How can the lawyers as "remote decided to" add fuel to the flames

There is a well-known Fayan, "only proximate cause, do not look at remote." This Fayan, the philosopher is also the Bacon of Jurists has been brilliant interpretation of "legal reasons to consider the reasons to consider each and every one of the reasons why the causal relationship between, things will become endless. Therefore, That the law can only be considered a direct cause and determine the reason for the result of litigation. Apart from this reason, the law should not explore too much. "Legal" remote "and" proximate cause "in real life the image of The metaphor is well known that the butterfly effect theory: Asia patted butterfly wings, will enable the Americas a few months after the tornado.







No one will blame the Americas, Asia's Butterfly tornado, which should be made "wiping out" the absurd theory of butterflies. In my view, the legal profession have received training lawyers, was to "remote" theory on grounds of "betting" legislative restrictions, people really incredible. For the 51 million stolen in nearly 90% for betting, is why the bank should see the risk supervision and control system in the face of nominal 51 million indifferent, not to dwell on the theft of the cash used where no gaming , There still will be other "areas of consumption."

Legislative restrictions on the gambling industry is not feasible. Restrictions rather than to prohibit betting means, first and foremost recognized the gaming industry as a "legal gambling" the necessity and feasibility, but clearly betting will be limited to the economically developed areas, and the old, less, the border areas, poor areas should be limited , For sale in the city, has been a part of the underdeveloped regions of the "successful" and "failed to" equality "betting the right to" disguise deprivation. In addition, restrictions on civil servants betting is sheer nonsense, betting does not always report the loss to a division not "custom", as long as civil servants betting can do, "Gongsifenming", betting that their private life of freedom, contrary to legal norms by banning civil servants " Public-private Bo "the possibility of more critical.

I am willing to counsel the proposal will be considered in the field of public policy, "remoteness Determinism," by "betting" Huanhun, and this way of thinking by the perpetrators of the most common mistake is to "tools" to strong ethical Meaning, for instance, will be betting that the accumulation of public finances to target the "Tools", giving inconsistent with the socialist moral ethics Keze to start in the gaming industry, "Yujiazhizui, Hehuan no speech" Criticism Occupy the high ground of morality. Shu do not know, the gaming industry's "speculative" and "gambling" is precisely its "progress" should bear the cost, not as a weapon because knives can be a tool to deny the significance of social progress in the same knife is not wrong, and In people.

Once on the field of public policy tools applied on their own strong moral colors, "Tools" in "remote decision" will be doomed under the "blanket" to restrict or even "killed" as the legal counsel to the law should be unique Rational thinking to radical reform, instead of confusing right and wrong and absurd to add fuel to the flames spread.

Once on the field of public policy tools applied on their own strong moral colors, "Tools" in "remote decision" will be doomed under the "blanket" to restrict or even "killed."