government theory

Chapter 14 On the Monarchy from Adam (1)
81．Even though it is perfectly clear that there should be a government in the world; and even if all agree with our author and believe that the providence of God has ordained government to be "monarchy," yet, since men cannot obey those who cannot command , and the imaginary concept of government, though correct and complete to an incomparable degree, can neither promulgate laws nor formulate rules for people's actions.It is therefore impossible to use it to maintain order among men and to establish governments for the exercise of power, unless at the same time men are taught a method of learning who is responsible for having this power and exercising this power over others. right person.It is of little use to talk of obedience and obedience without telling us who we are to obey.For even if I fully concede that the world should have laws and governing institutions, I can still act as I please until there is someone who is entitled to my obedience.

Anyone, even myself, could be such a man if there were no sign by which he could be known and distinguished from others in his dominion.Therefore, although it is the duty of every man to obey the government, this obedience signifies nothing but obedience to the laws and directions of the one who has the authority to order, and therefore nothing but to make a man believe that the world The existence of "kingdom" is not enough to make a person a subject, there must be a way to recognize and designate this person with "kingdom".A man cannot in conscience feel bound to submit to any kind of power unless he has a good idea of ​​who is entitled to exercise power over him.Otherwise, there would be no difference between a pirate and a legitimate prince; a strong man would be obeyed without effort, and a crown and a king's tablet would be an inheritance of plunder and violence; if men did not know who had the right to command If they are obliged to follow whose instructions they should follow, then people can change their rulers at any time in their naivety, just as they change their doctors.Therefore, in order for the people to perform their duty of obedience convincingly, they must not only know that there is always a power in the world, but also who has the power over them.

82．What has been accomplished in Adam's attempt to construct an "absolute power of princes" by our author, the reader is sufficient to judge from what has been said.But even if this "absolute monarchy" is as clear as our author expects, of course I hold the opposite opinion, unless he also proves Useless:
First, "Adam's power" will not cease with his death, but will transfer everything to someone else after his death, and this will continue to be the case for all generations.Second, the present monarchs and rulers obtained this "Adam's power" through a legitimate transfer.

83．If the first condition cannot be established, even though "Adam's power" is extremely large and reliable, it has no meaning for the current society and government; we have to find other sources of power for the governments of some countries besides Adam's power, Otherwise there would be no government at all in the world.If the latter condition were not established, it would destroy the authority of the present rulers, and eliminate the obedience of the people to them, since they, compared with others, could not claim that power which is the sole source of all authority. More requirements, of course, will lose the qualification to rule the people.

84．In Adam our author had invented an absolute sovereignty, and suggested several methods of transferring it to his successors; It can often be seen in this paper, and I have already quoted a few paragraphs of it in the last chapter, so I won't repeat it here.As has been said before, he built this dominion on the double basis of "property" and "father's right"; For his own personal use, to the exclusion of all others; the latter is considered to be his power to govern and govern men, that is, the power of all mankind except himself.

85．Since these two rights are supposed to be possessed by no one else, Adam must have had his own unique reasons for having them both.Our author assumes that Adam's "property rights" came from God's direct "gift" ("Genesis" Chapter 1No. 20), while the "father's right" rights arise from the act of "bearing children".

As regards succession of all kinds, the heir cannot inherit his father's right if he does not inherit the grounds upon which it rests; the "gift" and "grant" of God, to have a title to all things; and even if this were the same as our author says, yet after Adam's death, unless the same reason—that is, the "gift" of God—was also given Adam's heirs have no such rights, so his heirs have no right to dominate all things, and cannot obtain "ownership" of all things.Because, if Adam did not receive the official "gift" from God, he would not be able to enjoy the right to use and ownership of all things, and this "gift" was only given to Adam, then Adam's "heirs" did not inherit it. rights, which, after Adam's death, must revert to God—the owner and master.Since a formal conferment cannot confer a right beyond what is expressly stated, and such a right can only be maintained in accordance with what is expressly stated, then, as our author maintains, if that "grant" was only given to Adam personally but his heirs cannot inherit his title to things, and if this right is granted to anyone other than Adam, it should be indicated that it passes only to our author's intended heir, that is, to Adam. one of his sons, and exclude the others.

86．However, let us not follow our author too far from the topic, it is evident that the thing is this: since God created man, he planted in him, as in all other animals, a strong desire for self-preservation , and also prepare in this world suitable food, clothing and other necessities for human life, so that human beings can live on the ground for a long time according to God's will, and don't let such a wonderful handicraft because of its own carelessness and want of necessaries, proclaims death shortly after existence.I think that God, having created man and the world, said this to man, that he directed man to use his reason and senses (as God achieves the same purpose through instinct and sense rooted in the lower animals) to use those who can Stuff for survival, and to give him the means of "self-preservation".

I have no doubt, therefore, that before God pronounced these words (even though they must be understood to be spoken in words), or even when there was no "gift" in this form of words, according to God's dispensation and Human beings already have the right to use all things.For since God Himself has rooted in man as a principle of action the desire to preserve his own life and existence (a strong desire), "reason as the voice of God in man's heart" will teach and make man To believe that to act according to the natural tendency that human beings have for self-preservation is to obey the will of God.Human beings therefore have a right to use those things that are found to be healthy enough through human reason or feeling.Thus, man's "property" in all things is based on his right to use those things which are necessary for his existence, or which are useful for his existence.

87．This is the basis and justification upon which Adam's "property rights" rest.On the same ground, the same rights were accorded to all his sons, not only after his death, but during his lifetime.The heir of Adam, therefore, has no privilege over his other sons and daughters, by which he may exclude them from the same right which he has to secure his own comfortable existence by using an inferior creature.This right is the "property right" of human beings to all things.Thus Adam's dominion based on "property" or, as our author puts it, on "individual dominion" is empty talk.Either one has a right to dominion over all things by the same right as Adam, that is, by the right of self-care and self-sustainment which all men have.Mankind shared this right, and Adam's sons shared it with him.However, if a person has come to regard a particular thing as his property (how he or anyone else can do this will be shown elsewhere), of this thing, this property, if he If other processing methods are used without formal grants, it will naturally pass to his sons, who have the right to inherit and own such things.

88．Here, it is necessary to ask, after the death of their parents, how do sons obtain the right to inherit their parents' property before others?As this right is not in fact transferred to another at the death of the parents, why is it not reverted to the common property of mankind?Perhaps it could be answered that the public approved of giving it to the sons of the deceased.We know that this is what the public does.However, we cannot say that this is the common consent of mankind, because this consent has never been asked for, and in fact has never been expressed. However, if the public acquiescence has established the right of inheritance of the sons, then the sons inherit the inheritance of their fathers. The right of man is also a mere artificial and not natural right; but where the practice is common, it is not without reason to regard it as natural.

(End of this chapter)