois Schumpeter, that is, "democratic method is the institutional arrangement for making political decisions, in which some people obtain the right to make decisions by winning the people's votes"{ 10}
to sum up, democracy is a kind of institutional arrangement that determines the specific exercise of political power through voting. The purpose of this kind of institutional arrangement is to defend people's freedom and rights, so that they will not be infringed or deprived of political power. The purpose of democratic voting is to avoid the appearance of totalitarianism, totalitarianism, authoritarianism, autocratic rule and other terrorist political rules that trample people's freedom and rights. Therefore, Giovanni Sartori pointed out: "democracy is a system in which no one can choose to rule or authorize himself to rule. Therefore, no one can usurp unconditional and unrestricted power."{ 11} Recognizing the essential characteristics of democracy, we can well understand why "today in the United States, Europe and Japan, the most common meaning of" democracy "is typically the integration of the idea of people's sovereignty and the idea of indivial rights protected by law (but more often confusion)"{ 12}
through the above analysis of the respective essential characteristics of justice and democracy, we can see that there is actually no connection between them, {13} can be called "the road is facing the sky, each side goes". The judicial subject is specific, with the legal skill rationality as the condition; The Democratic subject is extensive, and any alt with natural rationality is the Democratic subject. It is the ty of justice to judge disputes, while democracy aims at electing better political power executors to avoid dictatorship. Although democracy also needs to avoid judicial dictatorship, history has proved that the best way to control and eliminate judicial dictatorship is by no means to let democratic election dominate justice. Tocqueville pointed out after examining the democracy of the United States that "the constitutions of some states in the United States stipulate that members of the court shall be elected and allowed to be re elected many times. I dare to predict boldly that this reform will have extremely bad consequences sooner or later, and that one day it will be found that this will weaken the independence of judicial officials, not only the judicial power, but also the democratic and republican system itself. "{ 14} Therefore, the democratic method is not suitable for the judicial field. There is no necessary connection between justice and democracy, and justice is the only way
5.
Hot content