government theory

Chapter 51 On Tyranny

199．If usurpation is the exercising by one person of the power that another person should have exercised, then tyranny is the exercise of power beyond his authority, which no one has the right to exercise, that is to say, the person does not use the power he has for the purpose of giving to the people in this situation. People under the rule of power seek welfare, but only to achieve the purpose of obtaining his own interests.For whatever just cause, if the ruler is governed not by the law but by his will, if his orders and actions are not to protect the property of the people but to satisfy his own ambition, private anger, greed, and any other To use illegitimate desires as ends is tyranny.

200．If anyone doubts the truth or sound judgment of this statement because it comes from the mouth of a humble subject, I hope that there will be a king's authority to make him accept it. In 1603, James I told the members of Parliament in a speech: "I will always make laws and constitutions for the public and the welfare of the whole country, and not for any special or private purpose of mine. ; I will always regard the wealth and happiness of the country as the greatest happiness and pleasure in the world." Here, we see the difference between a legitimate king and a tyrant, and at the same time, this is the fundamental difference between the two.From this I have determined that the striking and greatest difference between a righteous prince and a usurping tyrant is this: the haughty, ambitious tyrant thinks that his kingdom and people are ordered to satisfy himself desires and unreasonable lusts; but a righteous and upright king, on the contrary, would think himself appointed to seek wealth for his people.

In 1609, there was another passage in his speech to Parliament: "The king binds himself to abide by the fundamental laws of his kingdom with a double oath: on the one hand, it is a tacit understanding, that is, as a king, he must protect his kingdom. On the other hand, he made it clear with his oath when he was crowned. Therefore, in a stable kingdom, every righteous king must abide by the contract he made with the people according to the law, and On this basis, according to the covenant that God made with Noah after the flood, "as long as the land still exists, harvest, cold and heat, winter and summer, day and night will never stop" to organize his government, because, in a stable kingdom A king who rules, if he does not rule according to the law, is no longer a king, but degenerates into a tyrant." Later he said: "Therefore, a king who is neither a tyrant nor an oath-breaker would gladly remain within the laws of their kingdom. Those who would induce them not to do so would be considered treacherous and treacherous, and would betray their own country, rather than loyalty to the king.” Thus, This was the only difference between a king and a tyrant, according to this sensible and sensible king: the king made the law the sphere of his power, and the public welfare the end of his government, while the tyrant merely tried to make everything Subject to his own will and desires.

201．It would be a mistake to think that this defect is peculiar to monarchies, but it is also subject to it in other forms of government, since power is bestowed on certain persons for the better management the people, and the protection of their property, when power is used for other purposes, or is used to impoverish, harass, or subject people to the arbitrary and unjust orders of those in power, regardless of the Whether it be one man or many, the rule is at once tyranny.In history, we have seen that Athens had thirty tyrants, and Syracuse had one tyrant, and the unbearable rule of the Ten Regents of Rome was not necessarily better than tyranny.

202．If the law is violated, and the result of the violation is harmful to others, tyranny begins as soon as the law ceases.A man in authority ceases to be a magistrate if he uses the powers which the law confers on him beyond his own, and uses the power at his disposal to compel his subjects to accept his transgressions.Unauthorized acts can be resisted like those who violate the rights of another with force.As far as officers of the lower ranks are concerned, this is admitted, a man who has the power to arrest me in the street, if he attempts to break into my house to carry out the order, even though I know he has a warrant and has legal authority. Authority can arrest me outside the house, but I can still fight him like a thief.Since this can be done for the lowest-level officials, why can't it be done for the highest officials?I'd be glad someone could explain it to me.

Is it not reasonable to say that because the elder brother owns the greatest part of his father's estate, he has a right to deprive any of his brothers of his share?Or does a rich man who owns a whole district have the right to usurp at will the huts and gardens of his poor neighbours?The legal possession of vast power and wealth, even though these far exceed the possessions of the vast majority of Adam's descendants, not only cannot be used as an excuse, but it cannot be used as a reason to plunder and oppress others not in accordance with their authority. On the contrary, it will only make the situation worse. more serious.For, beyond the bounds of office, it cannot be a power, whether over a high official or a small official, and it is equally inexcusable over a king or a policeman.No matter who it is, as long as he is entrusted by the people, he has already enjoyed a larger share than his compatriots, and because of his education, job and other convenient conditions, he should have a clearer understanding of the balance between right and wrong. He knew that he could not be forgiven, but he still acted like this, which is naturally worse.

203．So, can the people resist the orders of the monarch?Is it possible to revolt at any time and without restraint, so long as a man feels himself injured, and thinks that the sovereign has no right to do so over him?Of course not!If so, all institutions will be disturbed, and what will be left will never be state organization and order, but only anarchic chaos.

204．My point of view on this point is: force can only be used against unjust or illegal force.He who rebels on other occasions, finds himself justly condemned by God as well as by men, and therefore does not cause danger or confusion, as some have often said, for the following reasons:

205．First, in some countries, based on the law, the person of the monarch is sacred, so no matter what he orders or does, his person can be free from accountability, violation, restriction, and sanction or punishment of any law.The people, however, may still resist the wrongdoings of inferior magistrates, or other persons appointed by the prince, unless he wishes to dissolve his government by placing himself in a state of war with the people, and leave the people in a state of nature. A means of personal defense.In this case, who knows how it will end?The neighboring kingdom has shown the world an exceptional example.In other cases the inviolability of the prince's person protects him from all injury, so that, so long as the government exists, he is personally immune from all violence and injury.There is no more sensible system than this, because the damage that the individual prince can do is not repeated many times, and its influence is not very great. Of course, it is impossible for him to overturn the laws or oppress the whole people by his own power. , even if a weak and stupid monarch wants to do this, it is impossible.In the reign of a wayward prince, peculiar faults sometimes occur, but the negative effects of which may be amply derived from the tranquility of society and the stability of government, while the prince is kept out of danger. compensate.It is much safer for the whole that some individuals are sometimes in danger of being victimized than that the head of state should be put in jeopardy casually.

206．Second, this privilege, which belongs only to the king, does not prevent those who, without legal authorization, claiming to use unjust force on his orders, are questioned, opposed, and resisted by the people.To give an example, an official who has a king's warrant to arrest a person, although he has the king's carte blanche, has no right to break into the person's residence to arrest him. Some special places to carry out the king's order, even though the arrest warrant does not expressly stipulate such exceptions, but these are restricted by law, if he violates these regulations, even the king's authorization cannot make him obtain Forgiveness, because the monarch's authority is only granted by the law, but he cannot authorize anyone to do things that violate the law. Naturally, the king's authorization cannot legalize his behavior.Any appointment or order issued by a magistrate beyond his authority is actually as invalid and ineffective as any private appointment or order, except that the magistrate has powers prescribed for certain purposes, while the private No authority at all.Because it is not the appointment but the authority that really enables people to have the right to act. If the law is violated, then there is no authority at all.But, notwithstanding this resistance, the king's person and authority were secured, and there was little danger to either the ruler or the government.

207．Thirdly, even if the person of the head of the government were not so sacred, this doctrine of legal resistance to all unlawful exercise of power would not make him liable to danger or the government into confusion, because, when the victim When a remedy is available, and his damage can be recovered by recourse to the law, there is no reason to resort to force, which is used only when a person is prevented from recourse to the law, and only that Power that makes it impossible to appeal to the law can be considered hostile force, and only this kind of force can put those who use it into a state of war and make resistance legal.A man with a knife on the highway tried to rob me of my purse, perhaps with less than twelvepence in my pocket, and I could legally kill him.

Another example is that I handed over a hundred pounds to another person and asked him to hold it for me when I got out of the car, but when I got in the car again, he refused to return the money to me, and instead asked me to get it back. When he draws his sword and defends with force his ill-gotten money, this man may have done me a hundred or a thousand times more damage than the former intended to do to me (I killed him before he could do me any real damage. ), but I can legally kill the former, but I cannot legally do any harm to the latter, for obvious reasons: because the former uses force to threaten my life, I do not have enough time to resort to the law to protect my rights, And once my life is over, it will be too late to resort to the law.The law has no ability to bring the dead back to life, so this loss is irreparable.To prevent this loss, the law of nature confers on me a just right to destroy him who puts himself at war with me, and seeks to threaten me with destruction.On the second occasion, however, my life was not in jeopardy, and I had time enough to resort to the law, and have a chance of recovering my hundred pounds by this means.

208．Fourthly, Even if the magistrate always insists on his wrongdoing by the power he has acquired, and uses the same power to prevent the people from obtaining the remedies due to the law, even the right of resistance to this manifest tyranny cannot be easily exercised. disrupt the government.For, even if they have a right to self-defense and to recover by force what they have unlawfully taken, if only certain private matters are concerned, this right will not easily lead them to risk a mortal struggle, and if the people at large do not It is no more possible for an oppressed person or few to destabilize a government than to overthrow a solid state by a raging lunatic or a hot-tempered disaffected man, without thinking that it has anything to do with them.Regarding the two, no matter which one, the people will not act casually.

209．But if this unlawful action harms the majority of the people, or, even if only a minority is endangered and oppressed, but in such a case, precedent and consequences would feel menacing to all, who wholeheartedly believe in their laws , so when their property, their rights, their lives, and even their religious beliefs are at stake, I really don't know how to stop them from resisting the illegitimate force that has victimized them.It seems to me that rulers are in trouble, no matter what kind of government they are, if they have governed their government to the point where it is generally feared by the people.This is the most dangerous state they can be in, and it is not to be pitied that they are in this state, because it is actually very easy to avoid.If a ruler really wants to protect the people and the law, for the benefit of his people without making them see and feel it, it is absolutely impossible, just as the father in a family is impossible no matter what he does He will not let his children see how loving and caring he is for them.

210．However, if everyone realizes that what they say is one thing, what they do is another, that tricks are used to evade the law, and the privileges appointed (this is an arbitrary power granted to the monarch to deal with things, it is intended to benefit the people, not harm them) are abused at will; if the people find that high and low officials have been chosen for such ends, and decide whether to promote or dismiss them according to whether they promote or oppose these ends; if the people see that arbitrary Power has been so often tried, that religion has privately endorsed it (though opposed it in public), and is ready to enforce it, and give some support to those who exercise arbitrary power, and when these attempts When they fail to understand, they still maintain their approval and even become more fascinated by them; if a series of actions show that government personnel have this tendency, how can this not convince people that things are going to turn bad?In such circumstances it was impossible for him not to seek a way out if he believed that the captain of the ship he was in would take him and the rest of the ship to Algiers to be enslaved.At this time, he steered forward, even though he was temporarily forced to divert due to various reasons such as headwind, ship leakage, lack of crew and food, but as long as the wind direction, weather and other conditions permitted, he would immediately return to the original route.

(End of this chapter)