government theory

Chapter 48 On Conquest (1)
175．Though governments have no origin at all other than the above, and society is based only on the consent of the people, ambition has brought such disorder to the world that, amidst the clamor of wars which constitute a large part of human history, few This assent is not noticed; therefore, there are many who mistake force for the consent of the people, and conceive that conquest is also one of the origins of government.But just as demolition of a house is not the same as rebuilding a new one in its place, so conquest is not the same as establishing any government.It is true that in order to create new state structures it is often necessary to destroy old ones, but new structures can never be erected without the consent of the people.

176．An aggressor who, by placing himself in a state of war with another, unreasonably violates the rights of that person, can never gain dominion over the conquered by means of this unjust state of war.On this it is easy to agree, for it cannot be imagined that robbers and pirates will have power over those whom they subdue by force, or that men must be bound by promises which they are compelled to make when held hostage by unlawful force.If a robber breaks into my house, puts a bayonet to my throat, and forces me to make a contract to surrender my estate to him, will this be a basis for him to obtain the relevant rights?This is, in fact, the basis of the rights which an unjust conqueror has acquired when he draws my obedience with the edge of his sword.The damage and the crime are the same, whether by the crowned man or the lowly man.The rank of the criminal, and the number of his henchmen, make no difference to the crime, except that it aggravates it.The only difference is that the great thieves punish the little thieves to make them obey themselves, and since the great thieves are too powerful for the weak justice of this world to punish, they are rewarded with laurels and victories, and instead punish the criminals. power in hand.What remedy do I have against such a robber who invades my house?That is to resort to the law to seek justice.

However, I may not be able to get a fair trial, or I may be disabled, immobilized, robbed and have no financial means to go to court.If God has deprived me of all means of seeking relief, there is nothing I can do but be patient.However, when my son is able, he can seek the legal relief that I was denied; he or his son can also sue again until he recovers what he is entitled to.However, there is no court on earth, no arbitrator to tell, then, like Jephthah, the conquered or their children can appeal to heaven and repeat their appeal until the original rights of their ancestors are restored. , and this right is to have over them a legislature which the majority agrees with and readily accepts.Of course, some people may object, thinking that this will cause endless disputes.To this, my answer is that this will not cause more disputes than the judiciary.If justice were open to all who appealed to it, a man who harassed his neighbor without cause would be punished by the court to which his neighbor appealed.The man who appeals to Heaven must be convinced that he has good reasons, and reasons that are worth the effort and expense associated with appealing, for he will be accountable to a court that cannot be deceived.Know that this court will certainly punish any man in proportion to the damage he has done to a fellow member of society, that is, to any part of the human race.It can be seen from this that the conqueror in an unjust war cannot enjoy the right to make the conquered submit and obey.

177．But assuming that victory goes to the side of justice, let us consider the conqueror in legitimate wars, and see what power he acquires, and over whom.

First, it is evident that by his conquests he cannot acquire power over those who conquer with him.Those who fight in his ranks cannot be lost by conquest, or at least must be as free as they were before.Most often, they served on condition, that is, they could share with their leader a part of the spoils, and some other benefits of victory, or at least a part should be given to the conquered country.I wish that conquered peoples were not made slaves by conquest, or crowned with laurels just to show that they were the victims of their leader's victories.

Those who establish despotism by force make their heroes, the founders of such monarchies, into unbridled Delocantes, forgetting that there are also generals who have contributed to their victories in war. Contribute, or help them suppress, or join them in occupying the countries they annex.According to some, the English Monarchy was established during the Norman Conquest, whereby our Sovereign obtained a basis for absolute sovereignty.If this is true (which historically has not been the case) and King William had a just right to war on the Isles, then his conquest would only extend to the The Saxons and Britons here.Whatever dominion the conquest would create, the Normans who came with William to help him conquer, and all their descendants, were free men, not subjects made by the conquest.If I, or anyone else, were their descendants to claim liberty, it would be difficult to prove the contrary.Evidently, since the law makes no distinction among these peoples, it is not intended to make any difference in their liberties or interests.

178．But suppose (though this seldom happens) that the conqueror and the conquered are not one people, subject to the same laws, and enjoying the same liberties.Let us see again what power a legitimate conqueror has over the conquered.I say that this power is purely despotism, and that he enjoys absolute power over the lives of those who have lost their right to life by unjust wars, but that, over the life or property of those who did not take part in the wars, and those who actually He is not entitled to this power as the property of a man who has taken part in the war in the world.

179．Secondly, I can say that the conqueror has power only over those who actually aided and approved of the unjust force used against him, because, since the people have not authorized their rulers to do unjust things, such (for they themselves never had such power), they should not be held responsible for the atrocities and injustices committed in the unjust war unless they were the ones who actually instigated it guilt, just as they should not be held responsible for any act of violence or oppression committed by their rulers against the people or any part of the subjects of the same state, since they have not authorized their rulers to do such things.It is true that the conqueror seldom distinguishes these, but deliberately mixes them all up through the chaos of war, but this still does not alter justice, because the conqueror's power over the lives of the conquered exists because Since the latter has done or supported injustice by force, he has power only over those who approve of that force, and the rest are innocent.The conqueror has no right over those who have done him no harm, that is, those who have not renounced their right to life, any more than he has over any who have not offended him or provoked him, but are at peace with him.

180．Thirdly, In a just war the conqueror is absolutely despotic over the dominion he acquires over those he defeats, who, by placing themselves in a state of war, renounce their right to life, and therefore over their life, conquer The latter enjoys an absolute power, though he has no right to their property in consequence.At first glance, this is undoubtedly a very strange doctrine, because it is completely contrary to the practice of this world.In speaking of national dominions, the most common expression is that of land acquired by conquest, as if the mere conquest transferred the right of possession.But if we think about it again, however common the practice of the mighty may be, it is hardly the right maxim, although what constitutes part of the obedience of the conquered is the imposition upon them by the sword of the conqueror. situation is not in dispute.

181．In all wars force and damage are commonly intertwined, and when the aggressor uses force against the persons of those with whom he is engaged, he can seldom do so without harming their property; What a man is in a state of war is only force.For the aggressor refuses to pay compensation and will maintain that damage by force (as in the first use of force) whether the damage was done initially by force or by stealthy use of deceit, and it is this which causes war. an improper use of force.For it makes no difference what a man does when he breaks in and throws me out with violence, or comes in softly and turns me out with force.The situation I am presenting assumes that we are in a state in which there is no common judge in the world to whom we can tell, and to whom both parties submit.So what puts one man in a state of war with another is the unjust use of force, and the man who commits this crime renounces his right to life, because without the use of reason, which is the rule of relationship between men, With the same force as that of wild beasts, he is liable to be destroyed by whomever he uses force to violate, as is the case with savage beasts who endanger life in any way.

182．However, the fault of the father is not the fault of the children. Even if the father is cruel and benevolent, the children may be rational and peaceful. Therefore, because of his own fault and violence, the father can only sacrifice his own right to life and not His children will not be implicated in his crimes.Starting from the desire to protect all mankind as far as possible, it is natural that in order to prevent the death of the children, the father's property already belongs to them, so the father's property should continue to belong to his children.If the sons and daughters, through their youth, their absence, or their own will, did not take part in the war, they did nothing to give up their property, nor can the conqueror do anything because he has subdued the one who plots to destroy him by force. To what extent this should concern the property of the conquered , which will be discussed later.

From this it follows that a man by conquest has a right of dominion over a person, and may destroy him at will, but does not thereby have a right of dominion over his estate, whether to possess or enjoy.For it is the violence he employs that gives the aggressor his right to take his life like a beast and destroy him at will, but it is only the damage he suffers that gives him the right to dispose of another's property. .For although I can kill a robber who is in the way, I cannot (and this seems to be rare) take his money and let him go. If I do so, I will be robbing instead.The violence of the robber, and the state of war in which he put himself, caused him to renounce his right to life, but this does not give me a right to his property.The right of conquest, therefore, applies only to the lives of those who have taken part in the war, and only to their estates in order to claim from them compensation for losses suffered and the cost of the war; but even in this case, The rights of their innocent wives and children should also be preserved.

183．Even if the conqueror had on his part the fullest justice conceivable, he has no right to take more than the vanquished loses.His life is in the hands of the victor, his services and his property the victor may possess for indemnity, but the victor may not take the property of his wife and children, who also have a right to the property of the vanquished, and they have a share in the inheritance that he possesses.For example, if I have injured another man in the state of nature (as all nations are in the state of nature) and have entered into a state of war by my refusal to indemnify, my act of defending my ill-gotten gains by force will cause I became the invader, and then I was conquered.It is true that my right to life is at one's disposal because it has been lost, but not the right to life of my wife and children, who did not fight or help in the war, and I cannot relinquish their right to life, nor can I abandoned.

(End of this chapter)