<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	
	>
<channel>
	<title>
	Comments on: 222	</title>
	<atom:link href="https://grundlinien.de/en/222/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/222/</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:57:36 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>
	hourly	</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>
	1	</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>https://wordpress.org/?v=7.1.3</generator>
	<item>
		<title>
		By: Hegel (Simple)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/222/#comment-3662</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Hegel (Simple)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 24 Sep 2026 10:57:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900219#comment-3662</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[§ 222: Right must be proven

In court, it is not enough to be in the right. You also have to be able to show it.

How does this work?

Through a procedure with fixed rules. The parties present their proofs and reasons. The judge forms a picture of the matter. Each of these steps is itself a right. So the law must lay it down exactly.

Isn’t that unjust?

It can make you angry. I know that something is due to me. And yet the court denies it to me, because I cannot prove it. But the court must also be able to establish the right that I have. I must be able to set it out and prove it. Only then does it count in society.

A picture:

I lent a neighbor money, without witnesses and without a receipt. He denies it. My right is real, but in court it stands on shaky ground.

Summary: In court, right must be provable. The law lays down the procedure for this. Only a right that you can show counts in society.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>§ 222: Right must be proven</p>
<p>In court, it is not enough to be in the right. You also have to be able to show it.</p>
<p>How does this work?</p>
<p>Through a procedure with fixed rules. The parties present their proofs and reasons. The judge forms a picture of the matter. Each of these steps is itself a right. So the law must lay it down exactly.</p>
<p>Isn’t that unjust?</p>
<p>It can make you angry. I know that something is due to me. And yet the court denies it to me, because I cannot prove it. But the court must also be able to establish the right that I have. I must be able to set it out and prove it. Only then does it count in society.</p>
<p>A picture:</p>
<p>I lent a neighbor money, without witnesses and without a receipt. He denies it. My right is real, but in court it stands on shaky ground.</p>
<p>Summary: In court, right must be provable. The law lays down the procedure for this. Only a right that you can show counts in society.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
		<item>
		<title>
		By: Eduard Gans (Additions)		</title>
		<link>https://grundlinien.de/en/222/#comment-2204</link>

		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Eduard Gans (Additions)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 29 May 1833 14:02:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">https://grundlinien.de/?p=900219#comment-2204</guid>

					<description><![CDATA[&lt;p&gt;It may outrage a person that, although he knows he has a right, it is denied him as unprovable; but the right that I have must at the same time be a posited one: I must be able to exhibit it, to prove it, and only through the fact that what exists in itself is also posited can it be valid in society.&lt;/p&gt;]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It may outrage a person that, although he knows he has a right, it is denied him as unprovable; but the right that I have must at the same time be a posited one: I must be able to exhibit it, to prove it, and only through the fact that what exists in itself is also posited can it be valid in society.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
		
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
