government theory

Chapter 49 On Conquest (2)
My wife shares my property, and I cannot give it up. Since my children are born to me, they also have the right to live on my labor and property.So the point is this: the conqueror has a right to compensation for the damages he has suffered, and the sons and daughters have a right to live on their father's estate.As for the wife's share, whether her own labor or contract entitles her to it, it is evident that her husband cannot give up what is hers.In this case, what should be done?My answer is: Since the fundamental law of nature is to protect all human beings as far as possible, if there is not enough to satisfy both sides, that is, compensation for the loss of the conqueror and care for the subsistence of the sons and daughters. Therefore, the man who has more than enough should reduce his demands for full satisfaction, and give priority to those who are threatened with death if their demands are not satisfied.

184．But if the conquered must give all he has to pay for the cost and loss of the conqueror, and the sons and daughters of the conquered have to starve and starve after losing all their father's property, then, in this case, even if To this extent, the satisfaction of the conqueror's just claims does not entitle him to claim to the lands he has conquered, for the losses of war can scarcely be compared with the value of any great tract of land anywhere in the world.If all lands in that district were occupied, and there were no wastelands, and if I had not taken the conqueror's lands (which I could not do now that I had been defeated), any other loss I might have done to him would be very difficult. Worth the value of my land; if it were likewise cultivated, and about the same size as his which I have trampled, a year's or two's crop (for four or five years' crop is seldom attained) Suffering damage can usually be counted as the extreme loss that can be caused.As for the stolen money and treasures, etc., which are not natural goods, they have only an imaginary value, which nature has not given them.

They are of no more value by natural standards than the American shell beads are to a European prince, or the European silver coins to an ex-American.Where all land is occupied and there is no waste land, five years' harvest will not be worth the perpetual right to the land he usurped.It is not difficult to understand that, if the fictitious value of money is left aside, the difference between the amount of loss and the value of the land will be greater than the ratio of five to five hundred, although on the other hand, when the land is greater than the amount occupied and used by the inhabitants, any person Where everyone has the right to use the wasteland, half a year's harvest will be greater than the value of the inherited land, but in this case, the conqueror will not want to occupy the land of the conquered so much.Therefore, the injury to each other of men in the state of nature (for all princes and governments are in each other's state of nature) does not entitle the conqueror to dispossess the offspring of the conquered and expel them from the world to which they belong. The power of the land inherited from generation to generation.It is true that conquerors tend to regard themselves as masters, while the conditions of the conquered make it impossible for them to raise any objections to the conqueror's rights.But if this is all, it gives nothing but the grounds of right which mere violence gives to the strong over the weak.For this reason, whoever is the most powerful has the right to possess what he wants.

185．Then, even in a just war, the conqueror cannot Having the right to rule by virtue of his conquests, they were free from any restraint from him.They are also free to create another government of their own free will if their original government dissolves.

186．Often, indeed, the conqueror will, with the power he possesses over men, draw his sword to their breast, and compel them to submit to his terms, and subject them to the government he will make for them.But, the question here is, does he have the right to do so?If they are constrained by their own consent, then it is admitted that the conqueror must obtain their consent if he is to have the right to rule over them.What remains to be discussed, then, is whether commitments not based on rights but through coercion of violence can be considered consent, and how binding these commitments are.To this I can say that they are not binding at all.

For whatever is taken from me by violence, I still retain the right to it, and he is obliged to return it to me.Whoever took my horse should return it to me immediately, and I still have the right to have it back.In the same way, a person who coerces me to make a promise with violence should immediately return it, that is, relieve me of the obligation I had to promise, otherwise, I can restore it myself, that is, decide whether I will fulfill the promise.For the law of nature fixes my duties only on the basis of the maxims it prescribes, and cannot extort anything from me by actions contrary to its maxims, such as by violence, nor can it compel me to undertake obligations by violence.A robber held a pistol to my breast, and demanded that I give him my purse, so I drew the purse out of my pocket and handed it to him with my own hand, in which case, saying that I had given a promise, could not change the case, Nor can it represent the pardon of force and the transfer of rights.

187．From all this we may conclude that the conqueror, by violence, imposes the government of the conquered, because he had no right to war against the conquered, or, though he had a right, they did not take part in the war against him. He would have no power to oblige them.

188．But let us suppose that, since all the members of that society were members of the same nation, they may be presumed to have participated in the unjust war in which they were defeated, and their lives were therefore at the disposal of the conqueror.

189．I do not think that this has anything to do with the minor children of the conquered, since, since the father has no power over the life and liberty of his children, no act of his can possibly renounce that power.Therefore, no matter what happens to the father, the children are still free people.The absolute power of the conqueror extends only to those whom he conquers themselves, and disappears with them; if he governs them as slaves, and makes them absolutely subject to his arbitrary power, he has nothing to do with their children. There is no such jurisdiction.He has no power over them except upon the consent of their sons and daughters, though he may compel them to do or say anything, and so long as they are brought into obedience by force and not by their own choice. have legitimate authority.

190．Everyone is born with double rights: first, the right to personal freedom.Others have no right to dominate, but can only be freely disposed of by himself.Second, the right to inherit his father's property with his brothers.

191．According to the first right, a man is not born to be subject to any government, although he is born in a certain place under a government, but if he does not recognize the legitimate government of the country in which he was born, he must renounces the rights which would belong to him under the laws of that country, and the estates therein bequeathed to him by his ancestors, in so far as this government was originally established by their consent.

192．By the second right, any resident of any country, who is the descendant of, and has a right to inherit from, the conquered, who at that time had a government imposed on them against their free will, retain the right to inherit their ancestral estates, though they do not freely assent to a government whose harsh conditions are imposed by force on the landowners of the country.Since the original conqueror had no right at all to possess the lands of that country, the descendants of those who were forced to submit to a government, or claim it in their right, always have a right to be free from it. , to liberate themselves from the usurpation or tyranny which men impose upon them by force, until their rulers bring them under the political institutions to which they voluntarily consent.

Who doubts that the Christians of Greece (the descendants of the ancient landowners) could rightly rid themselves of their long oppressors, the Turks, if they had the chance?No government has a right to demand the obedience of a people which has not freely given its consent.We can by no means presume that they ever gave such consent, unless they were in a state of complete freedom to choose their own government and rulers, or at least they had a long period of time in which they themselves or their representatives freely expressed their consent. Laws in force, and just property to which they are entitled, so that they are proprietors of what is theirs, and no one is entitled to take any part of what is theirs without their consent.Without these, no matter what kind of government people are under, they are not in the condition of free men, but are only apparent slaves under the violence of war.

193．However, even if in a just war the conqueror has the right to control the lives of the conquered and at the same time the property of the conquered (obviously, he has no such right), then during the continued rule, it will not be so And produce absolute power, for those descendants of the conquered are perfectly free men, if he gives them estates and property, and lets them live in his country, (if no one lives there, the country is useless ) then whatever he bestows on them, they have property in what he bestows.The nature of this property right is that the state has no right to deprive anyone of his property without his consent.

194．By natural right, their persons are free, and all their property, however great, is their own, and can be disposed of only by themselves, and not at the disposal of the conqueror, or it cannot be theirs. property too.

If a conqueror grants to one man a thousand acres of land, which shall perpetuate to him and his posterity, and leases to another a thousand acres of land, for a period of life, at fifty or five hundred pounds a year, whether the former shall have the right to perpetuity? A thousand acres of land at his disposal, and if the above-mentioned rent is paid, will the latter have a right for life?Is the life-long tenant entitled to all the income which exceeds the ground rent, for example, double the ground rent, obtained by his own labor during the tenancy period?Can it be said that a king or conqueror, after granting property to another, may, by virtue of his power as conqueror, take from the former's descendants, or from the latter who pays rent during his life, some or all of his land?In other words, can he take at will the products or money that the two have obtained after operating the above-mentioned land?If it could, then all free and voluntary contracts in the world would be terminated and invalidated-as long as there is enough power, they can be dissolved at any time without thinking of other ways.Thus all grants and promises made by men of power are but fools and deceptions, for if the ruler says: "I give this to you forever and to your children"—this is what can be expressed The most definite and most solemn transfer method—but it can be understood as: I still have the right to take back the item from you at will tomorrow. Is there anything more ridiculous in the world than this?
195．Here, I do not want to discuss whether monarchs can not be bound by the laws of their own country, but I want to make one thing clear: that is, they should obey the laws of God and nature.No man and no power can free them from this eternal law, and as far as promises are concerned, the obligations owed to this eternal law are so great that God Almighty himself cannot but be bound by them, licenses, promises and oaths. It is the constraint that the Almighty God in our eyes must be subject to.No matter how much the flatterer flatters the princes of the world, even if the whole prince and the people who are united with them are just a drop in the bucket and a drop in the bucket compared with the great God, what is it?Almost nothing!
196．The question of conquest may be stated briefly as follows: if the conqueror is just in his conquest, he has a despotic right over all those who actually take part in and agree with him in the war against him, and have a right to use their labour. and property to indemnify itself for losses and expenses.These do not infringe any rights of others.The conqueror has no power over the property of other peoples who do not consent to the war, nor of the descendants of the captives, nor of both, so that he has no legal basis for dominion over them by conquest, nor has he Basis of rights passed on to one's descendants.If he still attempts to encroach on their property, he becomes an aggressor, and places himself in a state of war against them, and he or any of his descendants has no sovereign right, as Singal the Dane or Huba did in For the same reason that England or Spartacus—if he had conquered Italy—had no sovereign rights.

Once God gives courage and opportunity to those who are oppressed by them, they will be free from the oppression they have imposed upon themselves.So whatever rights the kings of Assyria had over Judah by force, God helped Hezekiah get rid of the dominion of that conquering empire. "The LORD was with Hezekiah. Wherever he went, he prospered. He rebelled and refused to serve the king of Assyria." (Old Testament 18 Kings, Chapter [-], Section [-]) Thus, to get rid of a power imposed on oneself by violence rather than justice, even if one has the name of treason, is not a crime before God, but a thing He allows and approves, even if those who rely on violence Promises and contracts made can get in the way.Just pay attention to the story of Ahaz and Hezekiah, whoever it is, knows that the Assyrians subdued Ahaz, deposed him, and made his son Hezekiah king while he was alive, and During this period, Hezekiah remained obedient and paid tribute to the Assyrians by agreement.

(End of this chapter)