government theory

Chapter 38 On the Origin of Political Society (1)
95．As has been said above, all human beings are by nature free, equal, and independent, and no one can be taken out of this state and made subject to another without his own consent.Whoever would renounce his natural liberty, and be subject to the limitations of civil society, must unite with others by agreement into a community for a life of comfort, security, and peace, for the secure enjoyment of their property, and for a better Large safeguards against encroachment by anyone outside the community.This can be done with any number of people, since it does not impair the liberty of others, who remain as free as they were in the state of nature.When certain persons agree to establish such a community or government, they are thereby at once united and form a nation where the majority have the right to decide for others.

96．This is because, when some persons form a community by agreement, they thereby form the community into a whole, and they have the power to act as a whole, but this is only with the consent and consent of the majority. Only by deciding can it be done.We must know that since any community can only act according to the will of its members, but as a whole it must act in unison, it is necessary to make the action of the whole shifted by the intention of a larger force, and this larger force The power is the majority agreement.Otherwise it could not act or continue to exist as a whole, which it ought to be by the agreement of its constituent members; Majority constraints.We therefore see some legally authorized assemblies, where no quorum is statuted by statute, and in such cases the majority, by the laws of nature and reason, have the power of the whole, and the majority act is held to be the act of the whole. Behavior, of course, also has the right to decide.

97．Therefore, when everyone agrees to establish a country governed by the government, it means that everyone has acknowledged a principle, which is to obey the decision of the majority.Otherwise the original pact of all for association would be meaningless, and it could not be a pact if he were still as free as he was in the state of nature, and subject to no other restraints than those he had previously been in the state of nature. .Because if so, what kind of contract is it?If he is not bound by any other statutes than that which he thinks fit, and which he has in fact consented to, there is no new obligation.His liberty would then remain as great as he had before the contract was made, or as any man in the state of nature, for he may submit to any rules of society as he thinks fit.

98．If it is not rationally recognized that the consent of the majority is the act of the whole and binds everyone, then only the consent of each is considered an act of the whole; but it is almost impossible for people to obtain such agreement, because There will inevitably be many people who cannot attend public meetings due to illness or business, although their number is much smaller than the total number of members of a country.Moreover, differences of opinion and conflicts of interest are inevitable in all kinds of aggregates.If you enter the society under such conditions, you will only go out as soon as you enter the theater, just like Cato entered the theater.Such an organization would cause the mighty Leviathan to perish at birth, shorter than the weakest creature; unless we consider rational animals to demand organization into societies whose ultimate purpose is to disintegrate them, which is inconceivable .For if the majority cannot make decisions for the others, they cannot act as a whole, and the result is immediate disintegration.

99．It must therefore be held that those who, out of the state of nature, unite into a community, vest in the majority of the community all power necessary for the purpose of the union, unless they expressly agree to give it to a greater majority. any number of people.This is easily accomplished by unanimous consent to unite into a political society, and this consent may serve as an existing or ought to exist between those who enter into or form a nation.It is, therefore, only a few free men who are able to unite and form such a society in obedience to the majority, who begin to organize and actually form any political society.Only in this way can any legitimate government in the world be successfully created.

100．Two objections have been raised upon this point: First, that there is no instance in history of a group of separate and equal persons being brought together to establish a government in this manner.In the second place, it is impossible for men to do so in right, because since all men are born under a government, they are bound to that government, and are not free to create a new one.

101．To the first objection we may object that it is not surprising that history records so little of people living in groups in a state of nature.The inconveniences of the state of nature, and the want of society, and the want of it, as soon as a certain number of persons are brought together in one place, and they will continue to live in groups, will at once unite and form a society.If we refuse to assume that they were ever in a state of nature because we seldom hear people in that state, should we similarly reject Salman Nasser or Seker because we seldom hear of them? The Sith army was presumed to have never passed through the stage of children before its establishment?The answer is of course no.Governments existed before recorded times, and the use of writing began after a people had enjoyed the security, convenience, and abundance of life that other necessary skills afforded them through a long-lasting civil society.Only then did they begin to trace the history of their founder, and only when they could no longer remember the history did they begin to trace the origin.For nations, like individuals, are usually unaware of their birth and childhood circumstances.Even if they know some material about their own origin, it is by reference to incidental records kept by others.Except for the Jewish nation, in which God himself directly intervened (which disapproved of fatherly sovereignty at all), this is evidently the origin of any nation in the world, or at least there are clear signs of it.

102．If anyone denies that Rome and Venice were founded as a union of free and independent peoples without distinction of honor and subject, we cannot but say that he took a hard line when his assumptions did not correspond to the obvious facts. way of denying the truth.If we quote Acosta, it is tantamount to admitting that in many parts of America there was formerly no government at all.He said: "Based on strong speculation, these people (referring to the indigenous people of Peru) had no king and no country for a long time, and they lived the life of an army, like the Giriquana, Floridians and many in Brazil today. Like other peoples, they have no definite king, but in times of war they choose their leaders at will." (Natural and Moral History of the Indians, Vol. 25, Chapter [-]).Even if every man there was born subordinate to his father or head of the family, it has been shown that the obedience of a child to his father does not deprive him of his freedom to join such a political society as he thinks fit.Either way, these people are practically free.How much some statesmen now wish to give a certain superiority to some of them, they themselves have no such claim, but agree that they are equal until they agree that a government is placed over them. so far.So their political societies all arose from voluntary associations, and mutual agreement of men freely choosing their rulers and forms of government.

103．I hope we shall admit that those who left Sparta with Barandus, as recorded by Justin, were independent free men who, by agreement, formed a government over them.Thus the history of nations, free and in a state of nature, furnishes us with instances of uniting to create a nation.If lack of example can be used as an argument to show that government did not and could not have begun in this way, I think that those who advocate patriarchal empires had better abandon this argument, and not use it against natural liberty.Because, if they could, like me, cite as many examples from history to prove that government originated from patriarchy (though this method of argument using only what has been to prove what should be is not very impressive. Convinced), I think there is little danger in conceding to them on this point.But on this point I advise them not to look too far for the origins of government which they have in fact begun to look for, lest they find something, on the basis of most governments, very unfavorable to the scheme they advocate and the kind of power.

104．We may deduce that our argument is manifestly justified, that man is inherently free, and that history demonstrates that every government in the world, created in peace, begins with the above foundations and rests upon the will of the people. established with approval.There is, therefore, little room left for any doubt as to where the right to establish government was in the first place, or what was the opinion or practice of men at that time.

105．I admit that if we trace the origin of nations on the thread of history, we generally see them always under the rule and administration of one man.I also like to believe that, when a family is large enough to support itself, and continue to live together without intermingling with others (as often happens in large and sparsely populated places), government usually originates from patriarchy.As the father has the same power with other men by the law of nature, that he may punish any crime against it when he thinks fit, he has a right to punish when his children are at fault, even when they are of full age, beyond their guardianship; they will generally accept the punishment willingly, and all will join him against the offender, so that he acquires the power to execute any crime, and thus becomes, in fact, the Legislator and ruler of united people.

(End of this chapter)