government theory

Chapter 35 On Patriarchy (3)
70．In order to respect the elders or sages, to protect his children or friends, to relieve and help the afflicted, and to thank those who have done him good, a man is under various duties, which are not enough to be met by all that one has and all one can do. All these duties; but those who require him to perform them have no authority and right to make laws over him.It is evident that all this is not in the name of the father alone, nor in favor of the mother, as has been said, but because the degree of these duties to the parents and the claims made on the children varies with the upbringing, Love, concern, and expense vary, and these cares are often divided between two children.

71．This shows why parents who are in society, and are themselves members, retain a power over their children, and have as much right to require their children to obey him as men in the state of nature.This could not be so if all political power were patriarchal power alone, and the two were really the same thing.For if this is the case, since all paternal power belongs to the monarch, the subjects will naturally not enjoy it.But political power and patriarchal power are two distinct powers, founded on different foundations and having different aims, so that each subject, father, has as much to his children as the prince has to his children. paternal right; and every prince who has parents, owes to his parents as much filial piety and obedience as the humblest subject owes them; paternal right therefore cannot include the duty of a prince or magistrate to him Nor can any part of that dominion of the subjects reach the absolute degree of that dominion.

72．While the parental duty of nurturing and the children's duty to honor their parents means that one party has full rights and the other must obey, and this is normal in the relationship between the two parties, the father usually has another right, compels his children to obey him; and though he has this right as much as any other, as the occasion for exercising it almost always occurs in the family, it is rarely exemplified elsewhere, and little attention is paid to it, So make it part of patriarchy now.Such is the power with which people generally give what they own to whomever they like the most.The property of the father is what the children expect to inherit, and is usually divided in certain proportions according to the laws and customs of each country, but in general the father has a right to decide how much he will have according to whether the conduct of this or that child suits his will and temper. Give or give less.

73．This is quite binding on the obedience of the children.As the enjoyer of land is always bound to submit to the government of the country to which it belongs, it is generally believed that the father can compel his descendants to submit to the government to which he himself submits, and bind his children also by his covenant.In fact, it is only a necessary condition attached to the land, and only those who are willing to accept that condition can inherit the estates under that government, so it is not a natural constraint or obligation, but voluntary. obedience.This is because, since everyone's children are born as free as himself and even his ancestors, when they are in this state of freedom, they can choose the society they want to join and the country they want to belong to.But if they want to enjoy the inheritance of their ancestors, they must accept the conditions their ancestors originally accepted, and be restricted by all the conditions attached to this family property.It is true that the father may exercise this right to compel his children to obey him even when they are grown, and generally to subject them to this or that political power.But this obedience is bought by reward, not by any special right of the father; it is no more right than a Frenchman has over an Englishman, who would not, of course, give up if he wanted a share of the former's estate. free to obey him.And when the property passes to him, in order to enjoy it, he must accept the regulations of land possession in the country where the land is located, whether in France or in England.

74．From this it follows that, though the father's authority to command is exercised only during the minor period of the child, and only to those disciplines appropriate to that period; respect, filial piety, what the Latins call "filial piety," and all protection and maintenance due to them, without giving the father the right to rule—that is, to make rules and punish his children—though none of this can make He has command over the property or actions of his sons, but it is easy to imagine that, in the early days of the world, and in some parts of the present, the thinness of the population allowed some families to disperse into unowned areas, and they could also migrate or settle in places as yet uninhabited. land, in which case the father of the family could easily be the sovereign of the family.The father has been a ruler since the time of the child.Since it is difficult to live together without some kind of center of power, it is quite possible that, when the children grow up, they ascribe dominion to the father, with their express or tacit consent.

But, in truth, this dominion merely continues without changing; in fact, all that is needed for this is to allow the father alone to exercise in his family the natural law to which every free man is naturally entitled. executive powers, and while they remain within this bounds, by this permission, a sort of sovereign power is given to the father.It is evident, however, that this is not based on any paternal authority, but only on the consent of his children.No one, therefore, doubts that if a stranger came into his house by accident or occasion, and killed there one of his children, or did any other evil, he could condemn him to death, or punish him as he punished any of his children he.Of course he does this, not on any patriarchal right, but on the enforcement of the natural law which he has as a man, over a person who is not his child.He alone in his family was able to punish him, because, from the reverence of his children, they were willing to allow him to exercise this power with majesty and authority over the rest of the family.

75．It is therefore easy and almost natural for the children to have authority over their father and rule.As children they had been accustomed to submit to his discipline, to raise their petty quarrels to him; and when they were men, who was better fitted to rule them?Their meager fortunes and modest avarices seldom give rise to major quarrels.When quarrels arise, where is a more suitable just man to be found than such a father as he who brought them up and loved them?No wonder they make no distinction between minors and adults, and when they themselves have no desire to escape the status of protégés, they do not look forward to twenty-one or any other age which would free them to dispose of themselves and their property.The situation in which they were minors was still more protective than restrictive; their peace, liberty, and property were not more securely secured than under their father's rule.

76．Thus, in some families the biological father of the children unknowingly became the political monarch.If they happen to live long enough to leave successive generations of able and suitable heirs, or for other reasons, they will, by chance, planning, or some circumstances facilitate, establish hereditary or elective The foundation of the kingdom.But if it is considered that the sovereign enjoys the sovereign right as a father, and therefore considers this to be a sufficient proof of the fathers' natural right to political power, since in fact the exercise of the sovereign right is usually in the hands of the fathers—I would say that if this If the argument is correct, it would be equally convincing that all princes—and princes only—should be priests, since at first the fact that the father of the family was priest and at the same time ruler was equally affirmed.

(End of this chapter)