我國目前採取混合式遺產稅制，遺產稅被定位為財產稅，邊際稅率最高卻達50％，且其罰鍰亦高，因而引起遺產稅之改革、甚至廢除之聲浪；目前提案遺產稅之修正目標多以促進經濟發展為首要目的，主張廢除遺產稅者亦不乏以遺產稅有礙資本累積為由者；實則最初遺產稅立法時，立法者即已於立法理由中揭示，遺產稅並非以獲取財政收入為主要目的，其課徵目的係在於平均財富。 / 我國憲法保障財產權、私有財產制及經濟自由，並以租稅做為保障之對價；憲法對於財產保障之範圍隨著社會交易型態而由具體所有權擴及至抽象財產價值，繼承制度與繼承權亦為國家保障財產權內涵之ㄧ部分，是以國家以租稅做為保障財產權之對價，便已經將繼承制度及繼承權之保障含括在內；再者，我國憲法既宣示我國為社會法治國家，亦賦予財產權一定之社會義務性，國家自得對人民財產權為限縮，限制之方式亦包含以課徵租稅使得人民整體財產之抽象價值減少；惟國家保障財產權既然已將繼承制度及繼承權含括在內，課徵遺產稅即非係國家保障繼承制度及繼承權之對價；毋寧認為遺產稅之課徵係出自社會法治國家對於正義之要求，透過財產權之社會義務性對人民之整體財產價值為限縮，從而達到平均財富分配之正義要求。 / 惟何謂租稅公平、租稅正義、應以何種標準做為衡量是否公平正義之準繩，至今仍無定論；本文認為租稅公平、租稅正義係憲法內蘊之正義理念在租稅法領域之展現，其內涵並不僅有量能課稅原則，尚包含需要／功績原則及實用性原則；惟若藉由羅爾斯的正義論觀點，對於租稅正義之要求則有別於前；羅爾斯並未對特定稅制、稅基或稅率結構有所偏好，只要租稅不違反其提出之正義原則要求，亦即：確保每人皆有平等的基本權利自由，以及保障人民平等地參與經濟之機會、且此機會於每個世代皆被更新，則此等租稅即可被認為符合羅爾斯的理想稅制。惟遺產稅之課徵有別於其他租稅，其課徵目的係在於更新每個世代參與政治之機會，係出自確保每人皆有平等基本自由權利之要求，惟有在滿足此一前提條件下，方有其他調整社會經濟收益之可能；據此觀之，主張廢除遺產稅之論點，依羅爾斯之觀點來看是違反正義的。 / 最後，本文認為，基於正義之要求，遺產稅可以修改，卻不應被廢除；遺產稅之課徵目的既在於調整社會貧富差距，其他出於促進經濟之目的所為之遺產稅改革，如有違反遺產稅課徵目的者，皆應退讓並以遺產稅之課徵目的達成為優先，而以其他政策手段促進經濟發展。

政府遷台後，為激勵士氣，提高戰力及安定社會，於1955年10月建立「留守業務制度」 ，由國防部和內政部權責分工，就其軍事部門方面，則由當時國防部聯合勤務總司令部負責成立專責單位，自1958年逐步將撫卹、軍保、軍眷管理處及其他有關各項安後工作一併納入留守業務體系，於1960年7月16日正式成立留守業務署，至此國軍留守業務才真正建構出完整的體系。 然而軍人是國家安全與穩定的基石，軍人從事的是特殊的事業，具有奉獻性、犠牲性。軍人的義務為公法性質，要求軍人效忠國家、服從軍法和軍機保密，軍人若觸法均以軍法制裁，相對的軍人的職務風險及家庭生計，國家更應給予對等的照顧和保障。透過本文研究，瞭解我國國軍留守業務其草創之艱辛，各項撫卹、保險、照護及安葬厝作業執行方式、演進、創新、困境及因應等作法，藉中共、美國、日本、新加坡、法國志願役軍人福利制度，不論是透過勞動條件補償、崇功報勳或是恩給德政，其重要目的是要振士氣，使軍人堅守崗位、忠於國家，且能勇於犠牲奉獻，對國家安全有直接的助益。 國防部應相較歐美先進國家對軍人及軍眷之優點，結合國情據以研擬相關福利制度，然而，在義務與權利的相互均衡下，軍人在憲法中受到嚴格的規範，對國家安全負起應負之責任，而政府對於軍人身份與社會地位之提昇，則應積極透過立法程序對軍人及軍眷應享之權益予以保障與維護，避免部份軍人福利政策因基於軍公教平等原則之理由予以刪減，影響國軍及其軍眷合法權益。

「警察是人民的保母」不是口號，而是一種生活方式。考選為用人程序的第一步驟，人力資源管理的成敗，端賴考選政策的良窳及考用能否配合。隨著臺灣政治民主，經濟發達，社會多元後，也使得社會結構、價值觀改變，社會資源也重新分配。這些變化不僅把社會治安種種問題浮上臺面，也凸顯了警察人員養成教育不再只是訓練出服從度高的警察，而是要培養具有文化內涵與洞悉法律民主與社會之關係的警察；而這些改革中，最為警界重視的便是警察人員初任國家考試制度。 本文選擇考試制度為研究重點，係因考試制度居於整體文官制度之起點及關鍵地位，且在人力資源管理上亦居於重要的位置，不僅反應政府整體人力的組成，也反映了取才所採用的價值標準。警察人員考試全面開放應考資格後，有關警察人員初任國家考試之信、效度爭議不斷，而警察人員之素質及效能，對國家發展、社會治安及全體人民的生命安全影響甚鉅。警察人員考試制度在此一關鍵時刻，更令人重視，過去並未曾有系統的整理警察人員初任國家考試制度，為能樹立多元進用管道之價值及健全警察人員考試用人之制度，爰觸發筆者研究動機。希望藉研析該制度發展沿革暨邇後興革，提供有關制度面及執行面的建議。 本研究試以警察人員初任國家考試制度之探討為題，對該考試制度進行研究，歸納建議如下： 一、警察人員獨立任官制度。 二、警察機關參與辦理考試。 三、建構多元進用管理價值。 四、建立警察工作需求與職務說明。 五、考試方式多元及合理評估面向。 六、建立職能基礎的考選制度。 七、強化教育訓練制度。 / That “the police are the protecting nannies of the people” is not a slogan but a kind of life style. Testing and selection is the first step in our civil servant-hunting procedure. The success or failure of manpower resources management depends on whether the policies of the testing and selection are good or bad as well as whether the testing and selection can match. With the political democracy and economic development of Taiwan as well as after Taiwanese society has become pluralized, the social structure and values also change. Taiwan’s social resources are redistributed, too. All these changes not only make all sorts of social security problems appear on the stage but they also make it prominent that the education of our police personnel is not to train out highly obedient policemen but to cultivate police personnel with cultural intention and knowing the relationship among laws, democracy and society. This study chose the examination system as the focal point because it occupies the starting point of the whole civil official's system and key status. Besides, it also occupies the important position in manpower resources management and reflects the composition of government's whole manpower as well as reflects the value standard the government adopts while selecting proper civil servants. After the police personnel examination is open to all the qualified public, the credibility and liability of the examination for the beginning police personnel has been controversial.However, the police personnel's quality and efficiency is quite important to our national development, social security and the security of all our people. Thus, the examination system of the police personnel is worth paying attention to at this critical moment. In the past, none systematic arrangement was done to the examination for the beginning police personnel.This study is done because I want to establish the values of pluralism for selecting proper civil servants and improve the system of testing and selection of the police personnel. I hope to provide some suggestions on the system and how to carry them out through studying and analyzing the development and reforms of the examination system. This study investigates the examination system for the beginning police personnel and concludes by offering the following suggestions: First, our government should adopt an independent selection system for the police personnel. Second, the police departments should participate in handling the examination. Third, our government should establish the values of pluralism for selecting people. Fourth, our government should set up working demands of police and job description. Fifth, the examination should be pluralized and the assessment should be reasonable. Sixth, our government should set up a system of examination for professional function foundation. Seventh, our government should strengthen the system of education and training. Key Words: examination system for police personnel, test and selection policy, fair and reasonable, justice, professional function analysis

社會福利的觀念與制度之產生，實肇因於近代資本主義發展後，產生的無數社會問題，為了延續資本主義制度，因而產生社會福利之合理性的辯論。因此，若要深刻了解社會福利的本質及問題，必不可缺少對於近代資本主義發展歷程的認識，包括社會經濟史和經濟思想史，故本文嘗試在經濟思想的脈絡下，透過經濟學家們在理論思想上的辯論，探討社會福利制度的正當性問題。 本文以約翰．斯圖亞特．彌爾（John Stuart Mill, 1806-1873）為思想類比的核心，並以馬克思（Karl Marx, 1818-1883）、海耶克（F. A. von Hayek, 1899-1992）與羅爾斯（John Rawls）作為辯論的對手，交織出一個以歷史為經，意識形態為緯的論述架構，尋思政府應採自由放任或管制的界限何在，其原則為何。 由於社會福利制度本質上實是自由主義與社會主義思想調和的具體呈現，因此，在思想上交糅著自由主義與社會主義的約翰．彌爾，其分配正義理論乃為社會福利制度的合理性提供了有力的辯護；並且，當代著名的「第三條路」（the Third Way）—此一非左非右的政治哲學，不過是彌爾折衷思想的舊理新敘，身處十九世紀的約翰．彌爾實為「第三條路」之先驅，故本文認為，倘若要深刻理解「第三條路」的哲學，實應返回彌爾的理論思想。 第一章　緒論 第一節 研究動機 第二節 思考的起點與論述架構 第二章 思想源流－十七至十九世紀之英國 第一節 社會經濟環境之變遷 壹.十七世紀至十八世紀末的英國 貳.十八世紀至十九世紀中葉的英國 第二節 政治經濟思潮之發展 壹.英國古典政治經濟學的發展 一.重商主義時代的告終 二.亞當斯密自由放任的思想 貳.邊沁的效用主義 第三章 彌爾的社會福利思想 第一節 社會福利理論 壹.彌爾的效用原則 貳.效用原則與分配正義 第二節 社會福利制度 壹.教育 貳.勞工 一.最低工資 二.工作時數 三.工會 參.窮人 第四章 對彌爾思想的檢討 第一節 馬克思的批評 第二節 海耶克的批評 第三節 羅爾斯的批評 第五章 結論

平均地權之四大實施辦法中，漲價歸公為最重要的手段與精神，其實施之成果係決定平均地權成敗之關鍵。為求社會共享土地自然增值，必須徹底實行漲價歸公，因為土地價值增漲如能徵收歸公，地利共享之正義理想即可實現。惟回顧過去國內文獻有關漲價歸公之研究，缺乏哲學觀念上之探討，亦缺乏從漲價歸公所注重社會正義及分配正義之概念來研究漲價歸公。 　　基此，本文希望藉由探討西方哲學有關正義學說之觀點與內涵，尋找適合檢視我國漲價歸公之西方正義概念，並進而從西方正義哲學觀點來研究我國漲價歸公理論。另外，藉由對孫中山先生相關言論與評論的探討，針對漲價歸公精神進行真意探究與觀念釐清，冀圖化解國人對漲價歸公之誤解。本文亦希望透過研究漲價歸公理論探求強調社會互助的正義概念，以供我國未來實施漲價歸公相關政策作為參考。 　　經由本文研究可歸納出以下結論：一、漲價歸公深具以全民利益為依歸的思想、社會互助的關懷及社會群體正義之「義務論」特質。二、談論漲價歸公之分配正義時，對土地增值利益進行分派，也必須對土地增值利益的「物品性質」進行「定義」（土地增值的定義，為特殊的土地增值利益亦或一般資本利得），才能夠進行後續的資源「分配」（如藉由課稅來進行資源的分配）。三、土地增值稅減半、永久調降所造成的不正義的最大原因，並非一般人所認為的「壟斷」，而是對土地增值利益物品定義的「支配」。四、國家和政治權力除非有重大及正當的理由，否則必須盡可能地避免干涉各社群或是領域內的分配行為(如漲價歸公的方式)。五、土地增值利益係就非屬私人改良的部分應予歸公，因其具有「社會互助」、「社會正義」與「分配正義」的精神，故漲價歸公之分配領域中，要以「需要原則」之分配型態來處理土地增值利益。六、漲價歸公之土地增值利益要如何區分公、私產權，在理論上可達到，但在實務上卻是相當難以實現，因為我們絕對不知道在哪裡建立一種區分是合適的、是客觀的，因為它沒有一個天生的位置。

No description available.

No description available.

公有土地為政府重要資源之一，在土地市場運作過程中，扮演提供公共目的需用之土地，引導都市有秩序發展並作為健全土地市場的工具、調節土地供給、抑制地價上漲以避免不勞而獲及漲價歸公等許多重要功能。倘若未有充分且特殊的理由是不會增訂低價讓售的法條讓售國有非公用財產，所以本研究以正義的觀點針對立法院主動提案於民國89年增訂國有財產法第五十二條之二，此特殊讓售規定形成的歷史背景、立法決策、施行後的議題加以分析。 經本研究歸納分析十七世紀以降：契約論者、功利主義者、現代自由主義的正義思潮後，採用諾齊克在分配正義中提出賦予「權利理論」－持有的正義原則。即為獲取的正義原則、轉讓的正義原則、矯正不正義的原則等三原則，依其交互關係演繹出四種類型作為正義衡量的準則。 再針對特殊讓售形成的背景，深入瞭解日治時期之土地政策暨光復後的接管措施，藉以探討返還土地政策是否符合正義原則暨增訂補救法規據以矯治之必要性分析。並探討增訂國有財產法五十二條之二立法決策過程暨真實內涵，藉由正義評量的準則檢視目前施行暨相關配套規定是否符合正義的原則；賡續提出具體改進的看法及建議，以提供政府公產管理部門作為參考。 / The public domain is one of the government important resources. In the process of operation the land market, it has many important functions such as offering the land for public use, guiding the development in good order of the city, being the tool of perfecting the land market, regulating the supply to the land, suppressing the price of land going up in order to avoid “Reaping without sowing” and ”Land Value Increment to the public”. If there is not a sufficient and special reason, they will not revise and enlarge the article to sell the national non-public use property at a low price. So this research is with the view of justice for initiative promoting to revise and enlarge the second article of 52 of the National Property Act of the Legislative Yuan in 1990. We will analyze the forming of the historical background, the legislative decision for special rule of the sale and the topic after implement. From the17century, we analyze by this research “Social contract theory”, “Utilitarianism”, “Modern liberalism”, adopted the Entitlement theory that Robert Nozick enumerated in Distributive Justice. A more adequate theory of justice would in Nozick's view enumerate three principles of justice in holdings is a principle of justice in acquisition, a principle of justice in transfer, and the principle of rectification injustice, ect. Accordance to its mutual relation deduced four kinds of criterion to be the measurement of justice. In accordance with the forming background of the special sale, we can understand in depth the land policy of period that controlled by Japan and adapter measure after recovering. Whereby using to probe into the policy of returning the land to analyze if it accords with the just principle and revises and enlarge and remedies regulation to rescue of necessity. In order to discuss the decision-making process and real intention of revising and enlarging the second article of 52 of the National Property Act. Inspecting the implement and stipulation whether to accord with the principle of justice or not by commenting quantity of justice. Putting forward concretely improved view and suggestion continuously, in order to offer a public property administrative department to the government as a reference.

我國行政機關工程獎金制度肇始於民國60年間，時值政府積極推動經濟計畫，籌建各項重要基礎工程建設，為鼓勵各機關辦理各項建設工程，提高工作效能，發展工程技術，行政院爰函頒相關工程獎金支給規定據以實施。嗣因時空環境變遷及政府待遇政策轉型，時至今日，現存的工程獎金支給規定，包括「中央政府各工程機關員工工程獎金發給要點」、「中央各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」及「地方各級行政機關工程獎金支給原則」等3項規定，此外，配合機關組織調整實際需要，另發展出「經濟部水利署及內政部營建署城鄉發展分署之工程獎金支給模式」，共計4套支給規定。 鑒於「平等」、「正義」為世人論事用法之基本原則，亦係檢驗社會制度良善與否之首要價值，因此，公部門待遇之規劃與給與自應符合是項原則與價值體系，惟現行工程獎金制度存有4套支給規定，於適用對象、獎金發給種類、經費提撥方式等相關規定均有所差異，造成相同層級並從事相同工程業務者，卻支領不同額度之工程獎金，不僅引發各機關之質疑與批評，亦有違公平正義原則。 本研究採用文獻分析法及深度訪談法，以羅爾斯的正義論為立基及思考角度，檢視現行工程獎金制度之規劃與給與是否符合正義原則，並輔以嫻熟工程獎金制度實務運作之中央及地方機關之政策利害關係人，以及法制主管機關行政院人事行政總處之業管科長，進行深度訪談及綜合分析，進而分別從法制面及實務面提出研究發現與建議，以期提供政府檢討、評估與修正工程獎金制度缺失及規劃其他各項獎金制度之參考。 / The engineering bonus system for the administrative agencies in Taiwan started from 1970s, when the government was actively involved in the promotion of economic plans and the construction of major infrastructures. In order to encourage the government agencies to undertake various engineering projects, increasing efficiency at work and developing engineering techniques, the Executive Yuan issued relevant engineering bonus systems so that each government agency has a practical stipulation to abide by. Due to the temporal and spatial vicissitudes and the transformation of policies on government compensation, we have currently enforced three engineering bonus systems, including “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in each Construction Agency of Central Government”, “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in Central Government Agencies” and “Directions Governing the Engineering Bonus in local Government Agencies”. Moreover, in compatibility with the demand for the actual adjustment of government agencies, we also contrived the fourth engineering bonus system, “Modes of Engineering Bonus System for Water Resource Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs, and Urban and Rural Development Branch, Construction and Planning Agency, Ministry of the Interior.” In light of equality and justice, considered not only the basic standards the public rely on while negotiating and dealing with matters but also the primary values to examine whether the social systems are conducive or not, thus, the planning of the government compensation should correspond to these standards and value systems. However, the current four engineering bonus systems vary in their targets, bonus types, and allotments, leading to a plight where there emerges to be a disparity of bonus pay among dealers at the same level engaging in the same engineering projects, which causes doubts and criticisms among government agencies, and violates the principles of equality and justice as well. Adopting citation analysis and depth interview and basing itself on John Rawls’ Theory of Justice, this research inspects whether the planning and implementation of the current engineering bonus system corresponds to justice principle. Moreover, it is also coupled with meta-analysis and in-depth interviews with policy stakeholders in local and central organizations who are familiar with the functioning of the engineering bonus system and the section chief of the Directorate-General of Personnel Administration. Then, research findings and suggestions will be proposed from a legal and practical perspectives in the hope of providing our government with the review, assessment and correction of drawbacks of the current engineering bonus systems and planning other bonus systems for reference.

一個國家發生大規模國家暴力之後，檢討相關人員的責任，向來是重要的轉型正義議題，可是這個議題在台灣因為多種原因，長期被忽略。長達三十八年的戒嚴期間，上萬人因叛亂、匪諜嫌疑被捕、遭判重刑，至少八百人失去生命。在這種官僚式壓迫的體系中，檢討相關人員責任前，須先了解當初他們在暴力行動的參與中如何做出決定。本文藉由判決書檔案，探索並評析軍事法官如何針對政治案件進行判案，並且將人民判處死刑。從中發現幾項事實，可供未來檢討這些法官刑事與道德責任之基礎。法官的判決與論述中，除了曾經出現違法的情形外，亦不乏相同犯罪事實，判決標準不一致，以及違反人權精神等例證。另一方面，確實也曾經出現較為人道的判決。這些事實顯示當時法官擁有裁量權，選擇空間是存在無疑的。從而，部分選擇剝奪人民生命的法官，可能面臨道德上更大的非難。 / As massive state violence subsides, the issue of holding those who carried out such violence into account has always been an important concern. Yet due to numerous reasons, such issue has been long ignored in Taiwan. During the 38-year-long martial law period, tens of thousands of citizens were arrested and severely condemned on charges of subversion or espionage. In such bureaucratic oppressive regime, the decision-making process should be studied prior to the discussion of responsibility. By studying the verdicts, this thesis focuses on exploring and analyzing how death sentences were made by military judges. The results show that not only illegal verdicts have ever occurred, but also the inconsistencies between verdicts with similar criminal facts, as well as examples in violation of human rights spirit. On the other hand, there were indeed some cases where the judges ruled more humanely. In all, these facts demonstrate that the judges did have powers of dicretion, and room for choice undoubtedly existed. Hence, the acts of certain judges, who under the same circumstances chose nevertheless to deprive lives of certain citizens, may seem to be more morally reproachable.