government theory

Chapter 16 On the Monarchy from Adam (3)
96．If the act of "begetting children" and "fatherhood" gives a man "dominance" and "rule," then primogeniture and inheritance cannot give this right to the son—because he cannot inherit his father's childbearing power. A man who is not qualified has no right over his brothers according to patriarchy, as his father has.On this point, I will have more explanations later.Moreover, it is clear that a government, whether it is originally supposed to be based on "the general will of the people," "the official appointment of God himself," or "the patriarchy," or any other basis, Any one of these can take the place of the other, and start a new government on a new foundation—I mean that a government built on any of the above-mentioned foundations can only, by right of inheritance, To those who have the same rights as those he inherits: power based on the "social contract" can only pass to those who have acquired rights according to that contract; power based on "children" may be enjoyed; by a power of formal "gift" or "grant" of God, and such a right shall be enjoyed only by those who have been conferred by such conferment under the stipulations of succession.

97．According to what I have said above, I think one point is very clear, that is, the right to use all things is originally based on the right of human beings to maintain their own life and enjoy the convenience of life, and the natural right of sons to inherit the property of their parents. , based on their right to the same subsistence and subsistence out of the stock of their parents, who, taught by the beneficence of nature, reared them as part of themselves, all for the sake of property The interest of the owner, or of the heir, cannot justify the sons' succession to "dominance" and "rule," which have other origins and different purposes.Nor is primogeniture an excuse for inheriting "power" or "property" alone.We will see more clearly about this later in the appropriate place.Here, just one thing is enough.Adam's "personal dominion" or "property" could not transmit any dominion or dominion to his heir, who could not acquire dominion over his brethren, since his heir had no right to inherit all that was his father's So even if Adam had any dominion by reason of his "property" - which he did not - that dominion ceased with his death.

98．Adam's dominion--if he had dominion over mankind because he was proprietor of the world--could not have been inherited by any one of his sons, and thus had power over the others.Because they all have the right to share in the father's estate, that is to say, each son has the right to receive a part of all his father's property.Nor, therefore, the dominion which Adam acquired by "fatherhood," if he had such a right, could pass to any of his sons--for, as our author says, it is a The right to begotten by "begetting children".

is an inheritable power, a right deriving from and founded upon acts of a purely private nature, and therefore, likewise, the power deriving from it is also inheritable.Since patriarchy is a natural right, derived only from the relation of father and son, patriarchy cannot be inherited, just as the relation of father and son itself cannot be inherited.If a man can inherit the father's paternal authority over his sons, he, as an heir, can likewise claim the conjugal rights of the husband to his wife, for the husband's power is based on contract, and the father's on "children's rights." birth".If he can inherit the power that comes from "begetting children" (unless the act of begetting can also be a qualification for a childless person to obtain power, otherwise, this power can only reach the childbearer himself, but not to others), likewise he may inherit the powers acquired by the contract of marriage of a private character.

99．In this way, we can reasonably ask the question: Since Adam died before Eve, whether his heirs (such as Seth and Cain) have sovereignty over their mother Eve by virtue of the right to inherit Adam's paternity Woolen cloth?Since Adam's paternity was nothing but a right to rule over children acquired by begetting children, therefore, even in the sense of our author, in addition to Adam's right to rule children by begetting children, the descendants of Adam The patriarchal man has nothing else to inherit, so Eve will not be included in the heirship of the heir.If Eve is included, then this monarchy is nothing but the "father's right" inherited from Adam, and his heir must have obtained the right to rule over her because Adam bore Eve-for "father's right" is nothing else , but only in matters related to childbearing.

100．Perhaps our author will say that whatever can be transferred by contract, can also be acquired by inheritance, such as a man can cede his dominion over his son.To this I answer this: I do not think that a father can cede his dominion over his son.To a certain extent he may relinquish this power, but he cannot transfer it; and if anyone acquires it, it is only by some act of his own, and not by the father's permission.For example, there is a father who is against his nature and does not love his child at all, and even sells or gives him to others, and this person also abandons him; later a third person finds him and treats him as his own son Nurturing, caressing and caring as well.

In this case, I think that the son's filial piety and obedience should be mostly dedicated to his adoptive father, or repaid to his adoptive father as a reward, and no one should doubt it; if the other two want to ask him If anything, only his biological father has this right.Although his natural father may have lost most of the son's obligations to him contained in the commandment "Honor your father and mother," he has no right to transfer any rights to another.And the person who buys the child but does not take care of him is not qualified to enjoy the filial piety of the child just because of his purchase behavior and the approval of the child's biological father.Only the man who, in his own ability, has done the duty of father to the dying outcast, has the right to a corresponding degree of paternal authority, based on the kindness he has given him to bring up the child.This is more readily accepted when examining the nature of patriarchy, for which the reader is referred to the second volume of this work.

101．Going back to the argument just now, it is clear that patriarchy is only derived from "begetting children" (this is taken by our author as the only basis for patriarchy), and it can neither be "transferred" nor " Inheritance".Since paternity is based on "birth," no man can acquire paternity without "begetting children," just as a person cannot have a right without fulfilling the only condition on which it is based.If it be asked: By what law is the father's right over his son governed?I would reply that the basis is undoubtedly the law of "Nature," which gives him dominion over the children he has begot.And if it be asked again: By what law does our author speak of the succession of heirs?I think it can also be answered that it is based on the laws of "nature".For I do not see our author citing words from the Holy Scriptures to prove what he says of this right of heir.

Because the father did "beget" the son, the law of "nature" gave the father paternal right over the son; According to our words, there are only two inferences, either that the father does not acquire paternal rights by bearing children, or that the heirs have no such rights at all.Otherwise, it is difficult to understand the law of "nature"—that is, the law of reason. Since the father is given the paternal right to control his sons because of the sole reason of "bringing children", how can this sole reason be unnecessary (in other words, That is, for no reason) to give the eldest son rights over his brothers?If the eldest son, by the laws of nature, should inherit this patriarchal right, without having the sole ground upon which this right rests, the youngest sons may also have this right, and even strangers may have it as well. .Since only those who bear children have patriarchy, where no one has this condition, it means that all have equal rights.I believe that our author has no basis for it, and if anyone can, we will check below whether this view is tenable.

102．At the same time, if it is said by the law of nature that a man who has begotten children has paternal power over his children, it is reasonable to say that heirs who have not begot them also have paternal power over them.Again, we may say that, by the laws of nature, a man has a right of inheritance to another man's property, because he is kin to another man, and is known to be of the same blood as him.It is equally plausible, therefore, that by the same law of nature a stranger who is wholly unconnected with his blood has a right to his estate.To put it another way, if the laws of the country gave only those who bore and brought up their children an absolute right to dispose of them, how could it be asserted that such laws gave dominion to those who had not done so? The absolute right of those who are not their sons?
103．If, therefore, it can be shown that the right of husband may belong to a person who is not the husband, then I am sure that the father's right which our author speaks of by birth may be inherited by a son, who, having inherited the father's right, may have dominion over his brothers. It can also be proved that the patriarchal right of the man is also the right of the husband according to the same principle.But until the first point is proved, I think we can be confident that Adam's paternal power, the dominion of this "fatherhood" - if such a power existed at all - could neither come to him Heirs of the second generation cannot be inherited by him. The "power of the father" (if the term is useful to our author, I can admit it) can never disappear, and as long as there are fathers in the world, there will be patriarchy.

But none of all the fathers had Adam's paternity, or derived their paternity from Adam, but each father had his paternity according to the same qualifications as Adam's paternity, that is, not according to Inheritance or succession, but by "birth," as the husbands did not inherit from Adam.We can thus see that, just as Adam had neither "property" nor "fatherhood" sufficient for him to have "dominion" over mankind, so does his dominion rest upon either of these qualifications ( If he has such a right at all), it cannot be passed on to his heirs, but can only end with his death.Hence, as above proved, since Adam was not a prince, his fictitious throne could not be inherited, so the right in the world now is not Adam's right; for, according to our author's reason, in In terms of "property rights" or "paternal rights", everything owned by Adam must end with his death, and cannot be transferred to his descendants by inheritance.In the next chapter we shall examine whether Adam had any heirs, as our author claims, to inherit his rights.

(End of this chapter)