government theory

Chapter 54 On the Dissolution of Government (3)
232．If force is not based on right, as the lawless man in society does, he puts himself and those he has against in a state of war; is no longer valid, and everyone has the right to defend themselves and resist aggressors.This is so clear that even Barclay, the eminent man of the doctrine of sovereign rights and the sanctity of kings, was obliged to admit that there were occasions when it was lawful for the people to rebel against their kings, and that this happened just as he vainly intended. The chapter that proves that the law of God forbids all kinds of rebellion by the people.From this it follows that, according to his own doctrine, the people may rebel on occasions, and that rebellion against the prince is not rebellion.His original words are as follows:
“Quodsiquisdicat，Ergonepopulustyrannicaecrudelitatiet furorijugulumsemperpraebebit？Ergone multitudocivitatessuas ame，ferro，etflamm vastari，seque，conjuges，etliberosfortunàe ludibrioettyrannilibidiniexponi，inqueomniavitàepericula omnesque miseriaset molestiasregededucipatientur？Numillis，quod omni animantium generi est naturtributum，denegari debet，ut scilicet vim vi repellant，seseque ab injuritueantur？ Huic breviter responsumsit，populouniversononnegaridefensionem，quaejuris naturalis est，neque ultionem quae praeter naturam est adversus regem concedidebere. Quaproptersirexnoninsingularestantumpersonas aliquotprivatumodiumexerceat，sedcorpusetiamreipublicae，cujus ipsecaputest，ietotumpopulum，velinsignemaliquamejuspartem immanietintolerand saeviti seutyrannidedivexet；populo，quidem hoc casu resistendi ac tuendi se ab injuripotestas competit，sed tuendi setantum , noneniminprincipeminvadendi: etrestuendaeinjuriae illalae, nonrecedendidebit reverentipropteracceptaminjuriam. Praesentem denique impetumpropulsandi non vim praeteritam ulciscendi jus habet. Horum enim alterum natur est，ut vitam scilicet corpusque tueamur. Alterumverocontranaturam，utinferiordesuperiori suppliciumsumat. Quoditaquepopulus malum，antequamfactumsit，impedirepotest，nefiat，idpostquamfactumest，inregemauthorem sceleris vindicare non potest：populusigitur hocampliùs quam privatus quispiam habet：Quod huic, velipsis adversariis judicibus, excepto Buchanano, nullumnisiinpatientiaremediumsuperest.
The translation is:

233．But if someone asks: must the people always endure the abuse and cruelty of tyranny?Must they sit idly by while their cities are plundered and reduced to ashes, their wives and children are ravaged and lusted upon by tyrants, their families and others are destroyed by kings, and they suffer poverty and oppression?When all other creatures are faced with being violated, they are naturally allowed to defend themselves and fight against force with force. Is it true that humans alone cannot have this right?My answer is: Self-defense is part of the law of nature, and therefore society cannot be prohibited from defending itself, not even against the sovereign.But it is by no means permissible for the people to retaliate against him, for this is contrary to the law of nature.

Therefore, if the king not only hates some individuals, but even against the whole country as a prince, and oppresses the whole or a large part of the people with unbearable cruelty, then in this case, the people have the right to act. Resist and defend yourself from damage.However, it must be noted that when practicing self-defense, they can only defend themselves and cannot attack the monarch.They can correct the damage done, but they cannot disrespect and disrespect their sovereign because of anger.They can repel current attacks, but they should not retaliate for past atrocities.For it is quite natural to defend our life and body, but it is unnatural for a subordinate to punish a superior.The people can prevent harm before they themselves are harmed, but if the harm has already been done, even if the king is the chief culprit, he should not take revenge on him.This, then, is a right which the mass of the people has and which no individual individual has; even our opponents (with the exception of Buchanan) hold that the individual has no remedy but patience, but the collective of the people, while respecting Insufferable tyranny can be resisted; and if tyranny is restrained, the people should continue to suffer.

Such is the extent to which eminent men of the monarchy allow resistance.

In vain, of course, he imposes two qualifications on resistance.

First, he said, there must be respect in rebellion.

Second, resistance must be done without revenge or punishment; his reasoning is that a subordinate cannot punish a superior.

First, how to resist force and not fight back, or how to fight back respectfully, it takes some skills to make people understand this.If a man defends against an attack with only a shield against a sword, or even with a more respectful gesture without a sword, in order to weaken the confidence and strength of the attacker, he will soon be unable to resist, and he will find that the defense is ineffective. The method can only make yourself suffer more harm.The method of warfare envisioned by Juvenal is ridiculous, and the method of resistance is equally ridiculous: ubito pulsas, egovapulotantum (when you hit someone, I let you hit).And the outcome of the battle will be as he describes it:
Libertas pauperis hc est:

Pulsatus rogat, et pugnis concisus, adorat,

Ut liceat paucis cum dentibus inde reverti.
(This is the freedom of the poor: he begs those who beat him, he begs those who beat him with his fists, and if they let him go away, he can have a few teeth.)
This kind of resistance, which one cannot fight back, is hypocritical, and it always ends up like this.Therefore, those who have the right to resist must also have the right to fight back.Let our author, or anyone else, associate a blow to the head or a blow to the face with as much respect and reverence as he can receive.If a man can reconcile beatings with respect, he may be entitled to a gentle and respectful blow as reward for his toil, if he has the opportunity.

Second, as for his second point, which is the issue that subordinates cannot punish superiors, generally speaking, if A is B’s superior, this is correct.However, since the use of force to resist force can put both sides in a state of war on an equal footing, the original relationship of reverence, respect, and superiority is canceled, so the remaining difference is that the person who resists the lawless aggressor has a higher status than the aggressor. High, because when he is victorious, he can punish the criminal, not only for the violation of the peace, but for all the evils he has caused by the violation of the peace.Therefore, Barclay firmly insisted on his claim in another place, denying the legitimacy of rebelling against the king on any occasion.But on two occasions a king disqualifies himself as king.His original words are:

(End of this chapter)