government theory

Chapter 53 On the Dissolution of Government (2)
Isn’t this wanton manipulation of candidates and voters, and the redefinition of electoral methods, the very root of undermining government and poisoning public safety?The people, for the security of their property, reserve the right to choose representatives, but they do so only in order that representatives may always be chosen freely, and that, after scrutiny and careful discussion, the elected representatives may determine the national and public welfare, Freedom to make decisions and recommendations.This cannot be done by voting without hearing the debate and without reason to weigh the various sides.To arrange such a royal parliament, to have representatives and legislators of the community who suit their own will, instead of actually representing the interests of the people, is the greatest breach of trust that can be conceived, and the most complete conspiracy against the government. representation.If he therefore employs rewards and punishments, and distorts the facts of the law, and employs artifices to exclude and destroy all who stand in the way of this attempt, and who refuse to agree to sell their state rights, there can be no doubt of what it is.These people exercise their power in such a way that they have completely failed the responsibilities entrusted to them when the society was established. It is not difficult to determine what kind of power they should have in society; People will no longer be trusted by the people.

223．It may be said, that the people are so stupid and ignorant, and so often disaffected, that it would be ruinous to the government to rest its foundation upon the unsteady will and uncertain sentiments of the people; If the people, dissatisfied with the old legislature, could establish a new one, no government would last long.My answer to this statement is: quite the opposite.Some people think that people can easily get rid of old forms of organization, but this is not the case.It is extremely difficult for others to persuade them to correct the defects in the institutions to which they have become accustomed.If there are indeed some shortcomings that arose from the beginning, or some occasional shortcomings caused by corruption over time, even if everyone really sees the opportunity to change, these shortcomings are not easy to change.The people have always refused to give up their old order, and there have been many revolutions in our country, but in the present and in the past we still have the old legislature consisting of the King, the House of Lords and the House of Commons, or after several After fruitless attempts, we still adopted the old system.Although some monarchs were forced to abdicate in the face of our indignation, that indignation did not lead the people to find a new royal family to replace him.

224．It might be said that this assumption sowed the seeds of rebellion.To which I can answer: First, this assumption does not inspire rebellion any more than the other assumptions.For, if the people are in a wretched condition, and feel that they are the victim of arbitrary power, even if you praise their rulers as the sons of Jupiter, and praise them as inviolable, descended from heaven, ordained from heaven, or Puff them up for whoever they are, and the same thing will happen.If the people are generally oppressed and denied justice, if there is an opportunity to shake off this heavy burden, they will seize it.They will hope and seek opportunities, and such opportunities will come in time amidst personnel changes, weaknesses exposed and serendipity.A man must not have read much if he has not seen such cases; and he must have not read much if he cannot give such examples from various governments in the world.

225．Second, my answer is that such revolutions do not occur with a slight failure of government.The people will properly tolerate all faults due to the failure of the ruler, some wrong and unsuitable laws, and human weaknesses, against whom the people will not rebel or complain.But if it becomes apparent to the people that a chain of abuses, malfeasances, and intrigues have a common purpose--the people must feel where they stand, must see what their future is, and they will fight to overthrow the current ruler.It is not surprising that power should be transferred to others in order to secure the purposes for which the government was first established.Without these ends, ancient names and beautiful appearances are by no means better than a state of nature or sheer anarchy, but only worse. All obstacles are serious and aggressive, but the remedy is more serious. Remote and hard to find.

226．Thirdly, I will say that there is a doctrine that the people have a right to re-establish their legislature for their own safety, when the legislators have violated their property and failed their trusts.This doctrine is the best safeguard against insurrection, and the most effective means of preventing it.For rebellion is not against individuals, but against authority based on the constitution and laws of the government; and whoever breaks the laws by force, and justifies his transgressions by force, is a true rebel.For, in men's participation in society and in the formation of civil governments, force is excluded, and laws are used to protect their property, peace, and unity among themselves.At this time, if someone violates the law and uses force again, it is rebellare (rebellion), that is, to put the people in a state of war again-and become a true rebel.People in power (because they can use it as an excuse, they have strong temptations, and they are surrounded by great flattery) are most apt to do this, so the best way to prevent this evil is to give Those who are most easily tempted to err illustrate its danger and injustice.

227．In both cases, that is, whether there has been a change in the legislature, or whether the legislators have acted contrary to the purpose for which they were appointed, any person who commits this crime is guilty of rebellion.For if man abolishes by force the legislature established by society, and the laws enacted by it to its commission, he abolishes the arbitrator, and the means by which men agree to settle all their disputes peacefully. The arbitrator, and the screen fan who prevents a state of war among them.

Whoever abolishes or alters the legislature abolishes the decisive power, which must be exercised by the appointment and consent of the people; thus they destroy what the people have entrusted, and no one else can enshrine. authority, and used a power that was not authorized, so that in effect they created a state of war of force that had no basis for power.By abolishing the legislature established by society (by which the people assent to its decisions and unify them as their own will), they loose this bond and plunge the people back into a state of war.If those who by force abolish the legislature are rebels, then the legislators who are installed to protect and defend the rights and property of the people, when by force violate and try to abolish these rights and property, as above, only Can be considered a rebel.Therefore, since they have put themselves and those who have elected them as protectors and defenders of the peace into a state of war, they are true rebels, and are more guilty.

228．But if those who think that my hypothesis will cause rebellion, they mean: If the people know, if their rights or property are illegally violated, they need not obey, when their property is violated by the magistrate, when When the magistrate fails the trust they have given them, they can resist him with unlawful violence, which will cause civil war or internal strife, and it is therefore considered impermissible for this doctrine to endanger the peace of the world.If they think so, they may, on the same ground, say that honest men cannot rebel against robbers or pirates, because it would cause disorder or bloodshed.If any harm occurs on these occasions, the fault should be attributed not to those who defend their own rights, but to those who violate the rights of their neighbours.

If an innocent honest man must obediently give up everything he has for the sake of peace in the face of a violent person, then I would like people to imagine that if peace in the world consists only of rape and plunder, and the maintenance of peace Just for the benefit of robbers and oppressors, what does peace actually look like in the world?Who would think it a praiseworthy peace between the strong and the weak, when the lamb does not resist the fierce wolf that comes to bite its throat?The cave of Polyphemus furnishes us with a fine example of such a peace and such a government; there Ulysses and his companions were meekly devoured without help.Undoubtedly, Ulysses was a man of great sophistication. At that time, he advocated passive obedience, explained to people the meaning of peace to mankind, and pointed out: At present Polyphemus has power over them. If they resist, they will die. What kind of harm, so I advise them to obey silently.

229．The purpose of government is to serve the welfare of the people.The question is which is the best for mankind: that the people must always be subject to the infinite will of tyranny, or that they can sometimes resist when the rulers abuse their power and destroy their property?

230．No one can think that any man who is troublesome and chaotic, who wishes to change the government from time to time as he pleases, is ready to cause mischief.Of course, such people can incite riots at any time, but this can only lead to their ultimate demise through self-inflicted punishment.For if the evil is general, the malice of the rulers is obvious, or the majority of the people are aware of their intentions, otherwise the people who would rather suffer than resist for their own interests will not rise up .They are not excited by occasional instances of injustice or the oppression of individual unfortunates.

But who is to blame when there is clear evidence that their rights are being violated by some scheme, and the general course and direction of events can only lead them to strongly believe that the rulers have evil intentions?Who could blame them if they had just incurred such suspicions when they could have avoided them?If the people's senses are rational, and they can think about what they see and feel, can it be blamed on them?Is it not the fault of those who brought things to this stage without wanting to be known for their truth?I admit that private pride, ambition, and turmoil have sometimes caused state disturbances, and factions have dealt fatal blows to many states and kingdoms.But is the source of the misfortune the arrogance of the people and their desire to get rid of the authority of their legitimate rulers, or the tyranny of their rulers and their desire to exercise arbitrary power over the people?I want unbiased history to determine whether oppression or disobedience caused chaos in the first place.I believe that whoever, whether ruler or subject, by force violates the rights of the sovereign or the people, and sows the seeds of overthrowing the organization and structure of a legitimate government, then I consider him to be guilty of the greatest crime a man can commit. He is responsible for all the evils that bloodshed, plunder, and mutilation caused a country by the dissolution of the government.Whoever does such a thing should be considered a public enemy of mankind and should be punished accordingly.

231．It is well established that the people can resist by force if subjects or foreigners attempt to encroach upon any man's property by force.But the use of force by magistrates to encroach on another's property has lately been denied; as if he who had the greatest power and convenience had a right to break the laws, when it was because of those laws that they were superior to their fellow-men; On the contrary, they failed not only the greater power given by the law, but also the trust granted by their fellow citizens, so his crime is the greatest.

(End of this chapter)