government theory

Chapter 15 On the Monarchy from Adam (2)
I think the basis for this is this: the most fundamental and strongest requirement that God has rooted in human hearts and engraved on human nature is the requirement to preserve oneself. Basis of Personal Use Rights.However, in addition to this, God has rooted in human hearts a strong desire to reproduce his own species and continue his offspring. This requirement gives sons the right to share their parents' "property rights" and inherit his property.Men keep property not only for themselves, but their sons also have a right to a part of their property.When the parents die and cannot continue to use the property, and the parents and their property are separated, the rights of the sons themselves are merged with the rights of the parents, and all the property belongs to the sons. This situation is called inheritance. .Men are under the same duty to preserve their offspring as they preserve themselves, and their offspring then have a right to all their wealth.Sons have this right which is evident in the law of God, and man believes his children to have this right, and it is evident from the laws of the land, both of which require parents to rear their children.

89．By a natural process, children are born weak and unable to support themselves.Since God thus ordained the course of nature, he himself confers on children the right to be reared and supported by their parents, which is not limited to subsistence, but includes the conveniences and comforts of life so far as their parents permit. .Therefore, when their parents have passed away, the care and upbringing that should be done to their sons ceases completely, and the effects of this care and upbringing are to be continued as long as possible, as nature requires, and the parents are alive. Good things should be considered as left to the sons.Sons are the responsibility of parents to provide for their care even after death.Even if, at death, the parents do not expressly declare it, the providence of nature dictates the son's right to inherit the property of his parents.Sons are then entitled, and have a natural right to inherit their father's wealth, which no one else can dream of.

90．If God and nature had not endowed the son with the right of parental upbringing and support, and made it an obligation to the parents to do so, then it would not have been wrong to say that the father should inherit the son's property, and have a priority over his grandson. Not without reason.Because the upbringing and education of the son cost the grandfather a lot of effort and experience, from a moral point of view, it can be considered that he should be rewarded.In doing so, however, the grandfather obeyed the same laws that his own parents obeyed.According to this law, grandfathers receive their upbringing and education from their own parents.And the upbringing a man takes from his father is compensated by his own upbringing of his children (I mean, unless the present needs of the parents require the return of property to support their life and subsistence, We should adopt the method of replacing property rights, and return as much as you want. Because what we are talking about here is not that the son should always respect, respect and appreciate his parents, but the daily necessities and property calculated by money); Nor does the son's debt fully offset the duty owed to the father, but only because nature gives priority to the former over the latter.

For, when a man is in debt to his father, and the father has a right to inherit the son's property when the son has no offspring, the son's right does not, in such a case, remove the father's right of inheritance.So a man has a right to the maintenance of his sons in case of need, and a right to a comfortable life from his sons, when he has more than what is necessary for his sons and grandchildren.If the son dies and does not come out, the father certainly has the right to enjoy his property and inherit his property (although the civil laws of some countries are contrary to common sense, and there are other regulations), then his other sons and all the latter's out to inherit his.If there are no more children and grandchildren, his father and his descendants will inherit.But if these were absent--that is to say, without kinship--we see that private property goes to society, and in political society it falls into the hands of public magistrates, and in the state of nature In this case, this property is once again completely public, and no one has a right to inherit it, nor does anyone have a property right in these things in a different way from other natural commons.On this point, I will explain it in a suitable place.

91．I have given at greater length to the reason why the son is entitled to his father's property, not only because in this reason it is evident that even if Adam had title to the whole earth and its products (a meaningless, useless, nominal title, since it is his duty to use it to maintain and bring up his offspring, which is nothing more than that), but all his sons are entitled to joint enjoyment by the laws of nature and by right of inheritance , and upon his death, acquires title to his property.

This property could not confer on any one of his descendants dominion over the others, for since each had a right to his own share, they could jointly enjoy all or a part of what they had inherited, or share and enjoy as they see fit, but no one can claim the whole estate, or any right of dominion connected with it, for the right of inheritance gives all the same right to share in their father property, without distinction.I say that it is not only for this reason that I have made such a careful examination of the reasons why sons inherit from their fathers, but also because it may better explain the succession of "right" and "rule."In some countries, their own civil laws give full ownership of land to the eldest son, and the succession of power is passed on to people according to this custom. Some people are easily confused by this phenomenon, thinking that "power" and "property" There is a kind of divine or natural right of primogeniture at the same time, and it is believed that the ownership of things and the "rule" over people are derived from the same source and should be inherited according to the same law.

92．The right of property arises originally from the right of a man to use lower creatures for his own subsistence and enjoyment, and it is exclusively for the sole benefit and welfare of the owner of the property.So, unlike a property owner who, when necessary, can even destroy something in order to use it for the purpose of using it, dominion exists to ensure that individual property still has rights, so as to protect it from It is established for the infringement or violent injury of others, and it is for the benefit of the ruled.The sword of dominion is intended to terrorize the "doers of evil," and by means of this terror compel obedience to the express laws of society, which are made according to the laws of nature, for the public good, that is, for the good of society. Each particular member seeks to benefit within the bounds of public law.The sword was not given to the ruler solely for his own benefit.

93．So, as previously stated, because sons are dependent on their parents, they are entitled to inherit from their father's property, which is called goods because it belongs to them for their own needs and welfare. is suitable.The eldest son has no exclusive right to this property, nor any special right, either by nature or by any law of God, but his and his brethren's rights are based upon their need to be nourished, supported, and comfortably lived by their parents. no other basis than that of the right.

Government, however, is established for the welfare of the governed, not for the sole interest of the ruler (it is only because they are part of that political body that they, along with others, receive The government takes care of it, and according to the laws of the society, each performs its functions for the benefit of all), so the government cannot inherit the same right as a son inherits his father's property.The right of the son to support himself by deriving the necessaries and conveniences of life from his father's property, and it is this right which entitles him to inherit his father's property for his own benefit, does not, however, entitle him to inherit his The father's right to "rule" over others.All that the son has a right to ask of his father is upbringing and education, and what nature provides to maintain him, yet he has no right to "dominion" or "rule" from his father.He can live without the "dominance" and "empire" (if his father had that) which was given to his father for the needs and welfare of others, and takes from his father what he deserves. Part of the welfare of daily necessities and education.The son, therefore, cannot claim or inherit dominion by a right which rests solely on his private interest and advantage.

94．First of all, we must know how the first ruler who was asked for the right of succession obtained his authority, on what basis a person obtained the "supreme rulership", what qualifications did he have to enjoy this power, After this we may know who has the right to succeed him, and from him to inherit this power.If it was the consent and assent of the people that first put a crown on a man or handed him a wat, this must also be the method of appointing its transfer and succession, for the first man to be The power of a legitimate "ruler" must also make a second person a legitimate ruler, so that it also confers on the other the succession to the throne.In this case, unless the general will of the people to establish the form of government is to use primogeniture or inheritance habits to solve the problem of succession to the throne, neither of these in themselves can be an excuse or right to inherit the throne.Thus we see that in some different countries the succession to the crown falls on different heads.That is to say, a person who is a monarch in one place by right of inheritance may only be a subject in another.

95．If God, by his formal conferment or proclamation of revelation, originally gave a man "reign" and "rule," then a man claiming this right must also obtain from God a formal conferment of his succession— For if God had not provided for the means by which this power should be transferred and imparted to others, no one could inherit this right from the original ruler.In the same way his children could not have a right of inheritance, and primogeniture could not be a claim unless it were decreed by God, the author of the system.For example, we saw that Saul was granted the throne by direct appointment from God, and after his death, his family had no claim to the throne.According to the same qualifications as Saul's accession to the throne, that is, God's appointment, King David succeeded Saul's throne, but rejected Saul's son Jonathan and all claims for succession to the patriarchy.And the reason why Solomon has the right to inherit his father must be based on other qualifications, not primogeniture.If the son of a younger brother or sister has the same qualifications as the first legitimate prince, then he must have priority in the succession to the throne, and in cases where the domination is only formally appointed by God himself, if God wills, follow The youngest son, Benjamin, was bound to inherit the throne as well as the first of the kind to have this right.

(End of this chapter)