LAW CITY

Welcome to discussion

Abstract

It is useless to deny the benefit of annotation. The reader should get an overview of the article and decide if it is worth reading. The only question is what size of annotation is appropriate? The established standard of 2000-2500 characters — twenty lines in small print — can be fulfilled only by retelling the main thing with all the details. In the majority, you don’t need to read anything else. I also have my own problems here. What I wanted to convey to the reader does not have to be specifically described. I have long urged to return to scientific publications the normal language of human communication, which was professed by many of our most authoritative scientific ancestors. Remember that emotions are a recognized tool for learning and transmitting information. Abandon the requirement to cite a dozen works by other authors to confirm that twice two is really four. Nothing is said about this, but the style of writing this article will hopefully illustrate my intentions.
What is the article about? About the fact that a person’s life was divided into cells by an iron fence, they regulated it within their limits, completely depriving them of understanding the general perspective. In law, a person did not take a leading position - individuality, the potential of his freedoms was overshadowed by total prohibitions, individualism prevails over the interests of society. An unbridled priority of individual rights and freedoms has been declared. The balance of interests of a person and society must be observed. But it is balance, not putting one ahead of the other. Law is a mold of society, but law can also be the driving force behind its reform. Radical reconstructions of the existing architecture of Law are required, not selective, but overhaul, the laying of new highways.

REFERENCES
1. Ortega-i-Gasset H. Vosstanie mass. V kn.: Degumanizacija iskusstva i drugie raboty: sbornik. Moskow: Raduga, 1991. 638 p. [in Russian].
2. Bastia F. Obrashhenie k francuzskomu junoshestvu. V kn.: Jekonomicheskie garmonii. Izbrannoe. Moskow: Jeksmo, 2007. 1200 p. [in Russian].
3. Pokrovskij I.A. Osnovnye problemy grazhdanskogo prava. Moskow, 1998. 353 p. [in Russian].
4. German M.Ju. Impressionizm. Osnovopolozhniki i posledovateli. SPb.: Azbuka-klassika. 2008. 528 p. [in Russian].
5. Levchenkov O.I. Problemy pravovoho rehuliuvannia suspilnykh vidnosyn: zahalnoteoretychni aspekty. Luhansk: RVV LDUS im. E.O. Didorenka, 2012. 528 p. [in Ukrainian].
6. Ugolovnyj process. Problemnye lekcii. Uchebnik dlja magistrov. Pod red. V.I. Tomina, I.A. Zinchenko. Moskow: Jurajt. 2013. 799 p. [in Russian].
7. Progul radi svad’by. Zakon i biznes. 2013. No. 42 1081). P. 16. URL: https://zib.com.ua/ua/12144-u_velikiy_britanii_zhinku_sudyat_za_shkilniy_progul_ii_sina.html [in Russian].
8. David R., Zhoffre-Spinozi K. Osnovnye pravovye sistemy sovremennosti. Per. s fr. V.A. Tumanova. Moskow: Mezhdunarodnye otnoshenija, 2009. 456 p. [in Russian].
9. Kant I. Kritika chistogo razuma. Moskow: Mysl’, 1994. 591 p. [in Russian].
10. Maksimov S.I. Filosofija prava kak problema filosofii prava. Problemy filosofii prava. 2004. Vol. II. P. 27-32. URL: http://dspace.nbuv.gov.ua/handle/123456789/9660 [in Russian].