government theory

Chapter 33 On Patriarchy (1)
52．In a treatise of this nature, it may be accused of being an inappropriate censure to find fault with words and nouns that are already in common use in the world, but it may be inappropriate to propose new ones when old ones are prone to fall into error. will not be considered wrong.Such is the case with the term patriarchy, which seems to attribute parental authority over children exclusively to the father, and not to the mother; but, if we ask reason, we shall know that she has an equal right.This gives people reason to ask, is it more appropriate to call it parental power?Whatever duties natural and human rights impose upon children, it must necessarily require them to owe their duties to both those who begot them.Thus we can see that the express law of God everywhere requires the obedience of children to their parents without distinction.Such as "Honor your parents" ("Old Testament Exodus" Chapter 20No.12); "Whoever curses your parents" ("Old Testament Leviticus" Chapter 20 Section 19); "Each of you should Honor your parents" ("Old Testament Leviticus" Chapter 6 Section [-]); "Children, obey your parents in the Lord" ("New Testament Ephesians" Chapter [-] Section [-]), etc. Wait.This is the tone of the Old Testament and the New Testament.

53．If this point had been considered alone at the beginning without a thorough discussion of the essence of the problem, it might not have caused people to make the big mistakes they have made about the power of parents.Although this parental power under the title of patriarchy seems to be monopolized by the father, this does not have much blunt color of absolute rule and kingship, but if this supposed absolute power over children is called parenthood Right, the original name will sound very unpleasant and extremely absurd, but it will remind people that it is also the right of the mother.Because if the mother has a part, then those who rely on the so-called fatherhood to insist on absolute power and authority will feel very uncomfortable.In this way, the monarchy they advocate will lose good theoretical support.Because from the point of view of the noun itself, the basic authority they rely on originally belonging to one person's rule does not belong to only one person, but is shared by two people.But let's not talk about this noun problem for now.

54．Although I said before (Chapter 2) that all men are born equal, it cannot be assumed that the equality I mentioned includes all kinds of equality.Age or virtue can give some people a legitimate advantage.Superb talents and specialties can lift others above average.Some people respect those who are worthy of respect in terms of personality, grace, or other reasons because of their backgrounds, and some people consider relationships and interests.All this is consistent with the equality of masters and slaves in all matters of dominion or domination that men now find themselves in.It is the equality of which this text is concerned, the equal right of each to his natural liberty, independent of the will or authority of any other.

55．I admit that children are not born in this perfect equality, though they should be.Their parents have a kind of dominion and jurisdiction over them at their birth and for some time after, but only temporarily.This restraint of domination is like the swaddling quilt that wraps and protects them when they are frail infants.As they grow, age and reason will lift these restrictions until finally a person is completely free and free to deal with everything.

56．Adam was born a whole man of mind and body, possessed of sufficient physical strength and reason, so that he could maintain himself from birth, and govern his actions according to the requirements of the laws of reason given to him by God.Since him, his children and grandchildren have multiplied in this world, and they were born as babes, weak and immature.But in order to remedy this defect of physical and mental immaturity which cannot be removed until adulthood, Adam and Eve, and all parents after them, were under the law of nature to undertake the duty of protecting, nurturing, and educating their children; rather than the works of the Almighty Creator, the parents are likewise children of and responsible for the Creator.

57．The law that governed Adam was the law that governed all his descendants, the law of reason.But unlike his natural birth, his descendants entered the world by another means, which made them ignorant and incapable of reason, so that for a time they were not under that law.A man cannot be bound by a law that is not exalted to him, but that law rests only on reason, and he cannot be said to be bound by it, if he has not been able to exercise it; the children of Adam were not born They are bound by this rational law, but they are still not free for a while.In the real sense of law, it is not so much a restriction as a guide to a free and intelligent person to pursue his legitimate interests.It makes no provisions outside the sphere of the general welfare of those subject to it.

If they were happier without the law, the law, as a useless thing, would disappear of itself; and these mere precautions to keep us from falling into the mire and precipice should not be called restraints.Therefore, no matter how it may be misunderstood by people, the purpose of law is not to abolish or restrict freedom, but to protect and expand freedom.This is because, in the case of all human beings capable of being governed by law, there is no freedom where there is no law.This is because freedom means freedom from bondage and coercion by others, and such freedom cannot exist where there are no laws.But liberty, as we are told, is not that which each man can do as he pleases (who can have liberty when anyone else can dominate a man at the whim of his pleasure), but the freedom which binds him Freedom to dispose of or arrange his person, actions, wealth, and all his property as he pleases, within the limits of the law.To the extent that he is free to follow his own will and not be dominated by the arbitrary will of another.

58．Hence the power which parents have over their children arises from their duty to discipline the children while they are still immature.What children need, and what parents should do, is to cultivate their minds and regulate their actions in their ignorant youth, until reason takes over and relieves them of toil.This is because, since God has endowed man with an understanding to direct his actions, he has given him a freedom of will and of actions which rightly belong within the sphere of the law under which he is bound.But while he still lacks understanding to direct his will, he lacks a will of his own to follow.Whoever exercises the intellect for him must act for him; must regulate his will and direct his actions; but the son becomes a free man himself when he makes the father a free man.

59．This applies to all laws by which a man is bound, whether it be natural or national.Man is not bound by natural law?What sort of things freed him from that law?What allows him to freely dispose of his property according to his will, within the bounds of the law of nature?My answer is, the realm of maturity.If he has attained this state, he may be considered to understand the law sufficiently to enable him to confine his conduct to those prescribed by that law.When he has come to this point, he may be said to know how much to obey the law, and how far to apply it, and so be free; but before that he must be instructed by someone who is supposed to know how much freedom the law allows.If this state of reason, this maturity, makes a man free, the same situation makes his son free.

Is a person bound by English law?What keeps him from that law?That is, to enjoy the freedom to decide his actions and dispose of property according to his own will within the scope permitted by that law?That's the ability to know that law; according to that law it should be 21 years old, and in some cases earlier.If this ever set the father free, it should also set the son free.Until then, the law does not allow the son to have a will, he needs to be guided by the will of the father or his guardian who uses reason in his stead.If the father dies without appointing a successor guardian, if he fails to prepare a teacher to discipline his son during his youth and ignorance, the matter will be covered by the law.Before a man is free and his understanding is not able to govern his will, someone must govern him as the representative of a will that governs him.But after this stage, father and son are both free, like teacher and pupil after maturity, and they are equally subject to the same law, whether they are bound by natural law merely in a state of nature, or by an established law. No father is bound by the express laws of his government to have any power over his son's life, liberty, or property.

60．But if exceptional circumstances arise in which some defect may arise, such that a man has not attained that degree of reason which can be considered sufficient to know the law, and thus to live by its rules, he can never be a free man, nor can he He must not be left to do his own will (for he does not know how to limit his will, and has no understanding to be its proper guide), and so long as his own understanding cannot bear this responsibility, he must continue to be under the guardianship of others. and regulation.Therefore the insane and the idiot are never free from the control of their parents; Idiots who have never been able to use reason correctly to guide themselves, and psychotics who are not yet able to use reason correctly to guide themselves, can only be guided to their welfare by the same reason that their mentors use to guide their actions.” Seems to be nothing more than a duty placed on man and other creatures by God and nature to protect their offspring until they are able to support themselves; and it is therefore difficult to take this as an example or proof of the royal power of parents.

61．So we are born free and rational at the same time; but that doesn't mean we can really use both; age brings freedom and reason.From this we conclude that natural liberty is consistent with obedience to parents, both resting on the same principle.A child is free by the right and reason of his father, and his father's reason will govern him until he has reason of his own.The liberty of a grown man and the obedience of a minor to his parents are not contradictory but so distinct that the most blind patriarchal monarchy cannot ignore the difference; Their consistency must be recognized.

If their doctrine be at all true, if Adam's lawful heir is now fixed, and by that power made king, with all the absolute and unlimited powers of which Sir Robert Filmer speaks; If at birth he dies, shall the infant, however free and sovereign, be disobedient to its mother and nurse, tutor and guardian, before age and education have given him reason and power to govern himself and others?The necessities of life, the health of the body, and the education of the mind require him to be directed by other people than by his own will, yet will any one think that such limitations and directions are incompatible with or deprive him of that liberty or freedom to which he is entitled? Sovereignty, or lose his kingdom to those who disciplined him during his minor years?This kind of discipline for him is only to make him better and earlier equipped with the conditions for exercising freedom or sovereignty.If someone asks me: When will my son reach the age of freedom?I will answer, that is the age at which his prince can rule.In Religious Politics, Book I, Section VI, the wise Hooker says: "But when can a man be said to have reached such an age of reasoning as to be able to understand those things by which he must direct action?" The law is much easier to determine by feeling than by skill and learning."

62．The nation itself has noticed and acknowledged that there is a certain period when men cannot begin to act like free men, and that till then no oath of fealty or obedience, or other public recognition or submission to their government, is required.

63．From this it follows that man's freedom, and freedom to act according to his own will, is based on his rationality, which enables him to understand the laws governing his actions, and to know what he is to obey in respect of his free will. degree.Allowing a man to enjoy unlimited liberty until reason can direct his actions does not give him the freedom of nature, but throws it into the wild beasts, and leaves him in the same unfortunate state as the beasts, far from being free. lower than the human state.This is the source of the power that parents have over their minor children.God makes it their duty to discipline their children, and to regulate this power with due love and concern, and to exercise it for their good in the times when they need to be restrained by it, according to his wisdom ordinances .

64．But is there any reason to extend this parental duty of discipline over their children to an absolute and despotic dominion of the father?His power at most is to adopt the most effective form of discipline that he thinks is most effective, to give their bodies such strength and health, so vigor of mind and purity of heart, that his children are so well conditioned to be successful, both to themselves and to others. People who are extremely useful to everyone; and in this case, if necessary, can be made to work for their own livelihood when they are able.But the mother, like the father, has her part in this power.

(End of this chapter)