government theory

Chapter 12 On Patriarchy and Property Rights as the Common Root of Ruling Power

73．In the preceding chapters we have seen what Adam's monarchy was in our author's mind, and upon what rights he founded it.The theoretical basis he emphasized, that is, he believes that there are two theoretical foundations that are most likely to lead to the future monarchs of absolute monarchy, that is, "patriarchy" and "property rights".Therefore, the method he proposed to "remove all kinds of fallacies and obstacles of natural freedom theory" is to "maintain Adam's natural and personal dominion".In light of this, he tells us, "The fundamental ground and principle of government necessarily rests upon the origin of property," "The subordination of children to their fathers is the origin of all royal power," and "All power in the world is derivation, or from the usurpation of the patriarchy, there is no other origin of power to be found."

But he said that "the basic ground and principle of government must depend on the origin of property rights", and said that "there is no other origin of power than patriarchy", so how can he not fall into self-contradiction? It will not be discussed here.It is difficult for me to understand, since it has been said that there is "no other origin" than "patriarchy", how can it be said that "the basic basis and principle of government depends on the origin of property rights"? "Property" is as distinct from "fatherhood" as the master of a land is from the father of his sons.Nor can I see that either of these two arguments has anything to do with what our author said earlier about God's punishment of Eve (Genesis, Chapter 3, No. 16), "that was the original Promise" is anything consistent.If that is the origin of government, then, as our author confesses, its origin is neither from "property," nor from "father."So he quotes this scripture to prove that Adam has power over Eve, which must be in conflict with what he calls "fatherhood" which is "the only source of all power".For, if Adam really had a kingship over Eve, as our author maintains, it must also have been based on some other qualification than that of begetting children.

74．But I think, let him resolve these and many other inconsistencies for himself.Any reader with a little care in his work can find many such contradictions.Let us now examine further how the origins of these two dominions, "Adam's natural and personal dominion," are reconciled, and how they are used to explain and establish the qualifications of succeeding princes.For these princes derive their power only from these sources, as prescribed by our author.Let us suppose, then, that Adam, by the blessing of God, was made lord and sole proprietor of the whole earthly world, with as great a power as Sir Robert wished.We may also assume that Adam, by virtue of his fatherhood, became the absolute ruler of his children, possessing unlimited supreme power.I ask, then, what became of Adam's "natural" and "personal dominions" after his death?I am sure our author will answer that they are to be passed on to the second generation of successors, as he says so in several places in his writings.However, it is impossible to transfer his "natural" and "personal domination" to the same person at the same time.

For, if we admit that all ownership and all property of the father should pass to the eldest son (this requires some proofs), then the eldest son can by virtue of this title enjoy all the "personal dispositions" of the father; but the father But the "natural dominion" of man, that is, patriarchy, cannot be transmitted to him by inheritance, because it is a right acquired only by the act of "begetting children", and no one can This natural dominion, unless we suppose that a man can have a right to anything without satisfying the only conditions on which a right can be established.

For if a father has "natural dominion" over his children only for "begetting children," and for no other reason, then of course he who has not begot them has no "natural dominion" over them. dominance".Therefore, our author says: "He who is begotten is subordinate to him who begot him by birth." Whether this statement is true or not, the following conclusion must be drawn: cannot be subordinated to his elder brother in the event of his birth, since he was not begotten by his elder brother, unless we can suppose that a man can be simultaneously under the "natural and absolute dominion" of two different persons on the same ground, or We can also assume that this statement is true.That is to say, the reason why a person should be subject to his father's "natural dominion" at birth is only because he was born of his father. domination of nature".

75．Had Adam's "individual dominion," that is, his ownership of all things, passed entirely to his eldest son after his death (if this had not been the case, Sir Robert's monarchy and "natural dominion" would have collapsed at once. ), then the dominion over the children which the father had acquired by begetting was, after Adam's death, divided equally among all his begotten sons, who had the same rights as their father qualify for this right.In this way, the right to rule based on "property rights" and the right to rule based on "father rights" are separated.Because Cain, as an heir, alone obtained the right to rule based on "property rights", while Seth and other sons shared with him the right to rule based on "father's rights".

This is the best explanation that can be given of our author's doctrine, that of the two rights of dominion which he bestows on Adam, if either one is not meaningless, both rights may be established simultaneously, but they It can only serve to confuse the rights of the monarch, and to disturb the government among his descendants.For, his theory rests on two rights of dominion, which cannot be inherited together, and he admits that they are separable, for he has agreed that "the sons of Adam, different territories".He has ever called into question his principles, where the dominion really lies, or to whom we are to obey. "Father's" and "property" being two different rights, and immediately after Adam's death they fell on different persons, which of these two rights should give way to the other?

76．On this point, let us examine what he himself has said to us.He quotes Grotius and tells us: "Before Adam died, his children already had their own spheres of rights by virtue of their personal dominion, according to Adam's reward, designation, or some form of alienation." : Abel owned his flocks and pastures, and Cain owned his grain fields and the land of Nod, and built a city there.” Speaking of which, we need to ask, of course, what happened after Adam’s death , which of the two is the ruler.Our author answered "Cain."But on what terms did he obtain it?Says our author: "He was one of the many heirs of the patriarchs; who were the natural parents of their kindred! They were not only princes of their own children, but of their brothers." That Cain inherited What is it?He did not inherit all of his possessions, nor all of Adam's "personal domination."

For our author admits that Abel received from his father a right "by personal disposition to land capable of pasture."Then, what Abel acquired by "personal dominion" is no longer in Cain's dominion, because he cannot have "personal dominion" over what is already under the dominion of others. Therefore, Cain's dominion over his brother disappeared with the dissolution of this "personal dominion".There would then temporarily be two rulers, and our author's fictional "patriarchal" title would be of no use, and Cain would not be his brother's sovereign.Otherwise, if Cain retained dominion over Abel while Abel had "personal dominion," the result would be that, whatever our author may say to the contrary, "the first ground of dominion and principle" has nothing to do with property rights.It is true that Abel died before his father Adam, but that is irrelevant to the argument, since either Abel, or Seth, or any descendant of Adam who was not born of Cain, could use this An argument against Sir Robert.

77．He again encounters the same difficulty when he states that "the three sons of Noah, to whom their father distributed the whole world."In which of these three sons do we see the "establishment of kingship" after Noah's death?Our author seems to mean to say that the three sons have the kingship. If this is so, then the kingship is based on the ownership of land, on "personal domination" and no longer on "father's right" or "natural power". dominance".Thus the theory of patriarchy as the source of kingship collapses, and the much exaggerated "fatherhood" disappears altogether.If the "royalty" passed to Noah's eldest son and successor, Shem, then what our author says about "Noah dividing the world among his three sons by lot" or "Noah's work in the Mediterranean Traveling around for ten years, assigning land to each son" is a waste of effort.Moreover, he divided the world among his three sons for no good or purpose.

For as soon as Noah died, Shem would be the lord of his brethren, regardless of his promises in life, and Noah's promise to give the land to Ham and Japheth was of little value.If this promise to grant them "individual disposition" over the allotted land is valid, it will establish two different powers, independent of each other, and will bring about the All those difficulties.Regarding this point, I want to use his own words, just change the word "people" to "property rights". "All power in the world can be found from no other source than that which derives or usurps patriarchy; for if two powers are admitted, and neither If they are subordinated to each other, then, who is the supreme power becomes a perpetual dispute, because the two supreme powers cannot be coordinated.

If the patriarchal power is supreme, then the power based on personal domination has to be subordinate and dependent on it; Without permission, paternal authority cannot be exercised, but this will inevitably destroy the structure and process of nature. "This is his own argument against two distinct and independent powers, but I would use his own words to replace "the power of the people" by a power deriving from property. a different kind of power, and when he replies here we can see more clearly that he could, in any acceptable sense, derive from "Adam's natural and personal dominion," from and from The source of all kingship is sought in the two different qualifications of "father" and "property" not always centered in the same person. We see clearly in our author's confessions that both Adam and Noah After death, when the question of succession arises, these two powers are separated at once. Yet our author, in his writings, often confounds them, and decides to use them when he finds them helpful for his purpose. The opportunity of exploiting any of them was not missed. This absurd theory will be more fully revealed in the next chapter, when we shall examine the method by which Adam conferred the dominion on subsequent princes.

(End of this chapter)