自建浮桥被判刑，这则新闻有些荒诞了

题图：cheva用AI创作。

最近有一个挺有意思的新闻，一个农村的老人在一条河上自费修了一座浮桥，供来往的车辆通过收取过桥费。结果被判了18年的徒刑。具体的细节我也不是太了解，也不知道是违反了哪条法律？因为现在的法律，立法者完全也不和公众沟通，都是领导拍脑袋的。只是这件事从常识上来理解，就非常的不可思议，修路架桥难道不是好事吗？怎么还沦落到坐牢了，这还真应了那句常言“杀人放火金腰带，修桥补路无尸骸。”想来想去，之所以会引起争议，甚至司法介入，还是因为一件事，他收过桥费了。

就连这位老汉他自己在网上发声，为自己辩解，求宽大的说辞也是他修这座桥并没有强制收费，大车10元小车5元，愿意给就给，不愿意给就不给，而且他建这座浮桥，大约花了十几万，收到的雇佣费才几万块钱，根本就没有赚到钱。从他的辩解来看，定的罪名应该就是，什么非法获利之类的，既然我根本没赚到钱，总不能再来给我定这个罪名了。虽然他这番话语是为了自保。但是却并不利于改善他的形象，争取舆论同情。因为这个说辞，完全不符合逻辑和人性。亏本的生意会有人做吗?愿意给就给，不愿意给就不给，会有人给钱吗?这样反倒，让他显得有些虚伪了。

其实我认为应该支持老汉的这种行为，而且他应该大胆地说，我就是为了赚钱，赚钱无罪，赚钱有理。武汉是一座江城，长江穿城而过，改革开放以后，在上面建起了多座长江大桥，其中很多桥在建成之后，都收取过过桥费。为什么没有人出来质疑这种行为呢?因为修桥的是政府是国家吗?如果一件事情政府能够做，那普通居民就更可以做了，连奉行专制的秦朝都是以吏为师。官府能做的，老百姓当然也能做。何况还是公益事业。政府建桥是公益事业，可以收取过桥费，私人建桥自然也是可以的。

有人会说，有人说这条河流是属于自然资源，国家所有，是公共财产，老汉没有权利在上面私自建桥，这话在听有些道理，但有个逻辑硬伤，河流阻碍了交通，司机需要绕远路，费更多的时间和汽油，它并不是一个资源，而是一个需要克服的困难，或者用市场营销的话术来说，是一个需要被克服的痛点。这名老汉看到了这一点，用自己的资源解决了这一痛点，为自己创造了收入，这是非常典型的企业家的行为。完全合理合法，还有人说，在这种农村地区，管理的执行力度低，法制不健全。能够在一条河上建桥，收费这行为就是村霸。和恶霸拦路抢劫没有什么区别，这就更扯淡了，拦路抢劫，有一个非常重要的要件，就是强制性，你不给钱就要受到伤害，甚至丢掉性命。而这里过不过桥，就是完全非强制性，如果你不愿意交钱，可以不过桥，选择绕远路。据后来一些记者采访报道，这位老汉的过桥费，定价还是很有章法的，并不是他所说的，简单的大车十元小车五元，而是空载和满载等等，根据吨位不同，都有不同的价格。他所说的愿意给就给，不愿意给就不给，那应该是对本村的熟人说的，如果熟人磨不开面子，自然就会给，如果拉了下面子，他也不好意思找熟人要。所以这和拦路抢劫根本是两码事。

总之，这是完全是一种符合市场经济规律的合理合法的行为。判刑十八年实在是太让人无语了，而且现在经济不好。作为政府，也希望把经济搞好吧？这样财政收入才有保障，那怎么才能把经济搞好呢？如果这也不能办，那也不能办，这也违法，那也违法，大家看在眼前的河流，不敢在上面建个桥，怕别人说是为了收费拦路抢劫，被抓进去坐牢。那还会有人创业吗？那这个经济还好得了吗？还是要法律和大众观念发生转变，不要觉得赚钱是一件可耻的事情。经济才能真正的步上发展的正轨。

---

Recently, there was quite interesting news that an elderly man in the countryside built a pontoon bridge on a river at his own expense for passing vehicles to collect tolls for crossing the bridge. As a result, he was sentenced to 18 years in prison. I don't know much about the specifics, and I don't know which law was violated? Because of the current law, legislators do not communicate with the public at all, and they are all leaders patting their heads. It's just that this matter is understood from common sense, it is very incredible, isn't it a good thing to build roads and bridges? How can I still end up in prison, this really corresponds to the common saying: "Murder and set fire to the gold belt, build bridges and repair roads without corpses." "Come to think of it, the reason why there will be controversy, and even judicial intervention, is because of one thing, he collected the bridge toll.

Even this old man himself spoke out on the Internet, justified himself, and asked for leniency is that he did not have a mandatory fee for repairing this bridge, 10 yuan for a big car and 5 yuan for a small car, and if he is willing to give it, he will not give it if he is not willing to give it, and he built this pontoon bridge, which cost about a hundred thousand, and the employment fee received was only tens of thousands of yuan, and he did not make money at all. Judging from his defense, the conviction should be, what illegal profit and so on, since I didn't make money at all, I can't come to convict me of this crime again. Although his words were for self-preservation. However, it is not conducive to improving his image and winning the sympathy of public opinion. Because this statement is completely illogical and inhuman. Will anyone do a loss-making business? If you are willing to give, you will not give if you are not willing to give, will anyone give money? This on the contrary, it makes him seem a little hypocritical.

In fact, I think that I should support this behavior of the old man, and he should boldly say that I am just to make money, make money without guilt, and make money justified. Wuhan is a river city, the Yangtze River runs through the city, after the reform and opening up, a number of Yangtze River bridges were built on it, many of which were charged bridge fees after completion. Why hasn't anyone come out to question this behavior? Because it is the government that builds the bridge, is it the state? If the government can do one thing, then ordinary residents can do it even more, even the Qin Dynasty, which pursues autocracy, is based on officials. What the government can do, of course, the common people can do. Not to mention public welfare. Government bridge construction is a public welfare undertaking, you can charge bridge fees, and private bridge construction is naturally possible.

Some people will say, some people say that this river belongs to natural resources, the state owns, is public property, the old man has no right to build a bridge on it, this is listening to some truth, but there is a logical hard wound, the river obstructs traffic, drivers need to detour long distances, spend more time and gasoline, it is not a resource, but a difficulty to overcome, or in marketing terms, a pain point that needs to be overcome. The old man saw this and solved this pain point with his own resources to create income for himself, which is very typical of entrepreneurial behavior. Perfectly reasonable and legal, it has also been said that in such rural areas, the enforcement of management is low and the rule of law is not perfect. Being able to build a bridge over a river and charge a fee is a village bully. There is no difference from bullies blocking and robbery, this is even more nonsense, roadblock robbery, there is a very important element, that is, compulsion, you will be hurt if you do not give money, or even lose your life. And here can not cross the bridge, is completely non-mandatory, if you are not willing to pay, you can not cross the bridge, choose to detour. According to some later interviews and reports, the old man's bridge fee, the pricing is still very methodical, not what he said, a simple big car ten yuan small car five yuan, but empty load and full load, etc., according to different tonnage, there are different prices. What he said was that if he was willing to give, he would not give if he was not willing to give, that should be said to acquaintances in his village, if acquaintances could not grind face, they would naturally give, and if they pulled down, he was embarrassed to ask for acquaintances. So this is fundamentally different from roadblock robbery.

In short, this is a reasonable and legal act that conforms to the laws of the market economy. Eighteen years in prison is too speechless, and the economy is not good now. As a government, you also want to get the economy right? In this way, fiscal revenue can be guaranteed, so how can we do a good job in the economy? If this can't be done, then it can't be done, this is also illegal, that's also illegal, everyone looks at the river in front of them, dare not build a bridge on it, for fear that others say that it is to charge for road robbery, and be arrested and jailed. Will anyone still start a business? So is this economy still good? It is still necessary to change the law and public perception, and do not feel that making money is a shameful thing. Only then can the economy truly get on the right track of development.