An Introduction to Political Philosophy

Hubert Lerch An Introduction to Political Philosophy

Copyright Hubert Lerch 2011 www.HubertLerch.com

All rights reserved.

Without limiting the rights under copyrights

reserved above no part o! this publication may be reproduced stored in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any !orm or by any means "electronic mechanical photocopying recording or otherwise# without the prior written permission o! the copyright owner. $irst published 200% $ormatted using Libre&!!ice 'rinted and bound by createspace.com

()*+,1-. /0%,112%03202% ()*+,10. 112%03202/

$or Lina

Table of Contents
Chapter
're!ace (ntroduction 1 2 1 3 2 0 % / 10 'olitics. what it is and what it is not 4lements o! a 5heory o! 'olitics What is 6ustice7 What is Law +atural and Civil7 What is 'roperty7 What is (nterest7 What is &bedience7 What is )ecurity7 What is Collective *elie!7 What is Happiness7 What is Contract 'rivate and )ocial7 What is &rder7

Topic

Page
1 3 0 12 23 --/ 30 3% 23 00 0/

Appendix: Source Texts

Source
1A 1*

Text
'lato. 5he 8epublic *oo9 (( -3%e,-20e :avid Hume. A 5reatise o! Human +ature. *oo9 (((. &! ;orals. 'art ((. &! 6ustice and (n<ustice. ((. &! the &rigin o! 6ustice and 'roperty Anthony de 6asay. )ocial 6ustice 4=amined With A Little Help $rom Adam )mith Cicero. &n the )tate "(((# +iccolo ;achiavelli. 5he 'rince. Chapter >>?(. How 'rinces )hould Honour 5heir Word 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter >>?(. &! Civil Laws *aron de ;ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. &! Laws in Aeneral Aristotle. 8hetoric. *oo9 (. Chapter ? Aristotle. 5he 'olitics. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?. 5he &wnership o! 'roperty 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter ?. &! 'roperty Hans,Hermann Hoppe. 5he 4thics and 4conomics o! 'rivate 'roperty. ( 5he 'roblem o! )ocial &rder. (( 5he )olution. 'rivate 'roperty and &riginal Appropriation 6ean,*aptiste )ay. 5reatise on 'olitical 4conomy. *oo9 ((( Chapter ?(. &n 'ublic Consumption $rBdBric *astiat. 5hat Which is )een and 5hat Which is +ot )een. (. 5he *ro9en Window Carl ;ar=. 5he Aerman (deology. 'art (. $euerbach. &pposition o! the ;aterialist and (dealist &utloo9. :. 'roletarians and Communism

Page
/102

1C 2A 2* 2C 2: -A -* -C -:

112 122 120 1-0 110 13131 13/ 102

1A 1* 1C

10% 1%2 1%/

Source
1:

Text
$riedrich +ietDsche. Human. All 5oo Human. A *oo9 !or $ree )pirits. ?(((. A Alance at the )tate. 10- 101 'lato. Crito Etienne de la *oBtie. :iscourse on ?oluntary )lavery 6ohn Loc9e. )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter >(>. &! the :issolution o! Aovernment Herbert )pencer. 5he 8ight to (gnore the )tate Lysander )pooner. +o Constitution o! +o Authority 5reason. 5he

Page
20-

3A 3* 3C 3: 34 2A

203 213 21% 23% 200 2%-

5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. &! ;an. 'art (. Chapter >(((. &! the +aturall Condition o! ;an9ind as concerning their $elicity and ;isery Austave de ;olinari. 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity Hans,Hermann Hoppe. Aovernment and the 'rivate 'roduction o! :e!ense (,(((. $rom. 5he ;yth o! +ational :e!ense 5hucydides. 'ericlesF $uneral &ration 6ohann Aottlieb $ichte. Addresses to the Aerman +ation. 1-th Address Aiuseppe ;aDDini. An 4ssay on the :uties o! ;an Addressed to Wor9ingmen Chapter ? , :uties 5owards Gour Country 5heodor HerDl. 5he 6ewish )tate (ntroduction

2* 2C

2%% -02

0A 0* 0C

-13 -21 -11

0:

-12

Source
%A %* %C

Text
Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art >((( Adam $erguson. An 4ssay on the History o! Civil )ociety. )ections (> >. &! +ational $elicity 6eremy *entham. (ntroduction to the 'rinciples o! ;orals and Legislation. Chapter 1. &! the 'rinciple o! Htility 5homas Hobbes. :e Cive. Chapters ( "&! the )tate o! ;en without Civill )ociety# and ? "&! the Causes and $irst *egining o! Civill Aovernment# 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Civil Aovernment. Chapter ?(((. &! the *eginning o! 'olitical )ocieties 6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau. )ocial Contract. 2. 5he )ocial Compact :avid Hume. &! the &riginal Contract Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art ?((( (mmanuel Cant. 5he +atural 'rinciple o! the 'olitical &rder Aeorg Wilhelm $riedrich Hegel 'hilosophy o! 8ight. 5he )tate. II 230 23% ;urray 8othbard. 5he Anatomy o! the )tate

Page
-33 -3% -0-

/A

-02

/*

-/0

/C /: 10 A 10 * 10 C 10 :

101 102 12123 110 11%

Preface
If you wish to converse with me define your terms. (! we ma9e ?oltaireFs motto ours we must !irst !ind answers to the !ollowing three 9ey @uestions. What is political7 What is the ob<ective o! political philosophy7 Where are the limits o! political philosophy7 5o initiate the debate ( de!ine my terms as !ollows. 'olitical philosophy delimitates the public sphere in contrast to the private sphere. 'olitical philosophy discusses the unique !eatures o! the political sphere. 'olitical philosophy shows the implications of choices made whether these choices are desirable or not. 5his boo9 is a reader admittedly an anachronism at a time when brains are conditioned to visually rein!orced images rather than trained to !reely play with ideas. (t demonstrates however that intellectual training can be en<oyable and insight!ul. $or that reason its threshold has been 9ept as low as possible without sacri!icing depth by 9eeping te=ts and e=planations short. Although the source te=ts are ta9en !rom a timespan o! almost three millenniums their content is remar9ably !resh. 5hey show that the intellectual cul,de,sac in which we !ind ourselves today has more to do with the nature o! the modern state than with the diversity o! available ideas. (t goes without saying that in an age o! mediation the study o! source te=ts is more important than ever. 'olitical science has become apologetic J and there!ore shallow and boring. +ow the time seems ripe to revitaliDe political science and ma9e it again what it once was. analytical and critical. As such it should be open in both directions. vertically in the sense that it discusses stages o! political control on a scale !rom Dero "no state# to one hundred "all state#K horiDontally in the sense that it de!ines identi!ies analyDes and compares various political systems. 5he criteria chosen !or this purpose have been in the political debate !rom the beginningK criteria li9e <ustice happiness or order. &thers have been addressed indirectly
1

or simply ta9en !or granted li9e property and contract. 5his boo9 addresses itsel! to undergraduate students and students o! politics o! all ages who still have chaos in themselves to give birth to a dancing star.1 (t does not even try to say something new. However it is strongly anti,collectivist. (t !ights all attempts at dehumaniDation noticeable in the growing loss o! individual sel!,determination and the !reedom to choose. (t also goes against the omnipresent tendency o! deciviliDation characteriDed by an accelerated loss o! 9nowledge in !avor o! Lcheap laughs and syrupy papM 2. Last but not least this boo9 prepares the reader !or a li!e o! individual !reedom a li!e determined by a coordinate system with the three vectors o! property <ustice and contract. ALL sources are !reely available on the (nternet including Libre&!!ice !or word processing and &) Cubuntu. (gnorance is no e=cuse these days ... ( dedicate this boo9 to my daughter Lina. ;ay she learn !rom this boo9 and grow up as a responsible individual and be well prepared !or the coming times. 5o9yo :ecember 2011 Hubert Lerch Associate 'ro!essor 'olitical )cience

I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air that progress made under the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave. H. L. ;enc9en
1 2 $riedrich +ietDsche. 5hus )pa9e Narathustra )teve ;oore. ? !or ?endetta p. 31 2

Politics: What It Is and What It Is Not

The efinition of Politics

'olitics comes !rom OpolisO the Aree9 word !or city state. And as AristotleFs understanding o! man as O zoon politikonO or political animal seems to suggest man can only e=ist as a member o! a collective which necessarily is political i.e. public. 8egardless o! the sel!,understanding o! the Ancients a de!inition o! politics must set the political sphere apart !rom social action where individual pre!erences are respected. )ocial interaction results !rom overlapping personal pre!erences. Where personal pre!erences di!!er social interaction does not ta9e place. Human action "O praxisO is the Aree9 word !or action# results !rom the free interplay o! personal pre!erences. Politics is decision !a"ing on behalf of a collecti#e which is characteriDed by

Po$er 'ower is the ability o! a monopolistic agency o! coercion J government J to impose its decisions on the governed i.e. to change their personal pre!erences by compulsion.

%oundaries We can distinguish between horiDontal and vertical boundaries. Hori&ontal boundaries $our types o! horiDontal boundaries J boundaries between collectives J have evolved in history.

+atural boundaries li9e waterways and mountain ridges ;an,made boundaries li9e city walls and !orti!ications Customary boundaries li9e language customs traditions religion dress codes etc. "'seudo# )cienti!ic boundaries li9e race se= and class
-

'ertical boundaries ?ertical boundaries mar9 the gul! between government and the governed.

istribution and (edistribution :istribution occurs within political collectives and always !rom the productive bottom to the unproductive top. *ecause it cannot be but un<ust i! done involuntarily it always re@uires legitimiDation. (n minimal states symbolism and the threatened use o! violence su!!ice whereas in ma=imal states real or e=pected redistribution are widely used. 4=amples are. 5a9e money !rom the rich and give it to the poor in the name o! e@uality solidarity national glory or what not. 5a= higher incomes more heavily and lower incomes more lightly in the name o! !airness e@ual opportunity or what not. All redistributive schemes would collapse @uic9ly i! we could not read a Obasic truthO into distribution and redistribution. Hardly anybody though accepts redistribution to all. $or instance members o! collective A hardly complain about redistribution within their country J e.g. higher and higher ta=es growing e=penditure on the unproductive elderly J but would rebel i! their government gave the money ta=ed away !rom them to collective * although the monies given to productive elements o! * most li9ely are better used then money spent on unproductive elements in A. :istribution and redistribution rein!orce boundaries because they ma9e the insider special.

Sy!bolis! +ational symbols li9e !lag and anthem party symbols li9e hammer and sic9le crescent cross or colors "e.g. red !or socialists and communists green !or (slamists or environmentalists# carry speci!ic messages to both insider and outsider. 5hey allow the insider to identi!y with the collective and signal the outsider that the cryptic message is not !or him. )ymbols create or rein!orce boundaries without which the spell o! power would be bro9en.

)le!ents of a Theory of Politics

'lato is the !ather o! political science. His integral theory o! politics was born !rom the crisis o! Hellenic society. )o !ar there have been !our such crises. 5he Hellenic Crisis which produced 'lato and Aristotle 5he Crisis o! 8ome and Christianity which produced )t. Augustine 5he 12th Century Crisis which produced *odin 5he Western Crisis which produced Hegel Conse@uently Oa theory o! politics ... must at the same time be a theory o! historyO.

Classical

efinition of Political Science

Aristotle in 5he 'olitics *oo9 (? i de!ines the purpose o! political science as !ollows.

The Theoretical *odel 5he study o! Othe best in the abstractO "'latoFs 8epublic studies the ideal constitution1# The Practical *odel 5he study o! Othe best relatively to circumstancesO "'latoFs 5he Laws# The Historical *odel 5he study o! Ohow it is originally !ormed when !ormed how it may be longest preservedO ">enophon. Constitution o! )partaK Constitution o! Athens# The *ini!alist *odel 5he study o! Othe !orm o! government which is best suited to states in generalO "AristotleFs 5he 'olitics#

(ange of Political Science

(n addition to this classical de!inition o! political science we also !ind

Handboo"s !or 'oliticiansP)tatesmen "e.g. Cicero. &n :uties or ;achiavelli. 5he 'rince#

- 4ric ?oegelin. 5he +ew )cience o! 'olitics. An (ntroduction. p. 1 1 5he Latin word OconstituereO means Lto de!ineM the Aree9 word !or constitution is OpoliteiaO 3

Apologies "e.g. HegelFs de!ense o! the 'russian state in the 'hilosophy o! Law# Historical studies o! the rise and decline o! political collectives "e.g. Augustine. 5he City o! Aod or ;achiavelli. 5he :iscourses# Nor!ati#e studies to preserve and stabiliDe political collectives "e.g. Hobbes. Leviathan or ;ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws# Analytical studies o! speci!ic political phenomena "e.g. de 5oc@ueville. :emocracy in America or von ;ises. )ocialism#

Chapter +: What is ,ustice

A# 'lato. 5he 8epublic *oo9 (( -3%e,-20e *# :avid Hume. A 5reatise o! Human +ature. *oo9 (((. &! ;orals. 'art ((. &! 6ustice and (n<ustice. ((. &! the &rigin o! 6ustice and 'roperty C# Anthony de 6asay. )ocial 6ustice 4=amined With A Little Help $rom Adam )mith (n Aree9 mythology the Horae were three goddesses controlling orderly li!e. 5hey were daughters o! Neus and 5hemis hal!, sisters to the ;oirae. 5here were two generations o! Horae. 5he !irst generation consisted o! 5hallo Au=o and Carpo who were the goddesses o! the seasons "the Aree9s only recogniDed spring summer and autumn#. (n art the !irst generation were usually portrayed as young attractive women surrounded by colour!ul !lowers and abundant vegetation or other symbols o! !ertility. 5hey were worshipped primarily amongst rural !armers throughout Areece. 5he second generation comprised 4unomia :i9e and 4irene who were law and order goddesses that maintained the stability o! society. 5hey were worshipped primarily in the cities o! Athens Argos and &lympia. i"e " !"# , Aree9 !or $ustice# was the goddess o! moral <ustice. )he ruled over human <usticeK her mother "5hemis# ruled over divine <ustice. :i9e was born a mortal and Neus placed her on earth to 9eep man9ind <ust. He @uic9ly learned this was impossible and placed her ne=t to him on &lympus. "@uoted !rom Wi9ipedia#

Augustine tells us the !ollowing anecdote in 5he City o! Aod. Ale=ander the Areat once as9ed a captured pirate. OWhat is your idea in in!esting the sea7O And the pirate answered. O5he same as yours in in!esting the earthQ *ut because ( do it with a tiny cra!t (Fm called a pirate. because you have a mighty navy youFre called an emperor.O "Augustine. 5he City o! Aod *oo9 (? Chapter 1#

And Augustine concludes as !ollows. O8emove <ustice and what are 9ingdoms but gangs o! criminals on a large scale7 What are criminal gangs but petty 9ingdoms7 A gang is a group o! men under the command o! a leader bound by compact o! association in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed convention. (! this villainy wins so many recruits !rom the ran9s o! the demoraliDed that it ac@uires territory establishes a base captures cities and subdues peoples it then openly arrogates to itsel! the title o! 9ingdom which is con!erred on it in the eyes o! the world not by the renouncing o! aggression but by the attainment o! impunity.O "Augustine. 5he City o! Aod *oo9 (? Chapter 1# *ut what i! <ustice and government do not go together what i! we !ind that all government @ua government is and must be un<ust7 5hen AugustineFs statement that governments are Ogangs o! criminals on a large scaleO would hold water. 5he @uestion o! <ustice has been identi!ied as crucial !rom the beginnings o! political science "'lato dedicated his entire 8epublic to this theme !or good reasonQ# and only a!ter the $rench 8evolution little by little the de!inition o! <ustice has changed into its opposite "a good e=ample is distributive L<usticeM#. We will address L<usticeM !rom three di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent eras.

'lato "c. 120, c. -10 *C# !ollower o! )ocrates and !ather o! political science :avid Hume "1011,1002# philosopher economist and historian and prominent !igure o! the )cottish 4nlightenment Anthony de 6asay "1/23,# philosopher and economist

Plato: The (epublic. %oo" II. /01e2/34e

'lato in this section o! 5he 8epublic discusses Othe nature and origin o! <usticeO "-3%e#. Alaucon states the )ophistsF position that Oit is according to nature a good thing to in!lict wrong or in<ury and a bad thing to su!!er itO "-3%e#. *ut Othe disadvantages o! su!!ering it e=ceed the advantages o! in!licting itO "-3%e# which calls !or a OcompactO or convention Oto ma9e laws and mutual agreementsO"-3/a#. O5his is the
%

origin and nature o! <ustice. (t lies between what is most desirable to su!!er wrong without being able to get redressK <ustice lies between these two and is accepted not as being good in itsel! but as having a relative value due to our inability to do wrong O "-3/aPb# According to this view men practice <ustice against their will. *oth <ust and un<ust men i! !ree would in pursuit o! their sel!,interest act un<ustly. (t is the law which restrains them and ma9es them Orespect each otherFs claimsO "-3/c#. He illustrates this point by telling the legend o! Ayges "-3/c,-20bK @uoted here !rom Wi9ipedia#. According to the legend Ayges o! Lydia was a shepherd in the service o! Cing Candaules o! Lydia. A!ter an earth@ua9e a cave was revealed in a mountainside where Ayges was !eeding his !loc9. 4ntering the cave Ayges discovered that it was in !act the tomb o! an enthroned corpse who wore a golden ring which Ayges poc9eted. Ayges then returned to his !ellow shepherds and began !umbling with the ring that he now wore. Ayges discovered that when he turned the collet o! the ring to the inside o! his hand he became invisible to the other shepherds and they began to marvel as i! he had vanished. He turned the ring the other way and he reappearedK a!ter several trials he determined that the ring was indeed very magical and gave him the power to turn invisible at will. Ayges then arranged to be chosen one o! the messengers who reported to the 9ing as to the status o! the !loc9s. Arriving at the palace Ayges used his new power o! invisibility to seduce the @ueen and with her help he murdered the 9ing and became 9ing o! Lydia himsel!. Cing Croesus !amous !or his wealth was AygesF descendant. Alaucon now gives one such ring to the un<ust man and a second to the <ust man. *ecause o! the ring J absence o! sanction J the distinction between <ust and un<ust disappears. OAnd in all this the <ust man would di!!er in no way !rom the un<ust but both would !ollow the same course.O "-20c# (n the ne=t step o! the argument Alaucon produces two ideal types the absolutely un<ust man who Omust operate li9e a s9illed pro!essionalO "-20e# and is Oable to avoid detection in his wrongdoingO "-21a# and the absolutely <ust man who Omust have the worst o! reputations !or
/

wrongdoing even though he has done no wrong so that we can test his <ustice ...O "-21c# (! we compare Owhich o! the two is the happierO "-21d# the )ophists Oconclude ... that a better li!e is provided !or the un<ust man than !or the <ust by both gods and menO "-22c#. Adeimantus AlauconFs brother ne=t emphasiDes that <ustice is valued because it brings good reputation "-2-a#. Aree9 history and legends report o! the !ul!illed lives o! good men and the unhappy lives o! bad men and concludes. O'eople are unanimous in hymning the worth o! sel!,control or <ustice but thin9 they are di!!icult to practise and call !or hard wor9 while sel!,indulgence and in<ustice are easy enough to ac@uire and regarded as disgrace!ul only by convention.O "-21a# As the poet Hesiod said. O4vil can men attain easily and in companies. the road is smooth and her dwelling near. *ut the gods have decreed much sweat be!ore a man reaches virtueO "-21d#. Without a reputation !or <ustice to be <ust brings no advantage while to be un<ust does. "-23bPc# 5he problem o! <ustice thus only sur!aces in the presence o! the gods or the idea o! <ustice. 5hree arguments can be brought up "-23dPe#.

What i! there are no gods7 What i! there are gods but they do not mingle into human a!!airs7 What i! there are gods and they do care7 CanFt we in!luence them by sacri!ice and prayer to !orgive us !or our sins7

$rom all three cases it becomes clear that we would lose Othe pro!its o! wrongdoingO "-22a# i! we were <ust. And i! all men were <ust we would not need a protector. "-20a#. (n conclusion O<ustice is what is good !or someone else the interest o! the stronger party while in<ustice is what is to oneFs own interest and advantage and pursued at the e=pense o! the wea9er party.O "-20c# )ocrates re!utes this position o! the )ophists in the argument that ensues.

a#id Hu!e: A Treatise of Hu!an Nature5 %oo" III: 6f *orals5 Section II: 6f the 6rigin of ,ustice and Property
Hume in this section o! A 5reatise o! Human +ature discusses Othe origin o! <ustice and propertyO. :i!!erent !rom all the other animals man is characteriDed by in!irmity on the one hand and considerable needs on the other. His in!irmities can be compensated by society. O)ociety provides a remedy !or these three inconveniences.

10

*y the con<unction o! !orces our power is augmented. *y the partition o! employments our ability encreases. And by mutual succour we are less e=posFd to !ortune and accidents.

F5is by this additional force ability and security that society becomes advantageous.O "Hume 3-0K punctuation changed and bullets added# (n more modern terminology. society ensures productivity division o! labor and cooperation. 5he !irst and principal necessity !or society lies in the Onatural appetite betwi=t the se=esO "Hume 3-%#. 5he problem o! <ustice arises at this point. O!or the notion o! in<ury or in<ustice implies an immorality or vice committed against some other personO "Hume 310#. )ince every immorality is a de!ect in<ustice Omust be <udgFd o! R !rom the ordinary course o! natureO "Hume 310#. Hume observes that Oour strongest attention is con!inFd to ourselvesK our ne=t is e=tended to our relations and ac@uaintanceK and Ftis only the wea9est which reaches to strangers and indi!!erent persons.O "Hume 310# He reasons that Othis partiality ... must not only have an in!luence on our behaviour and conduct in society but even on our ideas o! vice and virtueO "Hume 310#. (n other words Oany remar9able transgressionO "Hume 310# by interest is <udged immoral which shows Othat our natural uncultivated ideas o! morality instead o! providing a remedy !or the partiality o! our a!!ections do rather con!orm themselves to that partiality and give it an additional !orce and in!luence.O "Hume 310#. &r in simple words. what is good !or us cannot be wrong at least not in nature. In artifice i.e. in society our sel!ish interest would wor9 against us. Hence society developed a remedy in the !orm o! Oa convention enterFd into by all the members o! the society to bestow stability on the possession o! those e=ternal goods and leave every one in the peaceable en<oyment o! what he may ac@uire by his !ortune and industry.O "Hume 311# Hume assumes that all the members o! the society have the same common interest i.e. Oto regulate their conduct by certain rulesO "Hume 311#. 6ustice and in<ustice but also property right and obligation arise !rom this convention. OA manFs property is some ob<ect related to him. 5his relation is not natural but moral and !ounded on <ustice. ... 5he origin o! <ustice e=plains that o! property.O "Hume 312# 5he Oavidity ... o! ac@uiring goods and possessions !or ourselves and our nearest !riends is insatiable perpetual universal and directly destructive o! societyO "Hume 31-# and Hume does not see a Opassion ... capable o! controlling the interested a!!ection but the very a!!ection itsel! by an
11

alteration o! its directionO "Hume 311#. Hume identi!ies two principal parts in human nature Owhich are re@uisite in all its actions the a!!ections and understandingO "Hume 311#. 5hey cooperate to produce the social te=ture beyond the !ictitious state o! nature OdescribFd as !ull o! war violence and in<usticeO "Hume 313 in re!erence to Hobbes#. )ociety depends on the interest to gain and on the insight that this interest reaches its limits when it inter!eres with the interest o! another man. 6ustice is there!ore born in human conventions which serve as a remedy to some inconveniences li9e sel!ishness and limited generosity in respect to scarce but easily e=changeable resources. O4ncrease to a su!!icient degree the benevolence o! men or the bounty o! nature and you render <ustice uselessO "Hume 312#. And !urther. O5he sel!ishness o! men is animated by the !ew possessions we have in proportion to our wantsK and Ftis to restrain this sel!ishness that men have been obligFd to separate themselves !rom the community and to distinguish betwi=t their own goods and those o! others.O "Hume 312# 6ustice and in<ustice would there!ore be un9nown among man9ind in the !ollowing three cases.

Cordial a!!ection which removes the distinction between mine and thine A!!luence o! ob<ects so that no con!lict over limited goods arises Humans remove the boundary between others and themselves

)ince these cases are illusory it is clear O that 'tis only from the selfishness and confin'd generosity of men, along with the scanty provision nature has made for his wants, that $ustice derives its origin .O "Hume 310# (t can also be deduced that

Opublic interest ... is not our !irst and original motive !or the observation o! the rules o! <usticeO "Hume 310# Othe sense o! <ustice is not !ounded on reason or on the discovery o! certain conne=ions and relations o! ideas which are eternal immutable and universally obligatoryO "Hume 310# the Oimpressions, which give rise to this sense of $ustice, are not natural to the mind of man, but arise from artifice and human conventions.O "Hume 31%#

+o civiliDation without <ustice without its concomitants property and contract. OWithout <ustice society must immediately dissolve and every one must !all into that savage and solitary condition which is in!initely
12

worse than the worst situation that can possibly be supposFd in society.O "Hume 31/# :isrespect !or <ustice mar9s the road to slavery and barbarism. Hume in the tradition o! the 4nlightenment assigns a central role to education. OAs public9 praise and blame encrease our esteem !or <usticeK so private education and instruction contribute to the same e!!ect.O "Hume 331# (n the same vein our reputation consolidates society.

Anthony de ,asay: Social ,ustice )xa!ined. With A Little Help 7ro! Ada! S!ith
Conventionally we distinguish between

co!!utati#e "!rom Latin commutare meaning to e=change# legal "!rom Latin legalis meaning law!ul# and distributi#e 8ustice "!rom Latin distribuere meaning to distribute# "see the !ollowing @uotation !rom Wi9ipedia.# 6ustice between two individuals is 9nown as individual particular or commutative <ustice J OcommutativeO because it is particularly concerned with contracts and e=change. )ome philosophers regard this as the only 9ind o! <ustice in the strictest interpretation o! the word O<ustice O but two more !orms are commonly included because an individual has claims on the society to which he belongs and it has claims upon him. 6ustice in which an individual renders its due to the society he belongs to is 9nown as legal <ustice. 5his may include payment o! ta=es or military service when the society is in danger. 6ustice in which a society renders its individual members their due is 9nown as distributive <ustice such as protection !rom invasion or a legal system whereby a member can pursue a claim against another.

:e 6asayFs main ob<ective in )ocial 6ustice 4=amined and in more detail in 6ustice and (ts )urroundings is to prove that distributive <ustice is not what it claims to be but its opposite. Any !orm o! distributive <ustice should there!ore be classi!ied as in<ustice or not discussed as political theory any longer. O(t is one o! the most pervasive !allacies o! contemporary political theory that one way or another normatively i! not positively every un!illed need every blow o! ill luc9 every disparity
1-

o! endowments every case o! conspicuous success or !ailure and every curtailment o! liberties is a @uestion o! <ustice.O "Anthony de 6asay. 6ustice and its )urroundings p. viii# *e!ore we can turn to the @uestion o! <ustice we must identi!y the principles which constitute it. With de 6asay we !ind the !ollowing three. 3

(esponsibility 9or causality: O5he principle o! responsibility results !rom the relation between a state o! a!!airs and its putative cause.O "de 6asay 11%# O(t may be worth ma9ing it e=plicit that i! an act o! +ature say a calamitous !lood is held to be an in<ustice to the !lood victims then the actor committing the in<ustice cannot be made responsible !or repairing it. (! the in<ustice is to be repaired <ust the same the repair must be e=acted !rom those who had the prudence or blind luc9 not to build their homes on the !lood, plainK but ma9ing them repair the in<ustice they have not committed is an in<ustice suggesting that a concept o! <ustice that demands this is incoherent a product o! disorderly minds. (! the non,victims are to be made to help the victims o! the !lood some other ground than <ustice e.g. some notion o! an interpersonal sum o! wel!are must be invo9ed to de!end the in<ustice involved.O "de 6asay 11/#

Presu!ption 9or logical exclusion: A statement and its negation constitute each other in the sense that i! one is true the other must be !alse. 4ither one has property titles or notK either one is innocent or guilty. (! there is proo! !or the one a presumption is established !or the other. )ince we cannot 9now what is <ust be!ore evidence is given the asymmetrical nature o! presumptions protects us against errors.

Con#ention 9or stable social patterns: O5his principle is simply that where social conventions guide behavior @uestions o! <ustice should be resolved according to such guidance.O "de 6asay 132# )uch conventions are !or instance O!irst come !irst servedO or Opriority !or the aged and in!irmO. O5hese conventions are largely sel!,e=planatory. 5hey are ancient ... and also cross,culturally stable.O "de 6asay 13-#

Anthony de 6asay. 6ustice and its )urroundings. p. 11% !! 11

(n the !inal step o! the argument de 6asay points out that any !orm o! distributive <ustice must depart !rom the concept o! commutative <ustice. )ince distributive <ustice in contrast to commutative <ustice can only be compulsory in nature and thus violate the very !oundation o! <ustice property or the right to discrimination it must be termed un<ust. 5he contradiction between Lprotecting a distribution with one hand and redistributing with the otherM cannot be e=plained away it can only go unmentioned.

5hemes to e=plore.

5he nature o! <ustice 6ustness and <ustice 5he Wel!are )tate

13

Chapter ;: What is La$. Natural and Ci#il

A# Cicero. &n the )tate "(((# *# +iccolo ;achiavelli. 5he 'rince. Chapter >>?(. How 'rinces )hould Honour 5heir Word C# 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter >>?(. &! Civil Laws :# *aron de ;ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. &! Laws in Aeneral

5here is no state without positive right because positive right is man, made law. *ut the statement that right is right because states proclaimed it is obviously tautological. (n addition it opens the door to <usti!y all acts done by and in the name o! the state. Conveniently arguments against crime o! all sorts !rom e=propriation to genocide become nil and void under this condition. )ince hardly anybody supports such a radical but in its own way conse@uential position we must loo9 !or something behind rights. 5wo conventional answers have been given. divine right natural right "in contrast to both man,made law and supernatural law or divine revelation# While divine right had been @uestioned and destroyed by )ocratic philosophy natural right had !ound many supporters up until the 12th century although we !ind repeated attempts in the 13th century to rede!ine the classical law theory and give it a new content "hence the distinction between classical and modern natural law theories#. *ecause the @uestion o! legality implies @uestions o! legitimacy we will address LlawM !rom !our di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent eras and close with an e=curse.

;arcus 5ullius Cicero "102,1- *C# orator statesman political theorist and )toic philosopher o! the late 8oman republic +iccolo ;achiavelli "112/,1320# $lorentine political philosopher musician poet and romantic comedic playwright 5homas Hobbes "13%%,120/# philosopher and together with 6ustus Lipsius "1310,1202# the !ather o! the modern )tate Charles,Louis de )econdat *aron de la *rSde et de ;ontes@uieu "12%/,1033# $rench political thin9er and prominent !igure o! the $rench 4nlightenment
12

4=curse. 'olycentric or +on,;onopolistic versus ;onocentric Law

Cicero: 6n the State 9III:

Cicero li9e )eneca and ;arcus Aurelius a!ter him stood in the tradition o! the Hellenistic )toa. 5he )toa "meaning in Aree9 OporchO a!ter the place where its philosophers taught# was !ounded by Neno o! Citium "--- *C J 221 *C#. (n!luenced by cynic teaching )toicism emphasiDes a simple virtuous li!e o! moderation and !rugality in accord with +ature personal happiness through the control o! passions and the unity o! all in a universal city. 5he classical !ormulation o! +atural Law goes bac9 to Cicero. (n &n the )tate "(((# we !ind the sentence. O5rue Law is in 9eeping with the dictates both o! reason and o! nature. (t applies universally to everyone. (t is unchanging and eternal.O And again. O5here will not be one law in 8ome and another in Athens. 5here will not be di!!erent laws now and in the !uture. (nstead there will be one single everlasting immutable law which applies to all nations and all times. 5he ma9er and umpire and proposer o! this law will be Aod the single master and ruler o! us all.O +atural Law claims to be antecedent and superior to any political order. (n the )ocratic tradition +ature "in Aree9. physis# is to reality what idea is to !act. (n other words +ature is not the empirical world but the systematic or logical order o! statements thereo!.

Niccolo *achia#elli: The Prince5 Chapter <'III5 Concerning The Way In Which Princes Should =eep 7aith
(n Chapter >?((( o! 5he 'rince ;achiavelli e=plains that !or a prince Othere are two ways o! !ighting. by law or by !orce.O "+iccolo ;achiavelli 5he 'rince. Chapter >?(((. 'enguin. London 1///. p. 32# And he !urther elaborates. O5he !irst way is natural to men and the second to beasts. *ut as the !irst way o!ten proves inade@uate one must needs have recourse to the second.O "ibid# A success!ul prince understands Ohow to ma9e a nice use o! the beast and the manO "ibid#. +ot !ollowing up on the human sphere o! law ;achiavelli plunges into the animal sphere o! !orce. &ne more parameter goes into the e@uation. Omen are wretched creaturesO "ibid#. 'olitical goals can
10

there!ore not be achieved by honesty and appeal to reason but by means o! ruse and intimidation. O)o as a prince is !orced to 9now how to act li9e a beast he must learn !rom the !o= and the lionK because the lion is de!enceless against traps and a !o= is de!enceless against wolves.O "ibid# 5he two complement each other. the !o=Fs cunning evens out the lionFs stupidity as the lionFs impressive strength ma9es up !or the !o=Fs wea9ness. ;achiavelli emphasiDes on several occasions that his sympathies lie with the !o=. His admiration culminates in the statement. O&ne must 9now how to colour oneFs actions and to be a great liar and deceiver.O "ibid. p. 30# Had Cicero still insisted on virtues li9e honesty <ustice respect ;achiavelli is satis!ied with appearances. )ays he. OA prince ... need not necessarily have all the good @ualities ( mentioned above but he should certainly appear "italics added# to have them.O "ibid.# &! course a prince needs to 9now the di!!erence between good and evil and ;achiavelli is @uite aware o! the implication. 5he prince Oshould not deviate !rom what is good i! that is possible but he should 9now how to do evil i! that is necessary.O "ibid.# 'olitics we can de!ine accordingly is the sphere between the possible and the necessary where the prince weighing the various choices decides on what is best !or him to stay in power. (n order to appear compassionate !aith!ul to his words 9ind guileless devout the prince clearly must have a 9nowledge o! what these moral @ualities are. His decision to deviate !rom them is determined by necessity rather than evil intention. Aovernment ;achiavelli 9nows always re@uires the support o! the many. O5he common people are always impressed by appearances and results.O "ibid. p. 3%# +ecessity is merely another name !or popular support. +o government can e=ist !or long without acceptance. ;achiavelli was maybe the !irst to discover this !undamental truth that all political systems are and must be OdemocraticO irrespective o! the name they choose !or themselves.

(t is important to see that ;achiavelli was not in any way e=ceptional in his reasoning. Late (talian 8enaissance thin9ers introduced the new concept o! 8eason o! )tate "%agion di &tato# to dis@uali!y the use o! brute !orce as a means to preserve power. Aiovanni *oteroFs "c. 1311, 1210# 'ella %agion di &tato "5he 8eason o! )tate# "13%/# and
1%

Apollinare CalderiniFs 'iscorsi sopra la %agione di &tato di (iovanni )otero "13/0# echo the Counter,8e!ormation and gave the absolutist state its theoretical !oundation. )cipione Ammirato "13-1,1201# summariDed the new concept with the !ollowing words. O(! a state is nothing more than dominion or rule or reign or empire or any other name one might li9e to give itK reason o! state will be nothing more than reason o! dominion o! rule o! empire or reign or o! anything else.O A second concept thrown into the debate in the 12th century is the )tate o! +ature. (nteresting is the !act that this new concept became !ashionable right at the time when the older +atural Law tradition began to erode "itFs last de!ender being 8ichard Hoo9er 1331,1200# and the )cienti!ic 8evolution was about to begin.

Tho!as Hobbes: Le#iathan5 Chapter <<'I5 6f Ci#il La$s

Hobbes was searching !or an answer to the !irst gnostic representation in history the 'uritan promise to bring Heaven to 4arth. ;ore serious J and much more bloody J attempts were made !rom the late 1%th century but the 'uritans can claim credit to the !act that they pioneered in the re,diviniDation o! representation. HobbesF answer was the )tate erected on the two pillars o! State of Nature and Social Contract. 5he )tate o! +ature Hobbes describes as !ollows. OWhatsoever there!ore is conse@uent to a time o! Warre where every man is 4nemy to every manK the same is conse@uent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall !urnish them withall. (n such condition there is no place !or (ndustryK because the !ruit thereo! is uncertain. and conse@uently no Culture o! the earthK no +avigation no use o! the commodities that may be imported by )eaK no commodious *uildingK no (nstruments o! moving and removing such things as re@uire much !orceK no Cnowledge o! the !ace o! the 4arthK no account o! 5imeK no ArtsK no LettersK no )ocietyK and which is worst o! all continuall !eare and danger o! violent deathK And the li!e o! man solitary poore nasty brutish and short.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >(((# And at the end o! the same chapter he turns the classical <usti!ication o! civil law on its head. O5o this warre o! every man against every man this also is conse@uentK that nothing can be Hn<ust. 5he notions o! 8ight and Wrong 6ustice and (n<ustice have there no place. Where there is no common 'ower there is no Law. where no Law no (n<ustice.O "ibid.# &nce the state negatively de!ined Hobbes needs to legitimiDe his
1/

invention. 5his he does by usurping the concept o! contract which he completely robs o! its meaning "Hobbes !or instance ignores that contracts are voluntary mutually bene!icial limited and binding#. 5o accomplish this he !irst applies the tric9 o! ma9ing peace and acceptance o! an in!ringement on oneFs !reedom the two principal laws o! nature.

5he !irst and !undamental Law o! +ature is *to seek +eace, and follow itO "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >(?# 5he second Law o! +ature derived !rom the !irst is that a man Obe contented with so much liberty against other men, as he would allow other men against himselfeO "ibid.#

And second he ma9es the !ree beasts voluntarily give up their !reedom to a sovereign in return !or peace. O*ut as men !or the atteyning o! peace and conservation o! themselves thereby have made an Arti!icial ;an which we call a Common,wealthK so also have they made Arti!iciall Chains called ,ivill -awes.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >>(# Hobbes also needs to distinguish between 8ight o! +ature ".us /aturale# and Law o! +ature " -ex /aturalis#. 5he !ormer he de!ines as Othe Liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himsel!e !or the preservation o! his own +atureO and the latter as a Ogeneral 8ule !ound out by 8eason by which a man is !orbidden to do that which is destructive o! his li!eO. (n conclusion he says. O8(AH5 consisteth in liberty to do or to !orbeareK Whereas LAW determineth and bindeth to one o! them. so that Law and 8ight di!!er as much as &bligation and Liberty.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >(?# HobbesF distinction between law and right is an interesting borrowing !rom classical physics. right e@uals actio while law e@uals reactio. An ob<ect travels until its motion is arrested by another ob<ect. &nly in a 8obinson Crusoe world there e=ists right li9e in space populated by one single ob<ect this ob<ect would travel !reely. Hobbes has hereby eliminated right as a special and unrealistic case o! law. (n the ne=t step o! his argument he disembowels +atural Law by separating it !rom the political sphere where now only positive law J orders issued by the sovereign J e=ists. O /atural are those which have been Lawes !rom all 4ternityK and are called not onely /aturall but also 0orall LawesK ... 'ositive are those which have not been !rom 4ternityK but have been made Lawes by the Will o! those that have had the )overaign 'ower over othersK and are either written or made 9nown to
20

men by some other argument o! the Will o! their Legislator.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >>?(# 5hen Hobbes ma9es the unnecessary distinction between distributive and penal positive law. OAgain o! 'ositive Lawes some are 1umane some 'ivine. And o! Humane positive lawes some are 'istributive some +enal. 'istributive are those that determine the 8ights o! the )ub<ects declaring to every man what it is by which he ac@uireth and holdeth a propriety in lands or goods and a right or liberty o! action. and these spea9 to all the )ub<ects. +enal are those which declare what 'enalty shall be in!licted on those that violate the LawK and spea9 to the ;inisters and &!!icers ordained !or e=ecution.O "ibid.# :istributive and penal positive law are as this @uotation shows merely the two sides o! the same coin. $inally all human e=istence is derived !rom Leviathan the *iblical monster who stands as a *aconian symbol !or the death o! Aristotelianism and )cholasticism and who only Aod can destroy at the end o! time.

Charles de *ontes>uieu: The Spirit of La$s5 %oo" I5 6f La$s in ?eneral

5he )pirit o! Laws opens with the !ollowing statement. OLaws in their most general signi!ication are the necessary relations arising !rom the nature o! things.O ";ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. 1.# $rom this !ollows that man has his laws li9e Aod his laws or the material world its laws. 5he absence o! laws governing man would be Oblind !atalityO "ibid#. 5o understand the Laws o! +ature man must be studied Obe!ore the establishment o! societyO "ibid.# or in other words in a )tate o! +ature. Here ;ontes@uieu identi!ies four La$s of Nature ";ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. 2.#.

Peace. contrary to Hobbes ;ontes@uieu assumes that wea9ness and in!eriority o! man in a )tate o! +ature would prevent him !rom attac9ing others. 5his world would be a world at peace. Wants. man is hungry man needs shelter. Human action begins with needs. Association. !ear se= and attraction ma9es man a social being. Sociability. man processes 9nowledge and it is this advantage
21

that creates the desire in man to live in society. OAs soon as man enters into a state o! society he loses the sense o! his wea9nessK e@uality ceases and then commences the state o! war.O ";ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (.-.# 5his war occurs on two levels. between di!!erent nations and between di!!erent individuals. War between di!!erent nations is regulated by the Olaw o! nationsO while war between governors and the governed is regulated by Opolitic lawO and the relation between the governed by Ocivil lawO.

La$ of Nations. (t e=ists to minimiDe the damage done by war without inter!ering with the interests o! the nations concerned. Politic La$. Hnder the premise that Ono society can subsist without a !orm o! governmentO "ibid.# the laws o! a state must con!orm with the speci!ic history o! a people whatever the !orm o! government. Ci#il La$

)xcurse: Polycentric. *onocentric La$

or

Non2*onopolistic.

#ersus

5he debate on right and law neglects alternatives to monocentric law and thus !alls into the trap o! 8oman statism. Little wonder that even in Anglo,)a=on countries with their long tradition o! customary law the e=ploration o! alternatives is essentially the a!!air o! some academics many with a bac9ground in economics. 5he interest in economics compensates !or the remar9able thin coverage o! this central aspect o! human action in the conventional debate o! politics. Although private property was usually ta9en !or granted !rom the days o! Aristotle sometimes even particularly emphasiDed li9e by Cicero and Loc9e political theorists spea9 o! needs rather than demand o! commonwealth rather than wealth and habitually con!ound society and state. ;onocentric law developed out o! polycentric law. Hal! a doDen di!!erent law systems openly competed with each other a!ter the legal revolution between 1030 and 1200 "5om W. *ell. 'olycentric Law Humane )tudies 8eview ?ol. 0 +umber 1 Winter 1//1P/2#.

Canon Law 8oman Law in the !orm o! 6ustinian codes "a compilation o! legal decisions in ancient 8ome#
22

Hrban Law with the rise o! the cities ;anorial law in respect to the relations between peasants and lords $eudal law regulating relations between vassals and lords 5he law merchant with the increase o! trade and commerce

8oyal law in many states advanced rapidly on the heels o! military con@uest. (n the case o! 4ngland two !actors operated in combination "ibid.#.

5he constant threat o! !oreign invasion "particularly by the :anes# 5he in!luence o! Christianity which imbued the throne with godly @uality and gave the 9ing a divine mandate

8oyal law promised two advantages over competitive <urisdictions "ibid.#.

5a=ation allowed the state to subsidiDe its legal services "under Henry (( o! 4ngland 1131,11%/ itinerant <ustices also served as ta= collectors# 5he state wielded greater coercive power "in contrast the operation o! competing legal systems depended on reciprocity and trust# A predominant concern !or individual rights and private property Laws en!orced by victims bac9ed by reciprocal agreements )tandard ad<udicative procedures established to avoid violence &!!enses treated as torts punishable by economic restitution )trong incentives !or the guilty to yield to prescribed punishment due to the threat o! social ostracism Legal change via an evolutionary process o! developing customs and norms

Customary legal system has si= basic !eatures "ibid.#.

'rior to royal law Anglo,)a=on law 9new no crime against the state. Crime was always seen as damage to individuals or their property. Conse@uently the compensation o! the victim had highest priority. 5oday the victim o! a crime is punished several times. !irst because he su!!ers damageK secondly because as ta=payer he pays !or policing prosecution and punishmentK and thirdly he is denied any compensation but moral satis!action "which does not cost the state any money#. (mprisonment and capital punishment prevent the victim !rom
2-

ever getting a compensation. 5he royal law allowed the 9ing to charge !ines to e=pand his control over the people and to usurp security. Austave de ;olinari in 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity had already remar9ed. under the stateFs monopoly o! law O6ustice becomes slow and costly the police ve=atious individual liberty is no longer respected "and# the price o! security is abusively in!lated and ine@uitably apportionedO "Austave de ;olinari 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity#. 5he polycentric legal systems share the !ollowing !eatures "*ell 'olycentric Law# which correspond with the above,mentioned !eatures o! the customary law system.

'rotection o! individual rights and private property ?oluntary agreements !or the provision o! security +on,violent dispute resolution 8estitution Compliance en!orced primarily through the threat o! ostracism 4volution o! legal norms through entrepreneurial activity

5hemes to e=plore.

6ustice and Law versus 6ustice or Law 5he )tate o! +ature and the +ature o! the )tate )ocial Contract theories Comparison o! law theories

21

Chapter /: What is Property

A# Aristotle. 8hetoric. *oo9 (. Chapter ? *# Aristotle. 5he 'olitics. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?. 5he &wnership o! 'roperty C# 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter ?. &! 'roperty :# Hans,Hermann Hoppe. 5he 4thics and 4conomics o! 'rivate 'roperty. ( 5he 'roblem o! )ocial &rder. (( 5he )olution. 'rivate 'roperty and &riginal Appropriation

O5he !irst man who having enclosed a piece o! land thought o! saying F5his is mineF and !ound people simple enough to believe him was the true !ounder o! civil society. How many crimes wars murdersK how much misery and horror the human race would have been spared i! someone had pulled up the sta9es and !illed in the ditch and cried out to his !ellow men. F*eware o! listening to this impostor. Gou are lost i! you !orget that the !ruits o! the earth belong to everyone and that the earth itsel! belongs to no oneQFO "6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau. A :iscourse on (ne@uality. 'art ((# :espite this childish remar9 the Lnoble advocate o! innocence "in his private li!e homo perversissimus#M2 and Ldog o! :iogenes gone madM0 at least saw the ne=us between private property and civiliDation which !or his contemporaries was sel!,evident. 5he enemies o! private property are as numerous and old as its de!enders. 4ven in the absence o! a mar9et the enemies alone have to e=plain economic 9ey concepts such as division o! labor good price productivity their psychological concomitants li9e initiative ris9,ta9ing or responsibility and socio,political phenomena li9e an omnipotent state its obscure bureaucracy and a supposedly enlightened centraliDed planning agency. (! we in an e=periment o! thought ta9e private property out o! the e@uation the mystery o! private property catches our attention immediately. 5he di!!erence between a propertyless society and universal private property "Carl ;ar=. 'rivate 'roperty and Communism# or collectivePpublic property can be declared irrelevant because in both cases in contrast to private property decision,ma9ing
2 0 )te!an Nweig. ;arie Antoinette $ran9!urt 2002 p. 1-% ?oltaire 23

is delegated to collectives which di!!erent !rom corporations serve a political rather than economical purpose. 5o begin with any !orm o! collective or public property must and can only be a misnomer since property "!rom Latin proprius T individual belonging e=clusively to one# is synonymous with e=clusiveness which we e=press in 4nglish by possessive pronouns. O;yO boo9 characteriDes a boo9 to which ( and only ( have special rights. 4ven in the plural !orm J OourO boo9 J the individual use is e=clusive though limited in time. Conse@uently a statement li9e Othe !ruits o! the earth belong to us all and the earth itsel! to nobodyO "8ousseau ibid.# is as nonsensical as the statement that our bodies belong to us in the sense that they would be shared. +ot even the Communists went that !ar although some o! them suggested <ust this !or the !emale body. (n both instances we cannot identi!y a superior agency that would promulgate rights and titles according to which our claims would be <usti!iable. What then is the mystery o! private property in the absence o! such an agency7 5he answer in a world o! scarcity is convenience. )ociety regulates the use o! scarce resources by convention such as O!irst come !irst serveO or Opriority !or the elderlyO etc. 5hey are nurtured by reciprocity. O+e=t time ( will hurry and be !irstO or O( mysel! will bene!it when ( am oldO etc. 5he use value o! scarce items however has its limitations. What !or instance happens when a scarce item disappears by its use7 ( cannot eat the ca9e and have it too. ( cannot drive a car and share it with another driver. 5he second man gets less J i! anything at all J o! what the !irst man en<oys. Without private property a con!lict J most li9ely a violent con!lict J arises immediately over the scarce item. (! it is only Ohim or meO the con!lict must be resolved before it invo9es violence "the rule o! the stronger#. 5his e=actly does property. We will address the topic o! LpropertyM !rom three di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent eras.

Aristotle "-%1,-22 *C# student o! 'lato and !ounder o! the Lyceum 6ohn Loc9e "12-2,1001# lawyer and philosopher Hans,Hermann Hoppe "1/1/,# economist and philosopher

22

Aristotle: (hetoric5 %oo" I5 Chapter ' and The Politics5 %oo" II5 Chapter '5 The 6$nership of Property
5he 'olitics is AristotleFs riposte to 'latoFs 5he 8epublic as much as 8hetoric is a retort to 'latoFs disrespect o! this art. &ne crucial aspect o! 5he 8epublic lies in its negative presentation o! property "!or the guardians who are not treated as one o! the !ive economic classes which are 1# agricultural or industrial producersK 2# merchantsK -# sailors and shipownersK 1# retail tradersK 3# wage earners or manual laborers#. +ot only that Othe pursuit o! unlimited material possessionsO "'lato. 5he 8epublic -0- d# Owill lead to warO "ibid. -0- e# the guardians share a number o! characteristics.

Othey shall have no private property beyond the barest essentialsO "ibid. 112 d# Onone o! them shall possess a dwelling,house or storehouse to which all have not the right o! entryO "ibid. 112 d# O5hey shall eat together in messes and live together li9e soldiers in campO "ibid. 112 e# Oall the women should be common to all the menO "ibid. 130 d# Ochildren should be held in common and no parent should 9now its child or child its parentO "ibid. 130 d# Owe must arrange !or marriageO "ibid. 13% e# Othe children o! the in!erior Auardians and any de!ective o!!spring o! the others will be @uietly and secretly disposed o!O "ibid. 120 c#

4ven though 5he 8epublic smac9s o! the 20th c. "national or international# socialist paradise with its special breed o! sel!,appointed rulers special housing districts and euthanasia it should be said in 'latoFs de!ense that he constructed dichotomies between democratic Athens "!arther !rom aristocracy# and timocratic )parta "nearer to aristocracy# and between property owners with interest and propertyless rulers with no other interest than wisdom "which prevents aristocracy !rom slipping away to oligarchy#. 'lato rebuts the Odebating techni@ueO o! the )ophists because there is a Odi!!erence between scoring points in debate and arguing seriouslyO "ibid. 131 a#. 5hat alone ma9es AristotleFs 8hetoric a heretical enterprise. (n this wor9 Aristotle when listing the elements o! happiness emphasiDes the importance o! wealth and de!ines. O5he elements o! wealth are abundance o! money and land the possession
20

o! estates outstanding !or number e=tent and beauty and also that o! !urniture slaves and cattle o! outstanding numbers and @uality all these being owned secure liberal and use!ul "Aristotle. 8hetoric. *oo9 (. Chapter ?#. +ote the di!!erence between liberality "consumption# and utility "e=change#. 5he owner can determine what to do with his property J Ohas the use o! the goodsO "ibid.# J and can !reely dispose o! his property J Oownership is the right o! alienationO "ibid.#. *y ma9ing re!erence to 'latoFs 5he 8epublic Aristotle in 5he 'olitics more directly addresses Othe @uestion o! propertyO "Aristotle. 5he 'olitics. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?#. Aristotle separates the issue o! property !rom the legislation o! the !amily and as9s whether property should Obe held in common or notO "ibid.#. (n his discussion Aristotle notices the Odi!!iculties inherent in the common ownership o! propertyO "ibid.# and anticipates Adam )mith when he observes. Owith every man busy with his own there will be increased e!!ort all roundO "ibid.#. 4ventually he settles with the solution that Oit is better !or property to remain in private handsK but we should ma9e the use o! it communalO "ibid.#. ;aintaining that Oevery piece o! property has a double useO "ibid. *oo9 (. Chapter (># Aristotle was the !irst to distinguish between use value and e=change value. 'aralleling this distinction to Ohousehold, managementO and OtradeO he de!ines Ocommunal useO in contrast to private consumption. )everal reasons are credited why property should be private.

Oan immense amount o! pleasure to be derived !rom the sense o! private ownershipO as an e=tension o! manFs natural Oa!!ection !or himsel!O "ibid. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?# the Overy great pleasure in helping and doing !avours to !riends and strangers and associatesO "ibid.# the loss o! OliberalityO "ibid.# by which he means disinterest Othe immense period o! time during which this !orm o! organiDation "T propertyless association# has remained undiscoveredO "ibid.#

Aristotle however sees as clearly as 'lato that Othere must be some unity in a stateO but he disapproves o! the Oabsolutely total unityO !avored by his teacher. 5o save the state both in the end resort to OeducationO in the e=pectation that it will constitute a sense o! unity "ibid.#.

2%

,ohn Loc"e: The Second Treatise of ?o#ern!ent5 Chapter '5 6f Property

(n the )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter ?. &! 'roperty Loc9e endeavors Oto shew how men might come to have a property in several parts o! that which Aod gave to man9ind in commonO. His starting point is the observation that Oevery man has a property in his own personO. Labor is an e=tension o! his body. Loc9eFs theorem o! original appropriation states. OWhatsoever then he removes out o! the state that nature hath provided and le!t it in he hath mi=ed his labour with and <oined to it something that is his own and thereby ma9es it his property.O *ut he adds the !ollowing proviso. Owhere there is enough and as good le!t in common !or othersO because i! there were not enough the actor would inter!ere with the liberty o! other actors and hence cannot turn a resource into a good. *y pic9ing up acorns under an oa9 or gathering apples !rom a tree the actor has mi=ed labor to the resource and by appropriating them has turned the resource into a good. 'roperty begins where man removes an ob<ect out o! a state where it is natural or common. Labor changes the @uality o! a mere ob<ect into something usable. OHis labour hath ta9en it out o! the hands o! nature where it was common and belonged e@ually to all her children and hath thereby appropriated it to himsel!.O Could Columbus have claimed the whole o! the American continent !or himsel!7 8egardless o! the !act that America was populated Loc9e denies this because Columbus did not change the @uality o! the land he !ound in the way the settlers did who !ollowed him. 5he act o! appropriation re@uires rationality and industry. Labor thus is not only the physical activity which trans!orms common into property or resource into good but also ingenuity perspective time choice and e!!ort all o! them entrepreneurial abilities which cannot be ta9en !or granted. 5he !irst to OseeO the use value o! a resource is obviously smarter than all the others who only saw the ob<ect or nothing. He who OseesO the iron in a OstoneO is more 9nowledgeable than those who only saw the stone. *y producing iron !rom ore he does not cheat or e=ploit the others. &n the contrary he bene!its them because he ma9es their lives easier. 5his Loc9e also understood when he said. Ohe who appropriates land to himsel! by his labour does not lessen but increase the common stoc9 o! man9indO "OincreaseO here means Obene!itO#.
2/

5he process o! appropriation Loc9e claims is also reversible. Land enclosed but unused !ruits rotten venison putre!ied so his e=amples mean that the appropriator Oo!!ended against the common law o! nature and was liable to be punished.O 'unishment in this conte=t can only consist in the loss o! property. Loc9e insists that property ac@uisition implies only use. Where resources remain unused they Omight be the possession o! any otherO or in other words can be appropriated i.e. used by someone else. However this holds only !or original appropriation. &nce land has some value i.e. it becomes scarce capital and contract come into play because they prevent property !rom slipping bac9 into waste or common or mere resource. O5he great art o! governmentO !or Loc9e lies in Othe increase o! lands and the right employing o! themO. 5he sovereign who Oestablished laws o! liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest industry o! man9ind against the oppression o! power and narrowness o! party will @uic9ly be too hard !or his neighbors.O Without a doubt Loc9e is here re!erring to the rise o! 4ngland !rom the late 12 th to the late 10th centuries.

Hans2Her!ann Hoppe: The )thics and )cono!ics of Pri#ate Property5 I The Proble! of Social 6rder5 II The Solution: Pri#ate Property and 6riginal Appropriation
(n 5he 4thics and 4conomics o! 'rivate 'roperty Hoppe argues in !avor o! private property as !ollows. Cooperation and con!lict can only arise in a social te=ture where scarcity e=ists. +either in a 8obinson Crusoe world nor in the Aarden o! 4den con!licts other than the one over Othe physical body o! a person and its standing roomO come up. )ays Hoppe. OA con!lict is only possible i! goods are scarce. &nly then will there arise the need to !ormulate rules that ma9e orderly J con!lict,!ree J social cooperation possible.O 5hat e=actly is the problem o! social order. 5he solution to this problem Hoppe asserts is simple. O4veryone is the proper owner o! his own physical body as well as o! all places and nature,given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means o! his body provided that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him . 5his ownership o! Ooriginally
-0

appropriatedO places and goods by a person implies his right to use and trans!orm these places and goods in any way he sees !it provided that he does not thereby forcibly change the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person .O &nce appropriation has ta9en place Oownership in such places and goods can be ac@uired only be means o! voluntary J contractual J trans!er o! its property title !rom a previous to a later owner.O 5hese are the only two ways to create wealth without recourse to aggression. Hoppe now o!!ers two <usti!ications !or the above solution.

;oral intuition "Othe overwhelming ma<ority o! people J including children and primitives J in !act act according to these rulesO# 'roo!

5o prove that private property is the only solution to the problem o! social order Hoppe develops two separate lines o! thought. (n a world o! two A and * without private property

A would be the owner o! * "or vice versa# so that one would by necessity be in!erior to the other A and * Omust be considered e@ual co,owners o! all bodies places and goodsO

5he !irst case can easily be discarded as unethical because it is not Oe@ually applicable to everyone qua human being "rational animal#O. Although this re@uirement would be !ul!illed in the second case we !ace even more severe conse@uences here. Othis alternative would su!!er !rom an even more severe de!iciency because i! it were applied all o! man9ind would instantly perishO. +eedless to say that the e=tinction o! the human race is unethical in itsel! and must thus be discarded. *ut why would co,ownership necessarily lead to sel!, destruction7 HoppeFs answer is. Oi! all goods were co,owned by everyone then no one at no time and no place would be allowed to do anything unless he had previously secured every other co,ownerFs consent to do so. Get how could anyone grant such consent were he not the e=clusive owner o! his own body ... by which means his consent must be e=pressed7O $rom this reasoning it becomes clear that Ouniversal communismO is pra=eologically impossible. 'ut positively. Othe idea o! original appropriation and private propertyO is Othe only correct solution to the problem o! social orderO. All other solutions are either unethical or contradictory or both.
-1

5hemes to e=plore.

Capitalism )ocialism 5he 5hird Way 'roperty and 6ustice

-2

Chapter @: What is Interest

A# 6ean,*aptiste )ay. 5reatise on 'olitical 4conomy. *oo9 (((

Chapter ?(. &n 'ublic Consumption *# $rBdBric *astiat. 5hat Which is )een and 5hat Which is +ot )een. (. 5he *ro9en Window C# Carl ;ar=. 5he Aerman (deology. 'art (. $euerbach. &pposition o! the ;aterialist and (dealist &utloo9. :. 'roletarians and Communism :# $riedrich +ietDsche. Human. All 5oo Human. A *oo9 !or $ree )pirits. ?(((. A Alance at the )tate. 10- 101

*e!ore the late 1/th century political theory does not deal with OinterestO in any other !orm but Osel!,loveO and OcommonwealthO. (nterest "!rom Latin inter T between and esse T to be# as a topic o! its own right appears with industrial capitalism and the parallel growth o! the state "!rom a mere military agent to a central planning agency in charge o! educationPperception managementPsurveillance in!rastructure internal and e=ternal security administration and wel!are#. We will address OinterestO !rom !our di!!erent thin9ers o! the 1/th century. 6ean,*aptiste )ay "1020,1%-2# economist and entrepreneur $rBdBric *astiat "1%01,1%30# classical liberal theorist and political economist Carl ;ar= "1%1%,1%%-# philosopher political economist and socialist revolutionary $riedrich +ietDsche "1%11,1/00# philologist and philosopher

,ean2%aptiste Say: Treatise on Political )cono!y5 %oo" III. Chapter 'I5 6n Public Consu!ption
5reatise on 'olitical 4conomy !irst published in 1%0- was 6ean, *aptiste )ayFs most important wor9. A tract in economic theory it also criticiDed the mercantile economy o! +apoleon (. 5he 5reatise is divided into three boo9s. *oo9 (. &! the 'roduction o! WealthK *oo9 ((. &! the :istribution o! WealthK *oo9 (((. &! the Consumption o! Wealth. As trivial as it may appear wealth has to be produced !irst be!ore it can be distributed and consumed a lesson all too o!ten lost on us who
--

distribute lavishly what has not yet been created J with predictably catastrophic conse@uences. )ayFs second merit is to present public consumption as a subclass o! consumption. Othe collection o! many individuals into a community gives rise to a new class o! wants the wants o! the society in its aggregate capacity the satis!action o! which is the ob<ect o! public consumption.O ")ay ((.?(.1# 5he satis!action o! wants J consumption J is a destruction o! wealth and Othe general utility o! the whole community ... is precisely analogous to that consumption ... which goes to satis!y the wants o! individuals or !amilies.O "ibid. (((.?(.-# 5reatises on the essential distinction between public and private wealth only Oswell the monstrous heap o! printed absurdityO "ibid. (((.?(.12# but do not contribute to an understanding o! the phenomenon. )ay insists on the distinction between Otrans!er o! valueO and Ovalue consumedO whereby only the latter amounts to destruction. 5ranslated into the conte=t o! man and the state he reasons. O5he sole di!!erence is that the individual in the one case and the state in the other en<oys the satis!action resulting !rom that consumption.O "ibid. (((. ?(. 2# ;ost important is the observation that in both the private and public spheres one and the same economy applies. O(! then public and private e=penditure a!!ect social wealth in the same manner the principles o! economy by which it should be regulated must be the same in both cases. 5here are not two 9inds o! economy. ... (! a government or an individual consume in such a way as to give birth to a product larger than that consumed a success!ul e!!ort o! productive industry will be made. (! no product result !rom the act o! consumption there is a loss o! value whether to the state or to the individual.O "ibid. (((.?(.10# Consumption in the private sector is consumption o! values created in the same sector whereas consumption in the public sector is consumption o! values created in the private sector. Othe government has nothing o! its own to s@uander being in !act a mere trustee o! the public treasure.O "ibid. (((. ?(. 10# 5hat statists have seen things di!!erently should not surprise us. When $rederic9 (( o! 'russia prides himsel!. O;y numerous armies promote the circulation o! money and disburse impartially amongst the provinces the ta=es paid by the people to the stateO "@uoted in ibid. (((.?(.11# the enlightened despot only showed his ignorance o! basic economics. Areater e=penditure over income inevitably leads to ruin in the private domain. Why so )ay should we e=pect something di!!erent
-1

in a public conte=t only o! a larger scale7

7rAdAric %astiat: That Which is Seen. and That Which is Not Seen5 I5 The %ro"en Windo$
5he *ro9en Window retold in Henry HaDlittFs 4conomics in &ne Lesson made *astiat !amous. (n 5he *ro9en Window we have the !ollowing cast.

5he consumer "the good shop9eeper 6ames *.# His careless son who smashed the shop window 5he producer "the glaDier# )ome thirty spectators And invisible the shoema9er "or some other tradesman#

5he story is @uic9ly told. the shop9eeperFs boy bro9e the window o! his !atherFs shop. His !ather has the glaDier replace it which cost him si= !rancs. O5he glaDier comes per!orms his tas9 receives his si= !rancs rubs his hands and in his heart blesses the careless child.O 5he village !ol9s gather and discuss the incident. &ne is particularly smart and soothes the shop9eeper by reasoning. O4verybody must live and what would become o! the glaDiers i! panes o! glass were never bro9en7O )uddenly the bad boy becomes a hero and everybody is happy. As cheap as happiness can be *astiat cautions the happy !ools. O)top hereQ your theory is con!ined to that which is seenK it ta9es no account o! that which is not seen.O What is not seen7

5he shop9eeper spent the si= !rancs on the window. He cannot spend the money on anything else. 5he shop9eeper would have spent the money on goods that satis!y his wants. 5he shoema9er does not receive the si= !rancs earmar9ed by the shop9eeper !or the purchase o! shoes. +either industry in general nor the sum total o! national labor is a!!ected whether windows are bro9en or not. 5he shop9eeper rather than having both window and a pair o! shoes ends up with having nothing "the window he had already had be!ore the accident#. )ociety as a whole has lost the value o! the bro9en window.

-3

=arl *arx: The ?er!an Ideology5 Part I: 7euerbach5 6pposition of the *aterialist and Idealist 6utloo"5 5 Proletarians and Co!!unis!
5he Aerman (deology was written by Carl ;ar= only three years be!ore the publication o! the Communist ;ani!esto which appeared in 1%1%. (t anticipates the ;ani!esto without its appeal !or political action. 5he 20,year,old ;ar= !ormulates a train o! thought that he did not revise any more in his later years when he claims that man does not act according to his own pre!erences but necessarily in line with class interest "O... conditions which were common to them all and independent o! each individualO#. Class interest developed historically out o! antagonism "Ocommon conditions developed into class conditions. 5he same conditions the same contradiction the same interests ...O# 5he alienation o! acting man and his mysterious metamorphosis into an instrument o! class interest has ;ar= asserts economic roots so that only a change o! the relations o! production can set man !ree and restore him in his ancient rights and responsibilities ";ar=. O... their personality is conditioned and determined by @uite de!inite class relationshipsO#. 5he relations o! production develop dialectically according to ;ar=. A historical stage J comparable to HegelFs thesis on the original level or synthesis at all higher levels J implies its negation "philosophically spea9ing# or sel!,destruction "economically spea9ing# condensed in the Aerman word 2ufhebung "abolishment conservation synthesis#. A revolution is nothing but such an 2ufhebung and ;ar= who studied the (ndustrial 8evolution and the $rench 8evolution in depth and put both in the same bas9et insists that the relations o! production can only be changed by !orce and violence because the ruling class does not give up its advantages voluntarily "O... this revolution is necessary there!ore not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itsel! o! all the muc9 o! ages and become !itted to !ound society anewO#. 5hese advantages result !rom pro!it or surplus which the capitalist denies to the laborer. He instrumentaliDes religion culture the state !or his purposes domination. Conse@uently politics re!lects the class interest o! the capitalists in capitalism as it would re!lect the class interest o! the wor9ers in socialism "O... the individuals o! which society consists have given themselves collective e=pression that is the )tateO#. Again individuals o! each o! the two classes do not act in the
-2

proper sense o! the word but merely behave as i! they were puppets o! their respective class "O... was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as average individuals only inso!ar as they lived within the conditions o! e=istence o! their class J a relationship in which they participated not as individuals but as members o! a class.O#. ;ar= we could say used the model o! *astiat who he did not 9now. 5he glassma9er OhiresO the bad boy "the state# to do the windowbrea9ing systematically and thus prevents him !rom being marginaliDed.

7riedrich Niet&sche: Hu!an5 All Too Hu!an5 A %oo" for 7ree Spirits5 'III5 A ?lance at the State5 @4/. @4@
;ar= and +ietDsche were contemporaries. &ther than this and the Aerman language which both brilliantly mastered the two great men have nothing in common. *oth were children o! the 4nlightenment but each drew di!!erent conclusions. !or ;ar= !reedom can only be accomplished with the help o! the state which always serves the ruling economic classK !or +ietDsche !reedom can only be achieved without or even against the state. +ietDsche was not primarily interested in the state though and A Alance at the )tate is only one chapter out o! ten !rom A *oo9 !or $ree )pirits. Get i! the science o! politics has anything to do with morality J i.e. pertaining to matters o! good and evil or systems o! principles and <udgments J and not only with instincts and impulses we must come to the same conclusion as +ietDsche. OWhoever guesses something o! the conse@uences o! any deep suspicion something o! the chills and !ears stemming !rom isolation to which every man burdened with an unconditional difference of viewpoint is condemned this person will understand how o!ten ( tried to ta9e shelter somewhere to recover !rom mysel! as i! to !orget mysel! entirely !or a time "in some sort o! reverence or enmity or scholarliness or !rivolity or stupidity#K and he will also understand why when ( could not !ind what ( needed ( had to gain it by !orce arti!icially to counter!eit it or create it poetically.O "'re!ace# While tal9ing bac9 to Othe typical old socialist 'latoO the most ardent de!ender o! the polis "see especially 'latoFs Crito in the !ollowing chapter# +ietDsche !ires his salvos against all the dream dancers and illusionists who want to see in the state nothing but a haven o! !reedom.
-0

*e!ore the marginalists proved ;ar=Fs labor theory o! value J the central pillar o! his edi!ice J wrong be!ore the J international and national J socialist reality o! su!!ering crime and destruction synthesiDed with our universal heritage +ietDsche had already seen its real nature. O)ocialism is the visionary younger brother o! an almost decrepit despotism whose heir it wants to be. ... it desires a wealth o! e=ecutive power as only despotism had itK indeed it outdoes everything in the past by striving !or the downright destruction o! the individual ...O. )ocialism +ietDsche describes as OCaesarian power stateO which Oneeds the most submissive sub<ugation o! all citiDens to the absolute stateOK it can only e=ist Oby means o! the most e=treme terrorismO Oit secretly prepares !or reigns o! terror and drives the word F<usticeF li9e a nail into the heads o! the semieducated masses to rob them completely o! their reasonO. 5he historical lesson. O)ocialism can serve as a rather brutal and !orce!ul way to teach the danger o! all accumulations o! state power and to that e=tent instill one with distrust o! the state itsel!.O A!ter modern science and the rationality on which it is grounded had dealt a deadly blow to our 6udeo,Christian ethic and as a conse@uence also undermined our understanding o! the state +ietDsche sensed the danger that a @uasi,religious secular morality could !ill the void. 5he connoisseur o! Aree9 philosophy identi!ied in the Aree9 polis the origin o! worship o! the state. (n opposition to the usual claptrap o! the democratic age which put the Aree9 polis as an alleged de!ender o! !reedom on a pedestal +ietDsche insists that Othe Aree9 polis spurned and distrusted the increase o! culture among its citiDensK its power!ul natural impulse was to do almost nothing but cripple and obstruct it.O

5hemes to e=plore.

:e!icit spending and crisis management 'lanned versus !ree economy 'ublic versus private interest +ational (nterest
-%

Chapter 0: What is 6bedience

A# 'lato. Crito *# 4tienne de la *oBtie. :iscourse on ?oluntary )lavery C# 6ohn Loc9e. )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter >(>. &! the :issolution o! Aovernment :# Herbert )pencer. 5he 8ight to (gnore the )tate 4# Lysander )pooner. +o 5reason. 5he Constitution o! +o Authority

5hree months a!ter the trial o! Adol! 4ichmann had begun in 6erusalem in 1/21 Gale psychologist )tanley ;ilgram carried out e=periments involving a OteacherO "the accomplice and e=ecutioner# a OlearnerO "the victim# and an Oe=perimenterO "the commander#. ;ilgram devised the e=periment to answer the @uestion OCould it be that 4ichmann and his million accomplices in the Holocaust were <ust !ollowing orders7 Could we call them all accomplices7O 5he results o! this e=periment were eye, opening. regardless o! the e=perimental setup a stable ma<ority "appro=imately two thirds o! the participants# administered deadly 130, volt shoc9s to their victims. 8udol! HUss Commandant o! AuschwitD at the +uremberg War Crime trials. 5he F$inal )olutionF o! the 6ewish @uestion meant the complete e=termination o! all 6ews in 4urope. ( was ordered to establish e=termination !acilities at AuschwitD in 2P1/11. At that time there were already in the Aeneral Aovernment three other e=termination camps. *elDe9 5reblin9a and WolDe9. 5hese camps were under the 4insatD9ommando o! the )ecurity 'olice and ):. ( visited 5reblin9a to !ind out how they carried out their e=terminations. 5he camp commandant at 5reblin9a told me that he had li@uidated %0 000 in the course o! one,hal! year. He was principally concerned with li@uidating all the 6ews !rom the Warsaw Ahetto. He used mono=ide gas and ( did not thin9 that his methods were very e!!icient. )o when ( set up the e=termination building at AuschwitD ( used Ny9lon * which was a crystalliDed prussic acid which we dropped into the death chamber !rom a small opening. (t too9 !rom -,13 minutes to 9ill the people in the death chamber depending upon climatic conditions. We 9new when the people were dead because their
-/

screaming stopped. We usually waited about one,hal! hour be!ore we opened the doors and removed the bodies. A!ter the bodies were removed our special Commandos too9 o!! the rings and e=tracted the gold !rom the teeth o! the corpses. Another improvement we made over 5reblin9a was that we built our gas chamber to accommodate 2000 people at one time whereas at 5reblin9a their 10 gas chambers only accommodated 200 people each. 5he way we selected our victims was as !ollows. We had two )) doctors on duty at AuschwitD to e=amine the incoming transports o! prisoners. 5he prisoners would be marched by one o! the doctors who would ma9e spot decisions as they wal9ed by. 5hose who were !it !or wor9 were sent into the camp. &thers were sent immediately to the e=termination plants. Children o! tender years were invariably e=terminated since by reason o! their youth they were unable to wor9. )till another improvement we made over 5reblin9a was that at 5reblin9a the victims almost always 9new that they were to be e=terminated and at AuschwitD we endeavored to !ool the victims into thin9ing that they were to go through a delousing process. &! course !re@uently they realiDed our true intentions and we sometimes had riots and di!!iculties due to that !act. ?ery !re@uently women would hide their children under the clothes but o! course when we !ound them we would send the children in to be e=terminated. We were re@uired to carry out these e=terminations in secrecy but o! course the !oul and nauseating stench !rom the continuous burning o! bodies permeated the entire area and all o! the people living in the surrounding communities 9new that e=terminations were going on at AuschwitD. Without a doubt 4ichmann HUss and thousands o! other henchmen acted in the name o! the Aerman state. ;ost o! these e=ecutioners were not sadists but bureaucrats. 5hey !unctioned li9e little wheels in a gigantic machinery which gave them purpose. 'urposes do change but obedience J receiver compliance to source authority J remains the li!eblood o! states simply because all states cyclically reproduce and continuously rely on vertical transactions between government and the governed. We will address the topic o! LobedienceM !rom !ive di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent eras.
10

'lato "c. 120, c. -10 *C# !ollower o! )ocrates and !ather o! political science 4tienne de la *oBtie "13-0,132-# parlementaire writer political philosopher and !riend o! ;ontaigne 6ohn Loc9e "12-2,1001# lawyer and philosopher Herbert )pencer "1%20,1/0-# philosopher and classical liberal political theorist Lysander )pooner "1%0%,1%%0# individualist anarchist political philosopher abolitionist legal theorist

Plato: Crito
(t has been said that not 'lato but his nephew )peusippus wrote Crito. 5here certainly are a number o! oddities about the te=t "see (ntroduction to the 'enguin edition by Harold 5arrant#.

Lac9 o! )ocratic irony Hnusual religious elements Absence o! the )ocratic elenchus "syllogistic re!utation# Lac9 o! any obviously O'latonicO metaphysical or psychological in!rastructure

Whatever the truth in respect to authorship the !act remains that the boo9 was written in the 1 th c. *C and has ever since been associated with 'lato. 5he structure o! 5he Crito is !airly simple.

)ocrates is in prison and two days be!ore his death Crito tries to arrange his escape Crito tries to persuade )ocrates to escape :iscussion between Crito and )ocrates )ocrates replies to CritoFs arguments !or escaping

)ocrates states in the discussion with Crito that he never accepts anything but the best argument "12b# and that the @uality o! an argument has nothing to do with the number o! people who support it "10cPd#. )oon )ocrates introduces his standard argument Othat the really important thing is not to live but to live wellO "1%b# which Oamounts to the same thing as to live honourably and <ustlyO "ibid.#. *e!ore he replies to Crito )ocrates ma9es it clear that Oin no circumstances must one do wrongO "1/b# and there!ore without proving the state wrong it would be un<ust to escape !rom prison "O(! we leave
11

this place without !irst persuading the state to let us go are we or are we not doing an in<ury ...7O#. )o !ar we have heard !amiliar arguments e=cept !or the personi!ication o! the state. What comes ne=t however appears rather weird although the argument has gained much power with nationalism. )ocrates begins his riposte by portraying the polis as the personi!ication o! reason in comparison to which the individual must be in!erior. O:o you imagine that a city can continue to e=ist and not be turned upside down i! the legal <udgements which are pronounced in it have no !orce but are nulli!ied and destroyed by private persons7O "30b# 8ather than !ollowing up on the usual argument culminating in the superiority o! the philosopher to everyone else in the polis in terms o! sound <udgment )ocrates soon gives the discussion a special twist. the polis is the place which made us what we are. Writes 'lato. OWhat charge do you bring against us and the )tate that you are trying to destroy us7 :id we not give you li!e in the !irst place7 Was is not through us that your !ather married your mother and brought you into this world7O "30d# )ocrates however insists that man is not <ust in!luenced by the polis but that the two are slave and master to each other. O5hen since you have been born and brought up and educated can you deny in the !irst place that you were our child and slave both you and your ancestors7O "30e# Little wonder that )ocrates ne=t turns the polis into something absolute. OAre you so wise as to have !orgotten that compared with your mother and !ather and all the rest o! your ancestors your country is something !ar more precious more venerable more sacred and held in greater honour both among gods and among all reasonable men7 "31aPb# $rom all this !ollows O5hat you must either persuade your country or do whatever it orders and patiently submit to any punishment that it imposes whether it be !logging or imprisonment7 And i! it leads you out to war to be wounded or 9illed you must comply and it is <ust that this should be so ... . *oth in war and in the lawcourts and everywhere else you must do whatever your city and your country commands or else persuade it that <ustice is on your sideK but violence against mother or !ather is an unholy act and it is a !ar greater sin against your country.O "31bPc# 'lato also introduces a social contract theory according to which anyone in the polis ma9es a choice. *y staying one opts !or it and voluntarily submits to it. Othat any Athenian on attaining to manhood
12

and seeing !or himsel! the political organiDation o! the )tate and us its Laws is permitted i! he is not satis!ied with us to ta9e his property and go away wherever he li9es.O "31d# And again. Oyou had seventy years in which you could have le!t the country i! you were not satis!ied with us or !elt that the agreements were un<ust.O "32e# )ocrates spea9s o! OcovenantsO "32e 31c# between him and them which tie any citiDen to the laws o! the polis !or better or worse.

)tienne de la %oAtie:

iscourse on 'oluntary Sla#ery

;urray +. 8othbard in 5he 'olitical 5hought o! 4tienne de la *oBtie describes 5he :iscourse o! ?oluntary )ervitude as Olucidly and coherently structured around a single a=iom a single percipient insight into the nature not only o! tyranny but implicitly o! the )tate apparatus itsel!.O And !urther down. OLa *oBtie cuts to the heart o! what is or rather should be the central problem o! political philosophy. the mystery o! civil obedience.O Although de la *oBtie O!ollowed the method o! 8enaissance writers notably +iccolo ;achiavelliO in view o! Oabstract universal reasoningO and O!re@uent re!erences to classical anti@uityO "8othbard# he is the !irst thin9er who openly pronounced himsel! clearly against any !orm o! government rather than a speci!ic !orm o! it. :i!!erent !rom a long line o! thin9ers !rom the )toa to 5homas ;ore de la *oBtie did not !lee into escapism o! the introverted or Htopian !orm. :e la *oBtie an early anarchist or a libertarian7 :e la *oBtie was a lawyer at a time when the legal trade J a stronghold o! noble opposition to the absolute state J was still Oan e=iting enterprise a philosophical search !or truth and !undamental principlesO "8othbard#. He had been educated at the Hniversity o! &rlBans where he was e=posed to the in!luence o! Huguenot "$rench Calvinist# teachers. 'leading !or tolerance and reason he must also be ran9ed among the philosophes o! the early 4nlightenment. Aiven these circumstances de la *oBtie was politically spea9ing an anti, monopolist more than anything else. What are his arguments against political monopoly7 (n the 12th century the tyrant was not yet the Hydra that it was to become a!ter the $rench 8evolution. 5he resistance o! Church and nobility to royal power had not yet been removed. +ew in 8enaissance was however the discovery o! Othe peopleO. )oon personal rulers
1-

should begin to destroy Church and nobility as political !actors J and on the way change themselves into impersonal sovereigns. :e la *oBtie observed that Ogeneral public support is in the very nature o! all governments that endure including the most oppressive o! tyranniesO "8othbard#. Conse@uently by mass withdrawal o! consent tyranny would collapse. )o at least the 1%,year,old somewhat naively hoped although his own analysis o! power gives us an idea o! the comple=ity o! its reproduction. Without any 9nowledge o! economic theory the young man saw clearly that the unrestricted rule o! one agent o! coercion Obecomes abusive and unreasonableO "de la *oBtie# as well as unpredictable Osince it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleasesO "ibid.#. What are possible e=planations !or this7

&bedience is based on personal violence or cruelty and !ear. *ut a ruler does not have to be physically strong. O5oo !re@uently this same little man is the most cowardly and e!!eminate in the nation a stranger to the powder o! battle and hesitant on the sands o! the tournamentK not only without energy to direct men by !orce but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common womanQO "de la *oBtie# &bedience is based on indi!!erence. 5he multitude does not rise because it does not see the advantage o! !reedom. OLiberty is the only <oy upon which men do not seem to insistK !or surely i! they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they re!use this wonder!ul privilege because it is so easily ac@uired.O "de la *oBtie#

Liberty presupposes will the will to !reedom. 5his Osimple act o! the willO "de la *oBtie# turns out to be the cru= because it ta9es as given that we understand nature and act accordingly. O... i! we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her we should be intuitively obedient to our parentsK later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody.O "de la *oBtie# (! O!reedom is our natural stateO why then has Oevil chance ... so denatured man that he the only creature really born to be !ree lac9s the memory o! his original conditions and the desire to return to it7O "de la *oBtie# 5here are three !orms o! dictatorship whereby Othe method o! ruling is practically the sameO "de la *oBtie#.

11

*y popular election *y !orce or deception *y inheritance

(n all three cases it appears that habituation and custom play a central role. 'eople tend to !orget how sweet !reedom once was and en<oy the heavy yo9e o! sub<ection. 5here are always a !ew Owho !eel the weight o! the yo9e and cannot restrain themselves !rom attempting to sha9e it o!!. ... 5hese are the ones who having good minds o! their own have !urther trained them by study and learning. 4ven i! liberty had entirely perished !rom the earth such men would invent it. $or them slavery has no satis!actions no matter how well disguised.O "de la *oBtie# 5hese men are !ew and they lac9 organiDation. OHnder the tyrant they have lost !reedom o! action o! speech and almost o! thoughtK they are alone in their aspiration.O "de la *oBtie# *ut they do e=ist and give e=ample and hold up the banner o! liberty. As much as submission results !rom custom the submissive spirit which ma9es it lasting comes !rom training. Humans are trained to obey li9e dogs and when eventually their behavior becomes @uasi instinctive the tyrant triumphs in victory. :oggish education and distractive entertainment serve the same purpose. they both lull the slaves into sweet dreams. 5al9ing about Othe poor !ools ... tric9ed into servitudeO so easily de la *oBtie observes. O5ruly it is a marvellous thing that they let themselves be caught so @uic9ly at the slightest tic9ling o! their !ancy. 'lays !arces spectacles gladiators strange beasts medals pictures and other such opiates these were !or ancient peoples the bait toward slavery the price o! their liberty the instruments o! tyranny.O "de la *oBtie# And he marvels at the simpletons who do not even OrealiDe that they were merely recovering a portion o! their own property and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having !irst ta9en it !rom them.O "de la *oBtie# While custom indoctrination entertainment ma9e people dull and subservient adoration cements their in!eriority. (n this conte=t religion and symbolism come into play. 5he true secret o! domination however lies in the bureaucratic hierarchy. 5he tyrant creates o!!ices !or his supporters and e=ecutioners. O)uch men must not only obey ordersK they must anticipate his wishesK to satis!y him they must !oresee his desiresK they must wear themselves out torment themselves 9ill themselves with wor9 in his interest and accept his pleasure as their own neglecting
13

their pre!erences !or his distorting their character and corrupting their natureK they must pay heed to his words to his intonation to his gestures and to his glance.O "de la *oBtie# What holds the state together is not love or !riendship between the bureaucrats but outerdirectedness and a sense o! purpose. Othey are not !riends they are merely accomplicesO "de la *oBtie#. :e la *oBtie clearly sees that Othe possession o! wealth is the worst o! crimes against him "the tyrant#O "de la *oBtie#. 5he state destroys wealth and the more tyrannical a state is the more wealth it destroys. 4ventually it impoverishes and destroys its very !oundation. Hn!ortunately de la *oBtie !ails to show the road out o! ser!dom without a massive destruction o! wealth.

,ohn Loc"e: Second Treatise of ?o#ern!ent5 Chapter <I<5 6f the issolution of ?o#ern!ent
Aovernment Loc9e claims can be dissolved !rom without by con@uest !rom within under the !ollowing two circumstances When the legislation is altered. OWhen any one or more shall ta9e upon them to ma9e laws whom the people have not appointed so to do they ma9e laws without authority which the people are not there!ore bound to obey.O "I 212# Whenever the will o! society is disregarded by the legislator legislation is altered. When the legislative Oact contrary to their trustO "I 221#. 5his happens when they Oinvade the property o! the sub<ectO "ibid.# which e@uals Oa state o! war with the peopleO "ibid.# Loc9eFs treatise despite !re@uent logical inconsistencies and a dogmatic tenor ta9es up HobbesF concept o! social contract and gives it a new twist. individuals he maintains enter society voluntarily by giving up their individuality. As long as the society lasts power remains in the community. 5he same holds !or the legislative empowered by society. 'ower only reverts to the society Owhen by the miscarriages o! those in authority it is !or!eitedO "I 21-#.

12

Herbert Spencer: The (ight to Ignore the State

5he problem o! obedience seemingly solved by Loc9e in a social contract that lapses when bro9en was ta9en up again by )pencer. What Loc9e had le!t patched over by his misuse o! the term contract i.e. the contradiction between property right and legislation )pencer reintroduced into the debate. Aone are the devices O )tate o! +atureO and O)ocial ContractO and the concomitant con!usion o! OindividualO OsocietyO and OstateO. )pencer begins with individual !reedom and contrasts it with government which is Osimply an agent employed in common by a number o! individuals to secure to them certain advantagesO "1.#. (! !reedom deserves its name the individual is !ree to connect himsel! with the state or Oto relin@uish its protection and to re!use paying toward its supportO "1.#. +ot only is !reedom irreconcilable with government !reedom is also morally de!endable where government is not. Omagisterial power ... e=ists by evilO and Oviolence is employed to maintain itO "2.#. With Loc9e )pencer agrees that government is made !or men and not men !or government i! Olegislative authority is deputedO "-.# i.e. comes !rom individuals. (! they are masters Othey con!er the said authority voluntarily. and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they pleaseO "-.#. Without calling it by its name )pencer is the !irst to insist on the right to e=it as we 9now it !rom civil contracts. +ow the ne=t !ocus is on the people. )pencer departs !rom the 8ousseauan doctrine o! Ovolont3 g3n3ralO "general will or ma<ority vote# as the only legitimate source o! decision,ma9ing. O... !rom the will o! the people that is o! the ma<ority there can be no appeal. Get is this belie! entirely erroneous.O "1.# What i! a ma<ority claims the right Oto murder to enslave or to robO "1.#7 :oes a ma<ority change immorality into its opposite simply because it is a ma<ority7 5he answer is clearly no. A vote //P1 is as immoral as a vote 1P// because both imply coercion. And )pencer concludes. O5he !reest !orm o! government is only the least ob<ectional !orm.O "1.# $rom here it is only logical to argue. O5he very e=istence o! ma<orities and minorities is indicative o! an immoral state.O "1.# 5he absurdity becomes complete when in elections any o! the three possible outcomes J yes no or abstained J is mechanically interpreted as recognition o! the ma<ority vote. )pencer 9nows o! Othe incongruity between a per!ect law and an
10

imper!ect stateO "0.#. He also sees that government will eventually be rendered impossible when we ac9nowledge that the ma<ority has no right to coerce the minority. 5hat the state must decay he addresses in the last chapter where he says that Oit is a mista9e to assume that government must necessarily last !oreverO "%.#. (t Omar9s a certain stage o! civiliDation. ... (t is not essential but incidental.O "%.#

Lysander Spooner: No Treason5 The Constitution of No Authority

5he Constitution o! +o Authority !urther develops )pencerFs criti@ue o! ma<ority decisions. (n chapter (( o! his treatise )pooner loo9s into the mechanism o! voting J 9ey !or democratic government J and comes to the !ollowing conclusions.

O5he act o! voting could bind nobody but the actual votersO. As )pencer had already observed be!ore him voters who voted with no or non,voters cannot be @uoted as supporters o! ma<ority decisions. +on,voters cannot be counted in. *ut even voters pledge themselves only !or a limited time. 5he act o! voting can only be Oper!ectly voluntaryO on the part o! the voter. 5his however is not the case where government e=ists since here the voter is Oenvironed by a gang o! tyrants robbers and murderers ...K terrocrats ... who !orce him to pay money render service and !orego the e=ercise o! many o! his natural rightsO. ?oting can be seen as an attempt o! the voter to prevent the government !rom using his ta= money against him. 5he votes !or nonelected candidates cannot be ta9en as support o! the constitution but must rather be held against it. 5he votes !or outsider candidates cannot be ta9en as support o! the constitution. )ince voting is secret it cannot be said who supported what. (t all becomes a @uestion o! arithmetics. ?oting is no proo! o! the voterFs intentions. )ecret ballot !rees the voter o! any responsibility !or the outcome o! the election. ?oting is secret and Oall secret FgovernmentsF ... are necessarily only secret bands of tyrants. robbers. and !urderers O so that the constitution is not supported by anyone.
1%

)pooner insists that the supporters o! the constitution and government consist o! three classes.

5he 9naves "the government# 5he dupes "the governed who support the government# 5he desperate and passive "the governed who see the evil but donFt act#

&nly those who do not !all in any o! the three categories are !ree. !ree !rom servitude slavery and oppression.

5hemes to e=plore.

Legitimacy 8ise and decline o! the state :ynamics o! ma<ority decisions 5he rational voter

1/

Chapter 3: What is Security

A# 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. &! ;an. 'art (. Chapter >(((. &! the +aturall Condition o! ;an9ind as concerning their $elicity and ;isery *# Austave de ;olinari. 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity C# Hans,Hermann Hoppe. Aovernment and the 'rivate 'roduction o! :e!ense (,(((. $rom. 5he ;yth o! +ational :e!ense

Anyone who de!ends the state J minimalists and ma=imalists ali9e J must name OsecurityO !irst. *ut even anti,statists concede security a very high priority. We all want to live in peace and security. (! these are goods one might as9 why do the ma<ority e=pect a monopolistic agency to be best suited to deliver them7 &r do we have to loo9 !or arguments beyond the scope o! economic theory to answer the @uestion o! security7 &r is security simply the illusion a sel!,imposing state needs to trade !or its un<usti!iable e=istence7 8egardless o! claims no state has ever succeeded in 9eeping its promise. to produce security. +o state will ever succeed in stopping murder and war. With some <usti!ication one could even argue that this would be a contradiction in itsel!. A!ter all isnFt the state the number one murderer o! all times i! we rely on statistics "i.e. state numbers#7 (! in<ustice is in the nature o! man why should the state succeed where even the gods had turned away in despair7 (! security is the lie o! Othe coldest o! all cold monstersO "$riedrich +ietDsche. 5hus )pa9e Narathustra. &! the +ew (dol# we may thin9 o! a new terminology. 8is9,minimiDation instead o! securityK ris9, ma=imiDation instead o! insecurity. Let us brie!ly consider two cases one internal and the other e=ternal. :avid $riedman in Hidden &rder. 5he 4conomics o! 4veryday Li!e in Chapter 20 8ational Criminals and (ntentional Accidents. 5he 4conomics o! Law and Lawbrea9ing argues that O5he economic approach to crime starts !rom one simple assumption. Criminals are rational. A burglar burgles !or the same reason ( teach economics J because he !inds it a more attractive pro!ession than any other. 5he obvious conclusion is that the way to reduce burglary J whether as a legislator or a
30

homeowner J is by raising the costs o! the burglarFs pro!ession or reducing its bene!its.O Wisdom could simply be li9e in the !ollowing <o9e told by $riedman. 5wo men encountered a hungry bear. &ne turned to run. O(tFs hopeless O the other told him Oyou canFt outrun a bear.O O+o O he replied. O*ut ( might be able to outrun you.O What is true !or individuals could also be true !or collectives. Con!licts between warring nations are rarely all,out battles o! victory or de!eat. Conse@uently Othe problem !aced by the potential victim is not how to de!eat the aggressor but only how to ma9e aggression unpro!itableO "ibid.#. 5hat would e=plain why small nations do not only survive J strangely enough their number has been increasing steadily J but survive without shi!ting as much wealth !rom the productive to the unproductive sectors li9e the ObulliesO and there!ore are more peace!ul and prosperous.

We will address OsecurityO !rom three di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent eras.

5homas Hobbes "13%%,120/# philosopher and together with 6ustus Lipsius "1310,1202# the !ather o! the modern )tate Austave de ;olinari "1%1/,1/12# economist Hans,Hermann Hoppe "1/1/,# economist and philosopher

Tho!as Hobbes: Le#iathan5 6f *an5 Part I5 Chapter <III5 6f the Naturall Condition of *an"ind. as concerning their 7elicity. and *isery
5wo things must be remembered when we call on 5homas Hobbes in de!ense o! the state.

Hobbes lived through a period o! religiously in!luenced turmoil and wars. the three 4nglish Civil Wars "1212,13 121%,1/ 121/,31# and the 5hirty Gears War in Continental 4urope "121%,1%# Hobbes was 13 years old when the Aolden Age o! 4liDabeth ( "133%,120-# ended. :uring her reign the arts !lourished ")ha9espeare ;arlowe 6onson# the economy prospered "coloniDation o! AmericaK 8oyal Charters !or trading companies such as the *ritish 4ast (ndia Company !ounded in 1200# and
31

4ngland within decades became the dominant sea power a!ter the repulsion o! the )panish L(nvincible ArmadaM in 13%%. However 4ngland was not yet industrialiDed and !ully capitalistic. A century a!ter Hobbes ?oltaire wrote in 5he 'hilosophical :ictionary under the header $anaticism. O$anaticism is to superstition what delirium is to !ever and what !ury is to anger. 5he man who has ecstasies and visions who ta9es dream !or realities and his imaginings !or prophecies is an enthusiast. 5he man who bac9s his madness with murder is a !anatic.O ?oltaire accentuated that !anaticism is li9e an incurable disease. O5here is no other remedy !or this epidemic illness than the spirit o! !ree thought which spreading little by little !inally so!tens menFs customs and prevents the renewal o! the disease. $or as soon as this evil ma9es any progress we must !lee and wait !or the air to become pure again.O 5he !reedom o! thought advocated by ?oltaire without a doubt echoes the optimism o! the 4nlightenment to whose denouement Hobbes considerably contributed. :i!!erent !rom ?oltaire Hobbes cured the disease by as some may say ma9ing it chronic. he erected the state as a di9e against !anaticism assuming that it would prevent the epidemic !rom spreading and in!ecting the whole society. He !ailed to account !or that singular case where the epidemic rages on the hither side o! the di9e. Chapter >((( is the 9ey passage o! the Leviathan. (t contains

the allegory o! social e@uality the allegory o! a O)tate o! +atureO with OWarre o! every one against every oneO "bellum omnia contra omnes# and points to the allegory o! a )ocial Contract "in Chapter >(?# which erects the )tate on the ruins o! chaos

Hobbes begins his discourse by stating that no one is naturally in such a position o! strength that he need not !ear others. O$or as to the strength o! body the wea9est has strength enough to 9ill the strongest either by secret machination or by con!ederacy with others that are in the same danger with himsel!e.O What applies to the human body is also true !or the human mind. 5he !act that people emphasiDe the di!!erence points to a high degree o! e@uality Hobbes thought. +o one can be certain o! the !ruits o! his labor. A peasant can be dispossessed by a warrior but the warrior cannot be sure o! his spoils because there could be others more power!ul than himsel! who deprive him o! his ac@uisitions. 5he vicious circle o! violence and aggression is set in
32

motion by Othree principall causes o! @uarrellO.

Competition which ma9es men invade !or gain by imposing themselves as masters over slaves :i!!idence which ma9es men invade !or sa!ety to de!end wea9er men Alory which ma9es men invade !or reputation

War is the time in which men live Owithout a common 'ower to 9eep them all in aweO. (n a state o! war Othere is no place !or (ndustryK because the !ruit thereo! is uncertainO. (n such a )tate o! +ature Othe li!e o! manO is Osolitary poore nasty brutish and shortO. (! war is with society peace must be with Leviathan. And what i! the premise is wrong7

?usta#e de *olinari: The Production of Security

;olinariFs answer to HobbesF @uestion is the most logical and at the same time the most ignored. ;olinari watched politics through economic glasses and saw not miracles but lies. (n -es &oir3es de la %ue &aint4-azare ;olinari says. O5he monopoly o! government is no better than any other. &ne does not govern well and especially not cheaply when one has no competition to !ear when the ruled are deprived o! the right o! !reely choosing their rulers. Arant a grocer the e=clusive right to supply a neighborhood prevent the inhabitants o! this neighborhood !rom buying any goods !rom other grocers in the vicinity or even !rom supplying their own groceries and you will see what detestable rubbish the privileged grocer will end up selling and at what pricesQ Gou will see how he will grow rich at the e=pense o! the un!ortunate consumers what royal pomp he will display !or the greater glory o! the neighborhood. WellQ What is true !or the lowliest services is no less true !or the lo!tiest. 5he monopoly o! government is worth no more than that o! a grocerFs shop. 5he production o! security inevitably becomes costly and bad when it is organiDed as a monopoly. (t is in the monopoly o! security that lies the principal cause o! wars which have laid waste humanity.O Contrary to Hobbes ;olinari develops the state !rom the individual. )ociety is not chaos and war but the mar9etplace !or individuals. O5he human race is essentially sociable.O )ince human beings have needs which they individually cannot satis!y society naturally comes into play
3-

with its division o! labor and e=changes. O(n brie! we see an organization emerge by means o! which man can more completely satis!y his needs than he could living in isolation. 5his natural organiDation is called society.O &r in other words. O5he ob<ect o! society is there!ore the most complete satis!action o! manFs needs. 5he division o! labor and e=change are the means by which this is accomplished.O ;olinari spots a particular type o! need among the needs o! man. Othe need !or securityO. (! security e=isted Onaturally on earth R no arti!icial institution would be necessary to establish itO. )ince this is not the case there arises the need !or Oestablishments whose ob<ect is to guarantee to everyone the peace!ul possession o! his person and his goods. 5hese establishments were called governments.O As much as there is a need !or security humans also pre!er to delegate protection rather than procuring it themselves. 5his allows them to pursue activities !or which they are better suited. 5hey choose between two goods and opt !or the one that o!!ers more and buy the other J security J at the lowest price. (n the ne=t step o! the argument ;olinari identi!ies two principles in political economy.

5he !ree mar9et achieves the best results !or the consumer "highest @uality lowest price @uic9est delivery minimal waste etc.# 5he interest o! the consumer should always prevail over the interest o! the producer )ecurity being a good should be produced in !ree competition

$rom these two premises !ollows the conclusion.

)ecurity most would say is not li9e any other goodK it has to be organiDed by a monopoly. ;olinari counters. O*ut why should there be an e=ception relative to security7 What special reason is there that the production o! security cannot be relegated to !ree competition7 Why should it be sub<ected to a di!!erent principle and organiDed according to a di!!erent system7O As long as there is no proo! !or the hypothesis that security cannot be classi!ied according to economic criteria all reservations must be discarded as un!ounded. (n the !inal step ;olinari turns to the @uestion why we have come to accept the logical contradiction as normal. He !inds two principles.

31

;onopoly. O4very monopoly necessarily rests on !orceO because consumers would not !reely pay Othe abusive monopoly surta=O. Communism. an e=tension o! monopoly is the common organiDation o! production (t is a monopoly o! the stronger over the wea9er (t is the most pro!itable monopoly o! all monopolies (t engenders war as Onecessary and inevitable conse@uenceO (t engenders all other monopolies

5he monopoly on security is special in a number o! ways.

(n a historical conte=t the transition !rom absolutism to democracy is the change !rom monopoly to communism in the production o! security. O;onopolistic governments claim to have obtained !rom Aod himsel! this authority which gives them the right to modi!y or rema9e society according to their !ancy and to dispose o! persons and property however they please. Communistic governments appeal to human reason as mani!ested in the ma<ority o! the sovereign people.O 5he @uestion arises where the state receives its Oimmutable sacred authorityO !rom. OHnless those in power are believed to have a mandate !rom a superior entity the in<ured interests will resist.O 5he answer ;olinari sees in divine right. OA government based on divine right is imperishable.O At least as long as people believe in it. Little does it matter whether the state is legitimiDed !rom above or li9e in communist doctrine !rom below. OHere is what the communists the partisans o! popular sovereignty assume. 5hey assume that human reason has the power to discover the best laws and the organiDation which most per!ectly suits societyK and that in practice these laws reveal themselves at the conclusion o! a !ree debate between con!licting opinions. (! there is no unanimity i! there is still dissension a!ter the debate the ma<ority is in the right since it comprises the larger number o! reasonable individuals. ... Conse@uently they insist that the decisions o! the ma<ority must become law and that the minority is obliged to submit to it even i! it is contrary to its most deeply rooted convictions and in<ures its most precious interests.O (! security was a service rather than a disservice consumers would

chec9 i! the producer o! security is strong enough to protect them chec9 whether the producer o! security could pose a danger to
33

their interest chec9 i! a competitive service could o!!er them better terms

A bargain between producer and consumer would only result !rom voluntary agreement. And li9e !or any other good or service @uality and price must become better and better !or the consumer. O(! on the contrary the consumer is not !ree to buy security wherever he pleases you !orthwith see open up a large pro!ession dedicated to arbitrariness and bad management <ustice becomes slow and costly the police ve=atious individual liberty is no longer respected the price o! security is abusively in!lated and ine@uitably apportioned according to the power and in!luence o! this or that class o! consumers. 5he protectors engage in bitter struggles to wrest customers !rom one another. (n a word all the abuses inherent in monopoly or in communism crop up.O

Hans2Her!ann Hoppe: ?o#ern!ent and the Pri#ate Production of efense. I2III5 7ro!: The *yth of National efense
(n this essay Hoppe targets the OHobbesian mythO i.e. the belie! that the solution to Oa permanent FunderproductionF o! securityO in the )tate o! +ature is and can only be the state. 5he third party in a con!lict between two parties is Hoppe emphasiDes Onot <ust another individualO but Oa sovereignO. As such he has Otwo uni@ue powersO.

His main !eatures are coercion aggression and monopoly. He Ois a compulsory territorial monopolist o! protectionO. He destroys the mar9et and thus changes a good to a bad a service to a disservice. He threatens and terroriDes anyone who does not want to pay !or this bad or disservice. He Ohas the power to impose ta=es in order to provide security FcollectivelyFO. Leviathan is not above and beyond manFs nature. 5here!ore Leviathan ma9es only peace between the two con!licting parties Oso that he himsel! can rob both o! them more pro!itablyO. 'eace is achieved through Othe economic disarmamentO o! the con!licting parties. 5he better Leviathan is protected J the more power!ul the state
32

However the problem with HobbesF Leviathan goes deeper.

becomes J the less the con!licting parties are protected against him. +o one would !reely and voluntarily Oagree to a contract that allowed oneFs protector to determine unilaterally J and irrevocably J the sum that the protected must pay !or his protectionO.

Hoppe summariDes. OAiven the principle o! government J <udicial monopoly and the power to ta= J any notion o! limiting its power and sa!eguarding individual li!e and property is illusory. Hnder monopolistic auspices the price o! <ustice and protection must rise and its @uality must !all. A ta=,!unded protection agency is a contradiction in terms and will lead to ever more ta=es and less protection.O And in re!erring to 8othbard he concludes. O... <ust as socialism cannot be re!ormed but must be abolished in order to achieve prosperity so the institution o! a state cannot be re!ormed but must be abolished in order to achieve <ustice and protection.O

5hemes to e=plore.

Hobbes and his time )ecurity and ris9 management ;odels o! privately produced security
30

Chapter 4: What is Collecti#e %elief

A# 5hucydides. 'ericlesF $uneral &ration *# 6ohann Aottlieb $ichte. Addresses to the Aerman +ation. 1-th Address C# Aiuseppe ;aDDini. An 4ssay on the :uties o! ;an Addressed to Wor9ingmen Chapter ? , :uties 5owards Gour Country :# 5heodor HerDl. 5he 6ewish )tate (ntroduction

5he de!inition o! a state necessarily includes the concept o! boundary since the minimalist de!inition o! a state re!ers to a territory to rob "ta=# and to de!end against other robbers "states#. 5he tas9 o! the state there!ore lies in morphing apolitical into political collectives. 5he OwallO the state erects around itsel! grows in height with the !unctions the state monopoliDes. 5he OwallO o! a minimal state is low since the collective pie !or redistribution does not e=ist. 5he modern Wel!are )tate needs a very high OwallO since the collective pie is big. (! we draw concentric circles around the political center we can e=pect political support to diminish the !urther away a circle is !rom the center in a minimal state. 5he opposite occurs when we study a ma=imal state. 5he periphery becomes more privileged than it should be according to its contribution to the pie. *ut Oone man one voteO ma9es the last circle as good as any other. We there!ore observe an overproportional interest o! the political center in the periphery where the mass is in a Wel!are )tate. A third parameter is the desired e=clusiveness o! a state. 5o treat it only as a !unction o! arrogated responsibilities would not e=plain a number o! cases where religion or ideology play an eminent role. +ow we combine the three parameters in one e@uation and get the !ollowing result. +o state without boundaries i.e. degrees o! e=clusiveness. 5he boundaries are less transparent the more numerous the !unctions o! the state. 5he more comprehensive the state the more there is a need to legitimiDe the massive redistribution that ta9es place inside. (! we had to divide a group small or large into two groups we obviously
3%

would need to <usti!y our division in one way or another. &! no help would be arguments li9e. all humans are rational beings. )omething divisive is needed regardless o! what it is. A state could <usti!y the division by pointing to s9in color shape o! the nose bowel length or circum!erence o! the s9ull or by re!erring to language culture or religion. All these <usti!ications are e@ually pseudo,scienti!ic. ;ost acceptable however appear to be divisions by geography language ethnicity or customs which do not need to be unambiguously de!inedK they only need to appear sel!,e=planatory or plausible. Less acceptable are random patterns which 9eep boundaries transparent "a!ter all what is a boundary good !or i! it can be changed very easily li9e shoes7#. &! course real J and sometimes @uite unbridgeable J divisions do e=ist and it would be naive to ignore or deny them. And yet they are both more LnaturalM and less absolute than political division. )ome are more spontaneous and merely temporary li9e the crowds o! sports events. 8eligious division can be overcome by conversion. Cultural division can at least be reduced by assimilation. 4ven ethnic division can be overcome over time by interbreeding. 'olitical division on the other hand is in essence absolute even i! it is o!ten handled more !le=ibly. (ts sole purpose is to support the state which depends on it. We will address Ocollective belie!O !rom the greatest representative o! Athenian democracy and three nationalists o! the long 1/th century.

'ericles "c. 1/3,12/ *C# Athenian statesman orator and general 6ohann Aottlieb $ichte "1022,1%11# philosopher Aiuseppe ;aDDini "1%03,1%02# (talian nationalist 5heodor HerDl "1%20,1/01# ?iennese <ournalist !ounder o! modern Nionism

Thucydides: PericlesB 7uneral 6ration

'ericlesF $uneral &ration is a classical piece o! propaganda re!erence o! all demagogues "!rom Aree9 demos T people and agagos T leading# or leaders o! their chosen peoples until the present day. 5he speech 'ericles delivered a!ter the !irst battles o! the 'eloponnesian War "1-1 *C , 101 *C# targeted the Athenian citiDens in the e=pectation to e=tract !rom them more ta= "money and service#. 'ericles in his speech draws a sharp boundary between Athenian
3/

citiDens J a minority since women slaves and !oreigners were no citiDens J and the other "the )partans and their allies#. He portrays Athens as a haven o! happiness prosperity culture. As can be e=pected !rom a demagogue he does not give a very accurate picture o! the Athenian polis. LetFs !orgive him !or this a!ter all he had to mobiliDe patriotic sentiment and <ust enough consent as was needed to !inance his darling !leet and man it with unwilling ta=payers. +o appeal to unity would bear !ruit without re!erence to history. History ma9es the present meaning!ul and gives it purpose. collective destiny gains depth i! seen as a logical se@uence o! past snapshots. (t produces a biological lin9age which de!ines oneFs present role and responsibilities !or !uture generations. &ne bro9en lin9 destroys collective e=istence and shoulders the culprit with all the guilt !or collective !ailure. )acri!ice and death taste sweet in the !ace o! a glorious and uni@ue history. 5he phylogenetical uni@ueness must receive a third dimension "in addition to the time and space vectors# to become plastic. $or this purpose 'ericles lists up a number o! points which testi!y to the claim that Athens was Orather a pattern to others than imitators ourselvesO. Among them are.

A model state with democratic representation 4@ual <ustice to all 'romotion according to talent $reedom and tolerance 4ntertainment and pleasure Hospitality and openness 8e!inement in culture Wel!are 'atriotism

'ericlesF speech ends with an appeal to the sons and brothers o! the dead soldiers to <oin the Oarduous struggleO. And the widows are consoled with glory. How cheap great demagogy can beQ

,ohann ?ottlieb 7ichte: Addresses to the ?er!an Nation5 +/th Address

(n !ourteen Addresses to the Aerman +ation $ichte responded to +apoleonFs reorganiDation o! central 4urope in general and the moral
20

collapse o! 'russia a!ter the de!eat in the *attle o! 6ena and AuerstVdt in 1%02 in particular. (t should be emphasiDed that the Aerman nation in the post,revolutionary sense did not yet e=istK +apoleon had <ust dissolved the Holy 8oman 4mpire with the peace treaty o! 'ressburg which !ollowed the *attle o! AusterlitD "1%03#. (n the 5hirteenth Address o! 1%02 $ichte distinguishes between internal and e=ternal boundaries. the !ormer are Othe !irst original and truly natural boundaries o! statesO where Othose who spea9 the same language are <oined to each other by a multitude o! invisible bonds by nature itsel!O while the latter mar9 the Odwelling placeO. 5he novelty o! $ichteFs appeal to national unity o! all Aermans J @uite unrealistic at the time J consists in the priority. the OnaturalO union o! a people in language customs and sentiment towers the geographical location in which this people lives. Applying the mechanical and deterministic view o! the 4nlightenment $ichte develops a vision o! a people as an organic holistic entity. O&nly when each people le!t to itsel! develops and !orms itsel! in accordance with that common @uality as well as in accordance with his own peculiar @uality J then and then only does the mani!estation o! divinity appear in its true mirror as it ought to beK and only a man who either entirely lac9s the notion o! the rule o! law and divine order or else is an obdurate enemy thereto could ta9e upon himsel! to want to inter!ere with that law which is the highest law in the spiritual worldQO And to top the enlightened obscurantism by pseudo,scienti!ic verbiage $ichte concludes his appeal. O&nly in the invisible @ualities o! nations which are hidden !rom their own eyes J @ualities as the means whereby these nations remain in touch with the source o! original li!e J only therein is to be !ound the guarantee o! their present and !uture worth virtue and merit. (! these @ualities are dulled by admi=ture and worn away by !riction the !latness that results will bring about a separation !rom spiritual nature and this in its turn will cause all men to be !used together in their uni!orm and collective destruction.O

?iuseppe *a&&ini: An )ssay on the Addressed to Wor"ing!en. Chapter ' 2 Cour Country

uties of *an uties To$ards

'ericles had won support among the poor with building pro<ects on the Acropolis "comparable to the rebuilding o! 'aris at the time o! +apoleon
21

((( in the 1%30s and 1%20s#. 5hat all nationalism is in !act national socialism we can study in ;aDDiniFs &n the :uties o! ;an. ;aDDini calls Aod Humanity $atherland and the $amily Othe holiest things we 9nowO. )ince he spea9s o! duties he !inds it more convenient to appeal to the heart rather than to the mind. ;aDDini reminds his audience that Oman was born !or happinessO. Happiness was the promise o! the $rench 8evolution. 5his promise was not 9ept. Othe condition o! the people is not improvedO. Happiness only leads to egoism and corruption. What is really needed ;aDDini asserts is education by which he understands

Auidance to sel!,improvement 5eaching o! constancy and sel!,sacri!ice Hnion o! men with their !ellow,men sub<ecting them to a leader or a ma<ority vote

4ducation means to learn oneFs duty. OWe must convince men that they are all sons o! one sole Aod and bound to !ul!ill and e=ecute one sole law here on earthK that each o! them is bound to live not !or himsel! but !or others.O 4ducation together with labor and the !ranchise Oare the three pillars o! the +ationO. Li9e Christ who did not spea9 o! rights but o! duty o! love sacri!ice and !aith ;aDDini re<ects material happiness whose pursuit Ocan but result in that worst o! crimes a civil war between class and classO. Aod gave man a country and Oit is only through our country that we can have a recogniDed collective e=istenceO. (n the Conclusion ;aDDini who be!ore had condemned class struggle openly advocates socialism.

4=propriation o! Church property by the )tate 8ailways and other public enterprises should be in the hands o! the )tate Wealth and resources should Obe consecrated to the intellectual and economic progress o! the whole countryO

Theodor Her&l: The ,e$ish State. Introduction

While 'ericles praised the cultured and civiliDed Athenian and $ichte and ;aDDini searched !or the spiritual bond holding their nations together 5heodor HerDl <usti!ies the 6ewish )tate in a negative dialectic.
22

HerDl was a cosmopolitan. *orn in *udapest he moved to ?ienna in his boyhood graduated in law and became a <ournalist. A correspondent !or the /eue 5reie +resse in 'aris he also wrote comedies and dramas !or his ?iennese audience. ;ost li9ely in!luenced by the 2ffaire 'reyfus in $rance "1%/1# which he covered in newspaper articles HerDl published 'er .udenstaat "5he 6ewish )tate# soon a!ter. 5he 6ewish )tate is partly a historical account partly an action program. 5he historical account centers on Othe 6ewish @uestionO. O5he 6ewish @uestion e=ists wherever 6ews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not e=ist it is carried by 6ews in the course o! their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted and then our presence produces persecution. 5his is the case in every country and will remain so even in those highly civiliDed J !or instance $rance J until the 6ewish @uestion !inds a solution on a political basis.O He sees in Othe 6ewish @uestionO nothing else but Oa national @uestionO to be settled by the civiliDed world. 5he 6ews Ohave honestly endeavored everywhere to merge ourselves in the social li!e o! surrounding communities and to preserve the !aith o! our !athersO. 4verywhere however Oold pre<udices against us still lie deep in the hearts o! the peopleO HerDl complains. Assimilation has !ailed and Oour enemies have made us one "people# without our consentO. 5he !uture !or the 6ews in their own nation state will be bright. OWe shall not revert to a lower stage we shall rise to a higher one. We shall not dwell in mud hutsK we shall build new more beauti!ul and more modern houses and possess them in sa!ety. We shall not lose our ac@uired possessions we shall realiDe them. We shall surrender our well earned rights only !or better ones. We shall not sacri!ice our beloved customsK we shall !ind them again. We shall not leave our old home be!ore the new one is prepared !or us.O 5hat such heaven on earth appealed more to the poor 6ews o! 4astern 4urope is understandable. 5he 6ews o! Western and Central 4urope who had already reached the highest positions in their societies saw HerDl with bewilderment. Less than hal! a century a!ter HerDlFs premature death in 1/01 Othe 6ewish @uestionO that had not e=isted was OsolvedO in the most barbaric way. (t is ironic that HerDl had armed the henchmen with both a terminology and a perspective which clearly contradicted his good
2-

intentions. (! there has ever been a O6ewish @uestionO it can be said with much historical evidence that it will never be solved by the nation state.

5hemes to e=plore.

+ationalism )ociety J )tate J Country J +ation :emocracy and +ationalism

21

Chapter 1: What is Happiness

A# Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art >((( *# Adam $erguson. An 4ssay on the History o! Civil )ociety. )ections (> >. &! +ational $elicity C# 6eremy *entham. (ntroduction to the 'rinciples o! ;orals and Legislation. Chapter 1. &! the 'rinciple o! Htility

Happiness has been discussed as the absence o! negatives "hunger su!!ering poverty loneliness unhappiness etc.# or the presence o! positives "a!!luence love harmony e@uilibrium etc.#. $rom ancient times thin9ers have tried to !ind general criteria !or which they loo9ed into a rationally conceived o! state o! per!ection "Aod +ature ;ind#. 5he most promising strategy o! the utilitarian argument !or redistribution J ta9e it !rom the rich and give it to the poor J is to detach it !rom the concept o! <ustice and replace it by a nebulous rhetorical ne=us. Here however social <ustice can be con!ronted with economic arguments. And there are three such arguments.% 5he orthodo= socialist theory L5his doctrine rests on a theory o! value that has at best only an anti@uarian interest and does not warrant being discussed.M 5wo variants o! the neo,socialist doctrine )ociety gives society ta9es 5his variant re<ects the simple truth that even the most comple= o! social interactions can be reduced to a chain o! e=changes measured by prices voluntarily agreed upon. (t insists that all contributed somehow to civiliDation e@ually and there!ore deserve to be compensated !or their indeterminable contribution. )ociety or civiliDation as La single indivisible e=ternalityM +o individual can claim anything o! this e=ternality their own so this doctrine claims. :e 6asay counters. LAn e=ternality produces no output. (ndividual action !acilitated by the e=ternality does.M +ow we understand why the idea o! e@uality is and must be central to all redistributive schemes. &r negatively e=pressed. no idea o! e@uality no argument !or redistribution. Why is Le@ualityM generally not de!ined7
% Anthony de 6asay. )ocial 6ustice 4=amined With A Little Help $rom Adam )mith pp. 0,/ 23

*ecause i! we do we !ind ourselves in devilFs 9itchen. :e 6asay e=amines three possible arguments in !avor o! redistribution and re!utes them one by one./ 4@uality or Oto each the sameO 5he classi!ication o! !eatures into cases implies both li9eness in some points and unli9eness in others. A statement beginning li9e OAll Americans ...O obviously produces a class o! cases J Lthe AmericanM J which completely neglects other !eatures J gender age income education etc. etc. 5o treat a class o! cases e@ually conse@uently violates the principle o! e@uality in respect to other cases and would o!ten yield biDarre results.

4@uiproportionality or OAristotelian e@ualityO Absolute e@uality can be treated as a special case o! e@uiproportionality. *ut while Oto each the sameO can be solved by purely mathematical means e@uiproportionality re@uires Omoral intuitions value <udgments and perhaps also ... partisanship ideological !ashion or sheer opportunism to decide what shall be deemed the <ust distributionO "de 6asay 120#

+o Osuum cuiqueO or all is out !or distribution 5his approach Ois assimilated to the basic !iction o! the ca9e that nobody ba9ed and that needs cutting into <ust slicesO "de 6asay 12/#.

5he phantom o! collective happiness has haunted us almost !rom the beginning o! the modern nation state. (t appears to be insensitive to arguments. *ut as long as it contributes to the growth o! the state J and wel!are has long ago replaced security as the central !unction o! the state J it will remain with us. We will address LCollective HappinessM mainly !rom the angle o! utilitarianism because it cast a long shadow over modern societies. Aristotle "-%1,-22 *C# student o! 'lato and !ounder o! the Lyceum Adam $erguson "102-,1%12# philosopher and historian o! the )cottish 4nlightenment 6eremy *entham "101%,1%-2# <urist philosopher and re!ormer
/ Anthony de 6asay. 6ustice And (ts )urroundings 22

Aristotle: Politics. %oo" 'II. Part <III

LHappiness is the realiDation and per!ect e=ercise o! virtueM. :oesnFt AristotleFs de!inition shi!t the !ocus away !rom happiness to something di!!erent7 Li9e virtue7 &r state7 5his becomes obvious when he says L... the city is best governed which has the greatest opportunity o! obtaining happinessM. *ut in *oo9 ?(( he also says that Ldi!!erent men see9 a!ter happiness in di!!erent ways and by di!!erent means and so ma9e !or themselves di!!erent modes o! li!e and !orms o! governmentM. And since virtue goodness and happiness are essentially interchangeable the @uestion now is what ma9es men good and virtuous. Aristotle identi!ies three. nature habit rational principle Happiness results !rom the three principles being Lin harmony with one anotherM.

Ada! 7erguson: An )ssay on the History of Ci#il Society5 Sections I<. <5 6f National 7elicity
$erguson a contemporary o! Adam )mith sees happiness more pro!anely as he already 9nows that Lwe estimate the value o! every sub<ect by its utilityM ")ection ?((. &! Happiness#. He then goes on to @uanti!y or generaliDe this !inding when he says. L5hose men are commonly esteemed the happiest whose desires are most !re@uently grati!ied.M "ibid.# $erguson @uic9ly notices that Lhappiness is not a state o! repose or that imaginary !reedom !rom care ...M "ibid.# nor does it depend Lon the materials which are placed in our handsM "ibid.# but Lmore on the degree in which our minds are properly employedM "ibid.#. He !inds mar9ed di!!erences between historical epochs J Lto the ancient Aree9 or the 8oman the individual was nothing and the public every thing. 5o the modern in too many nations o! 4urope the individual is every thing and the public nothing.M "ibid.# J but also between personal constitutions. the benevolent the egocentric the wea9 or the malicious are driven by di!!erent motives. 5he point that really matters is where individual happiness cumulates in national !elicity "collective happiness#. 5he !ormula should be. the happier the individuals the happier the collective. We could also as9 with $erguson. what ma9es a state great and power!ul7 :ivision o! labor commerce openmindedness activity describe a prosperous
20

society and Lthe !oundations o! powerM. (n their absence Lthe race would perishM. Against the dogma o! the 1/ th and 20th centuries $erguson insists that rather than centraliDation Lthe emulation o! nations proceeds !rom their divisionM and speci!ies that transactions Lupon a !oot o! e@uality and o! separate interestM produce wealth and diversity. &n the other hand $erguson !ails to realiDe that Lthe rivalship o! separate communities and the agitations o! a !ree peopleM are not opposite to Lpeace and unanimityM but preconditions !or them. $or $erguson the @uestion o! happiness is a political @uestion. LHow is it possible there!ore to !ind any single !orm o! government that would suit man9ind in every condition7M And a political @uestion begs !or a political answer. L;an9ind were originally e@ualM goes the general assumption o! the 4nlightenment. *ut rather than constituting the state in the rational act o! a social contract $erguson maintains that Lprior to any political institution whatever men are @uali!ied by a great diversity o! talents by a di!!erent tone o! the soul and ardour o! the passions to act a variety o! parts. *ring them together each will !ind his place.M $erguson as9s the 9ey @uestion LWhat title one man or any number o! men have to controul his actions7M And a possible answer should be L+one at allM. 5hen he plagues himsel! with the concern o! arbitration detecting two instances which necessitate the state. de!ense <ustice 5he argument put !orth in !avor o! a political control o! de!ense and <ustice is interesting and based on the distinction between !orce "the usurped LrightM to do wrong# and voluntary consent "the right to do good#. $orce and in<ustice being a prerogative o! bandits and despots obligation goes only to those who do good i.e. those who rule in the interest o! the ruled. And provided that their natural rights to their preservation and to the use o! their talents is respected their classi!ication "i.e. political order# cannot become in<ustice. 4ven !or a pre,industrial society $erguson must admit that in the end we get a Lmultiplicity o! !ormsM which i! particulars and singularities be overloo9ed can be limited to only a !ew governments. Could he only prove that each o! these governments correspond with the natural classi!icationQ
2%

,ere!y %entha!: Introduction to the Principles of *orals and Legislation5 Chapter +: 6f the Principle of Dtility
*entham borrowed $ergusonFs !ormula o! Lthe greatest happiness o! the greatest numberM and called it somewhat scienti!ically L!elici!ic calculusM. 'ain and pleasure Lthe two sovereign mastersM govern man9ind so *entham. 8ight and wrong as well as cause and e!!ect are derived !rom our response to the two stimuli which Lgovern us in all we do in all we say in all we thin9M. Human action i! we want to call it such would conse@uently be a reaction driven by the ma=imiDation o! happiness "i.e. the avoidance o! pain#. An individual is <udged happier i! he realiDes an advantage. 4ven i! we !ollow *entham and change our terminology !rom happiness to bene!it or advantage measurable as utility we soon run into di!!iculties. how can we classi!y a masochist7 And can we soundly assume that even a masochist always and entirely en<oys pain7 (t gets even more precarious when we try to add utilities. What is your pleasure plus mine7 *entham ma9es us believe that Lthe interest o! the community ... is ... the sum o! the interests o! the several members who compose it.M And in the same vein he reasons. Lan action then may be said to be con!ormable to the principle o! utility ... when the tendency it has to augment the happiness o! the community is greater than any it has to diminish it.M 5hat !inally allows him to ran9 governments according to the principle o! utility. better government augments rather than diminishes the sum total o! the happiness o! the community. *est government would be a place where all members o! a community are happy all the time. Welcome to the Aarden o! 4den ...

5hemes to e=plore.

(ndividual and collective happiness :ogmas o! the 4nlightenment Htilitarianism

2/

Chapter E: What is Contract. Pri#ate and Social

A# 5homas Hobbes. :e Cive. Chapters ( "&! the )tate o! ;en without Civill )ociety# and ? "&! the Causes and $irst *egining o! Civill Aovernment# *# 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Civil Aovernment. Chapter ?(((. &! the *eginning o! 'olitical )ocieties C# 6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau. )ocial Contract. 2. 5he )ocial Compact :# :avid Hume. &! the &riginal Contract

Contract "!rom Latin LconM meaning LtogetherM and LtrahereM meaning Lto pullM# is a mutually binding agreement between two or more parties. A contract can be !ormal or in!ormal but it re@uires. the names o! the parties the terms they voluntarily agree upon !inite validity an e=it clause in the case o! breach !reedom "absence o! coercion# (t is obvious !rom this list that the use o! contract in a public conte=t is oversimpli!ication at best and tric9ery at worst. simpli!ication because the user does Las i!M and tric9ery because he presents that illusion as the real thing. Let us con!ine ourselves to the !irst. LetFs do !or the sa9e o! simplicity assume that in order to leave the hypothetical state o! nature the wolves o! prehistoric time J why should they as brutes be unaware o! their miserable e=istence7 J decide to elevate themselves over other brutes and !orm a permanent political collective the state. At the beginning o! state building comes a rational decision. All intellectuals li9e the idea o! rational design. Williamson ;. 4vers in his )ocial Contract. A Criti@ue10 concludes. L)ocial contract doctrine is no longer ta9en seriously as an accurate historical account o! the origins o! the state. *ut social contract doctrine still survives as an account o! political obligation.M Cut o!! !rom the original discussion during the short age o! 4nlightenment the social contract doctrine survived as a myth and became an integrated element o! the modern political religion. :ue to this metamorphosis the debate has to be reopened again. We will address LContractM by tracing the development o! the social
10 http.PPmises.orgP<ournalsP<lsP1W-P1W-W-.pd! 00

contract debate. 5homas Hobbes "13%%,120/# philosopher and together with 6ustus Lipsius "1310,1202# the !ather o! the modern )tate 6ohn Loc9e "12-2,1001# lawyer and philosopher 6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau "1012,100%# philosopher educator and composer :avid Hume "1011,1002# philosopher economist historian and prominent !igure o! the )cottish 4nlightenment

Tho!as Hobbes:

e Ci#e5 Chapters I and '

5homas Hobbes apparently is the man who created the myth o! a social contract today o!ten re!erred to as the Hobbesian ;yth. *ut was he really serious about a contract which in his own words would ma9e people give up their LlibertyM !or LdominionM7 &r was his !undamental @uestion an essentially moral one7 Hobbes must be seen and understood against the bac9drop o! a number o! developments. 5he decline o! )cholasticism and Aristotelianism 5he rise o! science "Hobbes personally met with $rancis *acon the herald o! modern science and Aalileo the !ather o! modern science#. 4uclidFs geometry and AalileoFs physics where all ob<ects naturally are in motion rather than at rest "as Aristotle had pro!essed# le!t a pro!ound impact on Hobbes who built his entire social philosophy around AalileoFs paradigm. 5he 8e!ormation which Lstrengthened the element o! individual choice in moral thin9ing while downplaying the role o! moral authorityM "'atric9 8iley @uoted in Williamson ;. 4vers. )ocial Contract. A Criti@ue# 5he 5hirty Gears War in which religion soon !aded into the bac9ground to be replaced by politics 5he 4nglish Civil War between 'arliament and Cing in the years !rom 1212 to 1231 5he in!luence o! the sarcastic Lscienti!icM historian 5hucydides who described the world in terms o! causes and e!!ect A student o! the classics Hobbes was trained in deductive reasoning. $rom emerging modern science he borrowed the model o! matter and motion and applied it also to politics whose units are men driven by their !aculties which are Lbodily strength e=perience reason passionM. 5he !irst @uestion in politics there!ore is. Why do men the !loating
01

bodies o! the social universe associate in the !irst place7 Hobbes in@uires into the LCauses !or which ;en come togetherM and identi!ies only one. Accident. And he concludes. LWe doe not there!ore by nature see9 )ociety !or its own sa9e but that we may receive some Honour or 'ro!it !rom it.M +ot L5rue loveM brings men together but L*usinesseM "Hobbes spea9s o! a L;ar9et,!riendshipM in this conte=t J obviously a metaphor ade@uate to a !lourishing proto,capitalist 4ngland#. 5his business,li9e calculating interest o! man is !or Hobbes the opposite o! LAoodM. (n this )ha9espearean world J )ha9espeare a!ter all was HobbesF older contemporaryQ J o! L6ealousieM L'leasureM L:e!ects and in!irmitiesM L?ain gloryM and LAppetiteM "all words ta9en !rom Chapter ( o! :e Cive# there can be no LAoodM "L$actions sometimes may arise but Aood will neverM#. &! the driving !orces o! Lall !ree congressM there are two. Lmutual povertyM and Lvain gloryM. Hobbes says. LAll )ociety there!ore is either !or Aain or !or AloryK "i.e.# not so much !or love o! our $ellowes as !or love o! our )elvesM. *ut what ma9es society lasting7 ?ain glory7 +o. HobbesF answer. L( hope no body will doubt but that men would much more greedily be carryed by +ature i! all !ear were removed to obtain :ominion than to gaine )ociety. We must there!ore resolve that the &riginall o! all great and lasting )ocieties consisted not in the mutuall good will men had towards each other but in the mutuall !ear they had o! each other.M )uch an answer is no surprise !or a man who once remar9ed. L$ear and ( were born twinsM. *ut why was Hobbes literally obsessed with !ear the constituting element o! his mechanical world7 5he answer is e@uality as Hobbes understands it. Lthey who can do the greatest things "namely 9ill# can doe e@uall things. All men there!ore among themselves are by nature e@uallK the ine@uality we now discern hath its spring !rom the Civill Law.M 5he ability to 9ill Hobbes immediately turns into La desire and will to hurtM and ascertains that scarcity prompts men to show such a desire. &ur LAppetite to the same thingM gives the strongest J understood as the physically strongest J a decisive advantage. (! Hobbes had introduced the concept o! property at this point he would have understood the wor9ing o! voluntary interpersonal e=change J society J much better since property is an ingenious social device allowing the smooth and nonviolent settlement o! con!licts over scarce resources. *ut Hobbes is a moralist not an economist. Can there be tran@uility and peace in a world o! motion and war7 We 9now HobbesF
02

answer. Leviathan the *iblical sea monster mentioned in the &ld 5estament and the 5almud as AodFs plaything. His eventual death symboliDes the end o! con!lict. (n the original state Hobbes speculates Lnature hath given all to all M so that Lin the state o! nature 'ro!it is the measure o! 8ightM. 5he Lnaturall proclivity o! men to hurt each otherM originates as we have seen in their L'assionsM. Hobbes importunes that Lthe naturall state o! men be!ore they entrFd into )ociety was a meer War and that not simply but a War o! all men against all menM. (n the state o! nature be!ore li!e became LCivill and $lourishingM L+ations ... were then !ew !ierce short,lived poor nasty and destroyFd o! all that 'leasure and *eauty o! li!e which 'eace and )ociety are wont to bring with themM. +ow Hobbes contrasts the state o! nature with the Laws o! +ature which he de!ines as Lthe :ictate o! right 8easonM. 5hese laws are Limmutable, and eternallM and Lthe same with the ;orallM or L'ivineM. He determines that it be reasonable 6that +eace is to be sought after where it may be found7 and deems it Lre@uisite that in those necessary matters which concern 'eace and sel!e,de!ence there be but one will o! all menM. 5he state is !ormed by contract when all men submit to Lthe will o! one man or one CounsellM which Lis nothing else than to have parted with his 8ight o! resistingM. $rom these statements it becomes clear that Hobbes used the )ocial Contract as a mere metaphor. men Lthrough desire o! preserving themselves and by mutuall !eare have growne together into civill 'ersonM the state or civil society or LCityM.

,ohn Loc"e: The Second Treatise of Ci#il ?o#ern!ent5 Chapter 'III

Loc9e the son o! 'uritan parents sided with the 'arliamentarians during the 4nglish Civil War. 5hat alone would be enough to put him in opposition with Hobbes his older contemporary. )ince Loc9e saw in the )tate o! +ature a state in which men are L!ree e@ual and independentM he had to !igure out the causes that ma9e men associate without coercion to !ound a political compound. Hn!ortunately he is not very speci!ic in this point mentioning only La secure en<oyment o! their properties and a greater security against any that are not o! itM. )ince Loc9eFs understanding as will be e=plained later on o! a !ree citiDen implies Len<oyment o! propertyM the emphasis
0-

must lie on the comparative !orm. *ut wherein does this LgreaterM security consist7 (s it measurable7 5here is however no answer to these @uestions. Loc9e is a lot more e=plicit in respect to representation than he is to legitimiDation. A political community based on consent rather than coercion can act as Lone body politic under one governmentM. )ince it is voluntarily supported by every one e=it rights are granted and every man Lputs himsel! under an obligation to every one o! that societyM ma<ority decisions are valid in theory. (n practice however it is impossible to ma9e individual pre!erences !ully congruent with collective decision in any case where the state e=ceeds its basic !unction o! Lgreater securityM !or all. A revolving,door state where people enter and leave as they please would not result in continuity and is thus re<ected by Loc9e. L$or where the ma<ority cannot conclude the rest there they cannot act as one body and conse@uently will be immediately dissolved again.M What constitutes a body politic is in one word LconsentM "repeatedly used# so that politics appears to be some sort o! trusteeship. A child is La sub<ect o! no country nor governmentM but stands Lunder his !atherFs tuition and authorityM. With maturity "the Lage o! discretionM# Lhe is a !ree man at liberty what government he will put himsel! under what body politic he will unite himsel! toM. Loc9e o! course 9nows J and discusses this point at length J Lthat there are no instances to be !ound in "hi#storyM where men set up a government by volition and that in reality men Lare not at liberty to begin a new oneM "i.e. government#. He !inds himsel! compelled to distinguish between active and Ltacit consentM. 5he criterion !or the latter is Lany possession or en<oyment o! any part o! the dominions o! any governmentM. Where then is the line between citiDens and non,citiDens7 Loc9e admits that Lsubmitting to the laws o! any country living @uietly and en<oying privileges and protection under them ma9es not a man a member o! that societyM. 5hat brings him bac9 to his original statement Lconcerning the beginning o! political societiesM namely that it is Lconsent which ma9es any one a member o! any commonwealthM.

,ean2,ac>ues (ousseau: The Social Contract5 35 The Social Co!pact

8ousseau !ormulates his problem as !ollows. L5he problem is to !ind a
01

!orm o! association which will de!end and protect with the whole common !orce the person and goods o! each associate and in which each while uniting himsel! with all may still obey himsel! alone and remain as !ree as be!ore.M Whether Lthe &ocial ,ontract provides the solutionM to this L!undamental problemM we will see soon but whether there is such a problem at all can already be answered in the negative. society is e=actly the place where in association individual needs and demands are met optimally. 8ousseau admits that Lthe clauses o! this contract ... have perhaps never been !ormally set !orthM and yet maintains that Lthey are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognisedM. *reach o! contract results !rom its LviolationM which is not speci!ied. (nstead we learn that Lthese clauses ... may be reduced to one J the total alienation o! each associate together with all his rights to the whole communityM. 5his LsolutionM to the problem as stated by 8ousseau surprises because instead o! the promised optimal compromise between individual and collective the individual is simply eliminated out o! the e@uation. 4ven i! we accept !or a second that Lthe total alienationM is voluntary J an assumption !or which we donFt even !ind any clue in the most primitive society J the conse@uences would not only be rapid deciviliDation but inevitable e=tinction o! the human race. 5he rest is cheap rhetoric as might be e=pected !rom a mentally disordered egalitarian dreamer. that Leach man in giving himsel! to all gives himsel! to nobodyM is as true in its absurdity as the necessary omnipresence o! ma<ority decisions e=pressed in Lthe general willM o! the collective.

a#id Hu!e: 6f the 6riginal Contract

As we have seen in Chapter 3 &n &bedience )ocrates turns down the o!!er to escape !rom prison out o! obedience to the laws. Hume cites 'latoFs ,rito as the only source in Anti@uity Lwhere the obligation o! obedience to government is ascribed to a promiseM. (t should be enough there!ore to limit ourselves to the ma<or social contract proponents. Hobbes Loc9e and 8ousseau. Hume wrote in 1032. L+ew discoveries are not to be e=pected in these matters. (! scarce any man till very lately ever imagined that government was !ounded on compact it is certain that it cannot in general have any such !oundation.M
03

*e!ore we discuss HumeFs criticism o! the social contract theory we should brie!ly summariDe what it is. (t is based on the !ollowing assumptions. &riginally all men are e@ual and !ree +o one in such a state o! nature would sub<ect himsel! to the will o! another without advantage (n the e=change !reedom !or security men ma9e the promise to sub<ect themselves to the sovereign (n return !or their allegiance they can count on <ustice and protection (! the sovereign brea9s the contract he releases the sub<ects again in the state o! nature (t doesnFt need much imagination and even less 9nowledge to see how illusive the entire concept is. (n !act despite the 4nglish ;agna Charta and the )wiss 8uetli &ath we have no single incident in human history where government would have been !ounded on mutual consent. L*ut would these reasoners loo9 abroad into the world they would meet with nothing that in the least corresponds to their ideas or can warrant so re!ined and philosophical a system. &n the contrary we !ind every where princes who claim their sub<ects as their property and assert their independent right o! sovereignty !rom con@uest or succession.M 5hat the idea o! social contract J Lcompact or agreementM J Lwas e=pressly !ormed !or general submissionM Hume believes is Lan idea !ar beyond the comprehension o! savagesM. :espite this general concern he sums up the core o! Loc9eFs social contract theory as !ollows. ;an is born !ree. Lno man without some e@uivalent would !orego the advantages o! his native liberty and sub<ect himsel! to the will o! anotherM. ;an and sovereign e=change loyalty !or security. Lthis promise is always understood to be conditional and imposes on him no obligation unless he meet with <ustice and protection !rom his sovereign.M *reach o! contract on the side o! the sovereign sets the sub<ect !ree again "right o! resistance#. L5hese advantages the sovereign promises him in returnK and i! he !ail in the e=ecution he has bro9en on his part the articles o! engagement and has thereby !reed his sub<ect !rom all obligations to allegianceM.
02

And a tri!le more cynical. LWere you to preach in most parts o! the world that political connections are !ounded altogether on voluntary consent or a mutual promise the magistrate would soon imprison you as seditious !or loosening the ties o! obedienceK i! your !riends did not be!ore shut you up as delirious !or advancing such absurdities.M 5he social contract theory such ridiculed the @uestion is where does government originate !rom7 Aovernment does not result !rom contract but !rom other sources li9e con@uest usurpation habit or lethargy. )ays Hume. L&bedience or sub<ection becomes so !amiliar that most men never ma9e any in@uiry about its origin or causeM. $or him the main point is a substantial di!!erence in organiDation between sovereign and sub<ects. Ltheir ignorance o! each otherFs intention 9eeps them in awe and is the sole cause o! his securityM. 5his appears plausible in the case o! !orce but what about cases Lwhere no !orce interposes and election ta9es placeM7 Hume e=presses his surprise about the !act that election is Lso highly vauntedM because Lit is either the combination o! a !ew great men who decide !or the whole and will allow o! no opposition. or it is the !ury o! a multitude that !ollow a seditious ringleader who is not 9nown perhaps to a doDen among them and who owes his advancement merely to his own impudence or to the momentary caprice o! his !ellows.M Hume li9e 'lato and )aint Augustine be!ore him saw in <ustice or rather the in<ustice o! men the stateFs reason !or being. LWere all men possessed o! so in!le=ible a regard to <ustice that o! themselves they would totally abstain !rom the properties o! othersK they had !or ever remained in a state o! absolute liberty without sub<ection to any magistrate o! political societyK but this is a state o! per!ection o! which human nature is <ustly deemed incapable.M (n addition to that Hume claims man does not 9now his interests. LAgain were all men possessed o! so per!ect an understanding as always to 9now their own interests no !orm o! government had ever been submitted to but what was established on consent and was !ully canvassed by every member o! the society. but this state o! per!ection is li9ewise much superior to human nature.M And as $ranD &ppenheimer would argue later Hume states. L5he original establishment "o! the state# was !ormed by violence and submitted to !rom necessity. 5he subse@uent administration is also supported by power and ac@uiesced in by the people not as a matter o! choice but o! obligation.M
00

5hemes to e=plore.

5he origin o! the state Contract and )ocial Contract 5he lesson in )ha9espeareFs 5he ;erchant o! ?enice

0%

Chapter +F: What is 6rder

A# Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art ?((( *# (mmanuel Cant. 5he +atural 'rinciple o! the 'olitical &rder C# Aeorg Wilhelm $riedrich Hegel 'hilosophy o! 8ight. 5he )tate. :# ;urray 8othbard. 5he Anatomy o! the )tate

&rder J usually cited in opposition to chaos "originally meaning LspaceM# and o!ten anarchy "originally meaning Lno ruleM# J is a highly charged term in politics. Who would dare to @uestion the sel!,e=plaining positive value o! order7 And yet we even use the word in opposite conte=ts li9e social versus political order. 5he rationale behind the political concept o! order is incredibly simple. no state no order no li!e. And translated into an a!!irmative statement. the state is the !oundation o! li!e and civiliDation. Hn!ortunately this is a historical !allacy and a lie as persistent as it may be. )tudents o! politics !rom 'lato to the present J o!ten li9e in AristotleFs case clearly against all evidence J have ignored non,political !orces in the building o! stable orders. (t is sound to say that AristotleFs in!luence in political science has been as crippling as it was in physics until the days o! Aalileo. (n addition political thin9ers in their overwhelming ma<ority have pre!erred static and mechanistic models o! human action over dynamic and evolutionary ones. We will address the problem o! rational versus spontaneous LorderM by re!erence mainly to the 4nlightenment.

Aristotle "-%1,-22 *C# student o! 'lato and !ounder o! the Lyceum (mmanuel Cant "1021,1%01# one o! the most prominent thin9ers o! the 4nlightenment Aeorg Wilhelm $riedrich Hegel "1000,1%-1# philosopher ;urray 8othbard "1/22,1//3# economist historian natural law theorist

Aristotle: Politics. %oo" 'II. Part 'III

We inherited !rom the ancient Aree9 philosophers the erroneous and !atal idea that li!e without the state would be utterly impossible. Aristotle de!ines. L... a state is not a community o! living beings only but a community o! e@uals aiming at the best li!e possibleM. He does not
0/

address the parado= o! e@uality and high @uality o! li!e nor does he cover the issue o! how wealth is created although he should have witnessed that trade and civiliDation were tightly intertwined. A Lcommunity o! e@ualsM J the radical democratic or communist ideal J massively in!ringes on the !reedom and property o! the members o! the community. (t can only be realiDed as 8obespierre later was to prove by terror and war destruction o! property and deciviliDation. Aristotle however did not waste his time on subtleties li9e these was he honest enough to say that Lstates re@uire property but property ... is no part o! a state.M (n a state so Aristotle the !ollowing things are indispensable. $ood Arts or 9now how Arms "against both internal and e=ternal enemies# 8evenue Worship "religion# L'ower o! deciding what is !or the public interest and what is <ustM (n conclusion La state then should be !ramed with a view to the !ul!illment o! these !unctions.M And what i! the state is unnecessary or even a hindrance to the !ul!illment o! these !unctions7 Hnthin9able !or the !ather o! biology who had no clue o! evolution and spontaneous order and no other e=planation !or the miraculous rise o! Aree9 civiliDation than reason and planning.

I!!anuel =ant: The Natural Principle of the Political 6rder

+o one testi!ies to the greatness and misery o! the 4nlightenment more heroically than the philosopher o! CUnigsberg. What others be!ore him had !elt instinctively or chosen polemically Cant thought through and through. What came a!ter him in his tradition is a long list o! epigones. (s political order natural7 Cant said yes. L... the manifestations of the will in human actions are determined li9e all other e=ternal events by universal natural laws.M Here Cant care!ully distinguishes between individual and species de!ines individual action as Ltangled and unregulatedM but collective action as LregularM and Lcontinually advancingM. 5he superiority o! the collective over the individual J with the e=ception o! +ietDsche and the Austrian )chool o! 4conomics J should become the staple !ood !or the intellectuals o! the modern age.
%0

L(ndividual men and even whole nations little thin9 while they are pursuing their own purposes J each in his own way and o!ten one in direct opposition to another J that they are advancing unconsciously under the guidance o! a 'urpose o! +ature which is un9nown to them and that they are toiling !or the realisation o! an 4nd which even i! it were 9nown to them might be regarded as o! little importance.M (n this conte=t Cant also spea9s o! La universal purpose of /ature M "sicQ# a!ter deploring the !act that man is not as rational as !ollowing a preconcerted plan and not as instinctive as being regular and systematic as animals. His arguments are the !ollowing. All the capacities i!planted in a Creature by nature are destined to unfold the!sel#es. co!pletely and confor!ably to their )nd. in the course of ti!e5 5his teleological statement undoubtedly originates in Aristotle. *ut Cant by insisting on Lthe teleological science o! +atureM integrates it in the mechanistic doctrine o! the 4nlightenment according to which La +ature moving without a purpose and not con!ormable to lawM can only mean Lthe cheerless gloom o! chance ta9es the place o! the guiding light o! 8easonM. In *an. as the only rational creature on earth. those natural capacities $hich are directed to$ards the use of his (eason. could be co!pletely de#eloped only in the species and not in the indi#idual5 Cant 9nows that reason in the individual is only a potential whose development Lre@uires e=periments e=ercise and instructionM. Conse@uently he anchors it in the human species because here and here alone it is !irstly in line with his !irst proposition and secondly it becomes immune to a!!irmation or negation. Nature has $illed that *an shall produce $holly out of hi!self all that goes beyond the !echanical structure and arrange!ent of his ani!al existence. and that he shall participate in no other happiness or perfection but $hat he has produced for hi!self. apart fro! Instinct. by his o$n (eason5 CantFs third argument is o! particular curiosity does it assume that +ature Ldoes nothing that is super!luousM and there!ore un!olds itsel! in reasonable !ashion according to a master plan. ;an by applying reason progresses !rom generation to generation until eventually he collectively reveals the master plan and reaches per!ectionPhappiness.
%1

The !eans $hich Nature e!ploys to bring about the de#elop!ent of all the capacities i!planted in !an. is their !utual Antagonis! in society. but only so far as this antagonis! beco!es at length the cause of an 6rder a!ong the! that is regulated by La$5 Anticipating ;ar=F view o! dialectic as the engine o! historical development but missing the epigoneFs scientistic rhetoric "e.g. class struggle# Cant identi!ies antagonism J Lthe unsocial sociability o! menM J as necessary evil. Lan Arcadian shepherd li!e in complete harmony contentment and mutual loveM versus Lunsocial dispositionM Lthe desire o! honour or power or wealthM. Although his main argument put !orth in the !irst proposition compels him to read a positive trait into con!lict "in the same way ;ar= does a !ew decades later# it does not occur to him that antagonism in the !orm o! competition and division o! labor has a socially highly productive value. Cant admits without antagonism Lall their talents would have !or ever remained hidden in their germM but !ails to understand the productive role o! individual interest property and !reedom !or both individual and society. The greatest practical Proble! for the hu!an race to the solution of $hich it is co!pelled by Nature is the establish!ent of a Ci#il Society. uni#ersally ad!inistering (ight according to La$5 Cant now repeats a myth going bac9 in more recent time to Hobbes which can be !ound in Aristotle namely that order can only result !rom design. (n civil society or more pro!anely the state Cant sees the mirror and !ul!illment o! +atureFs will. )el!, restraint and discipline are the price to pay !or human progress and happiness. $reedom and individualism stand in the way. L(t is with them as with the trees in the !orestK !or <ust because everyone strives to deprive the other o! air and sun they compel each other to see9 them both above and thus they grow beauti!ul and straight whereas those that in !reedom and apart !rom one another shoot out their branches at will grow stunted and croo9ed and awry.M This Proble! is li"e$ise the !ost difficult of its "ind. and it is the latest to be sol#ed by the Hu!an (ace5 Cant establishes here the need !or a master since Lman is an animalM and Lmisuses his !reedom in relation to his !ellow,menM. He !ran9ly admits that the master himsel! since a sample o! the

%2

Human 8ace Lis an animal tooM. 5he dilemma there!ore is. L5he highest authority has to be $ust in itself and yet to be a man7. $or this dilemma La per!ect solution is impossibleM. 5he appro=imate solution o! this dilemma depends on three !actors. Correct conceptions o! the nature o! a possible Constitutional Areat e=perience Aood will 5he solution ta9es time to mature and thus rings in the !inal round o! human history. The proble! of the establish!ent of a perfect Ci#il Constitution is dependent on the proble! of the regulation of the external relations bet$een the States confor!ably to La$G and $ithout the solution of this latter proble! it cannot be sol#ed5 As Civil )ociety addresses the problem o! antagonism within society a $ederation o! +ations supposedly solves the very same problem between societies. Cant not logically conse@uential because the !ormer constitutes the latter e=pects the solution o! the latter to solve the dilemma o! the !ormer. +ot only that !actual evidence contradicts Cant J the atrocities o! the 20th century war mass murder genocide were all caused by the state J the dreamer o! this LvisionaryM idea naively believes that the solution to interstate con!licts lies in the power o! states. The history of the hu!an race. #ie$ed as a $hole. !ay be regarded as the realisation of a hidden plan of Nature to bring about a political Constitution. internally. and for this purpose. also externally perfect. as the only state in $hich all the capacities i!planted by her in *an"ind can be fully de#eloped5 5he chiliastic message in this proposition is !ran9ly admitted by Cant. 5he 9ey point however consists in the !act that Cant does not envisage a happier !uture as a normative principle but derives it logically by means o! his scientistic or constructivist method. Little wonder that he concludes. L... the highest purpose o! +ature will be at last realised in the establishment o! a universal ,osmopolitical Institution in the bosom o! which all the original capacities and endowments o! the human species will be un!olded and developed.M A philosophical atte!pt to $or" out the Dni#ersal History of the $orld according to the plan of Nature in its ai!ing at
%-

a perfect Ci#il Dnion !ust be regarded as possible and as e#en capable of helping for$ard the purpose of Nature5 (! the Laggregate o! human actions as a wholeM can be represented Las constituting a &ystemM it should be possible to Ldiscover a regular movement o! progressM. 5his development advances in revolutionary increments to La subse@uent higher stage o! progress and improvementM. Hndoubtedly ;ar= inherited this scheme !rom Cant.

?eorg Wilhel! 7riedrich Hegel. Philosophy of (ight5 The State5

(n the 'russian )tate 'hilosopher Hegel we !ind the most perverse adulation o! the state ever written by a scholar o! reputation. +eedless to say that HegelFs state stands in the tradition o! the 4nlightenment and is there!ore a rational construct. &ne does not need to approach Hegel !rom the hyperdemocratic perspective o! the 20 th century to e=perience its absurdity. it becomes evident even !rom HegelFs own reasoning. When he develops in II -31,-20 his world history !rom the &riental Aree9 8oman and !inally Aermanic realms he leaves the reader speechless and wondering what utter nonsense a bright mind is able to produce. *ut let us con!ine ourselves to the more substantial aspects o! his argumentation. L5he state M Hegel claims Lis the actuality o! the ethical (deaM "I 230#. 5he state is given a LwillM it possesses LconsciousnessM and it is an LendM in itsel!. (ts rationality consists in the Lunity o! the universal and the singleM "I 23%#. (! not in terminology in !act the parallel between Aod and )tate is stri9ing. cosmical regularity and order !ind their correspondence in state law. Hegel emphasiDes that state and civil society are di!!erent. L(! the state is con!used with civil society and i! its speci!ic end is laid down as the security and protection o! property and personal !reedom then the interest o! the individuals as such becomes the ultimate end o! their association and it !ollows that membership o! the state is something optional. *ut the stateFs relation to the individual is @uite di!!erent !rom this. )ince the state is mind ob<ecti!ied it is only as one o! its members that the individual himsel! has ob<ectivity genuine individuality and an ethical li!e. Hni!ication pure and simple is the true content and aim o! the individual and the individualFs destiny is the living o! a universal li!e.M "I 23%# 5hese words made it clear that vis4a4vis the state the individual is
%1

nothing. (t echoes 'russia where everyone up to the 9ing is merely a servant o! the state. ;ore di!!icult than the rationalist,constructivist conception o! the Hegelian state is to identi!y where !reedom and ethics as Lthe actualisation o! !reedomM "I 23%# come into play. 5he answer is surprisingly simple and even conse@uential. in a deterministic order L!reedomM can only consist in !ollowing this order whereby human action @ua LactionM becomes inevitably an ethical category in a purely !ormalistic sense. Hegel 9nows that actual states are bad and de!ective and hence pre!ers to spea9 o! the idea o! the state. Here he believes he is on sa!e ground. L5he march o! Aod in the world that is what the state is. 5he basis o! the state is the power o! reason actualising itsel! as will.M "I 23%# HegelFs in!luential contemporary Carl Ludwig von Haller whose L8estauration der )taatswissenscha!tenM gave a whole era its name denied the e=istence o! anything but private J i.e. commutative J law. He observes that Lneither the 9ing himsel! ... nor the 'russian citiDens can call anything their own neither their person nor their propertyK and all sub<ects are bondslaves to the law since they may not withdraw themselves !rom the service o! the state.M "@uoted by Hegel in I 23%# Hegel ridiculed him and his patrimonial state as anti@uated and passB a!ter +apoleon had ta9en hal! o! 4urope in a storm. 5he revolutionary reorganiDation o! the state had surely le!t its mar9 on Hegel. Li9e practically all thin9ers o! the 4nlightenment Hegel contrasts the individual with the universal. 5he universal J comparable to the law!ul wor9ing o! the universe in +ewtonian physics J is made the benchmar9 o! all things. And only where the individual case matches the universal law order can e=ist. Hegel however goes a step !urther. in order to blur the line between the human invention by the name o! )tate and the e=tra,human entity called +ature he assigns the universal an interest. +ow the state can be represented as the natural sphere in which the individual spheres are contained. L5he essence o! the modern state is that the universal be bound up with the complete !reedom o! its particular members and with private well,being that thus the interests o! !amily and civil society must concentrate themselves on the state although the universal end cannot be advanced without the personal
%3

9nowledge and will o! its particular members whose own rights must be maintained. 5hus the universal must be !urthered but sub<ectivity on the other hand must attain its !ull and living development. (t is only when both these moments subsist in their strength that the state can be regarded as articulated and genuinely organised.M "I 220# Having thrown out the baby with the bathtub water Hegel now tries to save the baby. L(ndividualsM he maintains Lhave duties to the state in proportion as they have rights against it.M "I 221# And !urther. L5he state is actual only when its members have a !eeling o! their own sel!,hood and it is stable only when public and private ends are identical.M "I 223# And more cautiously. LWe are con!ident that the state must subsist and that in it alone can particular interests be secured.M "I 22%# *ut also. L5he state this whole whose limbs they "men# areM "I 200#. And then Hegel repeats a myth which was as !alse in his time as it is !alse today. MWhen we wal9 the streets at night in sa!ety it does not stri9e us that this might be otherwise. 5his habit o! !eeling sa!e has become second nature and we do not re!lect on <ust how this is due solely to the wor9ing o! special institutions. Commonplace thin9ing o!ten has the impression that !orce holds the state together but in !act its only bond is the !undamental sense o! order which everybody possesses.M "I 22%# Hn!ortunately Hegel does not !urther sound out Lthe wor9ing o! special institutionsM and tacitly assumes that they must be the state. He surely would have discovered society. 8eturning to his original doctrine Hegel strongly criticiDes the view Lthat the stateFs speci!ic !unction consists in protecting and securing everyoneFs li!e property and caprice in so !ar as these do not encroach upon the li!e property and caprice o! others. 5he state !rom this point o! view is treated simply as an organisation to satis!y menFs necessities.M "I 200# He more clearly than most o! his contemporaries sees that then Lthe element o! absolute truth ... is placed ... beyond the reach o! the stateM. "I 200# HegelFs point is necessity. LAenuine actuality is necessityM "I 200# 5he di!!erence between a good and a bad state boils down to the di!!erence between in!inite and !inite. M&! course a bad state is worldly and !inite and nothing else but the rational state is inherently in!inite.M "I 200# Without a doubt still under the spell o! +apoleon *onaparte Hegel concludes that it is Lthe right o! heroes to !ound statesM "I -30# and that it is the right o! Lcivilised nations in regarding and treating as barbarians those who lag behind them in institutionsM "I -31#. Arguing un!airly with the 9nowledge o! 20 th c. history it is not a bad idea to stop here rather than !ollowing HegelFs
%2

LinsightsM into world history and the !uture o! it by what he calls the Aermanic realm. A !urther pursuit o! this in!luential manFs strange concoctions would only be embarrassing.

*urray (othbard: The Anato!y of the State

8othbard begins his elementary course in anatomy with the basic but !orgotten observation that the state is not society but an organiDation in society. 5his !allacy he attributes to the rise o! democracy which blurred the line between us and them. What then is the state7 8othbard de!ines it as !ollows. M*rie!ly the )tate is that organiDation in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly o! the use o! !orce and violence in a given territorial areaK in particular it is the only organiDation in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment !or services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production o! goods and services and by the peace!ul and voluntary sale o! these goods and services to others the )tate obtains its revenue by the use o! compulsionK that is by the use and the threat o! the <ailhouse and the bayonet.M 5o !urther elucidate his point 8othbard cites $ranD &ppenheimerFs distinction between economic and political means the Ltwo mutually e=clusive ways o! ac@uiring wealthM. 5he !irst is the ac@uisition o! wealth by production and e=change the second Mis the way o! seiDure o! anotherFs goods or services by the use o! !orce and violenceM. While the !irst corresponds with natural law the second is contrary to it. (n 8othbardFs words political means Lsiphons production o!! to a parasitic and destructive individual or groupM and this with three conse@uences. (t subtracts !rom the number producing (t lowers the producerFs incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence (t compels the predator to act contrary to his own true nature as a man At any rate the result is !atal !or both. the destruction o! the host inevitably leads to the death o! the parasite. History shows a long account o! instances o! deciviliDation the necessary conse@uence o! destruction. (n contrast to non,monopolistically organiDed crime Lthe )tate provides a legal orderly systematic channel !or the predation o! private propertyM. And Lit renders certain secure and relatively Fpeace!ulF the li!eline o! the parasitic caste in societyM. As we have seen in Chapter / we can conclude with 8othbard. L5he )tate has never
%0

been created by a Fsocial contractFK it has always been born in con@uest and e=ploitation.M &nce the @uestion o! how the state was established settled the ne=t @uestion is how the ruling caste maintain their rule. 8othbard insists. LWhile !orce is their modus operandi their basic and long,run problem is ideological.M 5his ideological problem is acceptance. L2ny government ... must have the support o! the ma<ority o! its sub<ects.M Acceptance can be active J less o!ten J or passive J more o!ten J but Lthe chie! tas9 o! the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance o! the ma<ority o! the citiDensM. 'rivileges !or a selected group o! !ollowers J bureaucracy partisans etc. J do not su!!ice to secure a ma<ority. 5here is nothing else but ideology to !ool the victims in believing that Ltheir government is good wise and at least inevitable and certainly better than other conceivable alternativesM. 5his vital tas9 o! LcommunicationM is le!t to the LintellectualsM the Lopinion,moldersM or Lsecond,hand dealers o! ideasM "Haye9. 5he $atal Conceit. 5he 4rrors o! )ocialism# LcourtM historians Lscienti!ic e=pertsM and o! course media !ol9s "what else could the word LmediaM mean but the mediation o! !alse ideasQ#. (deology being the li!eblood o! politics the huge ideological arsenal o! the state can hardly surprise. Perception and its pro!essional management is one cheap and e!!icient way o! ma<ority control. 7ear o! any alternative system o! rule has always been a ma<or trump card o! the state. the specter o! sporadic crime !rightening in comparison to systematic e=tortion and +ationalism as the seemingly LnaturalM union o! state society people and territory. Tradition gives a state the weight o! time and the aura o! e=cellence. Worship of collecti#ity J deprecation o! the individual J suggests the importance o! ad<ustment subordination or simply acceptance o! ma<ority opinion while ridiculing their opposites. Apparent ine#itability of state rule ma9es !or passivity and resignation. The state as the only authority of truth discredits deviant or critical opinion as Lconspiracy theoryM. A feeling of guilt J individual or collective J produces
%%

compliance and insecurity. 4=amples are many in an age o! &rwellian +ewspea9. pro!it as e=ploitation e=change as parasitism property as the!t contract as !raud etc. etc. (n a secular age li9e ours science. the ne$ god. reigns supre!e. Hegel is possibly the best e=ample !or the pseudoscienti!ic veil o! the state. )ays 8othbard. L)tate rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascienti!ic as constituting planning by e=perts.M +o newspaper article no te=tboo9 !or schools no 5? program omits Lto weave obscurantist apologia !or )tate ruleM in scienti!ic <argon.

L5hus ideological support being vital to the )tate it must unceasingly try to impress the public with its Flegitimacy F to distinguish its activities !rom those o! mere brigands.M ;enc9en observed that common reasoning where not yet completely undermined by state propaganda distinguishes sharply between private and public spheres. LWhen a private citiDen is robbed a worthy man is deprived o! the !ruits o! his industry and thri!tK when the government is robbed the worst what happens is that certain rogues and loa!ers have less money to play with than they had be!ore.M ";enc9en. Chrestomathy pp. 112P0# 8othbard sees in war and revolution the two !undamental threats to the state. Although he states that Lin war )tate power is pushed to its ultimateM he !ails to identi!y in war and revolution the capital o! the modern state. War allows the state to polariDe its state people to label the ones LgoodM and the others LbadM to mobiliDe the psychic and material resources o! its state people to the ma=imum. 8evolution or more precisely the tal9 thereo! plays a growing role to more easily sell the illusion o! continuity stability and security. Whatever the nature o! the LrevolutionM be it the electronic LrevolutionM or the moslemic LrevolutionM the state assures us static order in a !lood o! changes. (! there is nothing else le!t !or the state to shine international and national war J the war on poverty the war on drugs the war on terrorism the war on you name it J are predestined to thrill and entertain the masses. 8est assured that the ne=t wild goose chase is already under preparation ...

%/

5hemes to e=plore.

&rder in history (nternal and e=ternal order 5he Wheel o! $ortune

/0

/1

/2

Source Texts:
Source + A Plato The (epublic
%oo" II5 /01e2/34e (ndeed ( doK nor can ( imagine any theme about which a man o! sense would o!tener wish to converse. ( am delighted he replied to hear you say so and shall begin by spea9ing as ( proposed o! the nature and origin o! <ustice. Alaucon 5hey say that to do in<ustice is by nature goodK to su!!er in<ustice evilK but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both done and su!!ered in<ustice and have had e=perience o! both not being able to avoid the one and obtain the other they thin9 that they had better agree among themselves to have neitherK hence there arise laws and mutual covenantsK and that which is ordained by law is termed by them law!ul and <ust. 5his they a!!irm to be the origin and nature o! <usticeK J it is a mean or compromise between the best o! all which is to do in<ustice and not be punished and the worst o! all which is to su!!er in<ustice without the power o! retaliationK and <ustice being at a middle point between the two is tolerated not as a good but as the lesser evil and honoured by reason o! the inability o! men to do in<ustice. $or no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever submit to such an agreement i! he were able to resistK he would be mad i! he did. )uch is the received account )ocrates o! the nature and origin o! <ustice. +ow that those who practise <ustice do so involuntarily and because they have not the power to be un<ust will best appear i! we imagine something o! this 9ind. having given both to the <ust and the un<ust power to do what they will let us watch and see whither desire will lead themK then we shall discover in the very act the <ust and un<ust man to be proceeding along the same road !ollowing their interest which all natures deem to be their good and are only diverted into the path o!
/-

<ustice by the !orce o! law. 5he liberty which we are supposing may be most completely given to them in the !orm o! such a power as is said to have been possessed by Ayges the ancestor o! Croesus the Lydian. According to the tradition Ayges was a shepherd in the service o! the 9ing o! LydiaK there was a great storm and an earth@ua9e made an opening in the earth at the place where he was !eeding his !loc9. AmaDed at the sight he descended into the opening where among other marvels he beheld a hollow braDen horse having doors at which he stooping and loo9ing in saw a dead body o! stature as appeared to him more than human and having nothing on but a gold ringK this he too9 !rom the !inger o! the dead and reascended. +ow the shepherds met together according to custom that they might send their monthly report about the !loc9s to the 9ingK into their assembly he came having the ring on his !inger and as he was sitting among them he chanced to turn the collet o! the ring inside his hand when instantly he became invisible to the rest o! the company and they began to spea9 o! him as i! he were no longer present. He was astonished at this and again touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappearedK he made several trials o! the ring and always with the same result J when he turned the collet inwards he became invisible when outwards he reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one o! the messengers who were sent to the courtK where as soon as he arrived he seduced the @ueen and with her help conspired against the 9ing and slew him and too9 the 9ingdom. )uppose now that there were two such magic rings and the <ust put on one o! them and the un<ust the other. +o man can be imagined to be o! such an iron nature that he would stand !ast in <ustice. +o man would 9eep his hands o!! what was not his own when he could sa!ely ta9e what he li9ed out o! the mar9et or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure or 9ill or release !rom prison whom he would and in all respects be li9e a Aod among men. 5hen the actions o! the <ust would be as the actions o! the un<ustK they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly a!!irm to be a great proo! that a man is <ust not willingly or because he thin9s that <ustice is any good to him individually but o! necessity !or wherever any one thin9s that he can sa!ely be un<ust there he is un<ust. $or all men believe in their hearts that in<ustice is !ar more pro!itable to the individual than <ustice and he who argues as ( have been supposing will say that they are right. (! you could imagine any one obtaining this power o! becoming invisible and never doing any wrong or touching what was anotherFs he would be thought by the loo9ers,on to be a most wretched idiot although they would praise him
/1

to one anotherFs !aces and 9eep up appearances with one another !rom a !ear that they too might su!!er in<ustice. 4nough o! this. +ow i! we are to !orm a real <udgment o! the li!e o! the <ust and un<ust we must isolate themK there is no other wayK and how is the isolation to be e!!ected7 ( answer. Let the un<ust man be entirely un<ust and the <ust man entirely <ustK nothing is to be ta9en away !rom either o! them and both are to be per!ectly !urnished !or the wor9 o! their respective lives. $irst let the un<ust be li9e other distinguished masters o! cra!tK li9e the s9ill!ul pilot or physician who 9nows intuitively his own powers and 9eeps within their limits and who i! he !ails at any point is able to recover himsel!. )o let the un<ust ma9e his un<ust attempts in the right way and lie hidden i! he means to be great in his in<ustice "he who is !ound out is nobody#K !or the highest reach o! in<ustice is to be deemed <ust when you are not. 5here!ore ( say that in the per!ectly un<ust man we must assume the most per!ect in<usticeK there is to be no deduction but we must allow him while doing the most un<ust acts to have ac@uired the greatest reputation !or <ustice. (! he has ta9en a !alse step he must be able to recover himsel!K he must be one who can spea9 with e!!ect i! any o! his deeds come to light and who can !orce his way where !orce is re@uired his courage and strength and command o! money and !riends. And at his side let us place the <ust man in his nobleness and simplicity wishing as Aeschylus says to be and not to seem good. 5here must be no seeming !or i! he seems to be <ust he will be honoured and rewarded and then we shall not 9now whether he is <ust !or the sa9e o! <ustice or !or the sa9e o! honours and rewardsK there!ore let him be clothed in <ustice only and have no other coveringK and he must be imagined in a state o! li!e the opposite o! the !ormer. Let him be the best o! men and let him be thought the worstK then he will have been put to the proo!K and we shall see whether he will be a!!ected by the !ear o! in!amy and its conse@uences. And let him continue thus to the hour o! deathK being <ust and seeming to be un<ust. When both have reached the uttermost e=treme the one o! <ustice and the other o! in<ustice let <udgment be given which o! them is the happier o! the two. )ocrates J ALAHC&+ HeavensQ my dear Alaucon ( said how energetically you polish them up !or the decision !irst one and then the other as i! they were two statues.
/3

( do my best he said. And now that we 9now what they are li9e there is no di!!iculty in tracing out the sort o! li!e which awaits either o! them. 5his ( will proceed to describeK but as you may thin9 the description a little too coarse ( as9 you to suppose )ocrates that the words which !ollow are not mine. J Let me put them into the mouths o! the eulogists o! in<ustice. 5hey will tell you that the <ust man who is thought un<ust will be scourged rac9ed bound J will have his eyes burnt outK and at last a!ter su!!ering every 9ind o! evil he will be impaled. 5hen he will understand that he ought to seem only and not to be <ustK the words o! Aeschylus may be more truly spo9en o! the un<ust than o! the <ust. $or the un<ust is pursuing a realityK he does not live with a view to appearances J he wants to be really un<ust and not to seem only. 1is mind has a soil deep and fertile, 8ut of which spring his prudent counsels. (n the !irst place he is thought <ust and there!ore bears rule in the cityK he can marry whom he will and give in marriage to whom he willK also he can trade and deal where he li9es and always to his own advantage because he has no misgivings about in<ustice and at every contest whether in public or private he gets the better o! his antagonists and gains at their e=pense and is rich and out o! his gains he can bene!it his !riends and harm his enemiesK moreover he can o!!er sacri!ices and dedicate gi!ts to the gods abundantly and magni!icently and can honour the gods or any man whom he wants to honour in a !ar better style than the <ust and there!ore he is li9ely to be dearer than they are to the gods. And thus )ocrates gods and men are said to unite in ma9ing the li!e o! the un<ust better than the li!e o! the <ust. Adeimantus J )&C8A54) ( was going to say something in answer to Alaucon when Adeimantus his brother interposed. )ocrates he said you do not suppose that there is nothing more to be urged7 Why what else is there7 ( answered. 5he strongest point o! all has not been even mentioned he replied. Well then according to the proverb FLet brother help brotherF J i! he !ails in any part do you assist himK although ( must con!ess that
/2

Alaucon has already said @uite enough to lay me in the dust and ta9e !rom me the power o! helping <ustice. Adeimantus +onsense he replied. *ut let me add something more. 5here is another side to AlauconFs argument about the praise and censure o! <ustice and in<ustice which is e@ually re@uired in order to bring out what ( believe to be his meaning. 'arents and tutors are always telling their sons and their wards that they are to be <ustK but why7 not !or the sa9e o! <ustice but !or the sa9e o! character and reputationK in the hope o! obtaining !or him who is reputed <ust some o! those o!!ices marriages and the li9e which Alaucon has enumerated among the advantages accruing to the un<ust !rom the reputation o! <ustice. ;ore however is made o! appearances by this class o! persons than by the othersK !or they throw in the good opinion o! the gods and will tell you o! a shower o! bene!its which the heavens as they say rain upon the piousK and this accords with the testimony o! the noble Hesiod and Homer the !irst o! whom says that the gods ma9e the oa9s o! the <ust J 9o hear acorns at their summit, and bees in the middle: 2nd the sheep are bowed down with the weight of their fleeces. and many other blessings o! a li9e 9ind are provided !or them. And Homer has a very similar strainK !or he spea9s o! one whose !ame is J 2s the fame of some blameless king who, like a god, 0aintains $ustice to whom the black earth brings forth ;heat and barley, whose trees are bowed with fruit, 2nd his sheep never fail to bear, and the sea gives him fish. )till grander are the gi!ts o! heaven which ;usaeus and his son vouchsa!e to the <ustK they ta9e them down into the world below where they have the saints lying on couches at a !east everlastingly drun9 crowned with garlandsK their idea seems to be that an immortality o! drun9enness is the highest meed o! virtue. )ome e=tend their rewards yet !urtherK the posterity as they say o! the !aith!ul and <ust shall survive to the third and !ourth generation. 5his is the style in which they praise <ustice. *ut about the wic9ed there is another strainK they bury them in a slough in Hades and ma9e them carry water in a sieveK also while they are yet living they bring them to in!amy and in!lict upon them
/0

the punishments which Alaucon described as the portion o! the <ust who are reputed to be un<ustK nothing else does their invention supply. )uch is their manner o! praising the one and censuring the other. &nce more )ocrates ( will as9 you to consider another way o! spea9ing about <ustice and in<ustice which is not con!ined to the poets but is !ound in prose writers. 5he universal voice o! man9ind is always declaring that <ustice and virtue are honourable but grievous and toilsomeK and that the pleasures o! vice and in<ustice are easy o! attainment and are only censured by law and opinion. 5hey say also that honesty is !or the most part less pro!itable than dishonestyK and they are @uite ready to call wic9ed men happy and to honour them both in public and private when they are rich or in any other way in!luential while they despise and overloo9 those who may be wea9 and poor even though ac9nowledging them to be better than the others. *ut most e=traordinary o! all is their mode o! spea9ing about virtue and the gods. they say that the gods apportion calamity and misery to many good men and good and happiness to the wic9ed. And mendicant prophets go to rich menFs doors and persuade them that they have a power committed to them by the gods o! ma9ing an atonement !or a manFs own or his ancestorFs sins by sacri!ices or charms with re<oicings and !eastsK and they promise to harm an enemy whether <ust or un<ust at a small costK with magic arts and incantations binding heaven as they say to e=ecute their will. And the poets are the authorities to whom they appeal now smoothing the path o! vice with the words o! HesiodK J <ice may be had in abundance without trouble: the way is smooth and her dwelling4place is near. )ut before virtue the gods have set toil, and a tedious and uphill road. 5hen citing Homer as a witness that the gods may be in!luenced by menK !or he also says. 9he gods, too, may he turned from their purpose: and men pray to them and avert their wrath by sacrifices and soothing entreaties, and by libations and the odour of fat, when they have sinned and transgressed. And they produce a host o! boo9s written by ;usaeus and &rpheus who were children o! the ;oon and the ;uses J that is what they say
/%

J according to which they per!orm their ritual and persuade not only individuals but whole cities that e=piations and atonements !or sin may be made by sacri!ices and amusements which !ill a vacant hour and are e@ually at the service o! the living and the deadK the latter sort they call mysteries and they redeem us !rom the pains o! hell but i! we neglect them no one 9nows what awaits us. He proceeded. And now when the young hear all this said about virtue and vice and the way in which gods and men regard them how are their minds li9ely to be a!!ected my dear )ocrates J those o! them ( mean who are @uic9witted and li9e bees on the wing light on every !lower and !rom all that they hear are prone to draw conclusions as to what manner o! persons they should be and in what way they should wal9 i! they would ma9e the best o! li!e7 'robably the youth will say to himsel! in the words o! 'indar J ,an I by $ustice or by crooked ways of deceit ascend a loftier tower which may be a fortress to me all my days= $or what men say is that i! ( am really <ust and am not also thought <ust pro!it there is none but the pain and loss on the other hand are unmista9able. *ut i! though un<ust ( ac@uire the reputation o! <ustice a heavenly li!e is promised to me. )ince then as philosophers prove appearance tyranniDes over truth and is lord o! happiness to appearance ( must devote mysel!. ( will describe around me a picture and shadow o! virtue to be the vestibule and e=terior o! my houseK behind ( will trail the subtle and cra!ty !o= as Archilochus greatest o! sages recommends. *ut ( hear some one e=claiming that the concealment o! wic9edness is o!ten di!!icultK to which ( answer. +othing great is easy. +evertheless the argument indicates this i! we would be happy to be the path along which we should proceed. With a view to concealment we will establish secret brotherhoods and political clubs. And there are pro!essors o! rhetoric who teach the art o! persuading courts and assembliesK and so partly by persuasion and partly by !orce ( shall ma9e unlaw!ul gains and not be punished. )till ( hear a voice saying that the gods cannot be deceived neither can they be compelled. *ut what i! there are no gods7 or suppose them to have no care o! human things J why in either case should we mind about concealment7 And even i! there are gods and they do care about us yet we 9now o! them only !rom tradition and the genealogies o! the poetsK and these are the very persons who say that they may be
//

in!luenced and turned by Fsacri!ices and soothing entreaties and by o!!erings.F Let us be consistent then and believe both or neither. (! the poets spea9 truly why then we had better be un<ust and o!!er o! the !ruits o! in<usticeK !or i! we are <ust although we may escape the vengeance o! heaven we shall lose the gains o! in<usticeK but i! we are un<ust we shall 9eep the gains and by our sinning and praying and praying and sinning the gods will be propitiated and we shall not be punished. F*ut there is a world below in which either we or our posterity will su!!er !or our un<ust deeds.F Ges my !riend will be the re!lection but there are mysteries and atoning deities and these have great power. 5hat is what mighty cities declareK and the children o! the gods who were their poets and prophets bear a li9e testimony. &n what principle then shall we any longer choose <ustice rather than the worst in<ustice7 When i! we only unite the latter with a deceit!ul regard to appearances we shall !are to our mind both with gods and men in li!e and a!ter death as the most numerous and the highest authorities tell us. Cnowing all this )ocrates how can a man who has any superiority o! mind or person or ran9 or wealth be willing to honour <usticeK or indeed to re!rain !rom laughing when he hears <ustice praised7 And even i! there should be some one who is able to disprove the truth o! my words and who is satis!ied that <ustice is best still he is not angry with the un<ust but is very ready to !orgive them because he also 9nows that men are not <ust o! their own !ree willK unless per adventure there be some one whom the divinity within him may have inspired with a hatred o! in<ustice or who has attained 9nowledge o! the truth J but no other man. He only blames in<ustice who owing to cowardice or age or some wea9ness has not the power o! being un<ust. And this is proved by the !act that when he obtains the power he immediately becomes un<ust as !ar as he can be. 5he cause o! all this )ocrates was indicated by us at the beginning o! the argument when my brother and ( told you how astonished we were to !ind that o! all the pro!essing panegyrists o! <ustice J beginning with the ancient heroes o! whom any memorial has been preserved to us and ending with the men o! our own time J no one has ever blamed in<ustice or praised <ustice e=cept with a view to the glories honours and bene!its which !low !rom them. +o one has ever ade@uately described either in verse or prose the true essential nature o! either o! them abiding in the soul and invisible to any human or divine eyeK or shown that o! all the things o! a manFs soul which he has within him
100

<ustice is the greatest good and in<ustice the greatest evil. Had this been the universal strain had you sought to persuade us o! this !rom our youth upwards we should not have been on the watch to 9eep one another !rom doing wrong but every one would have been his own watchman because a!raid i! he did wrong o! harbouring in himsel! the greatest o! evils. ( dare say that 5hrasymachus and others would seriously hold the language which ( have been merely repeating and words even stronger than these about <ustice and in<ustice grossly as ( conceive perverting their true nature. *ut ( spea9 in this vehement manner as ( must !ran9ly con!ess to you because ( want to hear !rom you the opposite sideK and ( would as9 you to show not only the superiority which <ustice has over in<ustice but what e!!ect they have on the possessor o! them which ma9es the one to be a good and the other an evil to him. And please as Alaucon re@uested o! you to e=clude reputationsK !or unless you ta9e away !rom each o! them his true reputation and add on the !alse we shall say that you do not praise <ustice but the appearance o! itK we shall thin9 that you are only e=horting us to 9eep in<ustice dar9 and that you really agree with 5hrasymachus in thin9ing that <ustice is anotherFs good and the interest o! the stronger and that in<ustice is a manFs own pro!it and interest though in<urious to the wea9er. +ow as you have admitted that <ustice is one o! that highest class o! goods which are desired indeed !or their results but in a !ar greater degree !or their own sa9es J li9e sight or hearing or 9nowledge or health or any other real and natural and not merely conventional good J ( would as9 you in your praise o! <ustice to regard one point only. ( mean the essential good and evil which <ustice and in<ustice wor9 in the possessors o! them. Let others praise <ustice and censure in<ustice magni!ying the rewards and honours o! the one and abusing the otherK that is a manner o! arguing which coming !rom them ( am ready to tolerate but !rom you who have spent your whole li!e in the consideration o! this @uestion unless ( hear the contrary !rom your own lips ( e=pect something better. And there!ore ( say not only prove to us that <ustice is better than in<ustice but show what they either o! them do to the possessor o! them which ma9es the one to be a good and the other an evil whether seen or unseen by gods and men.

101

Source + % a#id Hu!e A Treatise of Hu!an Nature5

%oo" III: 6f *orals5 Section II: 6f the 6rigin of ,ustice and Property We now proceed to e=amine two @uestions viD. concerning the manner, in which the rules of $ustice are establish'd by the artifice of menK and concerning the reasons, which determine us to attribute to the observance or neglect of these rules a moral beauty and deformity . 5hese @uestions will appear a!terwards to be distinct. We shall begin with the !ormer. &! all the animals with which this globe is peopled there is none towards whom nature seems at !irst sight to have e=ercisFd more cruelty than towards man in the numberless wants and necessities with which she has loaded him and in the slender means which she a!!ords to the relieving these necessities. (n other creatures these two particulars generally compensate each other. (! we consider the lion as a voracious and carnivorous animal we shall easily discover him to be very necessitousK but i! we turn our eye to his ma9e and temper his agility his courage his arms and his !orce we shall !ind that his advantages hold proportion with his wants. 5he sheep and o= are deprivFd o! all these advantagesK but their appetites are moderate and their !ood is o! easy purchase. (n man alone this unnatural con<unction o! in!irmity and o! necessity may be observFd in its greatest per!ection. +ot only the !ood which is re@uirFd !or his sustenance !lies his search and approach or at least re@uires his labour to be producFd but he must be possessFd o! cloaths and lodging to de!end him against the in<uries o! the weatherK thoF to consider him only in himsel! he is provided neither with arms nor !orce nor other natural abilities which are in any degree answerable to so many necessities. F5is by society alone he is able to supply his de!ects and raise himsel! up to an e@uality with his !ellow,creatures and even ac@uire a superiority above them. *y society all his in!irmities are compensatedK and thoF in that situation his wants multiply every moment upon him yet his abilities are still more augmented and leave him in every respect
102

more satis!ied and happy than Ftis possible !or him in his savage and solitary condition ever to become. When every individual person labours a,part and only !or himsel! his !orce is too small to e=ecute any considerable wor9K his labour being employFd in supplying all his di!!erent necessities he never attains a per!ection in any particular artK and as his !orce and success are not at all times e@ual the least !ailure in either o! these particulars must be attended with inevitable ruin and misery. )ociety provides a remedy !or these three inconveniences. *y the con<unction o! !orces our power is augmented. *y the partition o! employments our ability encreases. And by mutual succour we are less e=posFd to !ortune and accidents. F5is by this additional force ability and security that society becomes advantageous. *ut in order to !orm society Ftis re@uisite not only that it be advantageous but also that men be sensible o! these advantagesK and Ftis impossible in their wild uncultivated state that by study and re!lection alone they should ever be able to attain this 9nowledge. ;ost !ortunately there!ore there is con<oinFd to those necessities whose remedies are remote and obscure another necessity which having a present and more obvious remedy may <ustly be regarded as the !irst and original principle o! human society. 5his necessity is no other than that natural appetite betwi=t the se=es which unites them together and preserves their union till a new tye ta9es place in their concern !or their common o!!spring. 5his new concern becomes also a principle o! union betwi=t the parents and o!!spring and !orms a more numerous societyK where the parents govern by the advantage o! their superior strength and wisdom and at the same time are restrainFd in the e=ercise o! their authority by that natural a!!ection which they bear their children. (n a little time custom and habit operating on the tender minds o! the children ma9es them sensible o! the advantages which they may reap !rom society as well as !ashions them by degrees !or it by rubbing o!! those rough corners and untoward a!!ections which prevent their coalition. $or it must be con!est that however the circumstances o! human nature may render an union necessary and however those passions o! lust and natural a!!ection may seem to render it unavoidableK yet there are other particulars in our natural temper and in our outward circumstances which are very incommodious and are even contrary to the re@uisite con<unction. Among the !ormer we may <ustly esteem our selfishness to be the most considerable. ( am sensible that generally spea9ing the representations o! this @uality have been carried much
10-

too !arK and that the descriptions which certain philosophers delight so much to !orm o! man9ind in this particular are as wide o! nature as any accounts o! monsters which we meet with in !ables and romances. )o !ar !rom thin9ing that men have no a!!ection !or any thing beyond themselves ( am o! opinion that thoF it be rare to meet with one who loves any single person better than himsel!K yet Ftis as rare to meet with one in whom all the 9ind a!!ections ta9en together do not overbalance all the sel!ish. Consult common e=perience. :o you not see that thoF the whole e=pence o! the !amily be generally under the direction o! the master o! it yet there are !ew that do not bestow the largest part o! their !ortunes on the pleasures o! their wives and the education o! their children reserving the smallest portion !or their own proper use and entertainment. 5his is what we may observe concerning such as have those endearing tiesK and may presume that the case would be the same with others were they placFd in a li9e situation. *ut thoF this generosity must be ac9nowledgFd to the honour o! human nature we may at the same time remar9 that so noble an a!!ection instead o! !itting men !or large societies is almost as contrary to them as the most narrow sel!ishness. $or while each person loves himsel! better than any other single person and in his love to others bears the greatest a!!ection to his relations and ac@uaintance this must necessarily produce an opposition o! passions and a conse@uent opposition o! actionsK which cannot but be dangerous to the new, establishFd union. F5is however worth while to remar9 that this contrariety o! passions wouFd be attended with but small danger did it not concur with a peculiarity in our outward circumstances which a!!ords it an opportunity o! e=erting itsel!. 5here are di!!erent species o! goods which we are possessFd o!K the internal satis!action o! our minds the e=ternal advantages o! our body and the en<oyment o! such possessions as we have ac@uirFd by our industry and good !ortune. We are per!ectly secure in the en<oyment o! the !irst. 5he second may be ravishFd !rom us but can be o! no advantage to him who deprives us o! them. 5he last only are both e=posFd to the violence o! others and may be trans!errFd without su!!ering any loss or alterationK while at the same time there is not a su!!icient @uantity o! them to supply every oneFs desires and necessities. As the improvement there!ore o! these goods is the chie! advantage o! society so the instability o! their possession along with their scarcity is the chie! impediment.

101

(n vain shouFd we e=pect to !ind in uncultivated nature a remedy to this inconvenienceK or hope !or any inarti!icial principle o! the human mind which might controul those partial a!!ections and ma9e us overcome the temptations arising !rom our circumstances. 5he idea o! <ustice can never serve to this purpose or be ta9en !or a natural principle capable o! inspiring men with an e@uitable conduct towards each other. 5hat virtue as it is now understood wouFd never have been dreamFd o! among rude and savage men. $or the notion o! in<ury or in<ustice implies an immorality or vice committed against some other person. And as every immorality is derivFd !rom some de!ect or unsoundness o! the passions and as this de!ect must be <udgFd o! in a great measure !rom the ordinary course o! nature in the constitution o! the mindK Ftwill be easy to 9now whether we be guilty o! any immorality with regard to others by considering the natural and usual !orce o! those several a!!ections which are directed towards them. +ow it appears that in the original !rame o! our mind our strongest attention is con!inFd to ourselvesK our ne=t is e=tended to our relations and ac@uaintanceK and Ftis only the wea9est which reaches to strangers and indi!!erent persons. 5his partiality then and une@ual a!!ection must not only have an in!luence on our behaviour and conduct in society but even on our ideas o! vice and virtueK so as to ma9e us regard any remar9able transgression o! such a degree o! partiality either by too great an enlargement or contraction o! the a!!ections as vicious and immoral. 5his we may observe in our common <udgments concerning actions where we blame a person who either centers all his a!!ections in his !amily or is so regardless o! them as in any opposition o! interest to give the pre!erence to a stranger or mere chance ac@uaintance. $rom all which it !ollows that our natural uncultivated ideas o! morality instead o! providing a remedy !or the partiality o! our a!!ections do rather con!orm themselves to that partiality and give it an additional !orce and in!luence. 5he remedy then is not derivFd !rom nature but !rom artificeK or more properly spea9ing nature provides a remedy in the <udgment and understanding !or what is irregular and incommodious in the a!!ections. $or when men !rom their early education in society have become sensible o! the in!inite advantages that result !rom it and have besides ac@uirFd a new a!!ection to company and conversationK and when they have observFd that the principal disturbance in society arises !rom those goods which we call e=ternal and !rom their looseness and easy transition !rom one person to anotherK they must see9 !or a remedy by
103

putting these goods as !ar as possible on the same !ooting with the !i=Fd and constant advantages o! the mind and body. 5his can be done a!ter no other manner than by a convention enterFd into by all the members o! the society to bestow stability on the possession o! those e=ternal goods and leave every one in the peaceable en<oyment o! what he may ac@uire by his !ortune and industry. *y this means every one 9nows what he may sa!ely possessK and the passions are restrainFd in their partial and contradictory motions. +or is such a restraint contrary to these passionsK !or i! so it couFd never be enterFd into nor maintainFdK but it is only contrary to their heedless and impetuous movement. (nstead o! departing !rom our own interest or !rom that o! our nearest !riends by abstaining !rom the possessions o! others we cannot better consult both these interests than by such a conventionK because it is by that means we maintain society which is so necessary to their well,being and subsistence as well as to our own. 5his convention is not o! the nature o! a promise. $or even promises themselves as we shall see a!terwards arise !rom human conventions. (t is only a general sense o! common interestK which sense all the members o! the society e=press to one another and which induces them to regulate their conduct by certain rules. ( observe that it will be !or my interest to leave another in the possession o! his goods provided he will act in the same manner with regard to me. He is sensible o! a li9e interest in the regulation o! his conduct. When this common sense o! interest is mutually e=pressFd and is 9nown to both it produces a suitable resolution and behaviour. And this may properly enough be callFd a convention or agreement betwi=t us thoF without the interposition o! a promiseK since the actions o! each o! us have a re!erence to those o! the other and are per!ormFd upon the supposition that something is to be per!ormFd on the other part. 5wo men who pull the oars o! a boat do it by an agreement or convention thoF they have never given promises to each other. +or is the rule concerning the stability o! possession the less derivFd !rom human conventions that it arises gradually and ac@uires !orce by a slow progression and by our repeated e=perience o! the inconveniences o! transgressing it. &n the contrary this e=perience assures us still more that the sense o! interest has become common to all our !ellows and gives us a con!idence o! the !uture regularity o! their conduct. And Ftis only on the e=pectation o! this that our moderation and abstinence are !ounded. (n li9e manner are languages gradually establishFd by human conventions
102

without any promise. (n li9e manner do gold and silver become the common measures o! e=change and are esteemFd su!!icient payment !or what is o! a hundred times their value. A!ter this convention concerning abstinence !rom the possessions o! others is enterFd into and every one has ac@uirFd a stability in his possessions there immediately arise the ideas o! <ustice and in<usticeK as also those o! property right and obligation. 5he latter are altogether unintelligible without !irst understanding the !ormer. &ur property is nothing but those goods whose constant possession is establishFd by the laws o! societyK that is by the laws o! <ustice. 5hose there!ore who ma9e use o! the words property or right or obligation be!ore they have e=plainFd the origin o! <ustice or even ma9e use o! them in that e=plication are guilty o! a very gross !allacy and can never reason upon any solid !oundation. A manFs property is some ob<ect related to him. 5his relation is not natural but moral and !ounded on <ustice. F5is very preposterous there!ore to imagine that we can have any idea o! property without !ully comprehending the nature o! <ustice and shewing its origin in the arti!ice and contrivance o! man. 5he origin o! <ustice e=plains that o! property. 5he same arti!ice gives rise to both. As our !irst and most natural sentiment o! morals is !ounded on the nature o! our passions and gives the pre!erence to ourselves and !riends above strangersK Ftis impossible there can be naturally any such thing as a !i=Fd right or property while the opposite passions o! men impel them in contrary directions and are not restrainFd by any convention or agreement. +o one can doubt that the convention !or the distinction o! property and !or the stability o! possession is o! all circumstances the most necessary to the establishment o! human society and that a!ter the agreement !or the !i=ing and observing o! this rule there remains little or nothing to be done towards settling a per!ect harmony and concord. All the other passions besides this o! interest are either easily restrainFd or are not o! such pernicious conse@uence when indulgFd. <anity is rather to be esteemFd a social passion and a bond o! union among men. +ity and love are to be considerFd in the same light. And as to envy and revenge, thoF pernicious they operate only by intervals and are directed against particular persons whom we consider as our superiors or enemies. 5his avidity alone o! ac@uiring goods and possessions !or ourselves and our nearest !riends is insatiable perpetual universal and directly destructive o! society. 5here scarce is any one who is not actuated by itK and there is no one who has not
100

reason to !ear !rom it when it acts without any restraint and gives way to its !irst and most natural movements. )o that upon the whole we are to esteem the di!!iculties in the establishment o! society to be greater or less according to those we encounter in regulating and restraining this passion. F5is certain that no a!!ection o! the human mind has both a su!!icient !orce and a proper direction to counterbalance the love o! gain and render men !it members o! society by ma9ing them abstain !rom the possessions o! others. *enevolence to strangers is too wea9 !or this purposeK and as to the other passions they rather in!lame this avidity when we observe that the larger our possessions are the more ability we have o! grati!ying all our appetites. 5here is no passion there!ore capable o! controlling the interested a!!ection but the very a!!ection itsel! by an alteration o! its direction. +ow this alteration must necessarily ta9e place upon the least re!lectionK since Ftis evident that the passion is much better satis!yFd by its restraint than by its liberty and that in preserving society we ma9e much greater advances in the ac@uiring possessions than in the solitary and !orlorn condition which must !ollow upon violence and an universal licence. 5he @uestion there!ore concerning the wic9edness or goodness o! human nature enters not in the least into that other @uestion concerning the origin o! societyK nor is there any thing to be considerFd but the degrees o! menFs sagacity or !olly. $or whether the passion o! sel!,interest be esteemed vicious or virtuous Ftis all a caseK since itsel! alone restrains it. )o that i! it be virtuous men become social by their virtueK i! vicious their vice has the same e!!ect. +ow as Ftis by establishing the rule !or the stability o! possession that this passion restrains itsel!K i! that rule be very abstruse and o! di!!icult inventionK society must be esteemFd in a manner accidental and the e!!ect o! many ages. *ut i! it be !ound that nothing can be more simple and obvious than that ruleK that every parent in order to preserve peace among his children must establish itK and that these !irst rudiments o! <ustice must every day be improvFd as the society enlarges. (! all this appear evident as it certainly must we may conclude that Ftis utterly impossible !or men to remain any considerable time in that savage condition which precedes societyK but that his very !irst state and situation may <ustly be esteemFd social. 5his however hinders not but that philosophers may i! they please e=tend their reasoning to the supposFd state of natureK provided they allow it to be a mere philosophical !iction which never had and never couFd have any
10%

reality. Human nature being composFd o! two principal parts which are re@uisite in all its actions the a!!ections and understandingK Ftis certain that the blind motions o! the !ormer without the direction o! the latter incapacitate men !or society. And it may be allowFd us to consider separately the e!!ects that result !rom the separate operations o! these two component parts o! the mind. 5he same liberty may be permitted to moral which is allowFd to natural philosophersK and Ftis very usual with the latter to consider any motion as compounded and consisting o! two parts separate !rom each other thoF at the same time they ac9nowledge it to be in itsel! uncompounded and inseparable. 5his state of nature there!ore is to be regarded as a mere !iction not unli9e that o! the golden age which poets have inventedK only with this di!!erence that the !ormer is describFd as !ull o! war violence and in<usticeK whereas the latter is pointed out to us as the most charming and most peaceable condition that can possibly be imaginFd. 5he seasons in that !irst age o! nature were so temperate i! we may believe the poets that there was no necessity !or men to provide themselves with cloaths and houses as a security against the violence o! heat and cold. 5he rivers !lowFd with wine and mil9. 5he oa9s yielded honeyK and nature spontaneously producFd her greatest delicacies. +or were these the chie! advantages o! that happy age. 5he storms and tempests were not alone removFd !rom natureK but those more !urious tempests were un9nown to human breasts which now cause such uproar and engender such con!usion. Avarice ambition cruelty sel!ishness were never heard o!. Cordial a!!ection compassion sympathy were the only movements with which the human mind was yet ac@uainted. 4ven the distinction o! mine and thine was banishFd !rom that happy race o! mortals and carryFd with them the very notions o! property and obligation <ustice and in<ustice. 5his no doubt is to be regarded as an idle !ictionK but yet deserves our attention because nothing can more evidently shew the origin o! those virtues which are the sub<ects o! our present en@uiry. ( have already observFd that <ustice ta9es its rise !rom human conventionsK and that these are intended as a remedy to some inconveniences which proceed !rom the concurrence o! certain qualities o! the human mind with the situation o! e=ternal ob<ects. 5he @ualities o! the mind are selfishness and limited generosity. And the situation o! e=ternal ob<ects is their easy change <oinFd to their scarcity in comparison o! the wants and desires o! men. *ut however philosophers may have been bewilderFd in those speculations poets have been guided more
10/

in!allibly by a certain taste or common instinct which in most 9inds o! reasoning goes !arther than any o! that art and philosophy with which we have been yet ac@uainted. 5hey easily perceivFd i! every man had a tender regard !or another or i! nature supplied abundantly all our wants and desires that the <ealousy o! interest which <ustice supposes could no longer have placeK nor would there be any occasion !or those distinctions and limits o! property and possession which at present are in use among man9ind. 4ncrease to a su!!icient degree the benevolence o! men or the bounty o! nature and you render <ustice useless by supplying its place with much nobler virtues and more valuable blessings. 5he sel!ishness o! men is animated by the !ew possessions we have in proportion to our wantsK and Ftis to restrain this sel!ishness that men have been obligFd to separate themselves !rom the community and to distinguish betwi=t their own goods and those o! others. +or need we have recourse to the !ictions o! poets to learn thisK but beside the reason o! the thing may discover the same truth by common e=perience and observation. F5is easy to remar9 that a cordial a!!ection renders all things common among !riendsK and that married people in particular mutually lose their property and are unac@uainted with the mine and thine which are so necessary and yet cause such disturbance in human society. 5he same e!!ect arises !rom any alteration in the circumstances o! man9indK as when there is such a plenty o! any thing as satis!ies all the desires o! men. (n which case the distinction o! property is entirely lost and every thing remains in common. 5his we may observe with regard to air and water thoF the most valuable o! all e=ternal ob<ectsK and may easily conclude that i! men were supplied with every thing in the same abundance or i! every one had the same a!!ection and tender regard !or every one as !or himsel!K <ustice and in<ustice would be e@ually un9nown among man9ind. Here then is a proposition which ( thin9 may be regarded as certain that 'tis only from the selfishness and confin'd generosity of men, along with the scanty provision nature has made for his wants, that $ustice derives its origin. (! we loo9 bac9ward we shall !ind that this proposition bestows an additional !orce on some o! those observations which we have already made on this sub<ect. 5irst we may conclude !rom it that a regard to public interest or a strong e=tensive benevolence is not our !irst and original motive !or the
110

observation o! the rules o! <usticeK since Ftis allowFd that i! men were endowFd with such a benevolence these rules would never have been dreamt o!. &econdly we may conclude !rom the same principle that the sense o! <ustice is not !ounded on reason or on the discovery o! certain conne=ions and relations o! ideas which are eternal immutable and universally obligatory. $or since it is con!est that such an alteration as that above,mentionFd in the temper and circumstances o! man9ind wouFd entirely alter our duties and obligations Ftis necessary upon the common system that the sense of virtue is deriv'd from reason to shew the change which this must produce in the relations and ideas. *ut Ftis evident that the only cause why the e=tensive generosity o! man and the per!ect abundance o! every thing wouFd destroy the very idea o! <ustice is because they render it uselessK and that on the other hand his con!inFd benevolence and his necessitous condition give rise to that virtue only by ma9ing it re@uisite to the public9 interest and to that o! every individual. F5was there!ore a concern !or our own and the public9 interest which made us establish the laws o! <usticeK and nothing can be more certain than that it is not any relation o! ideas which gives us this concern but our impressions and sentiments without which every thing in nature is per!ectly indi!!erent to us and can never in the least a!!ect us. 5he sense o! <ustice there!ore is not !ounded on our ideas but on our impressions. 9hirdly we may !arther con!irm the !oregoing proposition that those impressions, which give rise to this sense of $ustice, are not natural to the mind of man, but arise from artifice and human conventions . $or since any considerable alteration o! temper and circumstances destroys e@ually <ustice and in<usticeK and since such an alteration has an e!!ect only by changing our own and the public9 interestK it !ollows that the !irst establishment o! the rules o! <ustice depends on these di!!erent interests. *ut i! men pursuFd the public9 interest naturally and with a hearty a!!ection they wouFd never have dreamFd o! restraining each other by these rulesK and i! they pursuFd their own interest without any precaution they wouFd run head,long into every 9ind o! in<ustice and violence. 5hese rules there!ore are arti!icial and see9 their end in an obli@ue and indirect mannerK nor is the interest which gives rise to them o! a 9ind that couFd be pursuFd by the natural and inarti!icial passions o! men. 5o ma9e this more evident consider that thoF the rules o! <ustice are
111

establishFd merely by interest their conne=ion with interest is somewhat singular and is di!!erent !rom what may be observFd on other occasions. A single act o! <ustice is !re@uently contrary to public interestK and were it to stand alone without being !ollowFd by other acts may in itsel! be very pre<udicial to society. When a man o! merit o! a bene!icent disposition restores a great !ortune to a miser or a seditious bigot he has acted <ustly and laudably but the public is a real su!!erer. +or is every single act o! <ustice considerFd apart more conducive to private interest than to publicK and Ftis easily conceivFd how a man may impoverish himsel! by a signal instance o! integrity and have reason to wish that with regard to that single act the laws o! <ustice were !or a moment suspended in the universe. *ut however single acts o! <ustice may be contrary either to public or private interest Ftis certain that the whole plan or scheme is highly conducive or indeed absolutely re@uisite both to the support o! society and the well,being o! every individual. F5is impossible to separate the good !rom the ill. 'roperty must be stable and must be !i=Fd by general rules. 5hoF in one instance the public be a su!!erer this momentary ill is amply compensated by the steady prosecution o! the rule and by the peace and order which it establishes in society. And even every individual person must !ind himsel! a gainer on ballancing the accountK since without <ustice society must immediately dissolve and every one must !all into that savage and solitary condition which is in!initely worse than the worst situation that can possibly be supposFd in society. When there!ore men have had e=perience enough to observe that whatever may be the conse@uence o! any single act o! <ustice per!ormFd by a single person yet the whole system o! actions concurrFd in by the whole society is in!initely advantageous to the whole and to every partK it is not long be!ore <ustice and property ta9e place. 4very member o! society is sensible o! this interest. 4very one e=presses this sense to his !ellows along with the resolution he has ta9en o! s@uaring his actions by it on condition that others will do the same. +o more is re@uisite to induce any one o! them to per!orm an act o! <ustice who has the !irst opportunity. 5his becomes an e=ample to others. And thus <ustice establishes itsel! by a 9ind o! convention or agreementK that is by a sense o! interest supposFd to be common to all and where every single act is per!ormFd in e=pectation that others are to per!orm the li9e. Without such a convention no one wouFd ever have dreamFd that there was such a virtue as <ustice or have been inducFd to con!orm his actions to it. 5a9ing any single act my <ustice may be pernicious in every respectK and Ftis only upon the supposition that others are to
112

imitate my e=ample that ( can be inducFd to embrace that virtueK since nothing but this combination can render <ustice advantageous or a!!ord me any motives to con!orm my sel! to its rules. We come now to the second @uestion we proposFd viz. ;hy we annex the idea of virtue to $ustice, and of vice to in$ustice . 5his @uestion will not detain us long a!ter the principles which we have already establishFd. All we can say o! it at present will be dispatchFd in a !ew words. And !or !arther satis!action the reader must wait till we come to the third part o! this boo9. 5he natural obligation to <ustice viz. interest has been !ully e=plainFdK but as to the moral obligation or the sentiment o! right and wrong Ftwill !irst be re@uisite to e=amine the natural virtues be!ore we can give a !ull and satis!actory account o! it. A!ter men have !ound by e=perience that their sel!ishness and con!inFd generosity acting at their liberty totally incapacitate them !or societyK and at the same time have observFd that society is necessary to the satis!action o! those very passions they are naturally inducFd to lay themselves under the restraint o! such rules as may render their commerce more sa!e and commodious. 5o the imposition then and observance o! these rules both in general and in every particular instance they are at !irst inducFd only by a regard to interestK and this motive on the !irst !ormation o! society is su!!iciently strong and !orcible. *ut when society has become numerous and has encreasFd to a tribe or nation this interest is more remoteK nor do men so readily perceive that disorder and con!usion !ollow upon every breach o! these rules as in a more narrow and contracted society. *ut thoF in our own actions we may !re@uently lose sight o! that interest which we have in maintaining order and may !ollow a lesser and more present interest we never !ail to observe the pre<udice we receive either mediately or immediately !rom the in<ustice o! othersK as not being in that case either blinded by passion or byassFd by any contrary temptation. +ay when the in<ustice is so distant !rom us as no way to a!!ect our interest it still displeases usK because we consider it as pre<udicial to human society and pernicious to every one that approaches the person guilty o! it. We parta9e o! their uneasiness by sympathyK and as every thing which gives uneasiness in human actions upon the general survey is callFd ?ice and whatever produces satis!action in the same manner is denominated ?irtueK this is the reason why the sense o! moral good and evil !ollows upon <ustice and in<ustice. And thoF this sense in the present case be derivFd only !rom contemplating the actions o! others yet we !ail not to e=tend it even to our own actions. 5he general rule
11-

reaches beyond those instances !rom which it aroseK while at the same time we naturally sympathize with others in the sentiments they entertain o! us. 9hus self4interest is the original motive to the establishment of $ustice> but a sympathy with public interest is the source of the moral approbation which attends that virtue. 5hoF this progress o! the sentiments be natural and even necessary Ftis certain that it is here !orwarded by the arti!ice o! politicians who in order to govern men more easily and preserve peace in human society have endeavourFd to produce an esteem !or <ustice and an abhorrence o! in<ustice. 5his no doubt must have its e!!ectK but nothing can be more evident than that the matter has been carryFd too !ar by certain writers on morals who seem to have employFd their utmost e!!orts to e=tirpate all sense o! virtue !rom among man9ind. Any arti!ice o! politicians may assist nature in the producing o! those sentiments which she suggests to us and may even on some occasions produce alone an approbation or esteem !or any particular actionK but Ftis impossible it should be the sole cause o! the distinction we ma9e betwi=t vice and virtue. $or i! nature did not aid us in this particular FtwouFd be in vain !or politicians to tal9 o! honourable or dishonourable praiseworthy or blameable. 5hese words wouFd be per!ectly unintelligible and wouFd no more have any idea anne=Fd to them than i! they were o! a tongue per!ectly un9nown to us. 5he utmost politicians can per!orm is to e=tend the natural sentiments beyond their original boundsK but still nature must !urnish the materials and give us some notion o! moral distinctions. As public9 praise and blame encrease our esteem !or <usticeK so private education and instruction contribute to the same e!!ect. $or as parents easily observe that a man is the more use!ul both to himsel! and others the greater degree o! probity and honour he is endowFd withK and that those principles have greater !orce when custom and education assist interest and re!lection. $or these reasons they are inducFd to inculcate on their children !rom their earliest in!ancy the principles o! probity and teach them to regard the observance o! those rules by which society is maintainFd as worthy and honourable and their violation as base and in!amous. *y this means the sentiments o! honour may ta9e root in their tender minds and ac@uire such !irmness and solidity that they may !all little short o! those principles which are the most essential to our natures and the most deeply radicated in our internal constitution.

111

What !arther contributes to encrease their solidity is the interest o! our reputation a!ter the opinion that a merit or demerit attends $ustice or in$ustice is once !irmly establishFd among man9ind. 5here is nothing which touches us more nearly than our reputation and nothing on which our reputation more depends than our conduct with relation to the property o! others. $or this reason every one who has any regard to his character or who intends to live on good terms with man9ind must !i= an inviolable law to himsel! never by any temptation to be inducFd to violate those principles which are essential to a man o! probity and honour. ( shall ma9e only one observation be!ore ( leave this sub<ect viz. that thoF ( assert that in the state of nature or that imaginary state which preceded society there be neither <ustice nor in<ustice yet ( assert not that it was allowable in such a state to violate the property o! others. ( only maintain that there was no such thing as propertyK and conse@uently couFd be no such thing as <ustice or in<ustice. ( shall have occasion to ma9e a similar re!lection with regard to promises when ( come to treat o! themK and ( hope this re!lection when duly weighFd will su!!ice to remove all odium !rom the !oregoing opinions with regard to <ustice and in<ustice.

113

Source + C Anthony de ,asay Social ,ustice )xa!ined. With A Little Help 7ro! Ada! S!ith
5he !irst tas9 o! a spea9er when he steps up on the pulpit is the captatio benevolentiae the capturing o! his audienceXs good will. ;y sub<ect leads me to do the e=act opposite. ( will start by ris9ing to irritate and embarrass my 9ind listeners by suggesting that i! ( as9ed LWhat is meant by social <ustice7M !ew o! them could give a coherent answer. $or my own part ( have spent much time trying to !ormulate one and have largely !ailedK the only real result o! searching !or a de!inition was to re<ect several alternatives !or one reason or another. Herein lies the immense strength o! the term. +obody @uite 9nows what it means there!ore it is di!!icult to oppose it. (t may mean a great variety o! things there!ore it is easy to be seduced by one or another o! these things. Last but not least the very words LsocialM and L<usticeM are both heavily value,laden incorporating goodness. 6oined together they are an invincible combination o! which it is almost a perversity to disapprove. 5he demands o! social <ustice are moral commands. 5he ob<ect o! my tal9 is to de,mysti!y the notion o! social <ustice to strip it o! emotional content to the e=tent that it is possible to do so and to try and see whether its claim to be $ust to represent some branch o! <ustice is able to stand up to logical criticism. Adam )mith in his 9heory of 0oral &entiments praised Lgenerosity humanity 9indness compassion mutual !riendship and R all the social and benevolent a!!ections R "that# please the indi!!erent spectatorM. 1 (n modern language we could translate this to mean that public opinion when it does not consciously realise that its interests may be a!!ected by it is !avourably disposed toward mani!estations o! Lsocial <usticeO. (t has to put it crudely a Lgood pressM Lit plays wellM. &ther things being e@ual this ma9es it obviously easier to e=pand the scope o! social <ustice than to restrict it J as long as it is overloo9ed that generosity humanity 9indness and compassion involve bene!its to some but costs to others and the balance between the bene!its and the costs is not
112

sel!,evident. )ome including the present writer doubt that the idea o! such a balance ma9es any real sense at all. About the prima facie goodness o! social <ustice "as distinct !rom its appeal to neutral public opinion# )mith had his doubts. (n the 0oral &entiments he @uite bluntly declares. L4very man as the )toics used to say is !irst and principally recommended to his own care and every man is certainly in every respect !itter and abler to ta9e care o! himsel! than o! any other person.M2 However )mithXs <udgment leaves open the possibility that while the needy man is best able to ta9e care o! himsel! he would ta9e even better care i! he were less needy. 5rans!er o! resources !rom the well, to,do to the needy might still be a good thing though we may not be able to say that it would be demanded by <ustice. 5his ( believe would sum up in a nutshell the utilitarian position that held sway !or over a century !rom *entham to 'igou. $or these utilitarians "who mista9enly are still regarded as classical liberals# any rich,to,poor trans!er must increase total utility in society and hence it must by definition be approved. 5hough the underlying wel!are economic argument is no longer accepted the memory o! utilitarianism still lingers on in educated public opinion and lends instinctive almost 9nee,<er9 support to programmes o! social <ustice. ,harity vs. 8bligation $rom the !all o! the 8oman 4mpire to the early part o! the 20th century generosity was not a public !unction. 8ich,to poor trans!ers mainly o! goods but also o! money were made voluntarily though sometimes under some moral pressure !rom priest pastor or rabbi. :onors gave locally to LtheirM poor !avouring the LdeservingM and motivating the undeserving idle and !ec9less to become deserving. Administration was easy J indeed non,e=istent J aid e!!icient though coverage was no doubt uneven partly a matter o! luc9 and some deserving poor were certainly overloo9ed. +evertheless the system had all the advantages o! the decentralised over the centralised arrangement. Above all it had the great moral merit o! not putting donors under compulsion. Charity was and remains a moral duty that is not en!orced e=cept
110

possibly by social disapproval o! the uncharitable. 5he recipient has no claim on the donor and must depend on his good will. When governments started to install the system o! compulsory trans!ers !rom rich to poor that led to the wel!are state public opinion welcomed the innovation. (t was understood to be doing social <ustice. 5he needy no longer had to rely on charity a reliance that progressive opinion probably including Adam )mithXs Lindi!!erent spectatorM came to !ind humiliating. :onors were now under an en!orceable obligation to pay enough ta=es to enable the needy to e=ercise their newly con!erred right to be helped. (nvoluntary trans!ers amounted to doing social $ustice. ( believe and will now argue that what began as compulsory giving to the needy and ended as the !ull,!ledged wel!are state owes little or nothing to the publicXs sense o! social <ustice though it is approved as i! it were done in deliberate pursuit o! that <ustice. (ts motive !orce however comes !rom a very di!!erent source. 2. A :()58(*H5(&+ AA;4 Adam )mith wrote near the middle o! a remar9able nearly uni@ue period in 4nglish history J between the Alorious 8evolution and World War ( J when property was considered sacrosanct secure !rom the power o! the Crown and income ta=ation was only <ust beginning on a negligibly small scale. 5his period was brought to an end by the succession o! electoral re!orms leading to universal su!!rage and the secret ballot. (n the modern age collective choices can to a large e=tent override individual ones and appropriate !or public use a share o! the property and income o! individuals that in earlier times used to be regarded as their own by law. 5hese collective decisions are ta9en by the counting o! anonymous votes !or alternatives nobody having more votes than anybody else. 5he conse@uence o! this type o! decision rule is that ma<orities can e=ploit minorities and the prospective gain to be made in this manner serves as a magnet inducing voters to enter into a voting coalition <ust large enough to be decisive. 8ival coalitions will each aspire to reach the re@uired siDe and become the decisive winning coalition. +rima facie a coalition that would distribute to itsel! some o! the income o! the rich can o!!er a bigger gain to its members than a coalition that would distribute to itsel! some o! the income o! the
11%

poor. Conse@uently the winning coalition will be the one that promises to ma9e rich,to,poor trans!ers. "(n !act to have a chance o! winning all rival coalitions must promise to distribute income !rom the rich to the poor including any coalition whose membership is rich#. 5he well,9nown median voter theorem states that the electorate will divide into two halves with the median voter <oining the hal! and giving it the ma<ority that o!!ers him the higher reward. Hnder rather restrictive assumptions redistribution will ta9e place as long as the mean income e=ceeds the median and continues until e@uality is reached. A more general and ( thin9 stronger representation o! democratic redistribution is the three,person distribution game. (t wor9s by the simple rule that the total property or income o! three players shall be distributed among them as any two players <ointly decide. 5he rational solution is that the two poorer players <ointly e=ploit the richer one. (nstead o! three persons the game can be played by three groups that together ma9e up a society namely the rich the middle and the poor. (! ma<ority voting is decisive the three groups must be !ormed in such a way that any two is always larger than the third a grouping that rational voters would evidently adopt. 5he resulting solution is again that poor and middle e=ploit rich. (n a repeated game the role o! rich rotates because it is always a di!!erent player who comes out rich !rom the previous round o! the game. (! however production ta9es place and one player "or group# continues to be more productive than the other two he will be the e=ploited rich in each round. -. :()AH()(+A 5H4 (+6H)5(C4 5wo persons robbing a third is un<ust. (! it is the rule o! the game that two persons may rob a third the rule is un<ust. )tripped o! its rhetorical embellishments and allowing !or the rule o! law and the restraint which must be e=ercised i! the en!orcement o! rules is to remain peace!ul the practice o! democracy at its inner core is no di!!erent !rom the distribution game where two <oin !orces to rob a third. (t is easy to overloo9 that this is so !or the two are not acting out o! any wic9edness and the third does not really loo9 li9e a helpless victim. (t is nevertheless the case that !orcible redistribution o! wealth or income by applying an un<ust rule is an in<ustice. (t would be no less so i! it could be established beyond dispute that the initial distribution itsel! was not <ust and ought to be redressed.
11/

However establishing that the initial distribution was un<ust to start with is problematical to put it no higher. 6ustice is a property o! actsK in<ustice is not sel!,generating but must be traceable to un<ust acts. $or the situation o! the poor to be un<ust the rich must be !ound guilty o! un<ust acts. 5his can be done in particular cases but not as a generally valid !inding. 'ossession is nine parts o! the law. 5he owners o! property and the earners o! income en<oy a presumption in !avour o! their title to their property and their income. 5he very political authority which is redistributing them accepts this presumption and promises to protect the security o! property and contract. (t cannot very easily argue that protecting a distribution with one hand and redistributing with the other are both <usti!ied. &ne way out o! this conundrum is to say with the legendary )cottish parson OHere is a great di!!iculty. Let us loo9 it !irmly in the !ace and pass onO. ;any democratic governments in !act do this. 5hey do not see9 to e=plain away the contradiction i! only because doing so would be to draw attention to its e=istence. (nstead they rely on the principle o! Lleast said soonest mendedM. 5he other way out is to dress up the in<ustice o! redistribution as an act o! social <ustice by constructing a doctrine that i! plausible enough will persuade the Lindi!!erent spectatorM o! Adam )mith that the rule o! the democratic distribution game is in !act a rule o! <ustice. (n what !ollows ( will brie!ly survey two types o! this doctrine. &ne is contractarian and its central thesis is that redistribution is agreed by all including those who are made to bear its cost and there!ore <ust. 5he other might be called neo,socialist in that it has nothing to do with the old socialist labour theory o! value. (ts central contention is that wealth and income cannot be imputed to the individuals who hold title to them under the initial distribution and this !or two alternative reasons. either because we do not 9now how much is imputable to particular individuals or because nothing is imputable to them. ,ontractarian &ocial .ustice 5he essence o! contractarianism is a claim that there are certain contract terms to which every rational individual would agree under suitable assumptions about rationality e=pectations and moral sentiments. 5wo general ob<ections to such theories should be borne in mind be!ore considering the detail o! particular versions. &ne is that a
120

hypothetical agreement to given contract terms can never have the same moral weight and binding !orce than a real one. 5he other is that every rational individual would e=pect every other to de!ault rather than !ul!il the contract hence he would not want to !ul!il it all by himsel! J in other words the contract would be a classic single,round prisonersX dilemma whose solution is that the contract is simply not concluded. 5he only way out o! this dilemma is to assume that the contracting parties are not rational but moral individuals. 5hough ( regard them as valid and even decisive ( propose to leave these criticisms on one side and loo9 at the detail o! two representative contractarian theories. *oth employ the device o! the LveilM. &ne o! these associated with the names o! *uchanan and 5ulloc9 assumes that persons loo9 at their own !uture through a Lveil o! uncertaintyM which is thic9 enough to stop them !rom ma9ing educated guesses about how !ortune is li9ely to treat them. 5he well,to,do who now stand above the average !ear that in the !uture they may !all below the average. 5here!ore they agree to a redistributive scheme that penaliDes the above,average and bene!its the below,average. 5hey act as i! they were willing to pay !or insurance now in order to be able to claim insurance when they will need it. 5he result is that social <ustice is being done with the agreement o! the rich who voluntarily bear its cost spurred on by the e=pectation that in the !uture they will be its bene!iciaries. $or the theory to be plausible a very implausible condition must be met. 5he above,average people must value the marginal dollar o! a possible but less,than,certain !uture loss !ar more highly than the marginal dollar o! a present and certain one !or otherwise they would not participate in an insurance scheme that merely o!!ered them their money bac9 i! the !uture loss did in !act materialise and nothing i! it did not "i.e. i! their above,average position remained intact#. 5his loo9s li9e a case o! wildly e=travagant over,insurance and seems to me di!!icult to accept as a rational option. 5he other representative theory is 8awlsFs L<ustice as !airnessM. Here the contracting parties act as i! they were behind a Lveil o! ignoranceM that hides !rom their own eyes all their inherited or ac@uired personal @ualities or other advantages that ma9e them di!!erent !rom one another. (n this situation o! mutual L!airnessM where they are supposed to ignore what their real earning power and real position in li!e might in
121

!act be they agree on an income distribution where all get e@ual shares e=cept i! and to the e=tent that an ine@uality wor9s to the advantage o! the worst,o!!. 5his 9ind o! @uali!ied egalitarianism would be the rational choice o! individuals who Lplayed ma=iminM i.e. who in !acing uncertain !uture outcomes were only interested in ma9ing the worst outcome as good as possibleK the devil ta9e the better ones and never mind how much better they may be. L;a=iminM a 9ey building bloc9 o! the much invo9ed Ldi!!erence principleM proclaimed by this theory presupposes a strange mentality in that those who adopt it as a guide to their ris9y choices are simply not interested in any potential outcome e=cept the worst and in order to ma=imise the worst they are @uite willing to give up the most tempting odds o! even very good outcomes. )uch behaviour described by 8awls as rational would re!lect an almost morbid !ear o! any ris9. $or this and a large number o! other reasons that space does not permit me to discuss it is di!!icult to accept that a hypothetical contract establishing @uali!ied e@uality o! material wel!are could be willingly agreed by all i! they were placed in a position o! L!airnessM. &ocialist &ocial .ustice (n orthodo= socialist theory only labour creates value hence any initial distribution in which capital earns a return is ipso facto an in<ustice to be redressed. 8edistributions in !avour o! the wor9ing class @uali!y as acts o! social <ustice. 5his doctrine rests on a theory o! value that has at best only an anti@uarian interest and does not warrant being discussed. 5wo versions o! what might be termed Lneo,socialistM doctrine however seem to me worth being brie!ly considered. &ne o! them starts !rom the indisputable !act that any valuable product say a pair o! shoes is not produced by a single individual say the shoema9er. )tarting with the !armer who grew the !ood that !ed the shoema9er the mason who built the house where he lives the tanner who prepared the leather he uses the master who taught him to ma9e shoes and the teacher who taught him the three 8s and ending only with more remote persons on the edge o! our horiDon all these countless people past and present have contributed something to the shoe. (t would ta9e a Leontiev matri= with many thousands o! rows and columns to start giving some idea o! how comple= a product a simple shoe was e=cept that we would not have the 9nowledge to put actual numbers into the
122

matri=. )ince individual contributions cannot be assessed and remain un9nown the distribution o! the social product cannot be based on who contributed how much to it. 5he only solution is !or society as a whole spea9ing with the voice o! its government to decide what would be a socially <ust distribution and proceed to put it into e!!ect. 5he common sense re!utation o! this argument is simply to point out that while it is obviously true that the !armer the mason the tanner and the teacher and everybody else one can thin9 o! had to ma9e contributions to the ma9ing o! the shoe all their contributions have been paid !or at the time they were made. 5here is no need !or any mind,boggling input,output matri=. 4verybodyFs contribution to every product is duly measured by the prices at which each contribution is sold on to the ne=t one in the endless chain that is the production process. All value is contributed by individuals in proportion to !actor ownership and marginal !actor productivity and they are rewarded !or it in the same proportions. (nter!erence with these e@ualities in the name o! social <ustice is prima facie un<ust. Another neo,socialist apology !or social <ustice dismisses the very idea o! !actor productivity and o! individuals as owners o! !actors being responsible !or producing total output. +obody is responsible and nobody can ta9e the credit !or it. At best individuals can be assumed to have contributed a tiny !raction o! the social product J a !raction no larger than what primitive 'olynesian tribesmen or other pre,civilisation people are capable o! producing. "5his point was made by Herbert )imon but it was not this that earned him his +obel priDe#. All the rest must be ascribed to civilisation. Civilisation is a single indivisible e=ternality. (ndividuals owe to it all or nearly all their wellbeing. (t is manna a gi!t !alling !rom heaven and individuals cannot claim it as their own as i! they had deserved it. As be!ore it is society acting through its government that must determine how much each individual should in !act get and it will ma9e this determination according to its <udgment o! what is socially <ust. 5o say that civilisation is a giant e=ternality responsible !or the production o! all material wealth is to !orge a metaphor not to construct a theory.
12-

However i! !or argumentXs sa9e one too9 the metaphor as a true re!lection o! some reality it would still remain the case that an e=ternality produces no output. (ndividual action !acilitated by the e=ternality does. 5he individualXs marginal product will no doubt be higher than it would be without the e=ternality but to ta9e some o! it away !rom him and give it to others is no more a matter o! <ustice than it would be to ta= us !or the blessings o! a temperate climate and give the money to the inhabitants o! the +orth 'ole and the tropical <ungle. 1. WH484 :&4) 5H4 (;'A85(AL )'4C5A5&8 )5A+: 7 5he promise o! redistribution !rom the better,o!! to the worse,o!! as we have seen gathers the votes needed in a vote,counting polity to obtain and hold the power to redistribute. 5he rule that authoriDes this to be done is to put it crudely that two can decide !or three. Get a rule that delivers one to the other two very clearly and blatantly violates the precepts o! <ustice. 5he idea o! social <ustice is a truly audacious device meant to disguise this plain !act by declaring that blac9 is white. ;any intellectual cases can be constructed to support the argument that distributive in<ustice is in !act an act o! doing social <ustice. 4ach and every such case is as easy to 9noc9 down as it was to put up. (n the nature o! the case a conclusive Lvalue,!reeM argument to establish social <ustice as a branch o! <ustice is an impossible underta9ing. $ailing the support o! logic the case !or social <ustice must !all bac9 on <udgment. 6udgment is intrinsically sub<ective and to overcome this intrinsic !law as !ar as it can be done recourse is had to the Limpartial observerM who has no interest o! his own in the matter he must <udge. +ineteenth century utilitarians had great con!idence in the impartial observer and cited his putative testimony to bolster their cause when the utility gains o! some and the losses o! others had to be compared. He was supposed to rule that a dollar ta9en !rom the well,to,do and given to the needy increased total utility because the latter had a greater use !or it. His <udgment may have been a @uite reasonable account o! how he would !eel in the place o! the well,to,do and the needy. Whatever that !eeling signi!ied it had said strictly nothing about <ustice. ;ore than a century earlier Adam )mith called his Limpartial spectatorM to bear witness to <ustice in sharp distinction !rom utility.
121

LR to ta9e !rom him what is o! real use to him merely because it may be o! e@ual or of more use to us R is what no impartial spectator can go along withM. (! there were a truly impartial spectator hidden inside each o! us where would he ta9e his stand on this matter7 (t may well be that he would be less stern than his )mithian counterpart and li9e most contemporary opinion he too would li9e to ta9e !rom the better,o!! and give it to the needy. *ut intellectual honesty could not and would not let him Lgo along withM the pretence that to ta9e !rom one and give to the other is doing <ustice.
1

Adam )mith 5he 5heory o! ;oral )entiments 103/ 'art ( )ection (( Chapter (?. 2 )mith op.cit. 'art ?( )ection (( Chapter (. )mith op.cit. 'art (( )ection (( Chapter ((. my italics.

123

Source ; A Cicero 6n the State 9III:

"4=cerpt# 5rue Law is in 9eeping with the dictates both o! reason and o! nature. (t applies universally to everyone. (t is unchanging and eternal. (ts commands are summons to duty and its prohibitions declare that nothing wrong!ul must be done. As !ar as good men are concerned both its commands and its prohibitions are e!!ectiveK though neither have any e!!ect on men who are bad. 5o attempt to invalidate this law is sin!ul. +or is it possible to repeal any part o! it much less to abolish it altogether. $rom its obligations neither )enate nor people can release us. And to e=plain or interpret it we need no one outside our own selves. 5here will not be one law in 8ome and another in Athens. 5here will not be di!!erent laws now and in the !uture. (nstead there will be one single everlasting immutable law which applies to all nations and all times. 5he ma9er and umpire and proposer o! this law will be Aod the single master and ruler o! us all. (! a man !ails to obey Aod then he will be in !light !rom his own sel! repudiating his own human nature. As a conse@uence even i! he escapes the normal punishment !or wrongdoing he will su!!er the penalties o! the gravest possible sort.

122

Source ;% Niccolo *achia#elli The Prince

CHAPT)( <'III Concerning The Way In Which Princes Should =eep 7aith 4?48G one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to 9eep !aith and to live with integrity and not with cra!t. +evertheless our e=perience has been that those princes who have done great things have held good !aith o! little account and have 9nown how to circumvent the intellect o! men by cra!t and in the end have overcome those who have relied on their word. Gou must 9now there are two ways o! contesting the one by the law the other by !orceK the !irst method is proper to men the second to beastsK but because the !irst is !re@uently not su!!icient it is necessary to have recourse to the second. 5here!ore it is necessary !or a prince to understand how to avail himsel! o! the beast and the man. 5his has been !iguratively taught to princes by ancient writers who describe how Achilles and many other princes o! old were given to the Centaur Chiron to nurse who brought them up in his disciplineK which means solely that as they had !or a teacher one who was hal! beast and hal! man so it is necessary !or a prince to 9now how to ma9e use o! both natures and that one without the other is not durable. A prince there!ore being compelled 9nowingly to adopt the beast ought to choose the !o= and the lionK because the lion cannot de!end himsel! against snares and the !o= cannot de!end himsel! against wolves. 5here!ore it is necessary to be a !o= to discover the snares and a lion to terri!y the wolves. 5hose who rely simply on the lion do not understand what they are about. 5here!ore a wise lord cannot nor ought he to 9eep !aith when such observance may be turned against him and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it e=ist no longer. (! men were entirely good this precept would not hold but because they are bad and will not 9eep !aith with you you too are not bound to observe it with them. +or will there ever be wanting to a prince legitimate reasons to e=cuse this nonobservance. &! this endless modern e=amples could be given showing how many treaties and engagements have been made void and o! no e!!ect through the !aithlessness o! princesK and he who has 9nown best how to employ
120

the !o= has succeeded best. *ut it is necessary to 9now well how to disguise this characteristic and to be a great pretender and dissemblerK and men are so simple and so sub<ect to present necessities that he who see9s to deceive will always !ind someone who will allow himsel! to be deceived. &ne recent e=ample ( cannot pass over in silence. Ale=ander ?( did nothing else but deceive men nor ever thought o! doing otherwise and he always !ound victimsK !or there never was a man who had greater power in asserting or who with greater oaths would a!!irm a thing yet would observe it lessK nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according to his wishes because he well understood this side o! man9ind. 5here!ore it is unnecessary !or a prince to have all the good @ualities ( have enumerated but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And ( shall dare to say this also that to have them and always to observe them is in<urious and that to appear to have them is use!ulK to appear merci!ul !aith!ul humane religious upright and to be so but with a mind so !ramed that should you re@uire not to be so you may be able and 9now how to change to the opposite. And you have to understand this that a prince especially a new one cannot observe all those things !or which men are esteemed being o!ten !orced in order to maintain the state to act contrary to !aith !riendship humanity and religion. 5here!ore it is necessary !or him to have a mind ready to turn itsel! accordingly as the winds and variations o! !ortune !orce it yet as ( have said above not to diverge !rom the good i! he can avoid doing so but i! compelled then to 9now how to set about it. $or this reason a prince ought to ta9e care that he never lets anything slip !rom his lips that is not replete with the above,named !ive @ualities that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merci!ul !aith!ul humane upright and religious. 5here is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last @uality inasmuch as men <udge generally more by the eye than by the hand because it belongs to everybody to see you to !ew to come in touch with you. 4very one sees what you appear to be !ew really 9now what you are and those !ew dare not oppose themselves to the opinion o! the many who have the ma<esty o! the state to de!end themK and in the actions o! all men and especially o! princes which it is not prudent to challenge one <udges by the result.

12%

$or that reason let a prince have the credit o! con@uering and holding his state the means will always be considered honest and he will be praised by everybody because the vulgar are always ta9en by what a thing seems to be and by what comes o! itK and in the world there are only the vulgar !or the !ew !ind a place there only when the many have no ground to rest on. &ne prince1 o! the present time whom it is not well to name never preaches anything else but peace and good !aith and to both he is most hostile and either i! he had 9ept it would have deprived him o! reputation and 9ingdom many a time.
1

;a=imilian ( Holy 8oman 4mperor.

12/

Source ;C Tho!as Hobbes Le#iathan

CHAPT)( <<'I 6f Ci#il La$s *G civil laws ( understand the laws that men are there!ore bound to observe because they are members not o! this or that Commonwealth in particular but o! a Commonwealth. $or the 9nowledge o! particular laws belongeth to them that pro!ess the study o! the laws o! their several countriesK but the 9nowledge o! civil law in general to any man. 5he ancient law o! 8ome was called their civil law !rom the word civitas which signi!ies a Commonwealth. and those countries which having been under the 8oman 4mpire and governed by that law retain still such part thereo! as they thin9 !it call that part the civil law to distinguish it !rom the rest o! their own civil laws. *ut that is not it ( intend to spea9 o! hereK my design being not to show what is law here and there but what is lawK as 'lato Aristotle Cicero and diverse others have done without ta9ing upon them the pro!ession o! the study o! the law. And !irst it is mani!est that law in general is not counsel but commandK nor a command o! any man to any man but only o! him whose command is addressed to one !ormerly obliged to obey him. And as !or civil law it addeth only the name o! the person commanding which is persona civitatis the person o! the Commonwealth. Which considered ( de!ine civil law in this manner. Civil law is to every sub<ect those rules which the Commonwealth hath commanded him by word writing or other su!!icient sign o! the will to ma9e use o! !or the distinction o! right and wrongK that is to say o! that is contrary and what is not contrary to the rule. (n which de!inition there is nothing that is not at !irst sight evident. $or every man seeth that some laws are addressed to all the sub<ects in generalK some to particular provincesK some to particular vocationsK and some to particular menK and are there!ore laws to every o! those to whom the command is directed and to none else. As also that laws are the rules o! <ust and un<ust nothing being reputed un<ust that is not
1-0

contrary to some law. Li9ewise that none can ma9e laws but the Commonwealth because our sub<ection is to the Commonwealth onlyK and that commands are to be signi!ied by su!!icient signs because a man 9nows not otherwise how to obey them. And there!ore whatsoever can !rom this de!inition by necessary conse@uence be deduced ought to be ac9nowledged !or truth. +ow ( deduce !rom it this that !olloweth. 1. 5he legislator in all Commonwealths is only the sovereign be he one man as in a monarchy or one assembly o! men as in a democracy or aristocracy. $or the legislator is he that ma9eth the law. And the Commonwealth only prescribes and commandeth the observation o! those rules which we call law. there!ore the Commonwealth is the legislator. *ut the Commonwealth is no person nor has capacity to do anything but by the representative that is the sovereignK and there!ore the sovereign is the sole legislator. $or the same reason none can abrogate a law made but the sovereign because a law is not abrogated but by another law that !orbiddeth it to be put in e=ecution. 2. 5he sovereign o! a Commonwealth be it an assembly or one man is not sub<ect to the civil laws. $or having power to ma9e and repeal laws he may when he pleaseth !ree himsel! !rom that sub<ection by repealing those laws that trouble him and ma9ing o! newK and conse@uently he was !ree be!ore. $or he is !ree that can be !ree when he will. nor is it possible !or any person to be bound to himsel! because he that can bind can releaseK and there!ore he that is bound to himsel! only is not bound. -. When long use obtaineth the authority o! a law it is not the length o! time that ma9eth the authority but the will o! the sovereign signi!ied by his silence "!or silence is sometimes an argument o! consent#K and it is no longer law than the sovereign shall be silent therein. And there!ore i! the sovereign shall have a @uestion o! right grounded not upon his present will but upon the laws !ormerly made the length o! time shall bring no pre<udice to his right. but the @uestion shall be <udged by e@uity. $or many un<ust actions and un<ust sentences go uncontrolled a longer time than any man can remember. And our lawyers account no customs law but such as reasonable and that evil customs are to be abolished. but the <udgement o! what is reasonable and o! what is to be abolished belonged to him that ma9eth the law which is the sovereign assembly or monarch. 1. 5he law o! nature and the civil law contain each other and are o!
1-1

e@ual e=tent. $or the laws o! nature which consist in e@uity <ustice gratitude and other moral virtues on these depending in the condition o! mere nature "as ( have said be!ore in the end o! the !i!teenth Chapter# are not properly laws but @ualities that dispose men to peace and to obedience. When a Commonwealth is once settled then are they actually laws and not be!oreK as being then the commands o! the CommonwealthK and there!ore also civil laws. !or it is the sovereign power that obliges men to obey them. $or the di!!erences o! private men to declare what is e@uity what is <ustice and is moral virtue and to ma9e them binding there is need o! the ordinances o! sovereign power and punishments to be ordained !or such as shall brea9 themK which ordinances are there!ore part o! the civil law. 5he law o! nature there!ore is a part o! the civil law in all Commonwealths o! the world. 8eciprocally also the civil law is a part o! the dictates o! nature. $or <ustice that is to say per!ormance o! covenant and giving to every man his own is a dictate o! the law o! nature. *ut every sub<ect in a Commonwealth hath covenanted to obey the civil lawK either one with another as when they assemble to ma9e a common representative or with the representative itsel! one by one when subdued by the sword they promise obedience that they may receive li!eK and there!ore obedience to the civil law is part also o! the law o! nature. Civil and natural law are not di!!erent 9inds but di!!erent parts o! lawK whereo! one part being written is called civil the other unwritten natural. *ut the right o! nature that is the natural liberty o! man may by the civil law be abridged and restrained. nay the end o! ma9ing laws is no other but such restraint without which there cannot possibly be any peace. And law was brought into the world !or nothing else but to limit the natural liberty o! particular men in such manner as they might not hurt but assist one another and <oin together against a common enemy. 3. (! the sovereign o! one Commonwealth subdue a people that have lived under other written laws and a!terwards govern them by the same laws by which they were governed be!ore yet those laws are the civil laws o! the victor and not o! the van@uished Commonwealth. $or the legislator is he not by whose authority the laws were !irst made but by whose authority they now continue to be laws. And there!ore where there be diverse provinces within the dominion o! a Commonwealth and in those provinces diversity o! laws which commonly are called the customs o! each several province we are not to understand that such customs have their !orce only !rom length o! timeK but that they were anciently laws written or otherwise made 9nown !or the constitutions
1-2

and statutes o! their sovereignsK and are now laws not by virtue o! the prescription o! time but by the constitutions o! their present sovereigns. *ut i! an unwritten law in all the provinces o! a dominion shall be generally observed and no ini@uity appear in the use thereo! that law can be no other but a law o! nature e@ually obliging all man9ind. 2. )eeing then all laws written and unwritten have their authority and !orce !rom the will o! the CommonwealthK that is to say !rom the will o! the representative which in a monarchy is the monarch and in other Commonwealths the sovereign assemblyK a man may wonder !rom whence proceed such opinions as are !ound in the boo9s o! lawyers o! eminence in several Commonwealths directly or by conse@uence ma9ing the legislative power depend on private men or subordinate <udges. As !or e=ample that the common law hath no controller but the 'arliamentK which is true only where a parliament has the sovereign power and cannot be assembled nor dissolved but by their own discretion. $or i! there be a right in any else to dissolve them there is a right also to control them and conse@uently to control their controllings. And i! there be no such right then the controller o! laws is not parlamentum but re= in parlamento. And where a parliament is sovereign i! it should assemble never so many or so wise men !rom the countries sub<ect to them !or whatsoever cause yet there is no man will believe that such an assembly hath thereby ac@uired to themselves a legislative power. (tem that the two arms o! a Commonwealth are !orce and <usticeK the !irst whereo! is in the 9ing the other deposited in the hands o! the 'arliament. As i! a Commonwealth could consist where the !orce were in any hand which <ustice had not the authority to command and govern. 0. 5hat law can never be against reason our lawyers are agreed. and that not the letter "that is every construction o! it# but that which is according to the intention o! the legislator is the law. And it is true. but the doubt is o! whose reason it is that shall be received !or law. (t is not meant o! any private reasonK !or then there would be as much contradiction in the laws as there is in the )choolsK nor yet as )ir 4dward Co9e ma9es it an OArti!icial per!ection o! reason gotten by long study observation and e=perience O as his was. $or it is possible long study may increase and con!irm erroneous sentences. and where men build on !alse grounds the more they build the greater is the ruin. and o! those that study and observe with e@ual time and diligence the reasons and resolutions are and must remain discordant. and there!ore it is not that <uris prudentia or wisdom o! subordinate <udges
1--

but the reason o! this our arti!icial man the Commonwealth and his command that ma9eth law. and the Commonwealth being in their representative but one person there cannot easily arise any contradiction in the lawsK and when there doth the same reason is able by interpretation or alteration to ta9e it away. (n all courts o! <ustice the sovereign "which is the person o! the Commonwealth# is he that <udgeth. the subordinate <udge ought to have regard to the reason which moved his sovereign to ma9e such law that his sentence may be according thereunto which then is his sovereignFs sentenceK otherwise it is his own and an un<ust one. %. $rom this that the law is a command and a command consisteth in declaration or mani!estation o! the will o! him that commandeth by voice writing or some other su!!icient argument o! the same we may understand that the command o! the Commonwealth is law only to those that have means to ta9e notice o! it. &ver natural !ools children or madmen there is no law no more than over brute beastsK nor are they capable o! the title o! <ust or un<ust because they had never power to ma9e any covenant or to understand the conse@uences thereo! and conse@uently never too9 upon them to authoriDe the actions o! any sovereign as they must do that ma9e to themselves a Commonwealth. And as those !rom whom nature or accident hath ta9en away the notice o! all laws in generalK so also every man !rom whom any accident not proceeding !rom his own de!ault hath ta9en away the means to ta9e notice o! any particular law is e=cused i! he observe it notK and to spea9 properly that law is no law to him. (t is there!ore necessary to consider in this place what arguments and signs be su!!icient !or the 9nowledge o! what is the lawK that is to say what is the will o! the sovereign as well in monarchies as in other !orms o! government. And !irst i! it be a law that obliges all the sub<ects without e=ception and is not written nor otherwise published in such places as they may ta9e notice thereo! it is a law o! nature. $or whatever men are to ta9e 9nowledge o! !or law not upon other menFs words but every one !rom his own reason must be such as is agreeable to the reason o! all menK which no law can be but the law o! nature. 5he laws o! nature there!ore need not any publishing nor proclamationK as being contained in this one sentence approved by all the world :o not that to another which thou thin9est unreasonable to be done by another to thysel!. )econdly i! it be a law that obliges only some condition o! men or one particular man and be not written nor published by word then also it is
1-1

a law o! nature and 9nown by the same arguments and signs that distinguish those in such a condition !rom other sub<ects. $or whatsoever law is not written or some way published by him that ma9es it law can be 9nown no way but by the reason o! him that is to obey itK and is there!ore also a law not only civil but natural. $or e=ample i! the sovereign employ a public minister without written instructions what to do he is obliged to ta9e !or instructions the dictates o! reason. as i! he ma9e a <udge the <udge is to ta9e notice that his sentence ought to be according to the reason o! his sovereign which being always understood to be e@uity he is bound to it by the law o! nature. or i! an ambassador he is in all things not contained in his written instructions to ta9e !or instruction that which reason dictates to be most conducing to his sovereignFs interestK and so o! all other ministers o! the sovereignty public and private. All which instructions o! natural reason may be comprehended under one name o! !idelity which is a branch o! natural <ustice. 5he law o! nature e=cepted it belonged to the essence o! all other laws to be made 9nown to every man that shall be obliged to obey them either by word or writing or some other act 9nown to proceed !rom the sovereign authority. $or the will o! another cannot be understood but by his own word or act or by con<ecture ta9en !rom his scope and purposeK which in the person o! the Commonwealth is to be supposed always consonant to e@uity and reason. And in ancient time be!ore letters were in common use the laws were many times put into verseK that the rude people ta9ing pleasure in singing or reciting them might the more easily retain them in memory. And !or the same reason )olomon adviseth a man to bind the 5en Commandments upon his ten !ingers "'roverbs 0. -#. And !or the Law which ;oses gave to the people o! (srael at the renewing o! the Covenant he biddeth them to teach it their children by discoursing o! it both at home and upon the way at going to bed and at rising !rom bedK and to write it upon the posts and doors o! their houses ":euteronomy 11. 1/#K and to assemble the people man woman and child to hear it read "(bid. -1. 12#. +or is it enough the law be written and published but also that there be mani!est signs that it proceedeth !rom the will o! the sovereign. $or private men when they have or thin9 they have !orce enough to secure their un<ust designs and convoy them sa!ely to their ambitious ends may publish !or laws what they please without or against the legislative authority. 5here is there!ore re@uisite not only a declaration o! the law but also su!!icient signs o! the author and authority. 5he
1-3

author or legislator is supposed in every Commonwealth to be evident because he is the sovereign who having been constituted by the consent o! every one is supposed by every one to be su!!iciently 9nown. And though the ignorance and security o! men be such !or the most part as that when the memory o! the !irst constitution o! their Commonwealth is worn out they do not consider by whose power they used to be de!ended against their enemies and to have their industry protected and to be righted when in<ury is done themK yet because no man that considers can ma9e @uestion o! it no e=cuse can be derived !rom the ignorance o! where the sovereignty is placed. And it is a dictate o! natural reason and conse@uently an evident law o! nature that no man ought to wea9en that power the protection whereo! he hath himsel! demanded or wittingly received against others. 5here!ore o! who is sovereign no man but by his own !ault "whatsoever evil men suggest# can ma9e any doubt. 5he di!!iculty consisteth in the evidence o! the authority derived !rom himK the removing whereo! dependeth on the 9nowledge o! the public registers public counsels public ministers and public sealsK by which all laws are su!!iciently veri!iedK veri!ied ( say not authoriDed. !or the veri!ication is but the testimony and recordK not the authority o! the law which consisteth in the command o! the sovereign only. (! there!ore a man have a @uestion o! in<ury depending on the law o! natureK that is to say on common e@uityK the sentence o! the <udge that by commission hath authority to ta9e cogniDance o! such causes is a su!!icient veri!ication o! the law o! nature in that individual case. $or though the advice o! one that pro!esseth the study o! the law be use!ul !or the avoiding o! contention yet it is but advice. it is the <udge must tell men what is law upon the hearing o! the controversy. *ut when the @uestion is o! in<ury or crime upon a written law every man by recourse to the registers by himsel! or others may i! he will be su!!iciently in!ormed be!ore he do such in<ury or commit the crime whether it be an in<ury or notK nay he ought to do so. !or when a man doubts whether the act he goeth about be <ust or un<ust and may in!orm himsel! i! he will the doing is unlaw!ul. (n li9e manner he that supposeth himsel! in<ured in a case determined by the written law which he may by himsel! or others see and considerK i! he complain be!ore he consults with the law he does un<ustly and betrayeth a disposition rather to ve= other men than to demand his own right. (! the @uestion be o! obedience to a public o!!icer to have seen his
1-2

commission with the public seal and heard it read or to have had the means to be in!ormed o! it i! a man would is a su!!icient veri!ication o! his authority. $or every man is obliged to do his best endeavour to in!orm himsel! o! all written laws that may concern his own !uture actions. 5he legislator 9nown and the laws either by writing or by the light o! nature su!!iciently published there wanteth yet another very material circumstance to ma9e them obligatory. $or it is not the letter but the intendment or meaningK that is to say the authentic interpretation o! the law "which is the sense o! the legislator# in which the nature o! the law consistethK and there!ore the interpretation o! all laws dependeth on the authority sovereignK and the interpreters can be none but those which the sovereign to whom only the sub<ect oweth obedience shall appoint. $or else by the cra!t o! an interpreter the law may be made to bear a sense contrary to that o! the sovereign by which means the interpreter becomes the legislator. All laws written and unwritten have need o! interpretation. 5he unwritten law o! nature though it be easy to such as without partiality and passion ma9e use o! their natural reason and there!ore leaves the violators thereo! without e=cuseK yet considering there be very !ew perhaps none that in some cases are not blinded by sel!,love or some other passion it is now become o! all laws the most obscure and has conse@uently the greatest need o! able interpreters. 5he written laws i! laws i! they be short are easily misinterpreted !or the diverse signi!ications o! a word or twoK i! long they be more obscure by the diverse signi!ications o! many words. in so much as no written law delivered in !ew or many words can be well understood without a per!ect understanding o! the !inal causes !or which the law was madeK the 9nowledge o! which !inal causes is in the legislator. 5o him there!ore there cannot be any 9not in the law insoluble either by !inding out the ends to undo it by or else by ma9ing what ends he will "as Ale=ander did with his sword in the Aordian 9not# by the legislative powerK which no other interpreter can do. 5he interpretation o! the laws o! nature in a Commonwealth dependeth not on the boo9s o! moral philosophy. 5he authority o! writers without the authority o! the Commonwealth ma9eth not their opinions law be they never so true. 5hat which ( have written in this treatise concerning the moral virtues and o! their necessity !or the procuring and maintaining peace though it be evident truth is not there!ore presently
1-0

law but because in all Commonwealths in the world it is part o! the civil law. $or though it be naturally reasonable yet it is by the sovereign power that it is law. otherwise it were a great error to call the laws o! nature unwritten lawK whereo! we see so many volumes published and in them so many contradictions o! one another and o! themselves. 5he interpretation o! the law o! nature is the sentence o! the <udge constituted by the sovereign authority to hear and determine such controversies as depend thereon and consisteth in the application o! the law to the present case. $or in the act o! <udicature the <udge doth no more but consider whether the demand o! the party be consonant to natural reason and e@uityK and the sentence he giveth is there!ore the interpretation o! the law o! natureK which interpretation is authentic not because it is his private sentence but because he giveth it by authority o! the sovereign whereby it becomes the sovereignFs sentenceK which is law !or that time to the parties pleading. *ut because there is no <udge subordinate nor sovereign but may err in a <udgement e@uityK i! a!terward in another li9e case he !ind it more consonant to e@uity to give a contrary sentence he is obliged to do it. +o manFs error becomes his own law nor obliges him to persist in it. +either !or the same reason becomes it a law to other <udges though sworn to !ollow it. $or though a wrong sentence given by authority o! the sovereign i! he 9now and allow it in such laws as are mutable be a constitution o! a new law in cases in which every little circumstance is the sameK yet in laws immutable such as are the laws o! nature they are no laws to the same or other <udges in the li9e cases !or ever a!ter. 'rinces succeed one anotherK and one <udge passeth another comethK nay heaven and earth shall passK but not one tittle o! the law o! nature shall passK !or it is the eternal law o! Aod. 5here!ore all the sentences o! precedent <udges that have ever been cannot all together ma9e a law contrary to natural e@uity. +or any e=amples o! !ormer <udges can warrant an unreasonable sentence or discharge the present <udge o! the trouble o! studying what is e@uity "in the case he is to <udge# !rom the principles o! his own natural reason. $or e=ample sa9e it is against the law o! nature to punish the innocentK and innocent is he that ac@uitteth himsel! <udicially and is ac9nowledged !or innocent by the <udge. 'ut the case now that a man is accused o! a capital crime and seeing the power and malice o! some enemy and the !re@uent corruption and partiality o! <udges runneth away !or !ear o! the event and a!terwards is ta9en and brought to a legal trial and ma9eth it su!!iciently appear he was not guilty o! the crime and being thereo!
1-%

ac@uitted is nevertheless condemned to lose his goodsK this is a mani!est condemnation o! the innocent. ( say there!ore that there is no place in the world where this can be an interpretation o! a law o! nature or be made a law by the sentences o! precedent <udges that had done the same. $or he that <udged it !irst <udged un<ustlyK and no in<ustice can be a pattern o! <udgement to succeeding <udges. A written law may !orbid innocent men to !ly and they may be punished !or !lying. but that !lying !or !ear o! in<ury should be ta9en !or presumption o! guilt a!ter a man is already absolved o! the crime <udicially is contrary to the nature o! a presumption which hath no place a!ter <udgement given. Get this is set down by a great lawyer !or the common law o! 4ngland. O(! a man O saith he Othat is innocent be accused o! !elony and !or !ear !lyeth !or the sameK albeit he <udicially ac@uitteth himsel! o! the !elonyK yet i! it be !ound that he !led !or the !elony he shall notwithstanding his innocency !or!eit all his goods chattels debts and duties. $or as to the !or!eiture o! them the law will admit no proo! against the presumption in law grounded upon his !light.O Here you see an innocent man <udicially ac@uitted notwithstanding his innocency "when no written law !orbade him to !ly# a!ter his ac@uittal upon a presumption in law condemned to lose all the goods he hath. (! the law ground upon his !light a presumption o! the !act which was capital the sentence ought to have been capital. the presumption were not o! the !act !or what then ought he to lose his goods7 5his there!ore is no law o! 4nglandK nor is the condemnation grounded upon a presumption o! law but upon the presumption o! the <udges. (t is also against law to say that no proo! shall be admitted against a presumption o! law. $or all <udges sovereign and subordinate i! they re!use to hear proo! re!use to do <ustice. !or though the sentence be <ust yet the <udges that condemn without hearing the proo!s o!!ered are un<ust <udgesK and their presumption is but pre<udiceK which no man ought to bring with him to the seat o! <ustice whatsoever precedent <udgements or e=amples he shall pretend to !ollow. 5here be other things o! this nature wherein menFs <udgements have been perverted by trusting to precedents. but this is enough to show that though the sentence o! the <udge be a law to the party pleading yet it is no law any <udge that shall succeed him in that o!!ice. (n li9e manner when @uestion is o! the meaning o! written laws he is not the interpreter o! them that writeth a commentary upon them. $or commentaries are commonly more sub<ect to cavil than the te=t and there!ore need other commentariesK and so there will be no end o! such
1-/

interpretation. And there!ore unless there be an interpreter authoriDed by the sovereign !rom which the subordinate <udges are not to recede the interpreter can be no other than the ordinary <udges in the same manner as they are in cases o! the unwritten lawK and their sentences are to be ta9en by them that plead !or laws in that particular case but not to bind other <udges in li9e cases to give li9e <udgements. $or a <udge may err in the interpretation even o! written lawsK but no error o! a subordinate <udge can change the law which is the general sentence o! the sovereign. (n written laws men use to ma9e a di!!erence between the letter and the sentence o! the law. and when by the letter is meant whatsoever can be gathered !rom the bare words it is well distinguished. $or the signi!ications o! almost all are either in themselves or in the metaphorical use o! them ambiguousK and may be drawn in argument to ma9e many sensesK but there is only one sense o! the law. *ut i! by the letter be meant the literal sense then the letter and the sentence or intention o! the law is all one. $or the literal sense is that which the legislator intended should by the letter o! the law be signi!ied. +ow the intention o! the legislator is always supposed to be e@uity. !or it were a great contumely !or a <udge to thin9 otherwise o! the sovereign. He ought there!ore i! the word o! the law do not !ully authoriDe a reasonable sentence to supply it with the law o! natureK or i! the case be di!!icult to respite <udgement till he have received more ample authority. $or e=ample a written law ordaineth that he which is thrust out o! his house by !orce shall be restored by !orce. (t happens that a man by negligence leaves his house empty and returning is 9ept out by !orce in which case there is no special law ordained. (t is evident that this case is contained in the same lawK !or else there is no remedy !or him at all which is to be supposed against the intention o! the legislator. Again the word o! the law commandeth to <udge according to the evidence. A man is accused !alsely o! a !act which the <udge himsel! saw done by another and not by him that is accused. (n this case neither shall the letter o! the law be !ollowed to the condemnation o! the innocent nor shall the <udge give sentence against the evidence o! the witnesses because the letter o! the law is to the contraryK but procure o! the sovereign that another be made <udge and himsel! witness. )o that the incommodity that !ollows the bare words o! a written law may lead him to the intention o! the law whereby to interpret the same the betterK though no incommodity can warrant a sentence against the law. $or every <udge o! right and wrong is not
110

<udge o! what is commodious or incommodious to the Commonwealth. 5he abilities re@uired in a good interpreter o! the law that is to say in a good <udge are not the same with those o! an advocateK namely the study o! the laws. $or a <udge as he ought to ta9e notice o! the !act !rom none but the witnesses so also he ought to ta9e notice o! the law !rom nothing but the statutes and constitutions o! the sovereign alleged in the pleading or declared to him by some that have authority !rom the sovereign power to declare themK and need not ta9e care be!orehand what he shall <udgeK !or it shall be given him what he shall say concerning the !act by witnessesK and what he shall say in point o! law !rom those that shall in their pleadings show it and by authority interpret it upon the place. 5he Lords o! 'arliament in 4ngland were <udges and most di!!icult causes have been heard and determined by themK yet !ew o! them were much versed in the study o! the laws and !ewer had made pro!ession o! themK and though they consulted with lawyers that were appointed to be present there !or that purpose yet they alone had the authority o! giving sentence. (n li9e manner in the ordinary trials o! right twelve men o! the common people are the <udges and give sentence not only o! the !act but o! the rightK and pronounce simply !or the complainant or !or the de!endantK that is to say are <udges not only o! the !act but also o! the rightK and in a @uestion o! crime not only determine whether done or not done but also whether it be murder homicide !elony assault and the li9e which are determinations o! law. but because they are not supposed to 9now the law o! themselves there is one that hath authority to in!orm them o! it in the particular case they are to <udge o!. *ut yet i! they <udge not according to that he tells them they are not sub<ect thereby to any penaltyK unless it be made appear they did it against their consciences or had been corrupted by reward. 5he things that ma9e a good <udge or good interpreter o! the laws are !irst a right understanding o! that principal law o! nature called e@uityK which depending not on the reading o! other menFs writings but on the goodness o! a manFs own natural reason and meditation is presumed to be in those most that had most leisure and had the most inclination to meditate thereon. )econdly contempt o! unnecessary riches and pre!erments. 5hirdly to be able in <udgement to divest himsel! o! all !ear anger hatred love and compassion. $ourthly and lastly patience to hear diligent attention in hearing and memory to retain digest and apply what he hath heard.

111

5he di!!erence and division o! the laws has been made in diverse manners according to the di!!erent methods o! those men that have written o! them. $or it is a thing that dependeth on nature but on the scope o! the writer and is subservient to every manFs proper method. (n the (nstitutions o! 6ustinian we !ind seven sorts o! civil laws. 1. 5he edicts constitutions and epistles o! princeK that is o! the emperor because the whole power o! the people was in him. Li9e these are the proclamations o! the 9ings o! 4ngland. 2. 5he decrees o! the whole people o! 8ome comprehending the )enate when they were put to the @uestion by the )enate. 5hese were laws at !irst by the virtue o! the sovereign power residing in the peopleK and such o! them as by the emperors were not abrogated remained laws by the authority imperial. $or all laws that bind are understood to be laws by his authority that has power to repeal them. )omewhat li9e to these laws are the Acts o! 'arliament in 4ngland. -. 5he decrees o! the common people e=cluding the )enate when they were put to the @uestion by the tribune o! the people. $or such o! them as were not abrogated by the emperors remained laws by the authority imperial. Li9e to these were the orders o! the House o! Commons in 4ngland. 1. )enatus consulta the orders o! the )enate. because when the people o! 8ome grew so numerous as it was inconvenient to assemble them it was thought !it by the emperor that men should consult the )enate instead o! the people. and these have some resemblance with the Acts o! Council. 3. 5he edicts o! praetors and in some cases o! the aediles. such as are the chie! <ustices in the courts o! 4ngland. 2. 8esponsa prudentum which were the sentences and opinions o! those lawyers to whom the emperor gave authority to interpret the law and to give answer to such as in matter o! law demanded their adviceK which answers the <udges in giving <udgement were obliged by the constitutions o! the emperor to observe. and should be li9e the reports o! cases <udged i! other <udges be by the law o! 4ngland bound to observe them. $or the <udges o! the common law o! 4ngland are not properly <udges but <uris consultiK o! whom the <udges who are either the lords or twelve men o! the country are in point o! law to as9 advice.

112

0. Also unwritten customs which in their own nature are an imitation o! law by the tacit consent o! the emperor in case they be not contrary to the law o! nature are very laws. Another division o! laws is into natural and positive. +atural are those which have been laws !rom all eternity and are called not only natural but also moral laws consisting in the moral virtuesK as <ustice e@uity and all habits o! the mind that conduce to peace and charity o! which ( have already spo9en in the !ourteenth and !i!teenth Chapters. 'ositive are those which have not been !rom eternity but have been made laws by the will o! those that have had the sovereign power over others and are either written or made 9nown to men by some other argument o! the will o! their legislator. Again o! positive laws some are human some divine. and o! human positive laws some are distributive some penal. :istributive are those that determine the rights o! the sub<ects declaring to every man what it is by which he ac@uireth and holdeth a propriety in lands or goods and a right or liberty o! action. and these spea9 to all the sub<ects. 'enal are those which declare what penalty shall be in!licted on those that violate the lawK and spea9 to the ministers and o!!icers ordained !or e=ecution. $or though every one ought to be in!ormed o! the punishments ordained be!orehand !or their transgressionK nevertheless the command is not addressed to the delin@uent "who cannot be supposed will !aith!ully punish himsel!# but to public ministers appointed to see the penalty e=ecuted. And these penal laws are !or the most part written together with the laws distributive and are sometimes called <udgements. $or all laws are general <udgements or sentences o! the legislatorK as also every particular <udgement is a law to him whose case is <udged. :ivine positive laws "!or natural laws being eternal and universal are all divine# are those which being the commandments o! Aod not !rom all eternity nor universally addressed to all men but only to a certain people or to certain persons are declared !or such by those whom Aod hath authoriDed to declare them. *ut this authority o! man to declare what be these positive o! Aod how can it be 9nown7 Aod may command a man by a supernatural way to deliver laws to other men. *ut because it is o! the essence o! law that he who is to be obliged be assured o! the authority o! him that declareth it which we cannot naturally ta9e notice to be !rom Aod how can a man without supernatural revelations be assured o! the revelation received by the
11-

declarer7 And how can he be bound to obey them7 $or the !irst @uestion how a man can be assured o! the revelation o! another without a revelation particularly to himsel! it is evidently impossible. !or though a man may be induced to believe such revelation !rom the miracles they see him do or !rom seeing the e=traordinary sanctity o! his li!e or !rom seeing the e=traordinary wisdom or e=traordinary !elicity o! his actions all which are mar9s o! AodFs e=traordinary !avourK yet they are not assured evidences o! special revelation. ;iracles are marvellous wor9sK but that which is marvellous to one may not be so to another. )anctity may be !eignedK and the visible !elicities o! this world are most o!ten the wor9 o! Aod by natural and ordinary causes. And there!ore no man can in!allibly 9now by natural reason that another has had a supernatural revelation o! AodFs will but only a belie!K every one as the signs thereo! shall appear greater or lesser a !irmer or a wea9er belie!. *ut !or the second how he can be bound to obey them it is not so hard. $or i! the law declared be not against the law o! nature which is undoubtedly AodFs law and he underta9e to obey it he is bound by his own actK bound ( say to obey it but not bound to believe it. !or menFs belie! and interior cogitations are not sub<ect to the commands but only to the operation o! Aod ordinary or e=traordinary. $aith o! supernatural law is not a !ul!illing but only an assenting to the sameK and not a duty that we e=hibit to Aod but a gi!t which Aod !reely giveth to whom He pleasethK as also unbelie! is not a breach o! any o! His laws but a re<ection o! them all e=cept the laws natural. *ut this that ( say will be made yet clearer by the e=amples and testimonies concerning this point in Holy )cripture. 5he covenant Aod made with Abraham in a supernatural manner was thus O5his is the covenant which thou shalt observe between me and thee and thy seed a!ter theeO "Aenesis 10. 10#. AbrahamFs seed had not this revelation nor were yet in beingK yet they are a party to the covenant and bound to obey what Abraham should declare to them !or AodFs lawK which they could not be but in virtue o! the obedience they owed to their parents who "i! they be sub<ect to no other earthly power as here in the case o! Abraham# have sovereign power over their children and servants. Again where Aod saith to Abraham O(n thee shall all nations o! the earth be blessed. !or ( 9now thou wilt command thy children and thy house a!ter thee to 9eep the way o! the Lord and to observe righteousness and <udgement O it is mani!est the obedience o! his !amily who had no revelation depended on their !ormer obligation to
111

obey their sovereign. At ;ount )inai ;oses only went up to AodK the people were !orbidden to approach on pain o! deathK yet were they bound to obey all that ;oses declared to them !or AodFs law. Hpon what ground but on this submission o! their own O)pea9 thou to us and we will hear theeK but let not Aod spea9 to us lest we dieO7 *y which two places it su!!iciently appeareth that in a Commonwealth a sub<ect that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to himsel! concerning the will o! Aod is to obey !or such the command o! the Commonwealth. !or i! men were at liberty to ta9e !or AodFs commandments their own dreams and !ancies or the dreams and !ancies o! private men scarce two men would agree upon what is AodFs commandmentK and yet in respect o! them every man would despise the commandments o! the Commonwealth. ( conclude there!ore that in all things not contrary to the moral law "that is to say to the law o! nature# all sub<ects are bound to obey that !or divine law which is declared to be so by the laws o! the Commonwealth. Which also is evident to any manFs reasonK !or whatsoever is not against the law o! nature may be made law in the name o! them that have the sovereign powerK there is no reason men should be the less obliged by it when it is propounded in the name o! Aod. *esides there is no place in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandments o! Aod than are declared !or such by the Commonwealth. Christian states punish those that revolt !rom Christian religionK and all other states those that set up any religion by them !orbidden. $or in whatsoever is not regulated by the Commonwealth it is e@uity "which is the law o! nature and there!ore an eternal law o! Aod# that every man e@ually en<oy his liberty. 5here is also another distinction o! laws into !undamental and not !undamental. but ( could never see in any author what a !undamental law signi!ieth. +evertheless one may very reasonably distinguish laws in that manner. $or a !undamental law in every Commonwealth is that which being ta9en away the Commonwealth !aileth and is utterly dissolved as a building whose !oundation is destroyed. And there!ore a !undamental law is that by which sub<ects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is given to the sovereign whether a monarch or a sovereign assembly without which the Commonwealth cannot standK such as is the power o! war and peace o! <udicature o! election o! o!!icers and o! doing whatsoever he shall thin9 necessary !or the public good. +ot !undamental is that the abrogating whereo! draweth not with it the
113

dissolution o! the CommonwealthK such as are the laws concerning controversies between sub<ect and sub<ect. 5hus much o! the division o! laws. ( !ind the words le= civilis and <us civile that is to say and law and right civil promiscuously used !or the same thing even in the most learned authorsK which nevertheless ought not to be so. $or right is liberty namely that liberty which the civil law leaves us. but civil law is an obligation and ta9es !rom us the liberty which the law o! nature gave us. +ature gave a right to every man to secure himsel! by his own strength and to invade a suspected neighbour by way o! prevention. but the civil law ta9es away that liberty in all cases where the protection o! the law may be sa!ely stayed !or. (nsomuch as le= and <us are as di!!erent as obligation and liberty. Li9ewise laws and charters are ta9en promiscuously !or the same thing. Get charters are donations o! the sovereignK and not laws but e=emptions !rom law. 5he phrase o! a law is <ubeo in<ungoK ( command and en<oin. the phrase o! a charter is dedi concessiK ( have given ( have granted. but what is given or granted to a man is not !orced upon him by a law. A law may be made to bind all the sub<ects o! a Commonwealth. a liberty or charter is only to one man or some one part o! the people. $or to say all the people o! a Commonwealth have liberty in any case whatsoever is to say that in such case there hath been no law madeK or else having been made is now abrogated.

112

Source ; Charles de *ontes>uieu The Spirit of La$s

%oo" I5 6f La$s in ?eneral 1. 8f the %elation of -aws to different )eings. Laws in their most general signi!ication are the necessary relations arising !rom the nature o! things. (n this sense all beings have their laws. the :eity1 His laws the material world its laws the intelligences superior to man their laws the beasts their laws man his laws. 5hey who assert that a blind !atality produced the various e!!ects we behold in this world tal9 very absurdlyK !or can anything be more unreasonable than to pretend that a blind !atality could be productive o! intelligent beings7 5here is then a prime reasonK and laws are the relations subsisting between it and di!!erent beings and the relations o! these to one another. Aod is related to the universe as Creator and 'reserverK the laws by which He created all things are those by which He preserves them. He acts according to these rules because He 9nows themK He 9nows them because He made themK and He made them because they are in relation to His wisdom and power. )ince we observe that the world though !ormed by the motion o! matter and void o! understanding subsists through so long a succession o! ages its motions must certainly be directed by invariable lawsK and could we imagine another world it must also have constant rules or it would inevitably perish. 5hus the creation which seems an arbitrary act supposes laws as invariable as those o! the !atality o! the Atheists. (t would be absurd to say that the Creator might govern the world without those rules since without them it could not subsist. 5hese rules are a !i=ed and invariable relation. (n bodies moved the motion is received increased diminished or lost according to the relations o! the @uantity o! matter and velocityK each diversity is uniformity, each change is constancy.
110

'articular intelligent beings may have laws o! their own ma9ing but they have some li9ewise which they never made. *e!ore there were intelligent beings they were possibleK they had there!ore possible relations and conse@uently possible laws. *e!ore laws were made there were relations o! possible <ustice. 5o say that there is nothing <ust or un<ust but what is commanded or !orbidden by positive laws is the same as saying that be!ore the describing o! a circle all the radii were not e@ual. We must there!ore ac9nowledge relations o! <ustice antecedent to the positive law by which they are established. as !or instance i! human societies e=isted it would be right to con!orm to their lawsK i! there were intelligent beings that had received a bene!it o! another being they ought to show their gratitudeK i! one intelligent being had created another intelligent being the latter ought to continue in its original state o! dependenceK i! one intelligent being in<ures another it deserves a retaliationK and so on. *ut the intelligent world is !ar !rom being so well governed as the physical. $or though the !ormer has also its laws which o! their own nature are invariable it does not con!orm to them so e=actly as the physical world. 5his is because on the one hand particular intelligent beings are o! a !inite nature and conse@uently liable to errorK and on the other their nature re@uires them to be !ree agents. Hence they do not steadily con!orm to their primitive lawsK and even those o! their own instituting they !re@uently in!ringe. Whether brutes be governed by the general laws o! motion or by a particular movement we cannot determine. *e that as it may they have not a more intimate relation to Aod than the rest o! the material worldK and sensation is o! no other use to them than in the relation they have either to other particular beings or to themselves. *y the allurement o! pleasure they preserve the individual and by the same allurement they preserve their species. 5hey have natural laws because they are united by sensationK positive laws they have none because they are not connected by 9nowledge. And yet they do not invariably con!orm to their natural lawsK these are better observed by vegetables that have neither understanding nor sense. *rutes are deprived o! the high advantages which we haveK but they have some which we have not. 5hey have not our hopes but they are without our !earsK they are sub<ect li9e us to death but without 9nowing
11%

itK even most o! them are more attentive than we to sel!,preservation and do not ma9e so bad a use o! their passions. ;an as a physical being is li9e other bodies governed by invariable laws. As an intelligent being he incessantly transgresses the laws established by Aod and changes those o! his own instituting. He is le!t to his private direction though a limited being and sub<ect li9e all !inite intelligences to ignorance and error. even his imper!ect 9nowledge he losesK and as a sensible creature he is hurried away by a thousand impetuous passions. )uch a being might every instant !orget his CreatorK Aod has there!ore reminded him o! his duty by the laws o! religion. )uch a being is liable every moment to !orget himsel!K philosophy has provided against this by the laws o! morality. $ormed to live in society he might !orget his !ellow,creaturesK legislators have there!ore by political and civil laws con!ined him to his duty. 2. 8f the -aws of /ature. Antecedent to the above,mentioned laws are those o! nature so called because they derive their !orce entirely !rom our !rame and e=istence. (n order to have a per!ect 9nowledge o! these laws we must consider man be!ore the establishment o! society. the laws received in such a state would be those o! nature. 5he law which impressing on our minds the idea o! a Creator inclines us towards Him is the !irst in importance though not in order o! natural laws. ;an in a state o! nature would have the !aculty o! 9nowing be!ore he had ac@uired any 9nowledge. 'lain it is that his !irst ideas would not be o! a speculative natureK he would thin9 o! the preservation o! his being be!ore he would investigate its origin. )uch a man would !eel nothing in himsel! at !irst but impotency and wea9nessK his !ears and apprehensions would be e=cessiveK as appears !rom instances "were there any necessity o! proving it# o! savages !ound in !orests 2 trembling at the motion o! a lea! and !lying !rom every shadow. (n this state every man instead o! being sensible o! his e@uality would !ancy himsel! in!erior. 5here would there!ore be no danger o! their attac9ing one anotherK peace would be the !irst law o! nature. 5he natural impulse or desire which Hobbes attributes to man9ind o! subduing one another is !ar !rom being well !ounded. 5he idea o! empire and dominion is so comple= and depends on so many other notions that it could never be the !irst which occurred to the human understanding.
11/

Hobbes- in@uires O$or what reason go men armed and have loc9s and 9eys to !asten their doors i! they be not naturally in a state o! war7O *ut is it not obvious that he attributes to man9ind be!ore the establishment o! society what can happen but in conse@uence o! this establishment which !urnishes them with motives !or hostile attac9s and sel!,de!ence7 +e=t to a sense o! his wea9ness man would soon !ind that o! his wants. Hence another law o! nature would prompt him to see9 !or nourishment. $ear ( have observed would induce men to shun one anotherK but the mar9s o! this !ear being reciprocal would soon engage them to associate. *esides this association would @uic9ly !ollow !rom the very pleasure one animal !eels at the approach o! another o! the same species. Again the attraction arising !rom the di!!erence o! se=es would enhance this pleasure and the natural inclination they have !or each other would !orm a third law. *eside the sense or instinct which man possesses in common with brutes he has the advantage o! ac@uired 9nowledgeK and thence arises a second tie which brutes have not. ;an9ind have there!ore a new motive o! unitingK and a !ourth law o! nature results !rom the desire o! living in society. -. 8f +ositive -aws. As soon as man enters into a state o! society he loses the sense o! his wea9nessK e@uality ceases and then commences the state o! war. 4ach particular society begins to !eel its strength whence arises a state o! war between di!!erent nations. 5he individuals li9ewise o! each society become sensible o! their !orceK hence the principal advantages o! this society they endeavour to convert to their own emolument which constitutes a state o! war between individuals. 5hese two di!!erent 9inds o! states give rise to human laws. Considered as inhabitants o! so great a planet which necessarily contains a variety o! nations they have laws relating to their mutual intercourse which is what we call the law of nations. As members o! a society that must be properly supported they have laws relating to the governors and the governed and this we distinguish by the name o! politic law. 5hey have also another sort o! law as they stand in relation to each otherK by which is understood the civil law. 5he law o! nations is naturally !ounded on this principle that di!!erent
130

nations ought in time o! peace to do one another all the good they can and in time o! war as little in<ury as possible without pre<udicing their real interests. 5he ob<ect o! war is victoryK that o! victory is con@uestK and that o! con@uest preservation. $rom this and the preceding principle all those rules are derived which constitute the law of nations. All countries have a law o! nations not e=cepting the (ro@uois themselves though they devour their prisoners. !or they send and receive ambassadors and understand the rights o! war and peace. 5he mischie! is that their law o! nations is not !ounded on true principles. *esides the law o! nations relating to all societies there is a polity or civil constitution !or each particularly considered. +o society can subsist without a !orm o! government. O5he united strength o! individuals O as Aravina1 well observes Oconstitutes what we call the body politic.O 5he general strength may be in the hands o! a single person or o! many. )ome thin9 that nature having established paternal authority the most natural government was that o! a single person. *ut the e=ample o! paternal authority proves nothing. $or i! the power o! a !ather relates to a single government that o! brothers a!ter the death o! a !ather and that o! cousins,german a!ter the decease o! brothers re!er to a government o! many. 5he political power necessarily comprehends the union o! several !amilies. *etter is it to say that the government most con!ormable to nature is that which best agrees with the humour and disposition o! the people in whose !avour it is established. 5he strength o! individuals cannot be united without a con<unction o! all their wills. O5he con<unction o! those wills O as Aravina again very <ustly observes Ois what we call the civil state.O Law in general is human reason inasmuch as it governs all the inhabitants o! the earth. the political and civil laws o! each nation ought to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied. 5hey should be adapted in such a manner to the people !or whom they are !ramed that it should be a great chance i! those o! one nation suit another. 5hey should be in relation to the nature and principle o! each
131

governmentK whether they !orm it as may be said o! politic lawsK or whether they support it as in the case o! civil institutions. 5hey should be in relation to the climate o! each country to the @uality o! its soil to its situation and e=tent to the principal occupation o! the natives whether husbandmen huntsmen or shepherds. they should have relation to the degree o! liberty which the constitution will bearK to the religion o! the inhabitants to their inclinations riches numbers commerce manners and customs. (n !ine they have relations to each other as also to their origin to the intent o! the legislator and to the order o! things on which they are establishedK in all o! which di!!erent lights they ought to be considered. 5his is what ( have underta9en to per!orm in the !ollowing wor9. 5hese relations ( shall e=amine since all these together constitute what ( call the &pirit of -aws. ( have not separated the political !rom the civil institutions as ( do not pretend to treat o! laws but o! their spiritK and as this spirit consists in the various relations which the laws may bear to di!!erent ob<ects it is not so much my business to !ollow the natural order o! laws as that o! these relations and ob<ects. ( shall !irst e=amine the relations which laws bear to the nature and principle o! each governmentK and as this principle has a strong in!luence on laws ( shall ma9e it my study to understand it thoroughly. and i! ( can but once establish it the laws will soon appear to !low thence as !rom their source. ( shall proceed a!terwards to other and more particular relations.
1

OLaw O says 'lutarch Ois the 9ing o! mortal and immortal beings.O )ee his treatise 2 'iscourse to an ?nlearned +rince. 2 Witness the savage !ound in the !orests o! Hanover who was carried over to 4ngland during the reign o! Aeorge (. (n pre!. 'e cive. 1 (talian poet and <urist 1221,101%.

132

Source /A Aristotle The Art of (hetoric

%oo" I. Chapter 0 "4=cerpts# (t may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid. 5his end to sum it up brie!ly is happiness and its constituents. ... We may de!ine happiness as prosperity combined with virtueK or as independence o! li!eK or as the secure en<oyment o! the ma=imum o! pleasureK or as a good condition o! property and body together with the power o! guarding oneFs property and body and ma9ing use o! them. 5hat happiness is one or more o! these things pretty well everybody agrees. ... 5he constituents o! wealth are. plenty o! coined money and territoryK the ownership o! numerous large and beauti!ul estatesK also the ownership o! numerous and beauti!ul implements live stoc9 and slaves. All these 9inds o! property are our own are secure gentlemanly and use!ul. 5he use!ul 9inds are those that are productive the gentlemanly 9inds are those that provide en<oyment. *y OproductiveO ( mean those !rom which we get our incomeK by Oen<oyable O those !rom which we get nothing worth mentioning e=cept the use o! them. 5he criterion o! OsecurityO is the ownership o! property in such places and under such Conditions that the use o! it is in our powerK and it is Oour ownO i! it is in our own power to dispose o! it or 9eep it. *y Odisposing o! itO ( mean giving it away or selling it. Wealth as a whole consists in using things rather than in owning themK it is really the activity J that is the use J o! property that constitutes wealth.

13-

Source /% Aristotle The Politics

%oo" II. Part '5 The 6$nership of Property +e=t let us consider what should be our arrangements about property. should the citiDens o! the per!ect state have their possessions in common or not7 5his @uestion may be discussed separately !rom the enactments about women and children. 4ven supposing that the women and children belong to individuals according to the custom which is at present universal may there not be an advantage in having and using possessions in common7 5hree cases are possible. "1# the soil may be appropriated but the produce may be thrown !or consumption into the common stoc9K and this is the practice o! some nations. &r "2# the soil may be common and may be cultivated in common but the produce divided among individuals !or their private useK this is a !orm o! common property which is said to e=ist among certain barbarians. &r "-# the soil and the produce may be ali9e common. When the husbandmen are not the owners the case will be di!!erent and easier to deal withK but when they till the ground !or themselves the @uestion o! ownership will give a world o! trouble. (! they do not share e@ually en<oyments and toils those who labor much and get little will necessarily complain o! those who labor little and receive or consume much. *ut indeed there is always a di!!iculty in men living together and having all human relations in common but especially in their having common property. 5he partnerships o! !ellow,travelers are an e=ample to the pointK !or they generally !all out over everyday matters and @uarrel about any tri!le which turns up. )o with servants. we are most able to ta9e o!!ense at those with whom we most !re@uently come into contact in daily li!e. 5hese are only some o! the disadvantages which attend the community o! propertyK the present arrangement i! improved as it might be by good customs and laws would be !ar better and would have the advantages o! both systems. 'roperty should be in a certain sense
131

common but as a general rule privateK !or when everyone has a distinct interest men will not complain o! one another and they will ma9e more progress because every one will be attending to his own business. And yet by reason o! goodness and in respect o! use F$riends F as the proverb says Fwill have all things common.F 4ven now there are traces o! such a principle showing that it is not impracticable but in well,ordered states e=ists already to a certain e=tent and may be carried !urther. $or although every man has his own property some things he will place at the disposal o! his !riends while o! others he shares the use with them. 5he Lacedaemonians !or e=ample use one anotherFs slaves and horses and dogs as i! they were their ownK and when they lac9 provisions on a <ourney they appropriate what they !ind in the !ields throughout the country. (t is clearly better that property should be private but the use o! it commonK and the special business o! the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition. Again how immeasurably greater is the pleasure when a man !eels a thing to be his ownK !or surely the love o! sel! is a !eeling implanted by nature and not given in vain although sel!ishness is rightly censuredK this however is not the mere love o! sel! but the love o! sel! in e=cess li9e the miserFs love o! moneyK !or all or almost all men love money and other such ob<ects in a measure. And !urther there is the greatest pleasure in doing a 9indness or service to !riends or guests or companions which can only be rendered when a man has private property. 5hese advantages are lost by e=cessive uni!ication o! the state. 5he e=hibition o! two virtues besides is visibly annihilated in such a state. !irst temperance towards women "!or it is an honorable action to abstain !rom anotherFs wi!e !or temperanceF sa9e#K secondly liberality in the matter o! property. +o one when men have all things in common will any longer set an e=ample o! liberality or do any liberal actionK !or liberality consists in the use which is made o! property. )uch legislation may have a specious appearance o! benevolenceK men readily listen to it and are easily induced to believe that in some wonder!ul manner everybody will become everybodyFs !riend especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now e=isting in states suits about contracts convictions !or per<ury !latteries o! rich men and the li9e which are said to arise out o! the possession o! private property. 5hese evils however are due to a very di!!erent cause J the wic9edness o! human nature. (ndeed we see that there is much more @uarrelling among those who have all things in common though there are not many o! them when compared with the vast
133

numbers who have private property. Again we ought to rec9on not only the evils !rom which the citiDens will be saved but also the advantages which they will lose. 5he li!e which they are to lead appears to be @uite impracticable. 5he error o! )ocrates must be attributed to the !alse notion o! unity !rom which he starts. Hnity there should be both o! the !amily and o! the state but in some respects only. $or there is a point at which a state may attain such a degree o! unity as to be no longer a state or at which without actually ceasing to e=ist it will become an in!erior state li9e harmony passing into unison or rhythm which has been reduced to a single !oot. 5he state as ( was saying is a plurality which should be united and made into a community by educationK and it is strange that the author o! a system o! education which he thin9s will ma9e the state virtuous should e=pect to improve his citiDens by regulations o! this sort and not by philosophy or by customs and laws li9e those which prevail at )parta and Crete respecting common meals whereby the legislator has made property common. Let us remember that we should not disregard the e=perience o! agesK in the multitude o! years these things i! they were good would certainly not have been un9nownK !or almost everything has been !ound out although sometimes they are not put togetherK in other cases men do not use the 9nowledge which they have. Areat light would be thrown on this sub<ect i! we could see such a !orm o! government in the actual process o! constructionK !or the legislator could not !orm a state at all without distributing and dividing its constituents into associations !or common meals and into phratries and tribes. *ut all this legislation ends only in !orbidding agriculture to the guardians a prohibition which the Lacedaemonians try to en!orce already. *ut indeed )ocrates has not said nor is it easy to decide what in such a community will be the general !orm o! the state. 5he citiDens who are not guardians are the ma<ority and about them nothing has been determined. are the husbandmen too to have their property in common7 &r is each individual to have his own7 And are the wives and children to be individual or common. (! li9e the guardians they are to have all things in common what do they di!!er !rom them or what will they gain by submitting to their government7 &r upon what principle would they submit unless indeed the governing class adopt the ingenious policy o! the Cretans who give their slaves the same institutions as their own but !orbid them gymnastic e=ercises and the
132

possession o! arms. (! on the other hand the in!erior classes are to be li9e other cities in respect o! marriage and property what will be the !orm o! the community7 ;ust it not contain two states in one each hostile to the other7 He ma9es the guardians into a mere occupying garrison while the husbandmen and artisans and the rest are the real citiDens. *ut i! so the suits and @uarrels and all the evils which )ocrates a!!irms to e=ist in other states will e=ist e@ually among them. He says indeed that having so good an education the citiDens will not need many laws !or e=ample laws about the city or about the mar9etsK but then he con!ines his education to the guardians. Again he ma9es the husbandmen owners o! the property upon condition o! their paying a tribute. *ut in that case they are li9ely to be much more unmanageable and conceited than the Helots or 'enestae or slaves in general. And whether community o! wives and property be necessary !or the lower e@ually with the higher class or not and the @uestions a9in to this what will be the education !orm o! government laws o! the lower class )ocrates has nowhere determined. neither is it easy to discover this nor is their character o! small importance i! the common li!e o! the guardians is to be maintained. Again i! )ocrates ma9es the women common and retains private property the men will see to the !ields but who will see to the house7 And who will do so i! the agricultural class have both their property and their wives in common7 &nce more. it is absurd to argue !rom the analogy o! the animals that men and women should !ollow the same pursuits !or animals have not to manage a household. 5he government too as constituted by )ocrates contains elements o! dangerK !or he ma9es the same persons always rule. And i! this is o!ten a cause o! disturbance among the meaner sort how much more among high,spirited warriors7 *ut that the persons whom he ma9es rulers must be the same is evidentK !or the gold which the Aod mingles in the souls o! men is not at one time given to one at another time to another but always to the same. as he says FAod mingles gold in some and silver in others !rom their very birthK but brass and iron in those who are meant to be artisans and husbandmen.F Again he deprives the guardians even o! happiness and says that the legislator ought to ma9e the whole state happy. *ut the whole cannot be happy unless most or all or some o! its parts en<oy happiness. (n this respect happiness is not li9e the even principle in numbers which may e=ist only in the whole but in neither o! the partsK not so happiness. And i! the guardians are not happy who are7 )urely not the artisans or the
130

common people. 5he 8epublic o! which )ocrates discourses has all these di!!iculties and others @uite as great.

13%

Source /C ,ohn Loc"e T$o Treatises of ?o#ern!ent

Chapter '5 6f Property )ect. 23. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men being once born have a right to their preservation and conse@uently to meat and drin9 and such other things as nature a!!ords !or their subsistence. or revelation, which gives us an account o! those grants Aod made o! the world to 2dam, and to /oah, and his sons it is very clear that Aod as 9ing 'avid says +sal. c=v. 12. has given the earth to the children of men: given it to man9ind in common. *ut this being supposed it seems to some a very great di!!iculty how any one should ever come to have a property in any thing. ( will not content mysel! to answer that i! it be di!!icult to ma9e out property, upon a supposition that Aod gave the world to 2dam, and his posterity in common it is impossible that any man but one universal monarch should have any property upon a supposition that Aod gave the world to Adam and his heirs in succession e=clusive o! all the rest o! his posterity. *ut ( shall endeavour to shew how men might come to have a property in several parts o! that which Aod gave to man9ind in common and that without any e=press compact o! all the commoners. )ect. 22. Aod who hath given the world to men in common hath also given them reason to ma9e use o! it to the best advantage o! li!e and convenience. 5he earth and all that is therein is given to men !or the support and com!ort o! their being. And thoF all the !ruits it naturally produces and beasts it !eeds belong to man9ind in common as they are produced by the spontaneous hand o! natureK and no body has originally a private dominion e=clusive o! the rest o! man9ind in any o! them as they are thus in their natural state. yet being given !or the use o! men there must o! necessity be a means to appropriate them some way or other be!ore they can be o! any use or at all bene!icial to any particular man. 5he !ruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian, who 9nows no enclosure and is still a tenant in common must be his and so his i.e. a part o! him that another can no longer have any right to it be!ore it can do him any good !or the support o! his li!e. )ect. 20. 5hough the earth and all in!erior creatures be common to all
13/

men yet every man has a property in his own person> this no body has any right to but himsel!. 5he labour o! his body and the work o! his hands we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out o! the state that nature hath provided and le!t it in he hath mi=ed his labour with and <oined to it something that is his own and thereby ma9es it his property. (t being by him removed !rom the common state nature hath placed it in it hath by this labour something anne=ed to it that e=cludes the common right o! other men. !or this labour being the un@uestionable property o! the labourer no man but he can have a right to what that is once <oined to at least where there is enough and as good le!t in common !or others. )ect. 2%. He that is nourished by the acorns he pic9ed up under an oa9 or the apples he gathered !rom the trees in the wood has certainly appropriated them to himsel!. +o body can deny but the nourishment is his. ( as9 then when did they begin to be his7 when he digested7 or when he eat7 or when he boiled7 or when he brought them home7 or when he pic9ed them up7 and it is plain i! the !irst gathering made them not his nothing else could. 5hat labour put a distinction between them and common. that added something to them more than nature the common mother o! all had doneK and so they became his private right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples he thus appropriated because he had not the consent o! all man9ind to ma9e them his7 Was it a robbery thus to assume to himsel! what belonged to all in common7 (! such a consent as that was necessary man had starved notwithstanding the plenty Aod had given him. We see in commons, which remain so by compact that it is the ta9ing any part o! what is common and removing it out o! the state nature leaves it in which begins the property: without which the common is o! no use. And the ta9ing o! this or that part does not depend on the e=press consent o! all the commoners. 5hus the grass my horse has bitK the tur!s my servant has cutK and the ore ( have digged in any place where ( have a right to them in common with others become my property, without the assignation or consent o! any body. 5he labour that was mine removing them out o! that common state they were in hath fixed my property in them. )ect. 2/. *y ma9ing an e=plicit consent o! every commoner necessary to any oneFs appropriating to himsel! any part o! what is given in common children or servants could not cut the meat which their !ather or master had provided !or them in common without assigning to every one his peculiar part. 5hough the water running in the !ountain be every
120

oneFs yet who can doubt but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it out7 His labour hath ta9en it out o! the hands o! nature where it was common and belonged e@ually to all her children and hath thereby appropriated it to himsel!. )ect. -0. 5hus this law o! reason ma9es the deer that Indian's who hath 9illed itK it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labour upon it though be!ore it was the common right o! every one. And amongst those who are counted the civiliDed part o! man9ind who have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this original law o! nature !or the beginning of property, in what was be!ore common still ta9es placeK and by virtue thereo! what !ish any one catches in the ocean that great and still remaining common o! man9indK or what ambergrise any one ta9es up here is by the labour that removes it out o! that common state nature le!t it in made his property, who ta9es that pains about it. And even amongst us the hare that any one is hunting is thought his who pursues her during the chase. !or being a beast that is still loo9ed upon as common and no manFs private possessionK whoever has employed so much labour about any o! that 9ind as to !ind and pursue her has thereby removed her !rom the state o! nature wherein she was common and hath begun a property. )ect. -1. (t will perhaps be ob<ected to this that i! gathering the acorns or other !ruits o! the earth Yc. ma9es a right to them then any one may ingross as much as he will. 5o which ( answer +ot so. 5he same law o! nature that does by this means give us property does also bound that property too. (od has given us all things richly, 1 5im. vi. 12. is the voice o! reason con!irmed by inspiration. *ut how !ar has he given it us7 9o en$oy. As much as any one can ma9e use o! to any advantage o! li!e be!ore it spoils so much he may by his labour !i= a property in. whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others. +othing was made by Aod !or man to spoil or destroy. And thus considering the plenty o! natural provisions there was a long time in the world and the !ew spendersK and to how small a part o! that provision the industry o! one man could e=tend itsel! and ingross it to the pre<udice o! othersK especially 9eeping within the bounds, set by reason o! what might serve !or his use: there could be then little room !or @uarrels or contentions about property so established. )ect. -2. *ut the chief matter of property being now not the !ruits o! the earth and the beasts that subsist on it but the earth itself: as that
121

which ta9es in and carries with it all the restK ( thin9 it is plain that property in that too is ac@uired as the !ormer. As much land as a man tills plants improves cultivates and can use the product o! so much is his property. He by his labour does as it were inclose it !rom the common. +or will it invalidate his right to say every body else has an e@ual title to itK and there!ore he cannot appropriate he cannot inclose without the consent o! all his !ellow,commoners all man9ind. Aod when he gave the world in common to all man9ind commanded man also to labour and the penury o! his condition re@uired it o! him. Aod and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth i.e. improve it !or the bene!it o! li!e and therein lay out something upon it that was his own his labour. He that in obedience to this command o! Aod subdued tilled and sowed any part o! it thereby anne=ed to it something that was his property, which another had no title to nor could without in<ury ta9e !rom him. )ect. --. +or was this appropriation o! any parcel o! land by improving it any pre<udice to any other man since there was still enough and as good le!tK and more than the yet unprovided could use. )o that in e!!ect there was never the less le!t !or others because o! his enclosure !or himsel!. !or he that leaves as much as another can ma9e use o! does as good as ta9e nothing at all. +o body could thin9 himsel! in<ured by the drin9ing o! another man though he too9 a good draught who had a whole river o! the same water le!t him to @uench his thirst. and the case o! land and water where there is enough o! both is per!ectly the same. )ect. -1. Aod gave the world to men in commonK but since he gave it them !or their bene!it and the greatest conveniencies o! li!e they were capable to draw !rom it it cannot be supposed he meant it should always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use o! the industrious and rational "and labour was to be his title to itK# not to the !ancy or covetousness o! the @uarrelsome and contentious. He that had as good le!t !or his improvement as was already ta9en up needed not complain ought not to meddle with what was already improved by anotherFs labour. i! he did it is plain he desired the bene!it o! anotherFs pains which he had no right to and not the ground which Aod had given him in common with others to labour on and whereo! there was as good le!t as that already possessed and more than he 9new what to do with or his industry could reach to. )ect. -3. (t is true in land that is common in @ngland, or any other
122

country where there is plenty o! people under government who have money and commerce no one can inclose or appropriate any part without the consent o! all his !ellow,commonersK because this is le!t common by compact i.e. by the law o! the land which is not to be violated. And though it be common in respect o! some men it is not so to all man9indK but is the <oint property o! this country or this parish. *esides the remainder a!ter such enclosure would not be as good to the rest o! the commoners as the whole was when they could all ma9e use o! the wholeK whereas in the beginning and !irst peopling o! the great common o! the world it was @uite otherwise. 5he law man was under was rather !or appropriating. Aod commanded and his wants !orced him to labour. 5hat was his property which could not be ta9en !rom him where,ever he had !i=ed it. And hence subduing or cultivating the earth and having dominion we see are <oined together. 5he one gave title to the other. )o that Aod by commanding to subdue gave authority so !ar to appropriate> and the condition o! human li!e which re@uires labour and materials to wor9 on necessarily introduces private possessions. )ect. -2. 5he measure of property nature has well set by the e=tent o! menFs labour and the conveniencies of life> no manFs labour could subdue or appropriate allK nor could his en<oyment consume more than a small partK so that it was impossible !or any man this way to intrench upon the right o! another or ac@uire to himsel! a property to the pre<udice o! his neighbour who would still have room !or as good and as large a possession "a!ter the other had ta9en out his# as be!ore it was appropriated. 5his measure did con!ine every manFs possession to a very moderate proportion and such as he might appropriate to himsel! without in<ury to any body in the !irst ages o! the world when men were more in danger to be lost by wandering !rom their company in the then vast wilderness o! the earth than to be straitened !or want o! room to plant in. And the same measure may be allowed still without pre<udice to any body as !ull as the world seems. !or supposing a man or !amily in the state they were at !irst peopling o! the world by the children o! 2dam, or /oah: let him plant in some inland vacant places o! 2merica, we shall !ind that the possessions he could ma9e himsel! upon the measures we have given would not be very large nor even to this day pre<udice the rest o! man9ind or give them reason to complain or thin9 themselves in<ured by this manFs incroachment though the race o! men have now spread themselves to all the corners o! the world and do in!initely e=ceed the small number that was at the
12-

beginning. +ay the e=tent o! ground is o! so little value without labour, that ( have heard it a!!irmed that in &pain itsel! a man may be permitted to plough sow and reap without being disturbed upon land he has no other title to but only his ma9ing use o! it. *ut on the contrary the inhabitants thin9 themselves beholden to him who by his industry on neglected and conse@uently waste land has increased the stoc9 o! corn which they wanted. *ut be this as it will which ( lay no stress onK this ( dare boldly a!!irm that the same rule of propriety, Aviz.B that every man should have as much as he could ma9e use o! would hold still in the world without straitening any bodyK since there is land enough in the world to su!!ice double the inhabitants had not the invention o! money and the tacit agreement o! men to put a value on it introduced "by consent# larger possessions and a right to themK which how it has done ( shall by and by shew more at large. )ect. -0. 5his is certain that in the beginning be!ore the desire o! having more than man needed had altered the intrinsic value o! things which depends only on their use!ulness to the li!e o! manK or had agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would 9eep without wasting or decay should be worth a great piece o! !lesh or a whole heap o! cornK though men had a right to appropriate by their labour each one o! himsel! as much o! the things o! nature as he could use. yet this could not be much nor to the pre<udice o! others where the same plenty was still le!t to those who would use the same industry. 5o which let me add that he who appropriates land to himsel! by his labour does not lessen but increase the common stoc9 o! man9ind. !or the provisions serving to the support o! human li!e produced by one acre o! inclosed and cultivated land are "to spea9 much within compass# ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre o! land o! an e@ual richness lying waste in common. And there!ore he that incloses land and has a greater plenty o! the conveniencies o! li!e !rom ten acres than he could have !rom an hundred le!t to nature may truly be said to give ninety acres to man9ind. !or his labour now supplies him with provisions out o! ten acres which were but the product o! an hundred lying in common. ( have here rated the improved land very low in ma9ing its product but as ten to one when it is much nearer an hundred to one. !or ( as9 whether in the wild woods and uncultivated waste o! 2merica, le!t to nature without any improvement tillage or husbandry a thousand acres yield the needy and wretched inhabitants as many conveniencies o! li!e as ten acres o! e@ually !ertile land do in 'evonshire, where they are well cultivated7
121

*e!ore the appropriation o! land he who gathered as much o! the wild !ruit 9illed caught or tamed as many o! the beasts as he couldK he that so imployed his pains about any o! the spontaneous products o! nature as any way to alter them !rom the state which nature put them in by placing any o! his labour on them did thereby acquire a propriety in them> but i! they perished in his possession without their due useK i! the !ruits rotted or the venison putri!ied be!ore he could spend it he o!!ended against the common law o! nature and was liable to be punishedK he invaded his neighbourFs share !or he had no right, farther than his use called !or any o! them and they might serve to a!!ord him conveniencies o! li!e. )ect. -%. 5he same measures governed the possession of land too. whatsoever he tilled and reaped laid up and made use o! be!ore it spoiled that was his peculiar rightK whatsoever he enclosed and could !eed and ma9e use o! the cattle and product was also his. *ut i! either the grass o! his enclosure rotted on the ground or the !ruit o! his planting perished without gathering and laying up this part o! the earth notwithstanding his enclosure was still to be loo9ed on as waste and might be the possession o! any other. 5hus at the beginning ,ain might ta9e as much ground as he could till and ma9e it his own land and yet leave enough to 2bel's sheep to !eed onK a !ew acres would serve !or both their possessions. *ut as !amilies increased and industry inlarged their stoc9s their possessions inlarged with the need o! themK but yet it was commonly without any fixed property in the ground they made use o! till they incorporated settled themselves together and built citiesK and then by consent they came in time to set out the bounds of their distinct territories, and agree on limits between them and their neighboursK and by laws within themselves settled the properties o! those o! the same society. !or we see that in that part o! the world which was !irst inhabited and there!ore li9e to be best peopled even as low down as 2braham's time they wandered with their !loc9s and their herds which was their substance !reely up and downK and this 2braham did in a country where he was a stranger. Whence it is plain that at least a great part o! the land lay in common: that the inhabitants valued it not nor claimed property in any more than they made use o!. *ut when there was not room enough in the same place !or their herds to !eed together they by consent as 2braham and -ot did (en. =iii. 3. separated and inlarged their pasture where it best li9ed them. And !or the same reason 4sau went !rom his !ather and his brother and planted in mount )eir Aen. ===vi. 2.
123

)ect. -/. And thus without supposing any private dominion and property in 2dam, over all the world e=clusive o! all other men which can no way be proved nor any oneFs property be made out !rom itK but supposing the world given as it was to the children o! men in common, we see how labour could ma9e men distinct titles to several parcels o! it !or their private usesK wherein there could be no doubt o! right no room !or @uarrel. )ect. 10. +or is it so strange as perhaps be!ore consideration it may appear that the property of labour should be able to over,balance the community o! land. !or it is labour indeed that puts the difference of value on every thingK and let any one consider what the di!!erence is between an acre o! land planted with tobacco or sugar sown with wheat or barley and an acre o! the same land lying in common without any husbandry upon it and he will !ind that the improvement o! labour makes the !ar greater part o! the value. ( thin9 it will be but a very modest computation to say that o! the products o! the earth use!ul to the li!e o! man nine tenths are the effects of labour> nay i! we will rightly estimate things as they come to our use and cast up the several e=pences about them what in them is purely owing to nature, and what to labour, we shall !ind that in most o! them ninety,nine hundredths are wholly to be put on the account o! labour. )ect. 11. 5here cannot be a clearer demonstration o! any thing than several nations o! the 2mericans are o! this who are rich in land and poor in all the com!orts o! li!eK whom nature having !urnished as liberally as any other people with the materials o! plenty i.e. a !ruit!ul soil apt to produce in abundance what might serve !or !ood raiment and delightK yet !or want of improving it by labour, have not one hundredth part o! the conveniencies we en<oy. and a 9ing o! a large and !ruit!ul territory there !eeds lodges and is clad worse than a day, labourer in @ngland. )ect. 12. 5o ma9e this a little clearer let us but trace some o! the ordinary provisions o! li!e through their several progresses be!ore they come to our use and see how much they receive o! their value from human industry. *read wine and cloth are things o! daily use and great plentyK yet notwithstanding acorns water and leaves or s9ins must be our bread drin9 and cloathing did not labour !urnish us with these more use!ul commodities. !or whatever bread is more worth than acorns wine than water and cloth or silk, than leaves s9ins or moss that is wholly owing to labour and industry: the one o! these being the
122

!ood and raiment which unassisted nature !urnishes us withK the other provisions which our industry and pains prepare !or us which how much they e=ceed the other in value when any one hath computed he will then see how much labour makes the far greatest part of the value o! things we en<oy in this world. and the ground which produces the materials is scarce to be rec9oned in as any or at most but a very small part o! itK so little that even amongst us land that is le!t wholly to nature that hath no improvement o! pasturage tillage or planting is called as indeed it is waste: and we shall !ind the bene!it o! it amount to little more than nothing. 5his shews how much numbers o! men are to be pre!erred to largeness o! dominionsK and that the increase o! lands and the right employing o! them is the great art o! government. and that prince who shall be so wise and godli9e as by established laws o! liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest industry o! man9ind against the oppression o! power and narrowness o! party will @uic9ly be too hard !or his neighboursK but this by the by. 5o return to the argument in hand. )ect. 1-. An acre o! land that bears here twenty bushels o! wheat and another in 2merica, which with the same husbandry would do the li9e are without doubt o! the same natural intrinsic value. but yet the bene!it man9ind receives !rom the one in a year is worth 3 l. and !rom the other possibly not worth a penny i! all the pro!it an Indian received !rom it were to be valued and sold hereK at least ( may truly say not one thousandth. (t is labour then which puts the greatest part of value upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth any thing. it is to that we owe the greatest part o! all its use!ul productsK !or all that the straw bran bread o! that acre o! wheat is more worth than the product o! an acre o! as good land which lies waste is all the e!!ect o! labour. !or it is not barely the plough,manFs pains the reaperFs and thresherFs toil and the ba9erFs sweat is to be counted into the bread we eatK the labour o! those who bro9e the o=en who digged and wrought the iron and stones who !elled and !ramed the timber employed about the plough mill oven or any other utensils which are a vast number re@uisite to this corn !rom its being !eed to be sown to its being made bread must all be charged on the account o! labour and received as an e!!ect o! that. nature and the earth !urnished only the almost worthless materials as in themselves. (t would be a strange catalogue of things, that industry provided and made use of, about every loaf of bread, be!ore it came to our use i! we could trace themK
120

iron wood leather bar9 timber stone bric9s coals lime cloth dying drugs pitch tar masts ropes and all the materials made use o! in the ship that brought any o! the commodities made use o! by any o! the wor9men to any part o! the wor9K all which it would be almost impossible at least too long to rec9on up. )ect. 11. $rom all which it is evident that though the things o! nature are given in common yet man by being master o! himsel! and proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it, had still in himself the great foundation of property: and that which made up the great part o! what he applied to the support or com!ort o! his being when invention and arts had improved the conveniencies o! li!e was per!ectly his own and did not belong in common to others. )ect. 13. 5hus labour, in the beginning gave a right of property, wherever any one was pleased to employ it upon what was common which remained a long while the !ar greater part and is yet more than man9ind ma9es use o!. ;en at !irst !or the most part contented themselves with what unassisted nature o!!ered to their necessities. and though a!terwards in some parts o! the world "where the increase o! people and stoc9 with the use of money, had made land scarce and so o! some value# the several communities settled the bounds o! their distinct territories and by laws within themselves regulated the properties o! the private men o! their society and so by compact and agreement settled the property which labour and industry beganK and the leagues that have been made between several states and 9ingdoms either e=pressly or tacitly disowning all claim and right to the land in the others possession have by common consent given up their pretences to their natural common right which originally they had to those countries and so have by positive agreement, settled a property amongst themselves in distinct parts and parcels o! the earthK yet there are still great tracts of ground to be !ound which "the inhabitants thereo! not having <oined with the rest o! man9ind in the consent o! the use o! their common money# lie waste, and are more than the people who dwell on it do or can ma9e use o! and so still lie in commonK thoF this can scarce happen amongst that part o! man9ind that have consented to the use o! money. )ect. 12. 5he greatest part o! things really useful to the li!e o! man and such as the necessity o! subsisting made the !irst commoners o! the world loo9 a!ter as it cloth the 2mericans now are generally things o! short duration: such as i! they are not consumed by use will decay
12%

and perish o! themselves. gold silver and diamonds are things that !ancy or agreement hath put the value on more than real use and the necessary support o! li!e. +ow o! those good things which nature hath provided in common every one had a right "as hath been said# to as much as he could use and property in all that he could e!!ect with his labourK all that his industry could e=tend to to alter !rom the state nature had put it in was his. He that gathered a hundred bushels o! acorns or apples had thereby a property in them they were his goods as soon as gathered. He was only to loo9 that he used them be!ore they spoiled else he too9 more than his share and robbed others. And indeed it was a !oolish thing as well as dishonest to hoard up more than he could ma9e use o!. (! he gave away a part to any body else so that it perished not uselesly in his possession these he also made use o!. And i! he also bartered away plums that would have rotted in a wee9 !or nuts that would last good !or his eating a whole year he did no in<uryK he wasted not the common stoc9K destroyed no part o! the portion o! goods that belonged to others so long as nothing perished uselessly in his hands. Again i! he would give his nuts !or a piece o! metal pleased with its colourK or e=change his sheep !or shells or wool !or a spar9ling pebble or a diamond and 9eep those by him all his li!e he invaded not the right o! others he might heap up as much o! these durable things as he pleasedK the exceeding of the bounds of his $ust property not lying in the largeness o! his possession but the perishing o! any thing uselesly in it. )ect. 10. And thus came in the use of money, some lasting thing that men might 9eep without spoiling and that by mutual consent men would ta9e in e=change !or the truly use!ul but perishable supports o! li!e. )ect. 1%. And as di!!erent degrees o! industry were apt to give men possessions in di!!erent proportions so this invention o! money gave them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. !or supposing an island separate !rom all possible commerce with the rest o! the world wherein there were but an hundred !amilies but there were sheep horses and cows with other use!ul animals wholsome !ruits and land enough !or corn !or a hundred thousand times as many but nothing in the island either because o! its commonness or perishableness !it to supply the place o! money: what reason could any one have there to enlarge his possessions beyond the use o! his !amily and a plenti!ul supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced or they could barter !or li9e perishable use!ul commodities with
12/

others7 Where there is not some thing both lasting and scarce and so valuable to be hoarded up there men will not be apt to enlarge their possessions of land, were it never so rich never so !ree !or them to ta9e. !or ( as9 what would a man value ten thousand or an hundred thousand acres o! e=cellent land, ready cultivated and well stoc9ed too with cattle in the middle o! the inland parts o! 2merica, where he had no hopes o! commerce with other parts o! the world to draw money to him by the sale o! the product7 (t would not be worth the enclosing and we should see him give up again to the wild common o! nature whatever was more than would supply the conveniencies o! li!e to be had there !or him and his !amily. )ect. 1/. 5hus in the beginning all the world was 2merica, and more so than that is nowK !or no such thing as money was any where 9nown. $ind out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his neighbours you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge his possessions. )ect. 30. *ut since gold and silver being little use!ul to the li!e o! man in proportion to !ood raiment and carriage has its value only !rom the consent o! men whereo! labour yet makes, in great part the measure, it is plain that men have agreed to a disproportionate and une@ual possession of the earth, they having by a tacit and voluntary consent !ound out a way how a man may !airly possess more land than he himsel! can use the product o! by receiving in e=change !or the overplus gold and silver which may be hoarded up without in<ury to any oneK these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands o! the possessor. 5his partage o! things in an ine@uality o! private possessions men have made practicable out o! the bounds o! society and without compact only by putting a value on gold and silver and tacitly agreeing in the use o! money. !or in governments the laws regulate the right o! property and the possession o! land is determined by positive constitutions. )ect. 31. And thus ( thin9 it is very easy to conceive without any di!!iculty how labour could at first begin a title of property in the common things o! nature and how the spending it upon our uses bounded it. )o that there could then be no reason o! @uarrelling about title nor any doubt about the largeness o! possession it gave. 8ight and conveniency went togetherK !or as a man had a right to all he could employ his labour upon so he had no temptation to labour !or more than he could ma9e use o!. 5his le!t no room !or controversy about the
100

title nor !or encroachment on the right o! othersK what portion a man carved to himsel! was easily seenK and it was useless as well as dishonest to carve himsel! too much or ta9e more than he needed.

101

Source / Hans2Her!ann Hoppe The )thics and )cono!ics of Pri#ate Property

I. The Problem of Social Order Alone on his island 8obinson Crusoe can do whatever he pleases. $or him the @uestion concerning rules o! orderly human conduct J social cooperation J simply does not arise. +aturally this @uestion can only arise once a second person $riday arrives on the island. Get even then the @uestion remains largely irrelevant so long as no scarcity e=ists. )uppose the island is the Aarden o! 4denK all e=ternal goods are available in superabundance. 5hey are L!ree goods M <ust as the air that we breathe is normally a L!reeM good. Whatever Crusoe does with these goods his actions have repercussions neither with respect to his own !uture supply o! such goods nor regarding the present or !uture supply o! the same goods !or $riday "and vice versa#. Hence it is impossible that there could ever be a con!lict between Crusoe and $riday concerning the use o! such goods. A con!lict is only possible i! goods are scarce. &nly then will there arise the need to !ormulate rules that ma9e orderly J con!lict,!ree J social cooperation possible. (n the Aarden o! 4den only two scarce goods e=ist. the physical body o! a person and its standing room. Crusoe and $riday each have only one body and can stand only at one place at a time. Hence even in the Aarden o! 4den con!licts between Crusoe and $riday can arise. Crusoe and $riday cannot occupy the same standing room simultaneously without coming thereby into physical con!lict with each other. Accordingly even in the Aarden o! 4den rules o! orderly social conduct must e=ist J rules regarding the proper location and movement o! human bodies. And outside the Aarden o! 4den in the realm o! scarcity there must be rules that regulate not only the use o! personal bodies but also o! everything scarce so that all possible con!licts can be ruled out. 5his is the problem o! social order. II The Solution: Private Property and Original Appropriation (n the history o! social and political thought various proposals have been advanced as a solution to the problem o! social order and this variety o! mutually inconsistent proposals has contributed to the !act
102

that todayXs search !or a single LcorrectM solution is !re@uently deemed illusory. Get as ( will try to demonstrate a correct solution e=istsK hence there is no reason to succumb to moral relativism. 5he solution has been 9nown !or hundreds o! years i! not !or much longer. (n modern times this old and simple solution was !ormulated most clearly and convincingly by ;urray +. 8othbard. Let me begin by !ormulating the solution J !irst !or the special case represented by the Aarden o! 4den and subse@uently !or the general case represented by the LrealM world o! all,around scarcity J and then proceed to the e=planation o! why this solution and no other is correct. (n the Aarden o! 4den the solution is provided by the simple rule stipulating that everyone may place or move his own body wherever he pleases provided only that no one else is already standing there and occupying the same space. And outside o! the Aarden o! 4den in the realm o! all,around scarcity the solution is provided by this rule. 4veryone is the proper owner o! his own physical body as well as o! all places and nature,given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means o! his body provided that no one else has already occupied or used the same places and goods before him. 5his ownership o! Loriginally appropriatedM places and goods by a person implies his right to use and trans!orm these places and goods in any way he sees !it provided that he does not thereby forcibly change the physical integrity of places and goods originally appropriated by another person . (n particular once a place or good has been !irst appropriated in 6ohn Loc9eXs words by Lmi=ing oneXs laborM with it ownership in such places and goods can be ac@uired only by means o! a voluntary J contractual J trans!er o! its property title !rom a previous to a later owner. (n light o! widespread moral relativism it is worth pointing out that this idea o! original appropriation and private property as a solution to the problem o! social order is in complete accordance with our moral Lintuition.M (s it not simply absurd to claim that a person should not be the proper owner o! his body and the places and goods that he originally i.e. prior to anyone else appropriates uses andPor produces by means o! his body7 $or who else i! not he should be their owner7 And is it not also obvious that the overwhelming ma<ority o! people J including children and primitives J in !act act according to these rules and do so as a matter o! course7 ;oral intuition as important as it is is not proo!. However there also e=ists proo! o! the veracity o! our moral intuition.
10-

5he proo! is two!old. &n the one hand the conse@uences that !ollow i! one were to deny the validity o! the institution o! original appropriation and private property are spelled out. (! person A were not the owner o! his own body and the places and goods originally appropriated andPor produced with this body as well as o! the goods voluntarily "contractually# ac@uired !rom another previous owner then only two alternatives would e=ist. 4ither another person * must be recogniDed as the owner o! AXs body as well as the places and goods appropriated produced or ac@uired by A or both persons A and * must be considered e@ual co,owners o! all bodies places and goods. (n the !irst case A would be reduced to the ran9 o! *Xs slave and ob<ect o! e=ploitation. * would be the owner o! AXs body and all places and goods appropriated produced and ac@uired by A but A in turn would not be the owner o! *Xs body and the places and goods appropriated produced and ac@uired by *. Hence under this ruling two categorically distinct classes o! persons would be constituted J ?ntermenschen such as A and Cbermenschen such as * J to whom di!!erent LlawsM apply. Accordingly such ruling must be discarded as a human ethic e@ually applicable to everyone qua human being "rational animal#. $rom the very outset any such ruling is recogniDed as not universally acceptable and thus cannot claim to represent law. $or a rule to aspire to the ran9 o! a law J a $ust rule J it is necessary that such a rule apply e@ually and universally to everyone. Alternatively in the second case o! universal and e@ual co,ownership the re@uirement o! e@ual law !or everyone would be !ul!illed. However this alternative would su!!er !rom an even more severe de!iciency because i! it were applied all o! man9ind would instantly perish. ")ince every human ethic must permit the survival o! man9ind this alternative must also be re<ected.# 4very action o! a person re@uires the use o! some scarce means "at least o! the personXs body and its standing room# but i! all goods were co,owned by everyone then no one at no time and no place would be allowed to do anything unless he had previously secured every other co,ownerXs consent to do so. Get how could anyone grant such consent were he not the e=clusive owner o! his own body "including his vocal chords# by which means his consent must be e=pressed7 (ndeed he would !irst need anotherXs consent in order to be allowed to e=press his own but these others could not give their consent without having !irst his and so it would go on. 5his insight into the pra=eological
101

impossibility

o!

Luniversal

communism M as 8othbard re!erred to this proposal brings me immediately to an alternative way o! demonstrating the idea o! original appropriation and private property as the only correct solution to the problem o! social order. Whether or not persons have any rights and i! so which ones can only be decided in the course o! argumentation "propositional e=change#. 6usti!ication J proo! con<ecture re!utation J is argumentative <usti!ication. Anyone who denied this proposition would become involved in a per!ormative contradiction because his denial would itsel! constitute an argument. 4ven an ethical relativist would have to accept this !irst proposition which is re!erred to accordingly as the apriori of argumentation. $rom the undeniable acceptance J the a=iomatic status J o! this apriori o! argumentation two e@ually necessary conclusions !ollow. $irst it !ollows !rom the apriori o! argumentation when there is no rational solution to the problem o! con!lict arising !rom the e=istence o! scarcity. )uppose in my earlier scenario o! Crusoe and $riday that $riday were not the name o! a man but o! a gorilla. &bviously <ust as Crusoe could !ace con!lict regarding his body and its standing room with $riday the man so might he with $riday the gorilla. 5he gorilla might want to occupy the same space that Crusoe already occupied. (n this case at least i! the gorilla were the sort o! entity that we 9now gorillas to be there would be no rational solution to their con!lict. 4ither the gorilla would push aside crush or devour Crusoe J that would be the gorillaXs solution to the problem J or Crusoe would tame chase beat or 9ill the gorilla J that would be CrusoeXs solution. (n this situation one might indeed spea9 o! moral relativism. However it would be more appropriate to re!er to this situation as one in which the @uestion o! <ustice and rationality simply would not ariseK that is it would be considered an e=tra,moral situation. 5he e=istence o! $riday the gorilla would pose a technical not a moral problem !or Crusoe. He would have no other choice than to learn how to success!ully manage and control the movements o! the gorilla <ust as he would have to learn to manage and control other inanimate ob<ects o! his environment. *y implication only i! both parties in a con!lict are capable o! engaging in argumentation with one another can one spea9 o! a moral problem and is the @uestion o! whether or not there e=ists a solution to it a meaning!ul @uestion. &nly i! $riday regardless o! his physical appearance is capable o! argumentation "even i! he has shown himsel! to be capable only once# can he be deemed rational and does the @uestion whether or not a correct solution to the problem o! social order
103

e=ists ma9e sense. +o one can be e=pected to give any answer to someone who has never raised a @uestion or more to the point who has never stated his own relativistic viewpoint in the !orm o! an argument. (n that case this LotherM cannot but be regarded and treated as an animal or plant i.e. as an e=tra,moral entity. &nly i! this other entity can pause in his activity whatever it might be step bac9 and say LyesM or LnoM to something one has said do we owe this entity an answer and accordingly can we possibly claim that our answer is the correct one !or both parties involved in a con!lict. ;oreover it !ollows !rom the apriori o! argumentation that everything that must be presupposed in the course o! an argumentation as the logical and pra=eological precondition o! argumentation cannot in turn be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without becoming thereby entangled in an internal "per!ormative# contradiction. +ow propositional e=changes are not made up o! !ree,!loating propositions but rather constitute a speci!ic human activity. Argumentation between Crusoe and $riday re@uires that both have and mutually recogniDe each other as having e=clusive control over their respective bodies "their brain vocal chords etc.# as well as the standing room occupied by their bodies. +o one could propose anything and e=pect the other party to convince himsel! o! the validity o! this proposition or deny it and propose something else unless his and his opponentXs right to e=clusive control over their respective bodies and standing rooms were presupposed. (n !act it is precisely this mutual recognition o! the proponentXs as well as the opponentXs property in his own body and standing room which constitutes the characteristicum specificum o! all propositional disputes. that while one may not agree regarding the validity o! a speci!ic proposition one can agree nonetheless on the !act that one disagrees. ;oreover this right to property in oneXs own body and its standing room must be considered apriori "or indisputably# <usti!ied by proponent and opponent ali9e. Anyone who claimed any proposition as valid vis,Z,vis an opponent would already presuppose his and his opponentXs e=clusive control over their respective body and standing room simply in order to say L( claim such and such to be true and ( challenge you to prove me wrong.M $urthermore it would be e@ually impossible to engage in argumentation and rely on the propositional !orce o! oneXs arguments i! one were not allowed to own "e=clusively control# other scarce means
102

"besides oneXs body and its standing room#. (! one did not have such a right then we would all immediately perish and the problem o! <usti!ying rules J as well as any other human problem J would simply not e=ist Hence by virtue o! the !act o! being alive property rights to other things must be presupposed as valid too. +o one who is alive can possibly argue otherwise. $urthermore i! a person were not permitted to ac@uire property in these goods and spaces by means o! an act o! original appropriation i.e. by establishing an ob<ective "intersub<ectively ascertainable# lin9 between himsel! and a particular good andPor space prior to anyone else and i! instead property in such goods or spaces were granted to late,comers then no one would ever be permitted to begin using any good unless he had previously secured such a late,comerXs consent. Get how can a latecomer consent to the actions o! an early,comer7 ;oreover every latecomer would in turn need the consent o! other and later later,comers and so on. 5hat is neither we our !ore!athers nor our progeny would have been or would be able to survive i! one !ollowed this rule. However in order !or any person J past present or !uture J to argue anything survival must be possibleK and in order to do <ust this property rights cannot be conceived o! as being timeless and unspeci!ic with respect to the number o! persons concerned. 8ather property rights must necessarily be conceived o! as originating by means o! action at de!inite points in time and space by de!inite individuals. &therwise it would be impossible !or anyone to ever say anything at a de!inite point in time and space and !or someone else to be able to reply. )imply saying then that the !irst,user,!irst,owner rule o! the ethics o! private property can be ignored or is un<usti!ied implies a per!ormative contradiction as oneXs being able to say so must presuppose oneXs e=istence as an independent decision,ma9ing unit at a given point in time and space.

100

Source @A ,ean2%aptiste Say Treatise on Political )cono!y

%66= III. CHAPT)( 'I 6n Public Consu!ption S)CTI6N I5 6f the Nature and general )ffect of Public Consu!ption5 *esides the wants o! individuals and o! !amilies which it is the ob<ect o! private consumption to satis!y the collection o! many individuals into a community gives rise to a new class o! wants the wants o! the society in its aggregate capacity the satis!action o! which is the ob<ect o! public consumption. 5he public buys and consumes the personal service o! the minister that directs its a!!airs the soldier that protects it !rom e=ternal violence the civil or criminal <udge that protects the rights and interests o! each member against the aggression o! the rest. All these di!!erent vocations have their use although they may o!ten be unnecessarily multiplied or overpaidK but that arises !rom a de!ective political organiDation which it does not !all within the scope o! this wor9 to investigate. We shall see presently whence it is that the public derives all the values wherewith it purchases the services o! its agents as well as the articles its wants re@uire. All we have to consider in this chapter is the mode in which its consumption is e!!ected and the conse@uences resulting !rom it. (! ( have made mysel! understood in the commencement o! this third boo9 my readers will have no di!!iculty in comprehending that public consumption or that which ta9es place !or the general utility o! the whole community is precisely analogous to that consumption which goes to satis!y the wants o! individuals or !amilies. (n either case there is a destruction o! values and a loss o! wealthK although perhaps not a shilling o! specie goes out o! the country. *y way o! insuring conviction o! the truth o! this position let us trace !rom !irst to last the passage o! a product towards ultimate consumption
10%

on the public account. 5he government e=acts !rom a ta=,payer the payment o! a given ta= in the shape o! money. 5o meet this demand the ta=,payer e=changes part o! the products at his disposal !or coin which he pays to the ta=, gatherer. a second set o! government agents is busied in buying with that coin cloth and other necessaries !or the soldiery. Hp to this point there is no value lost or consumed. there has only been a gratuitous trans!er o! value and a subse@uent act o! barter. but the value contributed by the sub<ect still e=ists in the shape o! stores and supplies in the military dep[t. (n the end however this value is consumedK and then the portion o! wealth which passes !rom the hands o! the ta=,payer into those o! the ta=,gatherer is destroyed and annihilated. Get it is not the sum o! money that is destroyed. that has only passed !rom one hand to another either without any return as when it passed !rom the ta=,payer to the ta=,gathererK or in e=change !or an e@uivalent as when it passed !rom the government agent to the contractor !or clothing and supplies. 5he value o! the money survives the whole operation and goes through three !our or a doDen hands without any sensible alterationK it is the value o! the clothing and necessaries that disappears with precisely the same e!!ect as i! the ta=,payer had with the same money purchased clothing and necessaries !or his own private consumption. 5he sole di!!erence is that the individual in the one case and the state in the other en<oys the satis!action resulting !rom that consumption. 5he same reasoning may be easily applied to all other 9inds o! public consumption. When the money o! the ta=,payer goes to pay the salary o! a public o!!icer that o!!icer sells his time his talents and his e=ertions to the public all o! which are consumed !or public purposes. &n the other hand that o!!icer consumes instead o! the ta=,payer the value he receives in lieu o! his servicesK in the same manner as any cler9 or person in the private employ o! the ta=,payer would do. 5here has been long a prevalent notion that the values paid by the community !or the public service return to it again in some shape or otherK in the vulgar phrase that what government and its agents receive is re!unded again by their e=penditure. 5his is a gross !allacyK but one that has been productive o! in!inite mischie! inasmuch as it has
10/

been the prete=t !or a great deal o! shameless waste and dilapidation. 5he value paid to government by the ta=,payer is given without e@uivalent or return. it is e=pended by the government in the purchase o! personal service o! ob<ects o! consumptionK in one word o! products o! e@uivalent value which are actually trans!erred. 'urchase or e=change is a very di!!erent thing !rom restitution. 5urn it which way you will this operation though o!ten very comple= in the e=ecution must always be reducible by analysis to this plain statement. A product consumed must always be a product lost be the consumer who he mayK lost without return whenever no value or advantage is received in returnK but to the ta=,payer the advantage derived !rom the services o! the public !unctionary or !rom the consumption e!!ected in the prosecution o! public ob<ects is a positive return. (! then public and private e=penditure a!!ect social wealth in the same manner the principles o! economy by which it should be regulated must be the same in both cases. 5here are not two 9inds o! economy any more than two 9inds o! honesty or o! morality. (! a government or an individual consume in such a way as to give birth to a product larger than that consumed a success!ul e!!ort o! productive industry will be made. (! no product result !rom the act o! consumption there is a loss o! value whether to the state or to the individualK yet probably that loss o! value may have been productive o! all the good anticipated. ;ilitary stores and supplies and the time and labour o! civil and military !unctionaries engaged in the e!!ectual de!ence o! the state are well bestowed though consumed and annihilatedK it is the same with them as with the commodities and personal service that have been consumed in a private establishment. 5he sole bene!it resulting in the latter case is the satis!action o! a wantK i! the want had no e=istence the e=pense or consumption is a positive mischie! incurred without an ob<ect. )o li9ewise o! the public consumptionK consumption !or the mere purpose o! consumption systematic pro!usion the creation o! an o!!ice !or the sole purpose o! giving a salary the destruction o! an article !or the mere pleasure o! paying !or it are acts o! e=travagance either in a government or an individual in a small state or a large one a republic or a monarchy. +ay there is more criminality in public than in private e=travagance and pro!usionK inasmuch as the individual s@uanders only what belongs to himK but the government has nothing o! its own to s@uander being in !act a mere trustee o! the public
1%0

treasure. What then are we to thin9 o! the principles laid down by those writers who have laboured to draw an essential distinction between public and private wealthK to show that economy is the way to increase private !ortune but on the contrary that public wealth increases with the increase o! public consumption. in!erring thence this !alse and dangerous conclusion that the rules o! conduct in the management o! private !ortune and o! public treasure are not only di!!erent but in direct opposition7 (! such principles were to be !ound only in boo9s and had never crept into practice one might su!!er them without care or regret to swell the monstrous heap o! printed absurdityK but it must e=cite our compassion and indignation to hear them pro!essed by men o! eminent ran9 talents and intelligenceK and still more to see them reduced into practice by the agents o! public authority who can en!orce error and absurdity at the point o! the bayonet or mouth o! the cannon. ;adame de ;aintenon mentions in a letter to the Cardinal de +oailles that when she one day urged Louis >(?. to be more liberal in charitable donations he replied that royalty dispenses charity by its pro!use e=penditureK a truly alarming dogma and one that shows the ruin o! $rance to have been reduced to principle. $alse principles are more !atal than even intentional misconductK because they are !ollowed up with erroneous notions o! sel!,interest and are long persevered in without remorse or reserve. (! Louis >(?. had believed his e=travagant ostentation to have been a mere grati!ication o! his personal vanity and his con@uests the satis!action o! personal ambition alone his good sense and proper !eeling would probably in a short time have made it a matter o! conscience to desist or at any rate he would have stopped short !or his own sa9eK but he was !irmly persuaded that his prodigality was !or the public good as well as his ownK so that nothing could stop him but mis!ortune and humiliation. )o little were the true principles o! political economy understood even by men o! the greatest science so late as the 1%th century that $rederic9 ((. o! 'russia with all his an=iety in search o! truth his sagacity and his merit writes thus to :FAlembert in <usti!ication o! his wars. O;y numerous armies promote the circulation o! money and disburse impartially amongst the provinces the ta=es paid by the
1%1

people to the state.O Again ( repeat this is not the !actK the ta=es paid to the government by the sub<ect are not re!unded by its e=penditure. Whether paid in money or in 9ind they are converted into provisions and supplies and in that shape consumed and destroyed by persons that never can replace the value because they produce no value whatever. (t was well !or 'russia that $rederic9 ((. did not s@uare his conduct to his principles. 5he good he did to his people by the economy o! his internal administration more than compensated !or the mischie! o! his wars. )ince the consumption o! nations or the governments which represent them occasions a loss o! value and conse@uently o! wealth it is only so !ar <usti!iable as there results !rom it some national advantage e@uivalent to the sacri!ice o! value. 5he whole s9ill o! government there!ore consists in the continual and <udicious comparison o! the sacri!ice about to be incurred with the e=pected bene!it to the communityK !or ( have no hesitation in pronouncing every instance where the bene!it is not e@uivalent to the loss to be an instance o! !olly or o! criminality in the government. (t is yet more monstrous then to see how !re@uently governments not content with s@uandering the substance o! the people in !olly and absurdity instead o! aiming at any return o! value actually spend that substance in bringing down upon the nation calamities innumerableK practise e=actions the most cruel and arbitrary to !orward schemes the most e=travagant and wic9edK !irst ri!le the poc9ets o! the sub<ect to enable them a!terwards to urge him to the !urther sacri!ice o! his blood. +othing but the obstinacy o! human passion and wea9ness could induce me again and again to repeat these unpalatable truths at the ris9 o! incurring the charge o! declamation. 5he consumption e!!ected by the government !orms so large a portion o! the total national consumption amounting sometimes to a si=th a !i!th or even a !ourth part o! the total consumption o! the community that the system acted upon by the government must needs have a vast in!luence upon the advance or decline o! the national prosperity. )hould an individual ta9e it into his head that the more he spends the more he gets or that his pro!usion is a virtueK or should he yield to the power!ul attractions o! pleasure or the suggestions o! perhaps a reasonable resentment he will in all probability be ruined and his e=ample will operate upon a very small circle o! his neighbours. *ut a
1%2

mista9e o! this 9ind in the government will entail misery upon millions and possibly end in the national down!all or degradation. (t is doubtless very desirable that private persons should have a correct 9nowledge o! their personal interestsK but it must be in!initely more so that governments should possess that 9nowledge. 4conomy and order are virtues in a private stationK but in a public station their in!luence upon national happiness is so immense that one hardly 9nows how su!!iciently to e=tol and honour them in the guides and rulers o! national conduct. An individual is !ully sensible o! the value o! the article he is consumingK it has probably cost him a world o! labour perseverance and economyK he can easily balance the satis!action he derives !rom its consumption against the loss it will involve. *ut a government is not so immediately interested in regularity and economy nor does it so soon !eel the ill conse@uences o! the opposite @ualities. *esides private persons have a !urther motive than even sel!,interestK their !eelings are concernedK their economy may be a bene!it to the ob<ects o! their a!!ectionK whereas the economy o! a ruler accrues to the bene!it o! those he 9nows very little o!K and perhaps he is but husbanding !or an e=travagant and rival successor. +or is this evil remedied by adopting the principle o! hereditary rule. 5he monarch has little o! the !eelings common to other men in this respect. He is taught to consider the !ortune o! his descendants as secure i! they have ever so little assurance o! the succession. *esides the !ar greater part o! the public consumption is not personally directed by himsel!K contracts are not made by himsel! but by his generals and ministersK the e=perience o! the world hitherto all tends to show that aristocratical republics are more economical than either monarchies or democracies. +either are we to suppose that the genius which prompts and e=cites great national underta9ings is incompatible with the spirit o! public order and economy. 5he name o! Charlemagne stands among the !oremost in the records o! renownK he achieved the con@uest o! (taly Hungary and AustriaK repulsed the )aracensK bro9e the )a=on con!ederacyK and obtained at length the honours o! the purple. Get ;ontes@uieu has thought it not derogatory to say o! him that Othe !ather o! a !amily might ta9e a lesson o! good house9eeping !rom the ordinances o! Charlemagne. His e=penditure was conducted with
1%-

admirable systemK he had his demesnes valued with care s9ill and minuteness. We !ind detailed in his capitularies the pure and legitimate sources o! his wealth. (n a word such were his regularity and thri!t that he gave orders !or the eggs o! his poultry,yards and the surplus vegetables o! his garden to be brought to mar9et.O 5he celebrated 'rince 4ugene who displayed e@ual talent in negotiation and administration as in the !ield advised the 4mperor Charles ?(. to ta9e the advice o! merchants and men o! business in matters o! !inance. Leopold when Arand :u9e o! 5uscany towards the close o! the 1%th century gave an eminent e=ample o! the resources to be derived !rom a rigid adherence to the principles o! private economy in the administration o! a state o! very limited e=tent. (n a !ew years he made 5uscany one o! the most !lourishing states o! 4urope. 5he most success!ul !inanciers o! $rance )uger AbbB de )t. :ennis the Cardinal :FAmboise )ully Colbert and +ec9er have all acted on the same principle. All !ound means o! carrying into e!!ect the grandest operations by adhering to the dictates o! private economy. 5he AbbB de )t. :ennis !urnished the out!it o! the second crusadeK a scheme that re@uired very large supplies although one ( am !ar !rom approving. 5he Cardinal !urnished Louis >((. with the means o! ma9ing his con@uest o! the ;ilanese. )ully accumulated the resources that a!terwards humbled the house o! Austria. Colbert supplied the splendid operations o! Louis >(?. +ec9er provided the ways and means o! the only success!ul war waged by $rance in the 1%th century. 5hose governments on the contrary that have been perpetually pressed with the want o! money have been obliged li9e individuals to have recourse to the most ruinous and sometimes the most disgrace!ul e=pedients to e=tricate themselves. Charles the *ald put his titles and sa!e,conducts up to sale. 5hus too Charles ((. o! 4ngland sold :un9ir9 to the $rench 9ing and too9 a bribe o! %0 000l. !rom the :utch to delay the sailing o! the 4nglish e=pedition to the 4ast (ndies 12%0 intended to protect their settlements in that @uarter which in conse@uence !ell into the hands o! the :utchmen. 5hus too have governments committed !re@uent acts o! ban9ruptcy sometimes in the shape o! adulteration o! their coin and sometimes by open breach o! their engagements. Louis >(?. towards the close o! his reign having utterly e=hausted the resources o! a noble territory was reduced to the paltry shi!t o! creating
1%1

the most ridiculous o!!ices ma9ing his counsellors o! state one an inspector o! !agots another a licenser o! barber,wig,ma9ers another visiting inspector o! !resh or taster o! salt butter and the li9e. )uch paltry and mischievous e=pedients can never long de!er the hour o! calamities that must sooner or later be!all the e=travagant and spendthri!t governments. OWhen a man will not listen to reason O says $ran9lin Oshe is sure to ma9e hersel! !elt.O $ortunately an economical administration soon repairs the mischie!s o! one o! an opposite character. )ound health can not be restored all at onceK but there is a gradual and perceptible improvementK every day some cause o! complaint disappears and some new !aculty comes again into play. Hal! the remaining resources o! a nation impoverished by an e=travagant administration are neutraliDed by alarm and uncertaintyK whereas credit doubles those o! a nation blessed with one o! a !rugal character. (t would seem that there e=ists in the politic to a stronger degree than even in the natural body a principle o! vitality and elasticity which can not be e=tinguished without the most violent pressure. &ne can not loo9 into the pages o! history without being struc9 with the rapidity with which this principle has operated. (t has nowhere been more stri9ingly e=empli!ied than in the !re@uent vicissitudes that our own $rance has e=perienced since the commencement o! the revolution. 'russia has a!!orded another illustration in our time. 5he successor o! $rederic9 the Areat s@uandered the accumulations o! that monarch which were estimated at no less a sum than 12 millions o! dollars and le!t behind him besides a debt o! 20 millions. (n less than eight years $rederic9 William (((. had not only paid o!! his !atherFs debts but actually began a !resh accumulationK such is the power o! economy even in a country o! limited e=tent and resources.

1%3

Source @ % 7rAdAric %astiat That Which is Seen. and That Which is Not Seen
+5 The %ro"en Windo$ Have you ever witnessed the anger o! the good shop9eeper 6ames *. when his careless son happened to brea9 a s@uare o! glass7 (! you have been present at such a scene you will most assuredly bear witness to the !act that every one o! the spectators were there even thirty o! them by common consent apparently o!!ered the un!ortunate owner this invariable consolation J O(t is an ill wind that blows nobody good. 4verybody must live and what would become o! the glaDiers i! panes o! glass were never bro9en7O +ow this !orm o! condolence contains an entire theory which it will be well to show up in this simple case seeing that it is precisely the same as that which unhappily regulates the greater part o! our economical institutions. )uppose it cost si= !rancs to repair the damage and you say that the accident brings si= !rancs to the glaDierFs trade J that it encourages that trade to the amount o! si= !rancs J ( grant itK ( have not a word to say against itK you reason <ustly. 5he glaDier comes per!orms his tas9 receives his si= !rancs rubs his hands and in his heart blesses the careless child. All this is that which is seen. *ut i! on the other hand you come to the conclusion as is too o!ten the case that it is a good thing to brea9 windows that it causes money to circulate and that the encouragement o! industry in general will be the result o! it you will oblige me to call out O)top thereQ your theory is con!ined to that which is seenK it ta9es no account o! that which is not seen.O (t is not seen that as our shop9eeper has spent si= !rancs upon one thing he cannot spend them upon another. (t is not seen that i! he had not had a window to replace he would perhaps have replaced his old shoes or added another boo9 to his library. (n short he would have employed his si= !rancs in some way which this accident has prevented.

1%2

Let us ta9e a view o! industry in general as a!!ected by this circumstance. 5he window being bro9en the glaDierFs trade is encouraged to the amount o! si= !rancsK this is that which is seen. (! the window had not been bro9en the shoema9erFs trade "or some other# would have been encouraged to the amount o! si= !rancsK this is that which is not seen. And i! that which is not seen is ta9en into consideration because it is a negative !act as well as that which is seen because it is a positive !act it will be understood that neither industry in general nor the sum total o! national labour is a!!ected whether windows are bro9en or not. +ow let us consider 6ames *. himsel!. (n the !ormer supposition that o! the window being bro9en he spends si= !rancs and has neither more nor less than he had be!ore the en<oyment o! a window. (n the second where we suppose the window not to have been bro9en he would have spent si= !rancs on shoes and would have had at the same time the en<oyment o! a pair o! shoes and o! a window. +ow as 6ames *. !orms a part o! society we must come to the conclusion that ta9ing it altogether and ma9ing an estimate o! its en<oyments and its labours it has lost the value o! the bro9en window. When we arrive at this une=pected conclusion. O)ociety loses the value o! things which are uselessly destroyedKO and we must assent to a ma=im which will ma9e the hair o! protectionists stand on end J 5o brea9 to spoil to waste is not to encourage national labourK or more brie!ly Odestruction is not pro!it.O What will you say ;onsieur (ndustriel J what will you say disciples o! good ;. $. Chamans who has calculated with so much precision how much trade would gain by the burning o! 'aris !rom the number o! houses it would be necessary to rebuild7 ( am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations as !ar as their spirit has been introduced into our legislationK but ( beg him to begin them again by ta9ing into the account that which is not seen and placing it alongside o! that which is seen. 5he reader must ta9e care to remember that there are not two persons only but three concerned in the little scene which ( have submitted to his attention. &ne o! them 6ames *. represents the consumer reduced by an act o! destruction to one en<oyment instead o! two. Another under the title o! the glaDier shows us the producer whose trade is encouraged by the accident.
1%0

5he third is the shoema9er "or some other tradesman# whose labour su!!ers proportionably by the same cause. (t is this third person who is always 9ept in the shade and who personating that which is not seen is a necessary element o! the problem. (t is he who shows us how absurd it is to thin9 we see a pro!it in an act o! destruction. (t is he who will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a pro!it in a restriction which is a!ter all nothing else than a partial destruction. 5here!ore i! you will only go to the root o! all the arguments which are adduced in its !avour all you will !ind will be the paraphrase o! this vulgar saying J What would become o! the glaDiers i! nobody ever bro9e windows7

1%%

Source @ C =arl *arx The ?er!an Ideology

Part I: 7euerbach5 6pposition of the *aterialist and Idealist 6utloo" 5 Proletarians and Co!!unis! Indi#iduals. Class. and Co!!unity (n the ;iddle Ages the citiDens in each town were compelled to unite against the landed nobility to save their s9ins. 5he e=tension o! trade the establishment o! communications led the separate towns to get to 9now other towns which had asserted the same interests in the struggle with the same antagonist. &ut o! the many local corporations o! burghers there arose only gradually the burgher class. 5he conditions o! li!e o! the individual burghers became on account o! their contradiction to the e=isting relationships and o! the mode o! labour determined by these conditions which were common to them all and independent o! each individual. 5he burghers had created the conditions inso!ar as they had torn themselves !ree !rom !eudal ties and were created by them inso!ar as they were determined by their antagonism to the !eudal system which they !ound in e=istence. When the individual towns began to enter into associations these common conditions developed into class conditions. 5he same conditions the same contradiction the same interests necessarily called !orth on the whole similar customs everywhere. 5he bourgeoisie itsel! with its conditions develops only gradually splits according to the division o! labour into various !ractions and !inally absorbs all propertied classes it !inds in e=istence1 "while it develops the ma<ority o! the earlier propertyless and a part o! the hitherto propertied classes into a new class the proletariat# in the measure to which all property !ound in e=istence is trans!ormed into industrial or commercial capital. 5he separate individuals !orm a class only inso!ar as they have to carry on a common battle against another classK otherwise they are on hostile terms with each other as competitors. &n the other hand the class in its turn achieves an independent e=istence over against the individuals so that the latter !ind their conditions o! e=istence predestined and
1%/

hence have their position in li!e and their personal development assigned to them by their class become subsumed under it. 5his is the same phenomenon as the sub<ection o! the separate individuals to the division o! labour and can only be removed by the abolition o! private property and o! labour itsel!. We have already indicated several times how this subsuming o! individuals under the class brings with it their sub<ection to all 9inds o! ideas etc. (! !rom a philosophical point o! view one considers this evolution o! individuals in the common conditions o! e=istence o! estates and classes which !ollowed on one another and in the accompanying general conceptions !orced upon them it is certainly very easy to imagine that in these individuals the species or O;anO has evolved or that they evolved O;anO J and in this way one can give history some hard clouts on the ear.2 &ne can conceive these various estates and classes to be speci!ic terms o! the general e=pression subordinate varieties o! the species or evolutionary phases o! O;anO. 5his subsuming o! individuals under de!inite classes cannot be abolished until a class has ta9en shape which has no longer any particular class interest to assert against the ruling class. 5he trans!ormation through the division o! labour o! personal powers "relationships# into material powers cannot be dispelled by dismissing the general idea o! it !rom oneFs mind but can only be abolished by the individuals again sub<ecting these material powers to themselves and abolishing the division o! labour. 5his is not possible without the community. &nly in community \with others has each] individual the means o! cultivating his gi!ts in all directionsK only in the community there!ore is personal !reedom possible. (n the previous substitutes !or the community in the )tate etc. personal !reedom has e=isted only !or the individuals who developed within the relationships o! the ruling class and only inso!ar as they were individuals o! this class. 5he illusory community in which individuals have up till now combined always too9 on an independent e=istence in relation to them and was at the same time since it was the combination o! one class over against another not only a completely illusory community but a new !etter as well. (n a real community the individuals obtain their !reedom in and through their association. (ndividuals have always built on themselves but naturally on themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships not on the OpureO individual in the sense o! the ideologists. *ut in the
1/0

course o! historical evolution and precisely through the inevitable !act that within the division o! labour social relationships ta9e on an independent e=istence there appears a division within the li!e o! each individual inso!ar as it is personal and inso!ar as it is determined by some branch o! labour and the conditions pertaining to it. "We do not mean it to be understood !rom this that !or e=ample the rentier the capitalist etc. cease to be personsK but their personality is conditioned and determined by @uite de!inite class relationships and the division appears only in their opposition to another class and !or themselves only when they go ban9rupt.# (n the estate "and even more in the tribe# this is as yet concealed. !or instance a nobleman always remains a nobleman a commoner always a commoner apart !rom his other relationships a @uality inseparable !rom his individuality. 5he division between the personal and the class individual the accidental nature o! the conditions o! li!e !or the individual appears only with the emergence o! the class which is itsel! a product o! the bourgeoisie. 5his accidental character is only engendered and developed by competition and the struggle o! individuals among themselves. 5hus in imagination individuals seem !reer under the dominance o! the bourgeoisie than be!ore because their conditions o! li!e seem accidentalK in reality o! course they are less !ree because they are more sub<ected to the violence o! things. 5he di!!erence !rom the estate comes out particularly in the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and the proletariat. When the estate o! the urban burghers the corporations etc. emerged in opposition to the landed nobility their condition o! e=istence J movable property and cra!t labour which had already e=isted latently be!ore their separation !rom the !eudal ties J appeared as something positive which was asserted against !eudal landed property and there!ore in its own way at !irst too9 on a !eudal !orm. Certainly the re!ugee ser!s treated their previous servitude as something accidental to their personality. *ut here they only were doing what every class that is !reeing itsel! !rom a !etter doesK and they did not !ree themselves as a class but separately. ;oreover they did not rise above the system o! estates but only !ormed a new estate retaining their previous mode o! labour even in their new situation and developing it !urther by !reeing it !rom its earlier !etters which no longer corresponded to the development already attained. $or the proletarians on the other hand the condition o! their e=istence labour and with it all the conditions o! e=istence governing modern society have become something accidental something over which
1/1

they as separate individuals have no control and over which no social organisation can give them control. 5he contradiction between the individuality o! each separate proletarian and labour the condition o! li!e !orced upon him becomes evident to him himsel! !or he is sacri!iced !rom youth upwards and within his own class has no chance o! arriving at the conditions which would place him in the other class. 5hus while the re!ugee ser!s only wished to be !ree to develop and assert those conditions o! e=istence which were already there and hence in the end only arrived at !ree labour the proletarians i! they are to assert themselves as individuals will have to abolish the very condition o! their e=istence hitherto "which has moreover been that o! all society up to the present# namely labour. 5hus they !ind themselves directly opposed to the !orm in which hitherto the individuals o! which society consists have given themselves collective e=pression that is the )tate. (n order there!ore to assert themselves as individuals they must overthrow the )tate. (t !ollows !rom all we have been saying up till now that the communal relationship into which the individuals o! a class entered and which was determined by their common interests over against a third party was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as average individuals only inso!ar as they lived within the conditions o! e=istence o! their class J a relationship in which they participated not as individuals but as members o! a class. With the community o! revolutionary proletarians on the other hand who ta9e their conditions o! e=istence and those o! all members o! society under their control it is <ust the reverseK it is as individuals that the individuals participate in it. (t is <ust this combination o! individuals "assuming the advanced stage o! modern productive !orces o! course# which puts the conditions o! the !ree development and movement o! individuals under their control J conditions which were previously abandoned to chance and had won an independent e=istence over against the separate individuals <ust because o! their separation as individuals and because o! the necessity o! their combination which had been determined by the division o! labour and through their separation had become a bond alien to them. Combination up till now "by no means an arbitrary one such as is e=pounded !or e=ample in the ,ontrat social but a necessary one# was an agreement upon these conditions within which the individuals were !ree to en<oy the !rea9s o! !ortune "compare e.g. the !ormation o! the +orth American )tate and the )outh American republics#. 5his right to the undisturbed en<oyment within certain
1/2

conditions o! !ortuity and chance has up till now been called personal !reedom. 5hese conditions o! e=istence are o! course only the productive !orces and !orms o! intercourse at any particular time. 7or!s of Intercourse Communism di!!ers !rom all previous movements in that it overturns the basis o! all earlier relations o! production and intercourse and !or the !irst time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures o! hitherto e=isting men strips them o! their natural character and sub<ugates them to the power o! the united individuals. (ts organisation is there!ore essentially economic the material production o! the conditions o! this unityK it turns e=isting conditions into conditions o! unity. 5he reality which communism is creating is precisely the true basis !or rendering it impossible that anything should e=ist independently o! individuals inso!ar as reality is only a product o! the preceding intercourse o! individuals themselves. 5hus the communists in practice treat the conditions created up to now by production and intercourse as inorganic conditions without however imagining that it was the plan or the destiny o! previous generations to give them material and without believing that these conditions were inorganic !or the individuals creating them.

Contradiction between individuals and their conditions o! li!e as contradiction between productive !orces and the !orm o! intercourse
5he di!!erence between the individual as a person and what is accidental to him is not a conceptual di!!erence but an historical !act. 5his distinction has a di!!erent signi!icance at di!!erent times J e.g. the estate as something accidental to the individual in the eighteenth century the !amily more or less too. (t is not a distinction that we have to ma9e !or each age but one which each age ma9es itsel! !rom among the di!!erent elements which it !inds in e=istence and indeed not according to any theory but compelled by material collisions in li!e. What appears accidental to the later age as opposed to the earlier J and this applies also to the elements handed down by an earlier age J is a !orm o! intercourse which corresponded to a de!inite stage o! development o! the productive !orces. 5he relation o! the productive !orces to the !orm o! intercourse is the relation o! the !orm o! intercourse to the occupation or activity o! the individuals. "5he !undamental !orm o! this activity is o! course material on which
1/-

depend all other !orms J mental political religious etc. 5he various shaping o! material li!e is o! course in every case dependent on the needs which are already developed and the production as well as the satis!action o! these needs is an historical process which is not !ound in the case o! a sheep or a dog ")tirnerFs re!ractory principal argument adversus hominem# although sheep and dogs in their present !orm certainly but malgr3 eux, are products o! an historical process.# 5he conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other so long as the above,mentioned contradiction is absent are conditions appertaining to their individuality in no way e=ternal to themK conditions under which these de!inite individuals living under de!inite relationships can alone produce their material li!e and what is connected with it are thus the conditions o! their sel!,activity and are produced by this sel!,activity. 5he de!inite condition under which they produce thus corresponds as long as the contradiction has not yet appeared to the reality o! their conditioned nature their one,sided e=istence the one,sidedness o! which only becomes evident when the contradiction enters on the scene and thus e=ists !or the later individuals. 5hen this condition appears as an accidental !etter and the consciousness that it is a !etter is imputed to the earlier age as well. 5hese various conditions which appear !irst as conditions o! sel!, activity later as !etters upon it !orm in the whole evolution o! history a coherent series o! !orms o! intercourse the coherence o! which consists in this. in the place o! an earlier !orm o! intercourse which has become a !etter a new one is put corresponding to the more developed productive !orces and hence to the advanced mode o! the sel!,activity o! individuals , a !orm which in its turn becomes a !etter and is then replaced by another. )ince these conditions correspond at every stage to the simultaneous development o! the productive !orces their history is at the same time the history o! the evolving productive !orces ta9en over by each new generation and is there!ore the history o! the development o! the !orces o! the individuals themselves. )ince this evolution ta9es place naturally i.e. is not subordinated to a general plan o! !reely combined individuals it proceeds !rom various localities tribes nations branches o! labour etc. each o! which to start with develops independently o! the others and only gradually enters into relation with the others. $urthermore it ta9es place only very slowlyK the various stages and interests are never completely overcome but only subordinated to the prevailing interest and trail along beside the latter !or centuries a!terwards. (t !ollows !rom this that
1/1

within a nation itsel! the individuals even apart !rom their pecuniary circumstances have @uite di!!erent developments and that an earlier interest the peculiar !orm o! intercourse o! which has already been ousted by that belonging to a later interest remains !or a long time a!terwards in possession o! a traditional power in the illusory community ")tate law# which has won an e=istence independent o! the individualsK a power which in the last resort can only be bro9en by a revolution. 5his e=plains why with re!erence to individual points which allow o! a more general summing,up consciousness can sometimes appear !urther advanced than the contemporary empirical relationships so that in the struggles o! a later epoch one can re!er to earlier theoreticians as authorities. &n the other hand in countries which li9e +orth America begin in an already advanced historical epoch the development proceeds very rapidly. )uch countries have no other natural premises than the individuals who settled there and were led to do so because the !orms o! intercourse o! the old countries did not correspond to their wants. 5hus they begin with the most advanced individuals o! the old countries and there!ore with the correspondingly most advanced !orm o! intercourse be!ore this !orm o! intercourse has been able to establish itsel! in the old countries. 5his is the case with all colonies inso!ar as they are not mere military or trading stations. Carthage the Aree9 colonies and (celand in the eleventh and twel!th centuries provide e=amples o! this. A similar relationship issues !rom con@uest when a !orm o! intercourse which has evolved on another soil is brought over complete to the con@uered country. whereas in its home it was still encumbered with interests and relationships le!t over !rom earlier periods here it can and must be established completely and without hindrance i! only to assure the con@uerorsF lasting power. "4ngland and +aples a!ter the +orman con@uest when they received the most per!ect !orm o! !eudal organisation.# H05 The Contradiction %et$een the Producti#e 7orces and the 7or! of Intercourse as the %asis for Social (e#olutionI 5his contradiction between the productive !orces and the !orm o! intercourse which as we saw has occurred several times in past history without however endangering the basis necessarily on each occasion burst out in a revolution ta9ing on at the same time various subsidiary !orms such as all,embracing collisions collisions o! various classes contradiction o! consciousness battle o! ideas etc. political
1/3

con!lict etc. $rom a narrow point o! view one may isolate one o! these subsidiary !orms and consider it as the basis o! these revolutionsK and this is all the more easy as the individuals who started the revolutions had illusions about their own activity according to their degree o! culture and the stage o! historical development. 5hus all collisions in history have their origin according to our view in the contradiction between the productive !orces and the !orm o! intercourse. (ncidentally to lead to collisions in a country this contradiction need not necessarily have reached its e=treme limit in this particular country. 5he competition with industrially more advanced countries brought about by the e=pansion o! international intercourse is su!!icient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a bac9ward industry "e.g. the latent proletariat in Aermany brought into view by the competition o! 4nglish industry#. Con>uest 5his whole interpretation o! history appears to be contradicted by the !act o! con@uest. Hp till now violence war pillage murder and robbery etc. have been accepted as the driving !orce o! history. Here we must limit ourselves to the chie! points and ta9e there!ore only the most stri9ing e=ample J the destruction o! an old civilisation by a barbarous people and the resulting !ormation o! an entirely new organisation o! society. "8ome and the barbariansK !eudalism and AaulK the *yDantine 4mpire and the 5ur9s.# With the con@uering barbarian people war itsel! is still as indicated above a regular !orm o! intercourse which is the more eagerly e=ploited as the increase in population together with the traditional and !or it the only possible crude mode o! production gives rise to the need !or new means o! production. (n (taly on the other hand the concentration o! landed property "caused not only by buying,up and indebtedness but also by inheritance since loose living being ri!e and marriage rare the old !amilies gradually died out and their possessions !ell into the hands o! a !ew# and its conversion into graDing land "caused not only by the usual economic !orces still operative today but by the importation o! plundered and tribute,corn and the resultant lac9 o! demand !or (talian corn# brought about the almost total disappearance o! the !ree population. 5he very slaves died out again and again and had constantly to be replaced by new ones. )lavery remained the basis o! the whole productive system. 5he plebeians midway between !reemen and slaves never succeeded in becoming
1/2

more than a proletarian rabble. 8ome indeed never became more than a cityK its connection with the provinces was almost e=clusively political and could there!ore easily be bro9en again by political events. +othing is more common than the notion that in history up till now it has only been a @uestion o! ta9ing. 5he barbarians ta9e the 8oman 4mpire and this !act o! ta9ing is made to e=plain the transition !rom the old world to the !eudal system. (n this ta9ing by barbarians however the @uestion is whether the nation which is con@uered has evolved industrial productive !orces as is the case with modern peoples or whether their productive !orces are based !or the most part merely on their association and on the community. 5a9ing is !urther determined by the ob<ect ta9en. A ban9erFs !ortune consisting o! paper cannot be ta9en at all without the ta9erFs submitting to the conditions o! production and intercourse o! the country ta9en. )imilarly the total industrial capital o! a modern industrial country. And !inally everywhere there is very soon an end to ta9ing and when there is nothing more to ta9e you have to set about producing. $rom this necessity o! producing which very soon asserts itsel! it !ollows that the !orm o! community adopted by the settling con@uerors must correspond to the stage o! development o! the productive !orces they !ind in e=istenceK or i! this is not the case !rom the start it must change according to the productive !orces. *y this too is e=plained the !act which people pro!ess to have noticed everywhere in the period !ollowing the migration o! the peoples namely that the servant was master and that the con@uerors very soon too9 over language culture and manners !rom the con@uered. 5he !eudal system was by no means brought complete !rom Aermany but had its origin as !ar as the con@uerors were concerned in the martial organisation o! the army during the actual con@uest and this only evolved a!ter the con@uest into the !eudal system proper through the action o! the productive !orces !ound in the con@uered countries. 5o what an e=tent this !orm was determined by the productive !orces is shown by the abortive attempts to realise other !orms derived !rom reminiscences o! ancient 8ome "Charlemagne etc.#. Contradictions of %ig Industry: (e#olution &ur investigation hitherto started !rom the instruments o! production and it has already shown that private property was a necessity !or certain industrial stages. (n industrie extractive private property still coincides with labourK in small industry and all agriculture up till now
1/0

property is the necessary conse@uence o! the e=isting instruments o! productionK in big industry the contradiction between the instrument o! production and private property appears !rom the !irst time and is the product o! big industryK moreover big industry must be highly developed to produce this contradiction. And thus only with big industry does the abolition o! private property become possible. HE5 Contradiction bet$een the Producti#e 7orces and the 7or! of IntercourseI (n big industry and competition the whole mass o! conditions o! e=istence limitations biases o! individuals are !used together into the two simplest !orms. private property and labour. With money every !orm o! intercourse and intercourse itsel! is considered !ortuitous !or the individuals. 5hus money implies that all previous intercourse was only intercourse o! individuals under particular conditions not o! individuals as individuals. 5hese conditions are reduced to two. accumulated labour or private property and actual labour. (! both or one o! these ceases then intercourse comes to a standstill. 5he modern economists themselves e.g. )ismondi CherbulieD etc. oppose Oassociation o! individualsO to Oassociation o! capitalO. &n the other hand the individuals themselves are entirely subordinated to the division o! labour and hence are brought into the most complete dependence on one another. 'rivate property inso!ar as within labour itsel! it is opposed to labour evolves out o! the necessity o! accumulation and has still to begin with rather the !orm o! the communalityK but in its !urther development it approaches more and more the modern !orm o! private property. 5he division o! labour implies !rom the outset the division o! the conditions o! labour o! tools and materials and thus the splitting,up o! accumulated capital among di!!erent owners and thus also the division between capital and labour and the di!!erent !orms o! property itsel!. 5he more the division o! labour develops and accumulation grows the sharper are the !orms that this process o! di!!erentiation assumes. Labour itsel! can only e=ist on the premise o! this !ragmentation. 5hus two !acts are here revealed. $irst the productive !orces appear as a world !or themselves @uite independent o! and divorced !rom the individuals alongside the individuals. the reason !or this is that the individuals whose !orces they are e=ist split up and in opposition to one another whilst on the other hand these !orces are only real !orces in the intercourse and association o! these individuals. 5hus on the
1/%

one hand we have a totality o! productive !orces which have as it were ta9en on a material !orm and are !or the individuals no longer the !orces o! the individuals but o! private property and hence o! the individuals only inso!ar as they are owners o! private property themselves. +ever in any earlier period have the productive !orces ta9en on a !orm so indi!!erent to the intercourse o! individuals as individuals because their intercourse itsel! was !ormerly a restricted one. &n the other hand standing over against these productive !orces we have the ma<ority o! the individuals !rom whom these !orces have been wrested away and who robbed thus o! all real li!e,content have become abstract individuals but who are however only by this !act put into a position to enter into relation with one another as individuals. 5he only connection which still lin9s them with the productive !orces and with their own e=istence J labour J has lost all semblance o! sel!, activity and only sustains their li!e by stunting it. While in the earlier periods sel!,activity and the production o! material li!e were separated in that they devolved on di!!erent persons and while on account o! the narrowness o! the individuals themselves the production o! material li!e was considered as a subordinate mode o! sel!,activity they now diverge to such an e=tent that altogether material li!e appears as the end and what produces this material li!e labour "which is now the only possible but as we see negative !orm o! sel!,activity# as the means. H+F5 The Necessity. Preconditions and Conse>uences of the Abolition of Pri#ate PropertyI 5hus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must appropriate the e=isting totality o! productive !orces not only to achieve sel!,activity but also merely to sa!eguard their very e=istence. 5his appropriation is !irst determined by the ob<ect to be appropriated the productive !orces which have been developed to a totality and which only e=ist within a universal intercourse. $rom this aspect alone there!ore this appropriation must have a universal character corresponding to the productive !orces and the intercourse. 5he appropriation o! these !orces is itsel! nothing more than the development o! the individual capacities corresponding to the material instruments o! production. 5he appropriation o! a totality o! instruments o! production is !or this very reason the development o! a totality o! capacities in the individuals themselves. 5his appropriation is !urther determined by the persons appropriating.
1//

&nly the proletarians o! the present day who are completely shut o!! !rom all sel!,activity are in a position to achieve a complete and no longer restricted sel!,activity which consists in the appropriation o! a totality o! productive !orces and in the thus postulated development o! a totality o! capacities. All earlier revolutionary appropriations were restrictedK individuals whose sel!,activity was restricted by a crude instrument o! production and a limited intercourse appropriated this crude instrument o! production and hence merely achieved a new state o! limitation. 5heir instrument o! production became their property but they themselves remained subordinate to the division o! labour and their own instrument o! production. (n all e=propriations up to now a mass o! individuals remained subservient to a single instrument o! productionK in the appropriation by the proletarians a mass o! instruments o! production must be made sub<ect to each individual and property to all. ;odern universal intercourse can be controlled by individuals there!ore only when controlled by all. 5his appropriation is !urther determined by the manner in which it must be e!!ected. (t can only be e!!ected through a union which by the character o! the proletariat itsel! can again only be a universal one and through a revolution in which on the one hand the power o! the earlier mode o! production and intercourse and social organisation is overthrown and on the other hand there develops the universal character and the energy o! the proletariat without which the revolution cannot be accomplishedK and in which !urther the proletariat rids itsel! o! everything that still clings to it !rom its previous position in society. &nly at this stage does sel!,activity coincide with material li!e which corresponds to the development o! individuals into complete individuals and the casting,o!! o! all natural limitations. 5he trans!ormation o! labour into sel!,activity corresponds to the trans!ormation o! the earlier limited intercourse into the intercourse o! individuals as such. With the appropriation o! the total productive !orces through united individuals private property comes to an end. Whilst previously in history a particular condition always appeared as accidental now the isolation o! individuals and the particular private gain o! each man have themselves become accidental. 5he individuals who are no longer sub<ect to the division o! labour have been conceived by the philosophers as an ideal under the name O;anO. 5hey have conceived the whole process which we have outlined as the evolutionary process o! O;anO so that at every historical stage
200

O;anO was substituted !or the individuals and shown as the motive !orce o! history. 5he whole process was thus conceived as a process o! the sel!,estrangement o! O;anO and this was essentially due to the !act that the average individual o! the later stage was always !oisted on to the earlier stage and the consciousness o! a later age on to the individuals o! an earlier. 5hrough this inversion which !rom the !irst is an abstract image o! the actual conditions it was possible to trans!orm the whole o! history into an evolutionary process o! consciousness. The Necessity of the Co!!unist (e#olution $inally !rom the conception o! history we have s9etched we obtain these !urther conclusions. "1# (n the development o! productive !orces there comes a stage when productive !orces and means o! intercourse are brought into being which under the e=isting relationships only cause mischie! and are no longer productive but destructive !orces "machinery and money#K and connected with this a class is called !orth which has to bear all the burdens o! society without en<oying its advantages which ousted !rom society is !orced into the most decided antagonism to all other classesK a class which !orms the ma<ority o! all members o! society and !rom which emanates the consciousness o! the necessity o! a !undamental revolution the communist consciousness which may o! course arise among the other classes too through the contemplation o! the situation o! this class. "2# 5he conditions under which de!inite productive !orces can be applied are the conditions o! the rule o! a de!inite class o! society whose social power deriving !rom its property has its practical, idealistic e=pression in each case in the !orm o! the )tateK and there!ore every revolutionary struggle is directed against a class which till then has been in power.1 "-# (n all revolutions up till now the mode o! activity always remained unscathed and it was only a @uestion o! a di!!erent distribution o! this activity a new distribution o! labour to other persons whilst the communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode o! activity does away with labour and abolishes the rule o! all classes with the classes themselves because it is carried through by the class which no longer counts as a class in society is not recognised as a class and is in itsel! the e=pression o! the dissolution o! all classes nationalities etc. within present societyK and
201

"1# *oth !or the production on a mass scale o! this communist consciousness and !or the success o! the cause itsel! the alteration o! men on a mass scale is necessary an alteration which can only ta9e place in a practical movement a revolutionK this revolution is necessary there!ore not only because the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way but also because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itsel! o! all the muc9 o! ages and become !itted to !ound society anew. 7ootnotes
1

\0arginal note by 0arx> ] 5o begin with it absorbs the branches o! labour directly belonging to the )tate and then all ^\more or less] ideological estates.
2

5he )tatement which !re@uently occurs with )aint ;a= that each is all that he is through the )tate is !undamentally the same as the statement that bourgeois is only a specimen o! the bourgeois speciesK a statement which presupposes that the class o! bourgeois e=isted be!ore the individuals constituting it. \0arginal note by 0arx to this sentence>] With the philosophers pre,e=istence o! the class.
-

+.*. J (t must not he !orgotten that the ser!Fs very need o! e=isting and the impossibility o! a large,scale economy which involved the distribution o! the allotments among the ser!s very soon reduced the services o! the ser!s to their lord to an average o! payments in 9ind and statute,labour. 5his made it possible !or the ser! to accumulate movable property and hence !acilitated his escape out o! the possession o! his lord and gave him the prospect o! ma9ing his way as an urban citiDenK it also created gradations among the ser!s so that the runaway ser!s were already hal! burghers. (t is li9ewise obvious that the ser!s who were masters o! a cra!t had the best chance o! ac@uiring movable property.
1

\0arginal note by 0arx .] 5he people are interested in maintaining the present state o! production.

202

Source @ 7riedrich Niet&sche Hu!an5 All Too Hu!an

S)CTI6N )I?HT A Loo" At The State &ocialism in respect to its means. )ocialism is the visionary younger brother o! an almost decrepit despotism whose heir it wants to be. 5hus its e!!orts are reactionary in the deepest sense. $or it desires a wealth o! e=ecutive power as only despotism had itK indeed it outdoes everything in the past by striving !or the downright destruction o! the individual which it sees as an un<usti!ied lu=ury o! nature and which it intends to improve into an e=pedient organ of the community. )ocialism crops up in the vicinity o! all e=cessive displays o! power because o! its relation to it li9e the typical old socialist 'lato at the court o! the )icilian tyrantK1 it desires "and in certain circumstances !urthers# the Caesarean power state o! this century because as we said it would li9e to be its heir. *ut even this inheritance would not su!!ice !or its purposesK it needs the most submissive sub<ugation o! all citiDens to the absolute state the li9e o! which has never e=isted. And since it cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the state having rather always to wor9 automatically to eliminate piety "because it wor9s on the elimination o! all e=isting statesB, it can only hope to e=ist here and there !or short periods o! time by means o! the most e=treme terrorism. 5here!ore it secretly prepares !or reigns o! terror and drives the word O<usticeO li9e a nail into the heads o! the semieducated masses to rob them completely o! their reason "a!ter this reason has already su!!ered a great deal !rom its semieducation# and to give them a good conscience !or the evil game that they are supposed to play. )ocialism can serve as a rather brutal and !orce!ul way to teach the danger o! all accumulations o! state power and to that e=tent instill one with distrust o! the state itsel!. When its rough voice chimes in with the battle cry OAs much state as possible,* it will at !irst ma9e the cry noisier than everK but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the greater. OAs little state as possible.*

20-

9he development of the spirit, feared by the state. Li9e every organiDational political power the Aree9 polis spurned and distrusted the increase o! culture among its citiDensK its power!ul natural impulse was to do almost nothing but cripple and obstruct it. 5he polis did not want to permit to culture any history or evolutionK the education determined by the law o! the land was intended to bind all generations and 9eep them at one level. Later 'lato too wanted it no di!!erent !or his ideal state. )o culture developed in spite of the polisK the polis helped indirectly o! course and involuntarily because in it an individualFs ambition was stimulated greatly so that once he had come to the path o! intellectual development he pursued that too as !ar as it would go. &ne should not evo9e 'ericlesF panegyric 2 as re!utation !or it is only a great optimistic delusion about the allegedly necessary connection between the polis and Athenian civiliDationK <ust be!ore the night !alls on Athens "the plague and the brea9 with tradition# 5hucydides lets it- shine resplendent once again li9e a trans!iguring sunset at whose sight we are to !orget the bad day that went be!ore it.
1

(n -%% *.C. 'lato visited the court o! the )icilian tyrant :ionysius the 4lder in )yracuse where he returned in -20 and -21 *.C. hoping to realiDe his political ideals there.
2 -

(n 5hucydides 2.-3,12 "c!. n. 12 to )ection $ive#. L(tO can re!er either to OciviliDationO or Opanegyric.O

201

Source 0 A Plato Crito

Persons of the )&C8A54) C8(5& ialogue

Scene 5he 'rison o! )ocrates. ... Soc5 :ear Crito your Deal is invaluable i! a right oneK but i! wrong the greater the Deal the greater the evilK and there!ore we ought to consider whether these things shall be done or not. $or ( am and always have been one o! those natures who must be guided by reason whatever the reason may be which upon re!lection appears to me to be the bestK and now that this !ortune has come upon me ( cannot put away the reasons which ( have be!ore given. the principles which ( have hitherto honored and revered ( still honor and unless we can !ind other and better principles on the instant ( am certain not to agree with youK no not even i! the power o! the multitude could in!lict many more imprisonments con!iscations deaths !rightening us li9e children with hobgoblin terrors. *ut what will be the !airest way o! considering the @uestion7 )hall ( return to your old argument about the opinions o! men some o! which are to be regarded and others as we were saying are not to be regarded7 +ow were we right in maintaining this be!ore ( was condemned7 And has the argument which was once good now proved to be tal9 !or the sa9e o! tal9ingK in !act an amusement only and altogether vanity7 5hat is what ( want to consider with your help Crito. whether under my present circumstances the argument appears to be in any way di!!erent or notK and is to be allowed by me or disallowed. 5hat argument which as ( believe is maintained by many who assume to be authorities was to the e!!ect as ( was saying that the opinions o! some men are to be regarded and o! other men not to be regarded. +ow you Crito are a disinterested person who are not going to die to,morrow J at least there is no human probability o! this and you are there!ore not liable to be deceived by the circumstances in which you are placed. 5ell me then whether ( am right in saying that
203

some opinions and the opinions o! some men only are to be valued and other opinions and the opinions o! other men are not to be valued. ( as9 you whether ( was right in maintaining this7 Cr5 Certainly. Soc5 5he good are to be regarded and not the bad7 Cr5 Ges. Soc5 And the opinions o! the wise are good and the opinions o! the unwise are evil7 Cr5 Certainly. Soc5 And what was said about another matter7 Was the disciple in gymnastics supposed to attend to the praise and blame and opinion o! every man or o! one man only J his physician or trainer whoever that was7 Cr5 &! one man only. Soc5 And he ought to !ear the censure and welcome the praise o! that one only and not o! the many7 Cr5 5hat is clear. Soc5 And he ought to live and train and eat and drin9 in the way which seems good to his single master who has understanding rather than according to the opinion o! all other men put together7 Cr5 5rue. Soc5 And i! he disobeys and disregards the opinion and approval o! the one and regards the opinion o! the many who have no understanding will he not su!!er evil7 Cr5 Certainly he will. Soc5 And what will the evil be whither tending and what a!!ecting in the disobedient person7 Cr5 Clearly a!!ecting the bodyK that is what is destroyed by the evil. Soc5 ?ery goodK and is not this true Crito o! other things which we need not separately enumerate7 (n the matter o! <ust and un<ust !air and !oul good and evil which are the sub<ects o! our present consultation ought we to !ollow the opinion o! the many and to !ear themK or the opinion o! the one man who has understanding and whom
202

we ought to !ear and reverence more than all the rest o! the world. and whom deserting we shall destroy and in<ure that principle in us which may be assumed to be improved by <ustice and deteriorated by in<usticeK is there not such a principle7 Cr5 Certainly there is )ocrates. Soc5 5a9e a parallel instanceK i! acting under the advice o! men who have no understanding we destroy that which is improvable by health and deteriorated by disease J when that has been destroyed ( say would li!e be worth having7 And that is J the body7 Cr5 Ges. Soc5 Could we live having an evil and corrupted body7 Cr5 Certainly not. Soc5 And will li!e be worth having i! that higher part o! man be depraved which is improved by <ustice and deteriorated by in<ustice7 :o we suppose that principle whatever it may be in man which has to do with <ustice and in<ustice to be in!erior to the body7 Cr5 Certainly not. Soc5 ;ore honored then7 Cr5 $ar more honored. Soc5 5hen my !riend we must not regard what the many say o! us. but what he the one man who has understanding o! <ust and un<ust will say and what the truth will say. And there!ore you begin in error when you suggest that we should regard the opinion o! the many about <ust and un<ust good and evil honorable and dishonorable. Well someone will say O*ut the many can 9ill us.O Cr5 Ges )ocratesK that will clearly be the answer. Soc5 5hat is trueK but still ( !ind with surprise that the old argument is as ( conceive unsha9en as ever. And ( should li9e to 9now Whether ( may say the same o! another proposition J that not li!e but a good li!e is to be chie!ly valued7 Cr5 Ges that also remains. Soc5 And a good li!e is e@uivalent to a <ust and honorable one J that holds also7

200

Cr5 Ges that holds. Soc5 $rom these premises ( proceed to argue the @uestion whether ( ought or ought not to try to escape without the consent o! the Athenians. and i! ( am clearly right in escaping then ( will ma9e the attemptK but i! not ( will abstain. 5he other considerations which you mention o! money and loss o! character and the duty o! educating children are ( !ear only the doctrines o! the multitude who would be as ready to call people to li!e i! they were able as they are to put them to death J and with as little reason. *ut now since the argument has thus !ar prevailed the only @uestion which remains to be considered is whether we shall do rightly either in escaping or in su!!ering others to aid in our escape and paying them in money and than9s or whether we shall not do rightlyK and i! the latter then death or any other calamity which may ensue on my remaining here must not be allowed to enter into the calculation. Cr5 ( thin9 that you are right )ocratesK how then shall we proceed7 Soc5 Let us consider the matter together and do you either re!ute me i! you can and ( will be convincedK or else cease my dear !riend !rom repeating to me that ( ought to escape against the wishes o! the Athenians. !or ( am e=tremely desirous to be persuaded by you but not against my own better <udgment. And now please to consider my !irst position and do your best to answer me. Cr5 ( will do my best. Soc5 Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong or that in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong or is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable as ( was <ust now saying and as has been already ac9nowledged by us7 Are all our !ormer admissions which were made within a !ew days to be thrown away7 And have we at our age been earnestly discoursing with one another all our li!e long only to discover that we are no better than children7 &r are we to rest assured in spite o! the opinion o! the many and in spite o! conse@uences whether better or worse o! the truth o! what was then said that in<ustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts un<ustly7 )hall we a!!irm that7 Cr5 Ges. Soc5 5hen we must do no wrong7 Cr5 Certainly not.
20%

Soc5 +or when in<ured in<ure in return as the many imagineK !or we must in<ure no one at all7 Cr5 Clearly not. Soc5 Again Crito may we do evil7 Cr5 )urely not )ocrates. Soc5 And what o! doing evil in return !or evil which is the morality o! the many J is that <ust or not7 Cr5 +ot <ust. Soc5 $or doing evil to another is the same as in<uring him7 Cr5 ?ery true. Soc5 5hen we ought not to retaliate or render evil !or evil to anyone whatever evil we may have su!!ered !rom him. *ut ( would have you consider Crito whether you really mean what you are saying. $or this opinion has never been held and never will be held by any considerable number o! personsK and those who are agreed and those who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground and can only despise one another when they see how widely they di!!er. 5ell me then whether you agree with and assent to my !irst principle that neither in<ury nor retaliation nor warding o!! evil by evil is ever right. And shall that be the premise o! our agreement7 &r do you decline and dissent !rom this7 $or this has been o! old and is still my opinionK but i! you are o! another opinion let me hear what you have to say. (! however you remain o! the same mind as !ormerly ( will proceed to the ne=t step. Cr5 Gou may proceed !or ( have not changed my mind. Soc5 5hen ( will proceed to the ne=t step which may be put in the !orm o! a @uestion. &ught a man to do what he admits to be right or ought he to betray the right7 Cr5 He ought to do what he thin9s right. Soc5 *ut i! this is true what is the application7 (n leaving the prison against the will o! the Athenians do ( wrong any7 or rather do ( not wrong those whom ( ought least to wrong7 :o ( not desert the principles which were ac9nowledged by us to be <ust7 What do you say7

20/

Cr5 ( cannot tell )ocrates !or ( do not 9now. Soc5 5hen consider the matter in this way. (magine that ( am about to play truant "you may call the proceeding by any name which you li9e# and the laws and the government come and interrogate me. O5ell us )ocrates O they sayK Owhat are you about7 are you going by an act o! yours to overturn us J the laws and the whole )tate as !ar as in you lies7 :o you imagine that a )tate can subsist and not be overthrown in which the decisions o! law have no power but are set aside and overthrown by individuals7O What will be our answer Crito to these and the li9e words7 Anyone and especially a clever rhetorician will have a good deal to urge about the evil o! setting aside the law which re@uires a sentence to be carried outK and we might reply OGesK but the )tate has in<ured us and given an un<ust sentence.O )uppose ( say that7 Cr5 ?ery good )ocrates. )oc. OAnd was that our agreement with you7O the law would say Oor were you to abide by the sentence o! the )tate7O And i! ( were to e=press astonishment at their saying this the law would probably add. OAnswer )ocrates instead o! opening your eyes. you are in the habit o! as9ing and answering @uestions. 5ell us what complaint you have to ma9e against us which <usti!ies you in attempting to destroy us and the )tate7 (n the !irst place did we not bring you into e=istence7 Gour !ather married your mother by our aid and begat you. )ay whether you have any ob<ection to urge against those o! us who regulate marriage7O +one ( should reply. O&r against those o! us who regulate the system o! nurture and education o! children in which you were trained7 Were not the laws who have the charge o! this right in commanding your !ather to train you in music and gymnastic7O 8ight ( should reply. OWell then since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated by us can you deny in the !irst place that you are our child and slave as your !athers were be!ore you7 And i! this is true you are not on e@ual terms with usK nor can you thin9 that you have a right to do to us what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to stri9e or revile or do any other evil to a !ather or to your master i! you had one when you have been struc9 or reviled by him or received some other evil at his hands7 J you would not say this7 And because we thin9 right to destroy you do you thin9 that you have any right to destroy us in return and your country as !ar as in you lies7 And will you & pro!essor o! true virtue say that you are <usti!ied in this7 Has a philosopher li9e
210

you !ailed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher and holier !ar than mother or !ather or any ancestor and more to be regarded in the eyes o! the gods and o! men o! understanding7 also to be soothed and gently and reverently entreated when angry even more than a !ather and i! not persuaded obeyed7 And when we are punished by her whether with imprisonment or stripes the punishment is to be endured in silenceK and i! she leads us to wounds or death in battle thither we !ollow as is rightK neither may anyone yield or retreat or leave his ran9 but whether in battle or in a court o! law or in any other place he must do what his city and his country order himK or he must change their view o! what is <ust. and i! he may do no violence to his !ather or mother much less may he do violence to his country.O What answer shall we ma9e to this Crito7 :o the laws spea9 truly or do they not7 Cr5 ( thin9 that they do. Soc5 5hen the laws will say. OConsider )ocrates i! this is true that in your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. $or a!ter having brought you into the world and nurtured and educated you and given you and every other citiDen a share in every good that we had to give we !urther proclaim and give the right to every Athenian that i! he does not li9e us when he has come o! age and has seen the ways o! the city and made our ac@uaintance he may go where he pleases and ta9e his goods with himK and none o! us laws will !orbid him or inter!ere with him. Any o! you who does not li9e us and the city and who wants to go to a colony or to any other city may go where he li9es and ta9e his goods with him. *ut he who has e=perience o! the manner in which we order <ustice and administer the )tate and still remains has entered into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he who disobeys us is as we maintain thrice wrong. !irst because in disobeying us he is disobeying his parentsK secondly because we are the authors o! his educationK thirdly because he has made an agreement with us that he will duly obey our commandsK and he neither obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrongK and we do not rudely impose them but give him the alternative o! obeying or convincing usK that is what we o!!er and he does neither. 5hese are the sort o! accusations to which as we were saying you )ocrates will be e=posed i! you accomplish your intentionsK you above all other Athenians.O )uppose ( as9 why is this7 they will <ustly retort upon me that ( above all other men have ac9nowledged the agreement. O5here is clear proo! O they will say O)ocrates that we and the city were not
211

displeasing to you. &! all Athenians you have been the most constant resident in the city which as you never leave you may be supposed to love. $or you never went out o! the city either to see the games e=cept once when you went to the (sthmus or to any other place unless when you were on military serviceK nor did you travel as other men do. +or had you any curiosity to 9now other )tates or their laws. your a!!ections did not go beyond us and our )tateK we were your especial !avorites and you ac@uiesced in our government o! youK and this is the )tate in which you begat your children which is a proo! o! your satis!action. ;oreover you might i! you had li9ed have !i=ed the penalty at banishment in the course o! the trial J the )tate which re!uses to let you go now would have let you go then. *ut you pretended that you pre!erred death to e=ile and that you were not grieved at death. And now you have !orgotten these !ine sentiments and pay no respect to us the laws o! whom you are the destroyerK and are doing what only a miserable slave would do running away and turning your bac9 upon the compacts and agreements which you made as a citiDen. And !irst o! all answer this very @uestion. Are we right in saying that you agreed to be governed according to us in deed and not in word only7 (s that true or not7O How shall we answer that Crito7 ;ust we not agree7 Cr5 5here is no help )ocrates. Soc5 5hen will they not say. OGou )ocrates are brea9ing the covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure not in any haste or under any compulsion or deception but having had seventy years to thin9 o! them during which time you were at liberty to leave the city i! we were not to your mind or i! our covenants appeared to you to be un!air. Gou had your choice and might have gone either to Lacedaemon or Crete which you o!ten praise !or their good government or to some other Hellenic or !oreign )tate. Whereas you above all other Athenians seemed to be so !ond o! the )tate or in other words o! us her laws "!or who would li9e a )tate that has no laws7# that you never stirred out o! her. the halt the blind the maimed were not more stationary in her than you were. And now you run away and !orsa9e your agreements. +ot so )ocrates i! you will ta9e our adviceK do not ma9e yoursel! ridiculous by escaping out o! the city. O$or <ust consider i! you transgress and err in this sort o! way what good will you do either to yoursel! or to your !riends7 5hat your !riends will be driven into e=ile and deprived o! citiDenship or will lose their property is tolerably certainK and you yoursel! i! you !ly to one o! the
212

neighboring cities as !or e=ample 5hebes or ;egara both o! which are well,governed cities will come to them as an enemy )ocrates and their government will be against you and all patriotic citiDens will cast an evil eye upon you as a subverter o! the laws and you will con!irm in the minds o! the <udges the <ustice o! their own condemnation o! you. $or he who is a corrupter o! the laws is more than li9ely to be corrupter o! the young and !oolish portion o! man9ind. Will you then !lee !rom well,ordered cities and virtuous men7 and is e=istence worth having on these terms7 &r will you go to them without shame and tal9 to them )ocrates7 And what will you say to them7 What you say here about virtue and <ustice and institutions and laws being the best things among men7 Would that be decent o! you7 )urely not. *ut i! you go away !rom well,governed )tates to CritoFs !riends in 5hessaly where there is great disorder and license they will be charmed to have the tale o! your escape !rom prison set o!! with ludicrous particulars o! the manner in which you were wrapped in a goats9in or some other disguise and metamorphosed as the !ashion o! runaways is J that is very li9elyK but will there be no one to remind you that in your old age you violated the most sacred laws !rom a miserable desire o! a little more li!e7 'erhaps not i! you 9eep them in a good temperK but i! they are out o! temper you will hear many degrading thingsK you will live but how7 J as the !latterer o! all men and the servant o! all menK and doing what7 J eating and drin9ing in 5hessaly having gone abroad in order that you may get a dinner. And where will be your !ine sentiments about <ustice and virtue then7 )ay that you wish to live !or the sa9e o! your children that you may bring them up and educate them J will you ta9e them into 5hessaly and deprive them o! Athenian citiDenship7 (s that the bene!it which you would con!er upon them7 &r are you under the impression that they will be better cared !or and educated here i! you are still alive although absent !rom themK !or that your !riends will ta9e care o! them7 :o you !ancy that i! you are an inhabitant o! 5hessaly they will ta9e care o! them and i! you are an inhabitant o! the other world they will not ta9e care o! them7 +ayK but i! they who call themselves !riends are truly !riends they surely will. OListen then )ocrates to us who have brought you up. 5hin9 not o! li!e and children !irst and o! <ustice a!terwards but o! <ustice !irst that you may be <usti!ied be!ore the princes o! the world below. $or neither will you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or <uster in this li!e or happier in another i! you do as Crito bids. +ow you depart in innocence a su!!erer and not a doer o! evilK a victim not o! the laws
21-

but o! men. *ut i! you go !orth returning evil !or evil and in<ury !or in<ury brea9ing the covenants and agreements which you have made with us and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong that is to say yoursel! your !riends your country and us we shall be angry with you while you live and our brethren the laws in the world below will receive you as an enemyK !or they will 9now that you have done your best to destroy us. Listen then to us and not to Crito.O 5his is the voice which ( seem to hear murmuring in my ears li9e the sound o! the !lute in the ears o! the mysticK that voice ( say is humming in my ears and prevents me !rom hearing any other. And ( 9now that anything more which you will say will be in vain. Get spea9 i! you have anything to say. Cr5 ( have nothing to say )ocrates. Soc5 5hen let me !ollow the intimations o! the will o! Aod.

211

Source 0 % Jtienne de la %oAtie iscourse on 'oluntary Ser#itude

I see no good in having several lords: -et one alone be master, let one alone be king. 5hese words Homer puts in the mouth o! Hlysses 1 as he addresses the people. (! he had said nothing !urther than O( see no good in having several lords O it would have been well spo9en. $or the sa9e o! logic he should have maintained that the rule o! several could not be good since the power o! one man alone as soon as he ac@uires the title o! master becomes abusive and unreasonable. (nstead he declared what seems preposterous. OLet one alone be master let one alone be 9ing.O We must not be critical o! Hlysses who at the moment was perhaps obliged to spea9 these words in order to @uell a mutiny in the army !or this reason in my opinion choosing language to meet the emergency rather than the truth. Get in the light o! reason it is a great mis!ortune to be at the bec9 and call o! one master !or it is impossible to be sure that he is going to be 9ind since it is always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleases. As !or having several masters according to the number one has it amounts to being that many times un!ortunate. Although ( do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated @uestion namely whether other types o! government are pre!erable to monarchy 2 still ( should li9e to 9now be!ore casting doubt on the place that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths whether or not it belongs to such a group since it is hard to believe that there is anything o! common wealth in a country where everything belongs to one master. 5his @uestion however can remain !or another time and would really re@uire a separate treatment involving by its very nature all sorts o! political discussion. $or the present ( should li9e merely to understand how it happens that so many men so many villages so many cities so many nations sometimes su!!er under a single tyrant who has no other power than the power they give himK who is able to harm them only to the e=tent to which they have the willingness to bear with himK who could do them absolutely no in<ury unless they pre!erred to put up with him rather than contradict him.- )urely a stri9ing situationQ Get it is so common that one
213

must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle o! a million men serving in wretchedness their nec9s under the yo9e not constrained by a greater multitude than they but simply it would seem delighted and charmed by the name o! one man alone whose power they need not !ear !or he is evidently the one person whose @ualities they cannot admire because o! his inhumanity and brutality toward them. A wea9ness characteristic o! human 9ind is that we o!ten have to obey !orceK we have to ma9e concessionsK we ourselves cannot always be the stronger. 5here!ore when a nation is constrained by the !ortune o! war to serve a single cli@ue as happened when the city o! Athens served the thirty 5yrants 1 one should not be amaDed that the nation obeys but simply be grieved by the situationK or rather instead o! being amaDed or saddened consider patiently the evil and loo9 !orward hope!ully toward a happier !uture. &ur nature is such that the common duties o! human relationship occupy a great part o! the course o! our li!e. (t is reasonable to love virtue to esteem good deeds to be grate!ul !or good !rom whatever source we may receive it and o!ten to give up some o! our com!ort in order to increase the honor and advantage o! some man whom we love and who deserves it. 5here!ore i! the inhabitants o! a country have !ound some great personage who has shown rare !oresight in protecting them in an emergency rare boldness in de!ending them rare solicitude in governing them and i! !rom that point on they contract the habit o! obeying him and depending on him to such an e=tent that they grant him certain prerogatives ( !ear that such a procedure is not prudent inasmuch as they remove him !rom a position in which he was doing good and advance him to a dignity in which he may do evil. Certainly while he continues to mani!est good will one need !ear no harm !rom a man who seems to be generally well disposed. *ut & good LordQ What strange phenomenon is this7 What name shall we give to it7 What is the nature o! this mis!ortune7 What vice is it or rather what degradation7 5o see an endless multitude o! people not merely obeying but driven to servility7 +ot ruled but tyranniDed over7 5hese wretches have no wealth no 9in nor wi!e nor children not even li!e itsel! that they can call their own. 5hey su!!er plundering wantonness cruelty not !rom an army not !rom a barbarian horde on account o! whom they must shed their blood and sacri!ice their lives but !rom a single manK not !rom a Hercules nor !rom a )amson but !rom a single little man. 5oo !re@uently this same little man is the most
212

cowardly and e!!eminate in the nation a stranger to the powder o! battle and hesitant on the sands o! the tournamentK not only without energy to direct men by !orce but with hardly enough virility to bed with a common womanQ )hall we call sub<ection to such a leader cowardice7 )hall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and !aint,hearted7 (! two i! three i! !our do not de!end themselves !rom the one we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless conceivable. (n such a case one might be <usti!ied in suspecting a lac9 o! courage. *ut i! a hundred i! a thousand endure the caprice o! a single man should we not rather say that they lac9 not the courage but the desire to rise against him and that such an attitude indicates indi!!erence rather than cowardice7 When not a hundred not a thousand men but a hundred provinces a thousand cities a million men re!use to assail a single man !rom whom the 9indest treatment received is the in!liction o! ser!dom and slavery what shall we call that7 (s it cowardice7 &! course there is in every vice inevitably some limit beyond which one cannot go. 5wo possibly ten may !ear oneK but when a thousand a million men a thousand cities !ail to protect themselves against the domination o! one man this cannot be called cowardly !or cowardice does not sin9 to such a depth any more than valor can be termed the e!!ort o! one individual to scale a !ortress to attac9 an army or to con@uer a 9ingdom. What monstrous vice then is this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice a vice !or which no term can be !ound vile enough which nature hersel! disavows and our tongues re!use to name7 'lace on one side !i!ty thousand armed men and on the other the same numberK let them <oin in battle one side !ighting to retain its liberty the other to ta9e it awayK to which would you at a guess promise victory7 Which men do you thin9 would march more gallantly to combat J those who anticipate as a reward !or their su!!ering the maintenance o! their !reedom or those who cannot e=pect any other priDe !or the blows e=changed than the enslavement o! others7 &ne side will have be!ore its eyes the blessings o! the past and the hope o! similar <oy in the !utureK their thoughts will dwell less on the comparatively brie! pain o! battle than on what they may have to endure !orever they their children and all their posterity. 5he other side has nothing to inspire it with courage e=cept the wea9 urge o! greed which !ades be!ore danger and which can never be so 9een it seems to me that it will not be dismayed by the least drop o! blood !rom wounds. Consider the <ustly !amous battles o! ;iltiades 3
210

Leonidas 2 5hemistocles 0 still !resh today in recorded history and in the minds o! men as i! they had occurred but yesterday battles !ought in Areece !or the wel!are o! the Aree9s and as an e=ample to the world. What power do you thin9 gave to such a mere hand!ul o! men not the strength but the courage to withstand the attac9 o! a !leet so vast that even the seas were burdened and to de!eat the armies o! so many nations armies so immense that their o!!icers alone outnumbered the entire Aree9 !orce7 What was it but the !act that in those glorious days this struggle represented not so much a !ight o! Aree9s against 'ersians as a victory o! liberty over domination o! !reedom over greed7 (t amaDes us to hear accounts o! the valor that liberty arouses in the hearts o! those who de!end itK but who could believe reports o! what goes on every day among the inhabitants o! some countries who could really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand and deprive them o! their liberty7 Who would credit such a report i! he merely heard it without being present to witness the event7 And i! this condition occurred only in distant lands and were reported to us which one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented and not really true7 &bviously there is no need o! !ighting to overcome this single tyrant !or he is automatically de!eated i! the country re!uses consent to its own enslavement. it is not necessary to deprive him o! anything but simply to give him nothingK there is no need that the country ma9e an e!!ort to do anything !or itsel! provided it does nothing against itsel!. (t is there!ore the inhabitants themselves who permit or rather bring about their own sub<ection since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itsel! cuts its own throat when having a choice between being vassals and being !ree men it deserts its liberties and ta9es on the yo9e gives consent to its own misery or rather apparently welcomes it. (! it cost the people anything to recover its !reedom ( should not urge action to this end although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the restoration o! his own natural right to change himsel! !rom a beast o! burden bac9 to a man so to spea9. ( do not demand o! him so much boldnessK let him pre!er the doubt!ul security o! living wretchedly to the uncertain hope o! living as he pleases. What then7 (! in order to have liberty nothing more is needed than to long !or it i! only a simple act o! the will is necessary is there any nation in the world that considers a single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it ought to be ready to redeem at the cost o! its blood rights such that their loss must bring all men o! honor to the point o! !eeling li!e to be
21%

unendurable and death itsel! a deliverance7 4veryone 9nows that the !ire !rom a little spar9 will increase and blaDe ever higher as long as it !inds wood to burnK yet without being @uenched by water but merely by !inding no more !uel to !eed on it consumes itsel! dies down and is no longer a !lame. )imilarly the more tyrants pillage the more they crave the more they ruin and destroyK the more one yields to them and obeys them by that much do they become mightier and more !ormidable the readier to annihilate and destroy. *ut i! not one thing is yielded to them i! without any violence they are simply not obeyed they become na9ed and undone and as nothing <ust as when the root receives no nourishment the branch withers and dies. 5o achieve the good that they desire the bold do not !ear dangerK the intelligent do not re!use to undergo su!!ering. (t is the stupid and cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their rightsK they stop at merely longing !or them and lose through timidity the valor roused by the e!!ort to claim their rights although the desire to en<oy them still remains as part o! their nature. A longing common to both the wise and the !oolish to brave men and to cowards is this longing !or all those things which when ac@uired would ma9e them happy and contented. Get one element appears to be lac9ing. ( do not 9now how it happens that nature !ails to place within the hearts o! men a burning desire !or liberty a blessing so great and so desirable that when it is lost all evils !ollow therea!ter and even the blessings that remain lose taste and savor because o! their corruption by servitude. Liberty is the only <oy upon which men do not seem to insistK !or surely i! they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they re!use this wonder!ul privilege because it is so easily ac@uired. 'oor wretched and stupid peoples nations determined on your own mis!ortune and blind to your own goodQ Gou let yourselves be deprived be!ore your own eyes o! the best part o! your revenuesK your !ields are plundered your homes robbed your !amily heirlooms ta9en away. Gou live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your ownK and it would seem that you consider yourselves luc9y to be loaned your property your !amilies and your very lives. All this havoc this mis!ortune this ruin descends upon you not !rom alien !oes but !rom the one enemy whom you yourselves render as power!ul as he is !or whom you go bravely to war !or whose greatness you do not re!use to o!!er your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has
21/

only two eyes only two hands only one body no more than is possessed by the least man among the in!inite numbers dwelling in your citiesK he has indeed nothing more than the power that you con!er upon him to destroy you. Where has he ac@uired enough eyes to spy upon you i! you do not provide them yourselves7 How can he have so many arms to beat you with i! he does not borrow them !rom you7 5he !eet that trample down your cities where does he get them i! they are not your own7 How does he have any power over you e=cept through you7 How would he dare assail you i! he had no cooperation !rom you7 What could he do to you i! you yourselves did not connive with the thie! who plunders you i! you were not accomplices o! the murderer who 9ills you i! you were not traitors to yourselves7 Gou sow your crops in order that he may ravage them you install and !urnish your homes to give him goods to pillageK you rear your daughters that he may grati!y his lustK you bring up your children in order that he may con!er upon them the greatest privilege he 9nows J to be led into his battles to be delivered to butchery to be made the servants o! his greed and the instruments o! his vengeanceK you yield your bodies unto hard labor in order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his !ilthy pleasuresK you wea9en yourselves in order to ma9e him the stronger and the mightier to hold you in chec9. $rom all these indignities such as the very beasts o! the !ield would not endure you can deliver yourselves i! you try not by ta9ing action but merely by willing to be !ree. 8esolve to serve no more and you are at once !reed. ( do not as9 that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over but simply that you support him no longerK then you will behold him li9e a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away !all o! his own weight and brea9 in pieces. :octors are no doubt correct in warning us not to touch incurable woundsK and ( am presumably ta9ing chances in preaching as ( do to a people which has long lost all sensitivity and no longer conscious o! its in!irmity is plainly su!!ering !rom mortal illness. Let us there!ore understand by logic i! we can how it happens that this obstinate willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted in a nation that the very love o! liberty now seems no longer natural. (n the !irst place all would agree that i! we led our lives according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her we should be intuitively obedient to our parentsK later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody. Concerning the obedience given instinctively to oneFs !ather and mother we are in agreement
220

each one admitting himsel! to be a model. As to whether reason is born with us or not that is a @uestion loudly discussed by academicians and treated by all schools o! philosophers. $or the present ( thin9 ( do not err in stating that there is in our souls some native seed o! reason which i! nourished by good counsel and training !lowers into virtue but which on the other hand i! unable to resist the vices surrounding it is sti!led and blighted. Get surely i! there is anything in this world clear and obvious to which one cannot close oneFs eyes it is the !act that nature handmaiden o! Aod governess o! men has cast us all in the same mold in order that we may behold in one another companions or rather brothers. (! in distributing her gi!ts nature has !avored some more than others with respect to body or spirit she has nevertheless not planned to place us within this world as i! it were a !ield o! battle and has not endowed the stronger or the cleverer in order that they may act li9e armed brigands in a !orest and attac9 the wea9er. &ne should rather conclude that in distributing larger shares to some and smaller shares to others nature has intended to give occasion !or brotherly love to become mani!est some o! us having the strength to give help to others who are in need o! it. Hence since this 9ind mother has given us the whole world as a dwelling place has lodged us in the same house has !ashioned us according to the same model so that in beholding one another we might almost recogniDe ourselvesK since she has bestowed upon us all the great gi!t o! voice and speech !or !raternal relationship thus achieving by the common and mutual statement o! our thoughts a communion o! our willsK and since she has tried in every way to narrow and tighten the bond o! our union and 9inshipK since she has revealed in every possible manner her intention not so much to associate us as to ma9e us one organic whole there can be no !urther doubt that we are all naturally !ree inasmuch as we are all comrades. Accordingly it should not enter the mind o! anyone that nature has placed some o! us in slavery since she has actually created us all in one li9eness. 5here!ore it is !ruitless to argue whether or not liberty is natural since none can be held in slavery without being wronged and in a world governed by a nature which is reasonable there is nothing so contrary as an in<ustice. )ince !reedom is our natural state we are not only in possession o! it but have the urge to de!end it. +ow i! perchance some cast a doubt on this conclusion and are so corrupted that they are not able to recogniDe their rights and inborn tendencies ( shall have to do them the honor that is properly theirs and place so to spea9 brute beasts in the pulpit to throw light on their nature and condition. 5he
221

very beasts Aod help meQ i! men are not too dea! cry out to them OLong live LibertyQO ;any among them die as soon as captured. <ust as the !ish loses li!e as soon as he leaves the water so do these creatures close their eyes upon the light and have no desire to survive the loss o! their natural !reedom. (! the animals were to constitute their 9ingdom by ran9 their nobility would be chosen !rom this type. &thers !rom the largest to the smallest when captured put up such a strong resistance by means o! claws horns bea9 and paws that they show clearly enough how they cling to what they are losingK a!terwards in captivity they mani!est by so many evident signs their awareness o! their mis!ortune that it is easy to see they are languishing rather than living and continue their e=istence more in lamentation o! their lost !reedom than in en<oyment o! their servitude. What else can e=plain the behavior o! the elephant who a!ter de!ending himsel! to the last ounce o! his strength and 9nowing himsel! on the point o! being ta9en dashes his <aws against the trees and brea9s his tus9s thus mani!esting his longing to remain !ree as he has been and proving his wit and ability to buy o!! the huntsmen in the hope that through the sacri!ice o! his tus9s he will be permitted to o!!er his ivory as a ransom !or his liberty7 We !eed the horse !rom birth in order to train him to do our bidding. Get he is tamed with such di!!iculty that when we begin to brea9 him in he bites the bit he rears at the touch o! the spur as i! to reveal his instinct and show by his actions that i! he obeys he does so not o! his own !ree will but under constraint. What more can we say7 O4ven the o=en under the weight o! the yo9e complain And the birds in their cage lament O as ( e=pressed it some time ago toying with our $rench poesy. $or ( shall not hesitate in writing to you & Longa % to introduce some o! my verses which ( never read to you because o! your obvious encouragement which is @uite li9ely to ma9e me conceited. And now since all beings because they !eel su!!er misery in sub<ection and long !or libertyK since the very beasts although made !or the service o! man cannot become accustomed to control without protest what evil chance has so denatured man that he the only creature really born to be !ree lac9s the memory o! his original condition and the desire to return to it7 5here are three 9inds o! tyrantsK some receive their proud position through elections by the people others by !orce o! arms others by inheritance. 5hose who have ac@uired power by means o! war act in such wise that it is evident they rule over a con@uered country. 5hose
222

who are born to 9ingship are scarcely any better because they are nourished on the breast o! tyranny suc9 in with their mil9 the instincts o! the tyrant and consider the people under them as their inherited ser!sK and according to their individual disposition miserly or prodigal they treat their 9ingdom as their property. He who has received the state !rom the people however ought to be it seems to me more bearable and would be so ( thin9 were it not !or the !act that as soon as he sees himsel! higher than the others !lattered by that @uality which we call grandeur he plans never to relin@uish his position. )uch a man usually determines to pass on to his children the authority that the people have con!erred upon himK and once his heirs have ta9en this attitude strange it is how !ar they surpass other tyrants in all sorts o! vices and especially in cruelty because they !ind no other means to impose this new tyranny than by tightening control and removing their sub<ects so !ar !rom any notion o! liberty that even i! the memory o! it is !resh it will soon be eradicated. Get to spea9 accurately ( do perceive that there is some di!!erence among these three types o! tyranny but as !or stating a pre!erence ( cannot grant there is any. $or although the means o! coming into power di!!er still the method o! ruling is practically the sameK those who are elected act as i! they were brea9ing in bulloc9sK those who are con@uerors ma9e the people their preyK those who are heirs plan to treat them as i! they were their natural slaves. (n connection with this let us imagine some newborn individuals neither ac@uainted with slavery nor desirous o! liberty ignorant indeed o! the very words. (! they were permitted to choose between being slaves and !ree men to which would they give their vote7 5here can be no doubt that they would much pre!er to be guided by reason itsel! than to be ordered about by the whims o! a single man. 5he only possible e=ception might be the (sraelites who without any compulsion or need appointed a tyrant./ ( can never read their history without becoming angered and even inhuman enough to !ind satis!action in the many evils that be!ell them on this account. *ut certainly all men as long as they remain men be!ore letting themselves become enslaved must either be driven by !orce or led into it by deceptionK con@uered by !oreign armies as were )parta and Athens by the !orces o! Ale=ander 10 or by political !actions as when at an earlier period the control o! Athens had passed into the hands o! 'isistrates. 11 When they lose their liberty through deceit they are not so o!ten betrayed by others as misled by themselves. 5his was the case with the people o! )yracuse
22-

chie! city o! )icily "( am told the place is now named )aragossa 12# when in the throes o! war and heedlessly planning only !or the present danger they promoted :enis 1- their !irst tyrant by entrusting to him the command o! the army without realiDing that they had given him such power that on his victorious return this worthy man would behave as i! he had van@uished not his enemies but his compatriots trans!orming himsel! !rom captain to 9ing and then !rom 9ing to tyrant. (t is incredible how as soon as a people becomes sub<ect it promptly !alls into such complete !orget!ulness o! its !reedom that it can hardly be roused to the point o! regaining it obeying so easily and so willingly that one is led to say on beholding such a situation that this people has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. (t is true that in the beginning men submit under constraint and by !orceK but those who come a!ter them obey without regret and per!orm willingly what their predecessors had done because they had to. 5his is why men born under the yo9e and then nourished and reared in slavery are content without !urther e!!ort to live in their native circumstance unaware o! any other state or right and considering as @uite natural the condition into which they were born. 5here is however no heir so spendthri!t or indi!!erent that he does not sometimes scan the account boo9s o! his !ather in order to see i! he is en<oying all the privileges o! his legacy or whether perchance his rights and those o! his predecessor have not been encroached upon. +evertheless it is clear enough that the power!ul in!luence o! custom is in no respect more compelling than in this namely habituation to sub<ection. (t is said that ;ithridates11 trained himsel! to drin9 poison. Li9e him we learn to swallow and not to !ind bitter the venom o! servitude. (t cannot be denied that nature is in!luential in shaping us to her will and ma9ing us reveal our rich or meager endowmentK yet it must be admitted that she has less power over us than custom !or the reason that native endowment no matter how good is dissipated unless encouraged whereas environment always shapes us in its own way whatever that may be in spite o! natureFs gi!ts. 5he good seed that nature plants in us is so slight and so slippery that it cannot withstand the least harm !rom wrong nourishmentK it !lourishes less easily becomes spoiled withers and comes to nothing. $ruit trees retain their own particular @uality i! permitted to grow undisturbed but lose it promptly and bear strange !ruit not their own when ingra!ted. 4very herb has its peculiar characteristics its virtues and propertiesK yet !rost weather soil or the gardenerFs hand increase or diminish its strengthK the plant seen in one
221

spot cannot be recogniDed in another. Whoever could have observed the early ?enetians 13 a hand!ul o! people living so !reely that the most wic9ed among them would not wish to be 9ing over them so born and trained that they would not vie with one another e=cept as to which one could give the best counsel and nurture their liberty most care!ully so instructed and developed !rom their cradles that they would not e=change !or all the other delights o! the world an iota o! their !reedomK who ( say !amiliar with the original nature o! such a people could visit today the territories o! the man 9nown as the Areat :oge and there contemplate with composure a people unwilling to live e=cept to serve him and maintaining his power at the cost o! their lives7 Who would believe that these two groups o! people had an identical origin7 Would one not rather conclude that upon leaving a city o! men he had chanced upon a menagerie o! beasts7 Lycurgus 12 the lawgiver o! )parta is reported to have reared two dogs o! the same litter by !attening one in the 9itchen and training the other in the !ields to the sound o! the bugle and the horn thereby to demonstrate to the Lacedaemonians that men too develop according to their early habits. He set the two dogs in the open mar9et place and between them he placed a bowl o! soup and a hare. &ne ran to the bowl o! soup the other to the hareK yet they were as he maintained born brothers o! the same parents. (n such manner did this leader by his laws and customs shape and instruct the )partans so well that any one o! them would sooner have died than ac9nowledge any sovereign other than law and reason. (t gives me pleasure to recall a conversation o! the olden time between one o! the !avorites o! >er=es the great 9ing o! 'ersia and two Lacedaemonians. When >er=es10 e@uipped his great army to con@uer Areece he sent his ambassadors into the Aree9 cities to as9 !or water and earth. 5hat was the procedure the 'ersians adopted in summoning the cities to surrender. +either to Athens nor to )parta however did he dispatch such messengers because those who had been sent there by :arius his !ather had been thrown by the Athenians and )partans some into ditches and others into wells with the invitation to help themselves !reely there to water and soil to ta9e bac9 to their prince. 5hose Aree9s could not permit even the slightest suggestion o! encroachment upon their liberty. 5he )partans suspected nevertheless that they had incurred the wrath o! the gods by their action and especially the wrath o! 5althybios 1% the god o! the heraldsK in order to appease him they decided to send to >er=es two o! their
223

citiDens in atonement !or the cruel death in!licted upon the ambassadors o! his !ather. 5wo )partans one named )perte and the other *ulis volunteered to o!!er themselves as a sacri!ice. )o they departed and on the way they came to the palace o! the 'ersian named Hydarnes lieutenant o! the 9ing in all the Asiatic cities situated on the sea coasts. He received them with great honor !easted them and then spea9ing o! one thing and another he as9ed them why they re!used so obdurately his 9ingFs !riendship. OConsider well & )partans O said he Oand realiDe by my e=ample that the 9ing 9nows how to honor those who are worthy and believe that i! you were his men he would do the same !or youK i! you belonged to him and he had 9nown you there is not one among you who might not be the lord o! some Aree9 city.O O*y such words Hydarnes you give us no good counsel O replied the Lacedaemonians Obecause you have e=perienced merely the advantage o! which you spea9K you do not 9now the privilege we en<oy. Gou have the honor o! the 9ingFs !avorK but you 9now nothing about liberty what relish it has and how sweet it is. $or i! you had any 9nowledge o! it you yoursel! would advise us to de!end it not with lance and shield but with our very teeth and nails.O &nly )partans could give such an answer and surely both o! them spo9e as they had been trained. (t was impossible !or the 'ersian to regret liberty not having 9nown it nor !or the Lacedaemonians to !ind sub<ection acceptable a!ter having en<oyed !reedom. Cato the Htican 1/ while still a child under the rod could come and go in the house o! )ylla the despot. *ecause o! the place and !amily o! his origin and because he and )ylla were close relatives the door was never closed to him. He always had his teacher with him when he went there as was the custom !or children o! noble birth. He noticed that in the house o! )ylla in the dictatorFs presence or at his command some men were imprisoned and others sentencedK one was banished another was strangledK one demanded the goods o! another citiDen another his headK in short all went there not as to the house o! a city magistrate but as to the peopleFs tyrant and this was there!ore not a court o! <ustice but rather a resort o! tyranny. Whereupon the young lad said to his teacher OWhy donFt you give me a dagger7 ( will hide it under my robe. ( o!ten go into )yllaFs room be!ore he is risen and my arm is strong enough to rid the city o! him.O 5here is a speech truly characteristic o! CatoK it was a true beginning o! this hero so worthy o!
222

his end. And should one not mention his name or his country but state merely the !act as it is the episode itsel! would spea9 elo@uently and anyone would divine that he was a 8oman born in 8ome at the time when she was !ree. And why all this7 Certainly not because ( believe that the land or the region has anything to do with it !or in any place and in any climate sub<ection is bitter and to be !ree is pleasantK but merely because ( am o! the opinion that one should pity those who at birth arrive with the yo9e upon their nec9s. We should e=onerate and !orgive them since they have not seen even the shadow o! liberty and being @uite unaware o! it cannot perceive the evil endured through their own slavery. (! there were actually a country li9e that o! the Cimmerians mentioned by Homer where the sun shines otherwise than on our own shedding its radiance steadily !or si= successive months and then leaving humanity to drowse in obscurity until it returns at the end o! another hal!,year should we be surprised to learn that those born during this long night do grow so accustomed to their native dar9ness that unless they were told about the sun they would have no desire to see the light7 &ne never pines !or what he has never 9nownK longing comes only a!ter en<oyment and constitutes amidst the e=perience o! sorrow the memory o! past <oy. (t is truly the nature o! man to be !ree and to wish to be so yet his character is such that he instinctively !ollows the tendencies that his training gives him. Let us there!ore admit that all those things to which he is trained and accustomed seem natural to man and that only that is truly native to him which he receives with his primitive untrained individuality. 5hus custom becomes the !irst reason !or voluntary servitude. ;en are li9e handsome race horses who !irst bite the bit and later li9e it and rearing under the saddle a while soon learn to en<oy displaying their harness and prance proudly beneath their trappings. )imilarly men will grow accustomed to the idea that they have always been in sub<ection that their !athers lived in the same wayK they will thin9 they are obliged to su!!er this evil and will persuade themselves by e=ample and imitation o! others !inally investing those who order them around with proprietary rights based on the idea that it has always been that way. 5here are always a !ew better endowed than others who !eel the weight o! the yo9e and cannot restrain themselves !rom attempting to sha9e it o!!. these are the men who never become tamed under sub<ection and who always li9e Hlysses on land and sea constantly
220

see9ing the smo9e o! his chimney cannot prevent themselves !rom peering about !or their natural privileges and !rom remembering their ancestors and their !ormer ways. 5hese are in !act the men who possessed o! clear minds and !ar,sighted spirit are not satis!ied li9e the brutish mass to see only what is at their !eet but rather loo9 about them behind and be!ore and even recall the things o! the past in order to <udge those o! the !uture and compare both with their present condition. 5hese are the ones who having good minds o! their own have !urther trained them by study and learning. 4ven i! liberty had entirely perished !rom the earth such men would invent it. $or them slavery has no satis!actions no matter how well disguised. 5he Arand 5ur9 was well aware that boo9s and teaching more than anything else give men the sense to comprehend their own nature and to detest tyranny. ( understand that in his territory there are !ew educated people !or he does not want many. &n account o! this restriction men o! strong Deal and devotion who in spite o! the passing o! time have preserved their love o! !reedom still remain ine!!ective because however numerous they may be they are not 9nown to one anotherK under the tyrant they have lost !reedom o! action o! speech and almost o! thoughtK they are alone in their aspiration. (ndeed ;omus god o! moc9ery was not merely <o9ing when he !ound this to criticiDe in the man !ashioned by ?ulcan namely that the ma9er had not set a little window in his creatureFs heart to render his thoughts visible. (t is reported that *rutus Cassius and Casca on underta9ing to !ree 8ome and !or that matter the whole world re!used to include in their band Cicero 20 that great enthusiast !or the public wel!are i! ever there was one because they considered his heart too timid !or such a lo!ty deedK they trusted his willingness but they were none too sure o! his courage. Get whoever studies the deeds o! earlier days and the annals o! anti@uity will !ind practically no instance o! heroes who !ailed to deliver their country !rom evil hands when they set about their tas9 with a !irm whole,hearted and sincere intention. Liberty as i! to reveal her nature seems to have given them new strength. Harmodios and Aristogiton 21 5hrasybulus 22 *rutus the 4lder 2- ?alerianus 21 and :ion23 achieved success!ully what they planned virtuously. !or hardly ever does good !ortune !ail a strong will. *rutus the Gounger and Cassius were success!ul in eliminating servitude and although they perished in their attempt to restore liberty they did not die miserably "what blasphemy it would be to say there was anything miserable about these men either in their death or in their livingQ#. 5heir loss wor9ed great
22%

harm everlasting mis!ortune and complete destruction o! the 8epublic which appears to have been buried with them. &ther and later underta9ings against the 8oman emperors were merely plottings o! ambitious people who deserve no pity !or the mis!ortunes that overtoo9 them !or it is evident that they sought not to destroy but merely to usurp the crown scheming to drive away the tyrant but to retain tyranny. $or mysel! ( could not wish such men to prosper and ( am glad they have shown by their e=ample that the sacred name o! Liberty must never be used to cover a !alse enterprise. *ut to come bac9 to the thread o! our discourse which ( have practically lost. the essential reason why men ta9e orders willingly is that they are born ser!s and are reared as such. $rom this cause there !ollows another result namely that people easily become cowardly and submissive under tyrants. $or this observation ( am deeply grate!ul to Hippocrates the renowned !ather o! medicine who noted and reported it in a treatise o! his entitled ,oncerning 'iseases. 5his !amous man was certainly endowed with a great heart and proved it clearly by his reply to the Areat Cing 22 who wanted to attach him to his person by means o! special privileges and large gi!ts. Hippocrates answered !ran9ly that it would be a weight on his conscience to ma9e use o! his science !or the cure o! barbarians who wished to slay his !ellow Aree9s or to serve !aith!ully by his s9ill anyone who undertoo9 to enslave Areece. 5he letter he sent the 9ing can still be read among his other wor9s and will !orever testi!y to his great heart and noble character. *y this time it should be evident that liberty once lost valor also perishes. A sub<ect people shows neither gladness nor eagerness in combat. its men march sullenly to danger almost as i! in bonds and stulti!iedK they do not !eel throbbing within them that eagerness !or liberty which engenders scorn o! peril and imparts readiness to ac@uire honor and glory by a brave death amidst oneFs comrades. Among !ree men there is competition as to who will do most each !or the common good each by himsel! all e=pecting to share in the mis!ortunes o! de!eat or in the bene!its o! victoryK but an enslaved people loses in addition to this warli9e courage all signs o! enthusiasm !or their hearts are degraded submissive and incapable o! any great deed. 5yrants are well aware o! this and in order to degrade their sub<ects !urther encourage them to assume this attitude and ma9e it instinctive. >enophon grave historian o! !irst ran9 among the Aree9s wrote a
22/

boo920 in which he ma9es )imonides spea9 with Hieron 5yrant o! )yracuse concerning the an=ieties o! the tyrant. 5his boo9 is !ull o! !ine and serious remonstrances which in my opinion are as persuasive as words can be. Would to Aod that all despots who have ever lived might have 9ept it be!ore their eyes and used it as a mirrorQ ( cannot believe they would have !ailed to recogniDe their warts and to have conceived some shame !or their blotches. (n this treatise is e=plained the torment in which tyrants !ind themselves when obliged to !ear everyone because they do evil unto every man. Among other things we !ind the statement that bad 9ings employ !oreigners in their wars and pay them not daring to entrust weapons in the hands o! their own people whom they have wronged. "5here have been good 9ings who have used mercenaries !rom !oreign nations even among the $rench although more so !ormerly than today but with the @uite di!!erent purpose o! preserving their own people considering as nothing the loss o! money in the e!!ort to spare $rench lives. 5hat is ( believe what )cipio2% the great A!rican meant when he said he would rather save one citiDen than de!eat a hundred enemies.# $or it is plainly evident that the dictator does not consider his power !irmly established until he has reached the point where there is no man under him who is o! any worth. 5here!ore there may be <ustly applied to him the reproach to the master o! the elephants made by 5hrason and reported by 5erence. Are you indeed so proud *ecause you command wild beasts72/ 5his method tyrants use o! stulti!ying their sub<ects cannot be more clearly observed than in what Cyrus -0 did with the Lydians a!ter he had ta9en )ardis their chie! city and had at his mercy the captured Croesus their !abulously rich 9ing. When news was brought to him that the people o! )ardis had rebelled it would have been easy !or him to reduce them by !orceK but being unwilling either to sac9 such a !ine city or to maintain an army there to police it he thought o! an unusual e=pedient !or reducing it. He established in it brothels taverns and public games and issued the proclamation that the inhabitants were to en<oy them. He !ound this type o! garrison so e!!ective that he never again had to draw the sword against the Lydians. 5hese wretched people en<oyed themselves inventing all 9inds o! games so that the Latins have derived the word !rom them and what we call pastimes
2-0

they call ludi as i! they meant to say -ydi. +ot all tyrants have mani!ested so clearly their intention to e!!eminiDe their victimsK but in !act what the a!orementioned despot publicly proclaimed and put into e!!ect most o! the others have pursued secretly as an end. (t is indeed the nature o! the populace whose density is always greater in the cities to be suspicious toward one who has their wel!are at heart and gullible toward one who !ools them. :o not imagine that there is any bird more easily caught by decoy nor any !ish sooner !i=ed on the hoo9 by wormy bait than are all these poor !ools neatly tric9ed into servitude by the slightest !eather passed so to spea9 be!ore their mouths. 5ruly it is a marvellous thing that they let themselves be caught so @uic9ly at the slightest tic9ling o! their !ancy. 'lays !arces spectacles gladiators strange beasts medals pictures and other such opiates these were !or ancient peoples the bait toward slavery the price o! their liberty the instruments o! tyranny. *y these practices and enticements the ancient dictators so success!ully lulled their sub<ects under the yo9e that the stupe!ied peoples !ascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures !lashed be!ore their eyes learned subservience as naively but not so creditably as little children learn to read by loo9ing at bright picture boo9s. 8oman tyrants invented a !urther re!inement. 5hey o!ten provided the city wards with !easts to ca<ole the rabble always more readily tempted by the pleasure o! eating than by anything else. 5he most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have @uit his soup bowl to recover the liberty o! the 8epublic o! 'lato. 5yrants would distribute largess a bushel o! wheat a gallon o! wine and a sesterce.-1 and then everybody would shamelessly cry OLong live the CingQO 5he !ools did not realiDe that they were merely recovering a portion o! their own property and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having !irst ta9en it !rom them. A man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himsel! at the public !east lauding 5iberius and +ero !or handsome liberality who on the morrow would be !orced to abandon his property to their avarice his children to their lust his very blood to the cruelty o! these magni!icent emperors without o!!ering any more resistance than a stone or a tree stump. 5he mob has always behaved in this way J eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted and dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably endured. +owadays ( do not meet anyone who on hearing mention o! +ero does not shudder at the very name o! that hideous monster that disgusting and vile pestilence. Get when he died J when this incendiary this e=ecutioner this savage beast died as vilely as he had
2-1

lived J the noble 8oman people mind!ul o! his games and his !estivals were saddened to the point o! wearing mourning !or him. 5hus wrote Cornelius 5acitus -2 a competent and serious author and one o! the most reliable. 5his will not be considered peculiar in view o! what this same people had previously done at the death o! 6ulius Caesar who had swept away their laws and their liberty in whose character it seems to me there was nothing worth while !or his very liberality which is so highly praised was more bane!ul than the crudest tyrant who ever e=isted because it was actually this poisonous amiability o! his that sweetened servitude !or the 8oman people. A!ter his death that people still preserving on their palates the !lavor o! his ban@uets and in their minds the memory o! his prodigality vied with one another to pay him homage. 5hey piled up the seats o! the $orum !or the great !ire that reduced his body to ashes and later raised a column to him as to O5he $ather o! His 'eople.O-- ")uch was the inscription on the capital.# 5hey did him more honor dead as he was than they had any right to con!er upon any man in the world e=cept perhaps on those who had 9illed him. 5hey didnFt even neglect these 8oman emperors to assume generally the title o! 5ribune o! the 'eople partly because this o!!ice was held sacred and inviolable and also because it had been !ounded !or the de!ense and protection o! the people and en<oyed the !avor o! the state. *y this means they made sure that the populace would trust them completely as i! they merely used the title and did not abuse it. 5oday there are some who do not behave very di!!erently. they never underta9e an un<ust policy even one o! some importance without pre!acing it with some pretty speech concerning public wel!are and common good. Gou well 9now & Longa this !ormula which they use @uite cleverly in certain placesK although !or the most part to be sure there cannot be cleverness where there is so much impudence. 5he 9ings o! the Assyrians and even a!ter them those o! the ;edes showed themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in the minds o! the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more than man and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination !or those things which they cannot <udge by sight. 5hus a great many nations who !or a long time dwelt under the control o! the Assyrians became accustomed with all this mystery to their own sub<ection and submitted the more readily !or not 9nowing what sort o! master they had or scarcely even i! they had one all o! them !earing by report someone they had never seen. 5he earliest 9ings o! 4gypt rarely
2-2

showed themselves without carrying a cat or sometimes a branch or appearing with !ire on their heads mas9ing themselves with these ob<ects and parading li9e wor9ers o! magic. *y doing this they inspired their sub<ects with reverence and admiration whereas with people neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused it seems to me amusement and laughter. (t is piti!ul to review the list o! devices that early despots used to establish their tyrannyK to discover how many little tric9s they employed always !inding the populace conveniently gullible readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread. (ndeed they always !ooled their victims so easily that while moc9ing them they enslaved them the more. What comment can ( ma9e concerning another !ine counter!eit that ancient peoples accepted as true money7 5hey believed !irmly that the great toe o! 'yrrhus -1 9ing o! 4pirus per!ormed miracles and cured diseases o! the spleenK they even enhanced the tale !urther with the legend that this toe a!ter the corpse had been burned was !ound among the ashes untouched by the !ire. (n this wise a !oolish people itsel! invents lies and then believes them. ;any men have recounted such things but in such a way that it is easy to see that the parts were pieced together !rom idle gossip o! the city and silly reports !rom the rabble. When ?espasian -3 returning !rom Assyria passes through Ale=andria on his way to 8ome to ta9e possession o! the empire he per!orms wonders. he ma9es the crippled straight restores sight to the blind and does many other !ine things concerning which the credulous and undiscriminating were in my opinion more blind than those cured. 5yrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the persecution o! a single manK they have insisted on using religion !or their own protection and where possible have borrowed a stray bit o! divinity to bolster up their evil ways. (! we are to believe the )ybil o! ?irgil )almoneus -2 in torment !or having paraded as 6upiter in order to deceive the populace now atones in nethermost Hell. He su!!ered endless torment !or having dared to imitate 5he thunderbolts o! heaven and the !lames o! 6upiter. Hpon a chariot drawn by !our chargers he went unsteadily 8iding alo!t in his !ist a great shining torch. Among the Aree9s and into the mar9et,place (n the heart o! the city o! 4lis he had ridden boldly. And displaying thus his vainglory he assumed
2--

An honor which undeniably belongs to the gods alone. 5his !ool who imitated storm and the inimitable thunderbolt *y clash o! brass and with his diDDying charge &n horn,hoo!ed steeds the all,power!ul $ather beheld Hurled not a torch nor the !eeble light $rom a wa=en taper with its smo9y !umes *ut by the !urious blast o! thunder and lightning He brought him low his heels above his head.-0 (! such a one who in his time acted merely through the !olly o! insolence is so well received in Hell ( thin9 that those who have used religion as a cloa9 to hide their vileness will be even more deservedly lodged in the same place. &ur own leaders have employed in $rance certain similar devices such as toads !leurs,de,lys sacred vessels and standards with !lames o! gold.-% However that may be ( do not wish !or my part to be incredulous since neither we nor our ancestors have had any occasion up to now !or s9epticism. &ur 9ings have always been so generous in times o! peace and so valiant in time o! war that !rom birth they seem not to have been created by nature li9e many others but even be!ore birth to have been designated by Almighty Aod !or the government and preservation o! this 9ingdom. 4ven i! this were not so yet should ( not enter the tilting ground to call in @uestion the truth o! our traditions or to e=amine them so strictly as to ta9e away their !ine conceits. Here is such a !ield !or our $rench poetry now not merely honored but it seems to me reborn through our 8onsard our *a_! our *ellay.-/ 5hese poets are de!ending our language so well that ( dare to believe that very soon neither the Aree9s nor the Latins will in this respect have any advantage over us e=cept possibly that o! seniority. And ( should assuredly do wrong to our poesy J ( li9e to use that word despite the !act that several have rimed mechanically !or ( still discern a number o! men today capable o! ennobling poetry and restoring it to its !irst lustre J but as ( say ( should do the ;use great in<ury i! ( deprived her now o! those !ine tales about Cing Clovis amongst which it seems to me ( can already see how agreeably and how happily the inspiration o! our 8onsard in his 5ranciade10 will play. ( appreciate his lo!tiness ( am aware o! his 9een spirit and ( 9now the charm o! the man. he will
2-1

appropriate the ori!lamme to his use much as did the 8omans their sacred buc9lers and the shields cast !rom heaven to earth according to ?irgil.11 He will use our phial o! holy oil much as the Athenians used the bas9et o! 4ricthoniusK 12 he will win applause !or our deeds o! valor as they did !or their olive wreath which they insist can still be !ound in ;inervaFs tower. Certainly ( should be presumptuous i! ( tried to cast slurs on our records and thus invade the realm o! our poets. *ut to return to our sub<ect the thread o! which ( have unwittingly lost in this discussion. it has always happened that tyrants in order to strengthen their power have made every e!!ort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves but also in adoration. 5here!ore all that ( have said up to the present concerning the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained applies to dictators in their relationship with the in!erior and common classes. ( come now to a point which is in my opinion the mainspring and the secret o! domination the support and !oundation o! tyranny. Whoever thin9s that halberds sentries the placing o! the watch serve to protect and shield tyrants is in my <udgment completely mista9en. 5hese are used it seems to me more !or ceremony and a show o! !orce than !or any reliance placed in them. 5he archers !orbid the entrance to the palace to the poorly dressed who have no weapons not to the well armed who can carry out some plot. Certainly it is easy to say o! the 8oman emperors that !ewer escaped !rom danger by the aid o! their guards than were 9illed by their own archers. (t is not the troops on horsebac9 it is not the companies a!oot it is not arms that de!end the tyrant. 5his does not seem credible on !irst thought but it is nevertheless true that there are only !our or !ive who maintain the dictator !our or !ive who 9eep the country in bondage to him. $ive or si= have always had access to his ear and have either gone to him o! their own accord or else have been summoned by him to be accomplices in his cruelties companions in his pleasures panders to his lusts and sharers in his plunders. 5hese si= manage their chie! so success!ully that he comes to be held accountable not only !or his own misdeeds but even !or theirs. 5he si= have si= hundred who pro!it under them and with the si= hundred they do what they have accomplished with their tyrant. 5he si= hundred maintain under them si= thousand whom they promote in ran9 upon whom they con!er the government o! provinces or the direction o! !inances in order that they may serve as instruments o! avarice and cruelty e=ecuting orders at
2-3

the proper time and wor9ing such havoc all around that they could not last e=cept under the shadow o! the si= hundred nor be e=empt !rom law and punishment e=cept through their in!luence. 5he conse@uence o! all this is !atal indeed. And whoever is pleased to unwind the s9ein will observe that not the si= thousand but a hundred thousand and even millions cling to the tyrant by this cord to which they are tied. According to Homer 6upiter boasts o! being able to draw to himsel! all the gods when he pulls a chain. )uch a scheme caused the increase in the senate under 6ulius 1- the !ormation o! new ran9s the creation o! o!!icesK not really i! properly considered to re!orm <ustice but to provide new supporters o! despotism. (n short when the point is reached through big !avors or little ones that large pro!its or small are obtained under a tyrant there are !ound almost as many people to whom tyranny seems advantageous as those to whom liberty would seem desirable. :octors declare that i! when some part o! the body has gangrene a disturbance arises in another spot it immediately !lows to the troubled part. 4ven so whenever a ruler ma9es himsel! a dictator all the wic9ed dregs o! the nation J ( do not mean the pac9 o! petty thieves and earless ru!!ians 11 who in a republic are unimportant in evil or good J but all those who are corrupted by burning ambition or e=traordinary avarice these gather round him and support him in order to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chie!s under the big tyrant. 5his is the practice among notorious robbers and !amous pirates. some scour the country others pursue voyagersK some lie in ambush others 9eep a loo9outK some commit murder others robberyK and although there are among them di!!erences in ran9 some being only underlings while others are chie!tains o! gangs yet is there not a single one among them who does not !eel himsel! to be a sharer i! not o! the main booty at least in the pursuit o! it. (t is dependably related that )icilian pirates gathered in such great numbers that it became necessary to send against them 'ompey the Areat 13 and that they drew into their alliance !ine towns and great cities in whose harbors they too9 re!uge on returning !rom their e=peditions paying handsomely !or the haven given their stolen goods. 5hus the despot subdues his sub<ects some o! them by means o! others and thus is he protected by those !rom whom i! they were decent men he would have to guard himsel!K <ust as in order to split wood one has to use a wedge o! the wood itsel!. )uch are his archers his guards his halberdiersK not that they themselves do not su!!er occasionally at his hands but this ri!!,ra!! abandoned ali9e by Aod and
2-2

man can be led to endure evil i! permitted to commit it not against him who e=ploits them but against those who li9e themselves submit but are helpless. +evertheless observing those men who pain!ully serve the tyrant in order to win some pro!it !rom his tyranny and !rom the sub<ection o! the populace ( am o!ten overcome with amaDement at their wic9edness and sometimes by pity !or their !olly. $or in all honesty can it be in any way e=cept in !olly that you approach a tyrant withdrawing !urther !rom your liberty and so to spea9 embracing with both hands your servitude7 Let such men lay aside brie!ly their ambition or let them !orget !or a moment their avarice and loo9 at themselves as they really are. 5hen they will realiDe clearly that the townspeople the peasants whom they trample under !oot and treat worse than convicts or slaves they will realiDe ( say that these people mistreated as they may be are nevertheless in comparison with themselves better o!! and !airly !ree. 5he tiller o! the soil and the artisan no matter how enslaved discharge their obligation when they do what they are told to doK but the dictator sees men about him wooing and begging his !avor and doing much more than he tells them to do. )uch men must not only obey ordersK they must anticipate his wishesK to satis!y him they must !oresee his desiresK they must wear themselves out torment themselves 9ill themselves with wor9 in his interest and accept his pleasure as their own neglecting their pre!erences !or his distorting their character and corrupting their natureK they must pay heed to his words to his intonation to his gestures and to his glance. Let them have no eye nor !oot nor hand that is not alert to respond to his wishes or to see9 out his thoughts. Can that be called a happy li!e7 Can it be called living7 (s there anything more intolerable than that situation ( wonFt say !or a man o! mettle nor even !or a man o! high birth but simply !or a man o! common sense or to go even !urther !or anyone having the !ace o! a man7 What condition is more wretched than to live thus with nothing to call oneFs own receiving !rom someone else oneFs sustenance oneFs power to act oneFs body oneFs very li!e7 )till men accept servility in order to ac@uire wealthK as i! they could ac@uire anything o! their own when they cannot even assert that they belong to themselves or as i! anyone could possess under a tyrant a single thing in his own name. Get they act as i! their wealth really belonged to them and !orget that it is they themselves who give the ruler the power to deprive everybody o! everything leaving nothing that anyone can identi!y as belonging to somebody. 5hey notice that
2-0

nothing ma9es men so subservient to a tyrantFs cruelty as propertyK that the possession o! wealth is the worst o! crimes against him punishable even by deathK that he loves nothing @uite so much as money and ruins only the rich who come be!ore him as be!ore a butcher o!!ering themselves so stu!!ed and bulging that they ma9e his mouth water. 5hese !avorites should not recall so much the memory o! those who have won great wealth !rom tyrants as o! those who a!ter they had !or some time amassed it have lost to him their property as well as their livesK they should consider not how many others have gained a !ortune but rather how !ew o! them have 9ept it. Whether we e=amine ancient history or simply the times in which we live we shall see clearly how great is the number o! those who having by shame!ul means won the ear o! princes J who either pro!it !rom their villainies or ta9e advantage o! their na_vetB J were in the end reduced to nothing by these very princesK and although at !irst such servitors were met by a ready willingness to promote their interests they later !ound an e@ually obvious inconstancy which brought them to ruin. Certainly among so large a number o! people who have at one time or another had some relationship with bad rulers there have been !ew or practically none at all who have not !elt applied to themselves the tyrantFs animosity which they had !ormerly stirred up against others. ;ost o!ten a!ter becoming rich by despoiling others under the !avor o! his protection they !ind themselves at last enriching him with their own spoils. 4ven men o! character J i! it sometimes happens that a tyrant li9es such a man well enough to hold him in his good graces because in him shine !orth the virtue and integrity that inspire a certain reverence even in the most depraved J even men o! character ( say could not long avoid succumbing to the common malady and would early e=perience the e!!ects o! tyranny at their own e=pense. A )eneca a *urrus a 5hrasea this triumvirate12 o! splendid men will provide a su!!icient reminder o! such mis!ortune. 5wo o! them were close to the tyrant by the !atal responsibility o! holding in their hands the management o! his a!!airs and both were esteemed and beloved by him. &ne o! them moreover had a peculiar claim upon his !riendship having instructed his master as a child. Get these three by their cruel death give su!!icient evidence o! how little !aith one can place in the !riendship o! an evil ruler. (ndeed what !riendship may be e=pected !rom one whose heart is bitter enough to hate even his own people who do naught else but obey him7 (t is because he does not 9now how to love that he ultimately impoverishes his own spirit and destroys his own empire.
2-%

+ow i! one would argue that these men !ell into disgrace because they wanted to act honorably let him loo9 around boldly at others close to that same tyrant and he will see that those who came into his !avor and maintained themselves by dishonorable means did not !are much better. Who has ever heard tell o! a love more centered o! an a!!ection more persistent who has ever read o! a man more desperately attached to a woman than +ero was to 'oppaea7 Get she was later poisoned by his own hand.10 Agrippina his mother had 9illed her husband Claudius in order to e=alt her sonK to grati!y him she had never hesitated at doing or bearing anythingK and yet this very son her o!!spring her emperor elevated by her hand a!ter !ailing her o!ten !inally too9 her li!e. 1% (t is indeed true that no one denies she would have well deserved this punishment i! only it had come to her by some other hand than that o! the son she had brought into the world. Who was ever more easily managed more naive or to spea9 @uite !ran9ly a greater simpleton than Claudius the 4mperor7 Who was ever more wrapped up in his wi!e than he in ;essalina 1/ whom he delivered !inally into the hands o! the e=ecutioner7 )tupidity in a tyrant always renders him incapable o! benevolent actionK but in some mysterious way by dint o! acting cruelly even towards those who are his closest associates he seems to mani!est what little intelligence he may have. `uite generally 9nown is the stri9ing phrase o! that other tyrant who gaDing at the throat o! his wi!e a woman he dearly loved and without whom it seemed he could not live caressed her with this charming comment. O5his lovely throat would be cut at once i! ( but gave the order.O30 5hat is why the ma<ority o! the dictators o! !ormer days were commonly slain by their closest !avorites who observing the nature o! tyranny could not be so con!ident o! the whim o! the tyrant as they were distrust!ul o! his power. 5hus was :omitian31 9illed by )tephen Commodus by one o! his mistresses 32 Antoninus by ;acrinus 3- and practically all the others in similar violent !ashion. 5he !act is that the tyrant is never truly loved nor does he love. $riendship is a sacred word a holy thingK it is never developed e=cept between persons o! character and never ta9es root e=cept through mutual respectK it !lourishes not so much by 9indnesses as by sincerity. What ma9es one !riend sure o! another is the 9nowledge o! his integrity. as guarantees he has his !riendFs !ine nature his honor and his constancy. 5here can be no !riendship where there is cruelty where there is disloyalty where there is in<ustice. And in places where the wic9ed gather there is conspiracy only not companionship. these have no a!!ection !or one
2-/

anotherK !ear alone holds them togetherK they are not !riends they are merely accomplices. Although it might not be impossible yet it would be di!!icult to !ind true !riendship in a tyrantK elevated above others and having no companions he !inds himsel! already beyond the pale o! !riendship which receives its real sustenance !rom an e@uality that to proceed without a limp must have its two limbs e@ual. 5hat is why there is honor among thieves "or so it is reported# in the sharing o! the bootyK they are peers and comradesK i! they are not !ond o! one another they at least respect one another and do not see9 to lessen their strength by s@uabbling. *ut the !avorites o! a tyrant can never !eel entirely secure and the less so because he has learned !rom them that he is all power!ul and unlimited by any law or obligation. 5hus it becomes his wont to consider his own will as reason enough and to be master o! all with never a compeer. 5here!ore it seems a pity that with so many e=amples at hand with the danger always present no one is an=ious to act the wise man at the e=pense o! the others and that among so many persons !awning upon their ruler there is not a single one who has the wisdom and the boldness to say to him what according to the !able the !o= said to the lion who !eigned illness. O( should be glad to enter your lair to pay my respectsK but ( see many trac9s o! beasts that have gone toward you yet not a single trace o! any who have come bac9.O 5hese wretches see the glint o! the despotFs treasures and are bedaDDled by the radiance o! his splendor. :rawn by this brilliance they come near without realiDing they are approaching a !lame that cannot !ail to scorch them. )imilarly attracted the indiscreet satyr o! the old !ables on seeing the bright !ire brought down by 'rometheus !ound it so beauti!ul that he went and 9issed it and was burnedK so as the 5uscan31 poet reminds us the moth intent upon desire see9s the !lame because it shines and also e=periences its other @uality the burning. ;oreover even admitting that !avorites may at times escape !rom the hands o! him they serve they are never sa!e !rom the ruler who comes a!ter him. (! he is good they must render an account o! their past and recogniDe at last that <ustice e=istsK i! he is bad and resembles their late master he will certainly have his own !avorites who are not usually satis!ied to occupy in their turn merely the posts o! their predecessors but will more o!ten insist on their wealth and their lives. Can anyone be !ound then who under such perilous circumstances and with so little security will still be ambitious to !ill such
210

an ill,!ated position and serve despite such perils so dangerous a master7 Aood Aod what su!!ering what martyrdom all this involvesQ 5o be occupied night and day in planning to please one person and yet to !ear him more than anyone else in the worldK to be always on the watch ears open wondering whence the blow will comeK to search out conspiracy to be on guard against snares to scan the !aces o! companions !or signs o! treachery to smile at everybody and be mortally a!raid o! all to be sure o! nobody either as an open enemy or as a reliable !riendK showing always a gay countenance despite an apprehensive heart unable to be <oyous yet not daring to be sadQ However there is satis!action in e=amining what they get out o! all this torment what advantage they derive !rom all the trouble o! their wretched e=istence. Actually the people never blame the tyrant !or the evils they su!!er but they do place responsibility on those who in!luence himK peoples nations all compete with one another even the peasants even the tillers o! the soil in mentioning the names o! the !avorites in analyDing their vices and heaping upon them a thousand insults a thousand obscenities a thousand maledictions. All their prayers all their vows are directed against these personsK they hold them accountable !or all their mis!ortunes their pestilences their !aminesK and i! at times they show them outward respect at those very moments they are !uming in their hearts and hold them in greater horror than wild beasts. 5his is the glory and honor heaped upon in!luential !avorites !or their services by people who i! they could tear apart their living bodies would still clamor !or more only hal! satiated by the agony they might behold. $or even when the !avorites are dead those who live a!ter are never too laDy to blac9en the names o! these man,eaters with the in9 o! a thousand pens tear their reputations into bits in a thousand boo9s and drag so to spea9 their bones past posterity !orever punishing them a!ter their death !or their wic9ed lives. Let us there!ore learn while there is yet time let us learn to do good. Let us raise our eyes to Heaven !or the sa9e o! our honor !or the very love o! virtue or to spea9 wisely !or the love and praise o! Aod Almighty who is the in!allible witness o! our deeds and the <ust <udge o! our !aults. As !or me ( truly believe ( am right since there is nothing so contrary to a generous and loving Aod as dictatorship J ( believe He has reserved in a separate spot in Hell some very special punishment !or tyrants and their accomplices.

211

+otes.
1 2

Iliad *oo9 (( Lines 201,203.

Aovernment by a single ruler. $rom the Aree9 monos "single# and arkhein "to command#.
-

At this point begins the te=t o! the long !ragment published in the %eveille40atin des 5ranDois. )ee (ntroduction p. =vii.
1

An autocratic council o! thirty magistrates that governed Athens !or eight months in 101 *.C. 5hey e=hibited such monstrous despotism that the city rose in anger and drove them !orth.
3

Athenian general died 1%/ *.C. )ome o! his battles. e=pedition against )cythiansK LemnosK (mbrosK ;arathon where :arius the 'ersian was de!eated.
2

Cing o! )parta died at 5hermopylae in 1%0 *.C. de!ending the pass with three hundred loyal )partans against >er=es.
0

Athenian statesman and general died 120 *.C. )ome o! his battles. e=pedition against Aegean (slesK victory over 'ersians under >er=es at )alamis.
% /

)ee (ntroduction p. =. 5he re!erence is to )aul anointed by )amuel.

10

Ale=ander the ;acedonian became the ac9nowledged master o! all Hellenes at the Assembly o! Corinth --3 *.C.
11

Athenian tyrant died 320 *.C. He used ruse and bluster to control the city and was obliged to !lee several times.
12

5he name )yracuse is derived !rom )yraca the marshland near which the city was !ounded. 5he author is misin!ormed about O)arragousse O which is the )panish NaragoDa capital o! Aragan.
1-

:enis or :ionysius tyrant o! )yracuse died in -20 *.C. &! lowly birth this dictator imposed himsel! by plottings putsches and purges. 5he danger !rom which he saved his city was the invasion by the Carthaginians.
11

;ithridates "c. 1-3,2- *.C.# was ne=t to Hannibal the most dreaded and potent enemy o! 8oman 'ower. 5he re!erence in the te=t is to his youth when he spent some years in retirement hardening himsel! and immuniDing himsel! against poison. (n his old age de!eated by
212

'ompey betrayed by his own son he tried poison and !inally had to resort to the dagger o! a !riendly Aaul. "'liny /atural 1istory >>(? 2.#
13

5his passage probably suggested to ;ontaigne that his !riend would have been glad to see the light in ?enice. )ee @ssays *oo9 ( Chapter >>?(((.
12

A hal!,legendary !igure concerning whose li!e 'lutarch admits there is much obscurity. He be@ueathed to his land a rigid code regulating land assembly education with the individual subordinate to the state.
10

5he 'ersian !leet and army under >er=es or Ahasuerus set out !rom )ardis in 1%0 and were at !irst success!ul even ta9ing Athens and driving the Aree9s to their last line o! de!ense in the *ay o! )alamis. :arius the !ather o! >er=es had made a similar incursion into Areece but was stopped at ;arathon.
1% 1/

5he messenger and herald o! Agamemnon in the Iliad.

;arcus 'orcius Cato o!ten called the Htican !rom the city where in 12 *.C. a!ter reading the +haedo o! 'lato he ended his li!e. He was an uncompromising re!ormer and relentlessly attac9ed the vicious heirs to the power o! Lucius Cornelius )ylla the 8oman dictator "1-2,0% *.C.#. 5he Htican born in /3 *.C. was only seventeen years old when )ylla died.
20 21

Cited !rom 'lutarchFs -ife of ,icero.

5radition made o! Harmodios and Aristogiton martyrs !or Athenian liberty. 5hey plotted the death o! the tyrant Hippias but were betrayed and put to death by torture c. 300 *.C.
22

Athenian statesmen and general "died -%% *.C.# who ousted the 5hirty 5yrants !rom power in Athens and restored the government to the people.
2-

Lucius 6unius *rutus was the leader o! the 8oman revolution which overthrew the tyranny o! 5ar@uinius )uperbus c. 300 *.C. and established the republic under the two praetors or consuls. As one o! these magistrates it became his dolorous duty to condemn to death his two sons because they had plotted !or the return o! the 5ar@uins.
21

'ublius Licinius ?alerianus was a brilliant military leader chosen by his troops to be 4mperor during a time o! great anarchy. He met his death in 'ersia "220 A.:.#.

21-

23

:ion o! )yracuse "100,-317 *.C.# was !amous !or his protection o! 'lato in )icily and !or his e=pedition in -30 which !reed his city !rom the tyranny o! :enis.
22 20

Arta=er=es.

5he 1ieron a youth!ul didactic wor9 consisting o! a dialogue between )imonides and the 5yrant o! )yracuse. 5he latter con!esses his inner doubts and misgivings his weariness at the dangers constantly besetting him his sadness at not being loved by anyone. 4ven i! he gave up his power he would be in danger !rom the many enemies he has made. )imonides advises him to mend his ways and try 9indness and generosity as a way o! government.
2%

'ublius Cornelius )cipio "2-3,1%- *.C.# led the brilliant campaign in A!rica which caused HannibalFs recall !rom (taly and his !inal de!eat.
2/ -0

9he @unuch Act ((( )cene 1.

Cyrus the Areat "died 32% *.C.# !ounder o! the 'ersian 4mpire attac9ed Croesus be!ore the latter could organiDe his army and drove him in mid,winter out o! his capital o! )ardis. 5he episode here mentioned is related in 1erodotus *oo9 ( chap. %2.
-1

A 8oman coin "semis,hal! tertius,third# o! variable value originally o! silver later o! bronDe.
-2

(n his 1istories "*oo9 ( chap. 1# which cover the period "2/,/2 A.:.# !rom the !all o! +ero to the crowning o! +erva.
--1

)uetonius -ife of ,aesar paragraphs %1,%%.

5he great dreamer o! empire whose costly victory at Asculum wrec9ed his hopes o! world domination. He was !inally 9illed "202 *.C.# by a tile dropped on his head by an old woman. 5his story o! the toe conies !rom 'lutarchFs -ife of +yrrhus.
-3

5itus $lavius ?espasianus le!t his son 5itus to complete the capture o! 6erusalem while he newly elected 4mperor by his armies turned bac9 to 8ome a!ter the death o! Aalba in 2/ A.:. 5he re!erence here is !ound in )uetonius -ife of <espasian Chapter ?((.
-2

(n Aree9 mythology )almoneus Cing o! 4lis was the son o! Aeolus and the brother o! )isyphus. He was rec9less and sacrilegious and claimed to be the e@ual o! Neus by imitating his thunderbolts. Neus threw him into Hades.
211

-0 -%

2eneid Chapter ?( verses 3%3 et seq.

5hese are re!erences to heraldic emblems o! royalty. 5he sacred vessel contained the holy oil !or the coronation o! the 9ings o! $rance said to have been brought by an angel !rom heaven !or the crowning o! Clovis in 1/2. 5he !leur,de,lis is the well,9nown heraldic !lower dating !rom the 12th century. (n its earlier !orms it has other elements besides petals such as arrow tips spi9es and even bees and toads. 5he ori!lamme or standard o! gold was also adopted by $rench royalty. &riginally it belonged to the Abbey o! )t. :enis and had a red bac9ground dotted with stars surrounding a !laming sun. )ome scholars have noted in the three branches o! the !leur,de,lis a heraldic trans!ormation o! toads which !ormed presumably the totem o! the ancient $rancs.
-/

5hese three were the most inspired o! the 'lBiade a group o! seven poets o! the 8enaissance in $rance. La *oBtieFs boast is impulsive but natural when one thin9s o! the vigor and hope o! this period. :u *ellay "131%# published a 'efense of the 5rench -anguage which e=plained the literary doctrines o! the group. 5he re!erence in the te=t to this 'efense helps date the ,ontr'un.
10

5his un!inished epic has only !our cantosK it attempts to relate how to $rancus son o! Hector is revealed the glorious !uture o! $rance. He beholds a visionary procession o! her 9ings descending !rom him all the way to Charlemagne. Cing Clovis "123,311# o! whom many tales are told was baptiDed a!ter the miracle o! 5olbiac and !ounded the ;erovingian dynasty. Although the poem was not published till a !ew days a!ter the ;assacre o! )t. *artholomew 8onsard had spo9en o! his pro<ect more than twenty years be!ore. He had even read the !inished 'rologue to Henry (( in 1330. La *oBtieFs early re!erence bespea9s his close relations with the poets o! his day.
11 12

2eneid Canto viii verse 221.

4ricthonius legendary Cing o! Athens "130-,1332 *.C.# was the son o! the earth. He is at times represented in the guise o! a serpent carried by the Cecropides maidens to whom Athens had entrusted him as a child. 5he allusion here is to the 'anathenaea !estival when maidens carried garlanded bas9ets on their heads. 8aces were also held !or which the winners received olive wreaths as priDes.
1-

Hnder Caesar the power o! the )enators was greatly reduced and military leaders were permitted to share with them legislative and
213

<udicial powers.
11

5he cutting o!! o! ears as a punishment !or thievery is very ancient. (n the middle ages it was still practiced under )t. Louis. ;en so mutilated were dishonored and could not enter the clergy or the magistracy.
13 12

'lutarchFs -ife of +ompey.

Lucius Annaeus )eneca "1 *.C.,23 A.:.# was e=iled !rom 8ome to Corsica !or eight years by the intrigues o! ;essalina wi!e o! Claudius. Agrippina had him recalled and entrusted to him <ointly with *urrus the education o! her son +ero. )eneca ended his li!e some !i!teen years later when +ero suspecting him o! conspiracy ordered him to die. *urrus similarly tried to restrain the tyrant but he lost his power a!ter the murder o! Agrippina a crime which he had prevented once be!ore. He died in 22 A.:. suspecting he had been poisoned. 5hrasea unli9e these two teachers o! +ero re!used to condone the crime o! matricide. He attac9ed +ero in the )enate but !inally in 22 A.:. he was condemned by that august body and a!ter a philosophic discourse celebrated with his !riends by his side he opened his veins.
10

)he was really 9illed by a 9ic9 according to )uetonius A-ife of /ero chap. -3# and 5acitus A2nnals *oo9 >?( chap. 2#. )he abetted +ero in many o! his crimesK the murder o! his mother o! his gentle wi!e &ctavia. A!ter the brutal death in!licted on 'oppaea +ero shed many tears.
1% 1/

)uetonius op. cit. chap. -1 and 5acitus op. cit. *oo9 >(( chap. 20.

;essalina "13,1% A.:.# was the !i!th wi!e o! the emperor Claudius. At !irst honorable mother o! two children she suddenly turned to vice and has transmitted her name to the ages as a synonym !or the lowest type o! degraded womanhood. While still the wi!e o! Claudius she married a !avorite with his connivance. 5he 4mperor !inally convinced o! her treachery permitted the 9illing o! his wi!e and her lover. He then married Agrippina who persuaded him to adopt +ero as his son thereby signing his own death warrant !or his new wi!e by giving him a plate o! poisonous mushrooms opened the way !or her sonFs succession to the throne.
30 31

)uetonius -ife of ,aligula Chapter --.

)uetonius -ife of 'omitian Chapter 10. 5he tyrant died in /2 A.:. a!ter three years o! bestial government inspired by ab<ect !ear o! conspirators. $inally :omitia his wi!e hatched the plot which led an
212

imperial slave to stab his royal master to death.

32

Herodian *oo9 ( chap. 31. Commodus "121,1/2 A.:.# unworthy son o! ;arcus Aurelius had planned to put to death his concubine ;arcia. )he poisoned him !irst.
3-

Ibid. *oo9 (? chap. 2-. 5he re!erence is to ;arcus Aurelius Antoninus *assianus better 9nown as Caracalla who was 9illed "210 A.:.# in a plot arranged by his own praetor ;acrinas who succeeded him to power lasted a year and was 9illed in his turn by his own soldiers.
31

'etrarch ,anzoniere )onnet >?((. La *oBtie has accurately rendered the lines concerning the moth.

210

Source 0 C ,ohn Loc"e Second Treatise of ?o#ern!ent

CHAPT)( <I<5 6f the issolution of ?o#ern!ent5

)ec. 211. H4 that will with any clearness spea9 o! the dissolution o! government ought in the !irst place to distinguish between the dissolution o! the society and the dissolution o! the government. 5hat which ma9es the community and brings men out o! the loose state o! nature into one politic society is the agreement which every one has with the rest to incorporate and act as one body and so be one distinct commonwealth. 5he usual and almost only way whereby this union is dissolved is the inroad o! !oreign !orce ma9ing a con@uest upon them. !or in that case "not being able to maintain and support themselves as one intire and independent body# the union belonging to that body which consisted therein must necessarily cease and so every one return to the state he was in be!ore with a liberty to shi!t !or himsel! and provide !or his own sa!ety as he thin9s !it in some other society. Whenever the society is dissolved it is certain the government o! that society cannot remain. 5hus con@uerors swords o!ten cut up governments by the roots and mangle societies to pieces separating the subdued or scattered multitude !rom the protection o! and dependence on that society which ought to have preserved them !rom violence. 5he world is too well instructed in and too !orward to allow o! this way o! dissolving o! governments to need any more to be said o! itK and there wants not much argument to prove that where the society is dissolved the government cannot remainK that being as impossible as !or the !rame o! an house to subsist when the materials o! it are scattered and dissipated by a whirl,wind or <umbled into a con!used heap by an earth@ua9e. )ec. 212. *esides this over,turning !rom without governments are dissolved !rom within $irst When the legislative is altered. Civil society being a state o! peace amongst those who are o! it !rom whom the state o! war is e=cluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative !or the ending all di!!erences that may arise amongst any o! them it is in their legislative that the members o! a commonwealth are united
21%

and combined together into one coherent living body. 5his is the soul that gives !orm li!e and unity to the common,wealth. !rom hence the several members have their mutual in!luence sympathy and conne=ion. and there!ore when the legislative is bro9en or dissolved dissolution and death !ollows. !or the essence and union o! the society consisting in having one will the legislative when once established by the ma<ority has the declaring and as it were 9eeping o! that will. 5he constitution o! the legislative is the !irst and !undamental act o! society whereby provision is made !or the continuation o! their union under the direction o! persons and bonds o! laws made by persons authoriDed thereunto by the consent and appointment o! the people without which no one man or number o! men amongst them can have authority o! ma9ing laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one or more shall ta9e upon them to ma9e laws whom the people have not appointed so to do they ma9e laws without authority which the people are not there!ore bound to obeyK by which means they come again to be out o! sub<ection and may constitute to themselves a new legislative as they thin9 best being in !ull liberty to resist the !orce o! those who without authority would impose any thing upon them. 4very one is at the disposure o! his own will when those who had by the delegation o! the society the declaring o! the public will are e=cluded !rom it and others usurp the place who have no such authority or delegation. )ec. 21-. 5his being usually brought about by such in the commonwealth who misuse the power they haveK it is hard to consider it aright and 9now at whose door to lay it without 9nowing the !orm o! government in which it happens. Let us suppose then the legislative placed in the concurrence o! three distinct persons. 1. A single hereditary person having the constant supreme e=ecutive power and with it the power o! convo9ing and dissolving the other two within certain periods o! time. 2. An assembly o! hereditary nobility. -. An assembly o! representatives chosen pro tempore by the people. )uch a !orm o! government supposed it is evident )ec. 211. $irst 5hat when such a single person or prince sets up his own arbitrary will in place o! the laws which are the will o! the society declared by the legislative then the legislative is changed. !or that being in e!!ect the legislative whose rules and laws are put in
21/

e=ecution and re@uired to be obeyedK when other laws are set up and other rules pretended and in!orced than what the legislative constituted by the society have enacted it is plain that the legislative is changed. Whoever introduces new laws not being thereunto authoriDed by the !undamental appointment o! the society or subverts the old disowns and overturns the power by which they were made and so sets up a new legislative. )ec. 213. )econdly When the prince hinders the legislative !rom assembling in its due time or !rom acting !reely pursuant to those ends !or which it was constituted the legislative is altered. !or it is not a certain number o! men no nor their meeting unless they have also !reedom o! debating and leisure o! per!ecting what is !or the good o! the society wherein the legislative consists. when these are ta9en away or altered so as to deprive the society o! the due e=ercise o! their power the legislative is truly alteredK !or it is not names that constitute governments but the use and e=ercise o! those powers that were intended to accompany themK so that he who ta9es away the !reedom or hinders the acting o! the legislative in its due seasons in e!!ect ta9es away the legislative and puts an end to the government. )ec. 212. 5hirdly When by the arbitrary power o! the prince the electors or ways o! election are altered without the consent and contrary to the common interest o! the people there also the legislative is altered. !or i! others than those whom the society hath authoriDed thereunto do chuse or in another way than what the society hath prescribed those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the people. )ec. 210. $ourthly 5he delivery also o! the people into the sub<ection o! a !oreign power either by the prince or by the legislative is certainly a change o! the legislative and so a dissolution o! the government. !or the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one intire !ree independent society to be governed by its own lawsK this is lost whenever they are given up into the power o! another. )ec. 21%. Why in such a constitution as this the dissolution o! the government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evidentK because he having the !orce treasure and o!!ices o! the state to employ and o!ten persuading himsel! or being !lattered by others that as supreme magistrate he is uncapable o! controulK he alone is in a condition to ma9e great advances toward such changes under pretence o! law!ul authority and has it in his hands to terri!y or
230

suppress opposers as !actious seditious and enemies to the government. whereas no other part o! the legislative or people is capable by themselves to attempt any alteration o! the legislative without open and visible rebellion apt enough to be ta9en notice o! which when it prevails produces e!!ects very little di!!erent !rom !oreign con@uest. *esides the prince in such a !orm o! government having the power o! dissolving the other parts o! the legislative and thereby rendering them private persons they can never in opposition to him or without his concurrence alter the legislative by a law his consent being necessary to give any o! their decrees that sanction. *ut yet so !ar as the other parts o! the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon the government and do either promote or not what lies in them hinder such designs they are guilty and parta9e in this which is certainly the greatest crime men can be guilty o! one towards another. )ec. 21/. 5here is one way more whereby such a government may be dissolved and that is. When he who has the supreme e=ecutive power neglects and abandons that charge so that the laws already made can no longer be put in e=ecutionK this is demonstratively to reduce all to anarchy and so e!!ectively to dissolve the government. $or laws not being made !or themselves but to be by their e=ecution the bonds o! the society to 9eep every part o! the body politic in its due place and !unction. When that totally ceases the government visibly ceases and the people become a con!used multitude without order or connection. Where there is no longer the administration o! <ustice !or the securing o! menFs rights nor any remaining power within the community to direct the !orce or provide !or the necessities o! the public there certainly is no government le!t. Where the laws cannot be e=ecuted it is all one as i! there were no laws and a government without laws is ( suppose a mystery in politics inconceivable to human capacity and inconsistent with human society. )ec. 220. (n these and the li9e cases when the government is dissolved the people are at liberty to provide !or themselves by erecting a new legislative di!!ering !rom the other by the change o! persons or !orm or both as they shall !ind it most !or their sa!ety and good. !or the society can never by the !ault o! another lose the native and original right it has to preserve itsel! which can only be done by a settled legislative and a !air and impartial e=ecution o! the laws made by it. *ut the state o! man9ind is not so miserable that they are not capable o! using this remedy till it be too late to loo9 !or any. 5o tell people they may provide !or themselves by erecting a new legislative
231

when by oppression arti!ice or being delivered over to a !oreign power their old one is gone is only to tell them they may e=pect relie! when it is too late and the evil is past cure. 5his is in e!!ect no more than to bid them !irst be slaves and then to ta9e care o! their libertyK and when their chains are on tell them they may act li9e !reemen. 5his i! barely so is rather moc9ery than relie!K and men can never be secure !rom tyranny i! there be no means to escape it till they are per!ectly under it. and there!ore it is that they have not only a right to get out o! it but to prevent it. )ec. 221. 5here is there!ore secondly another way whereby governments are dissolved and that is when the legislative or the prince either o! them act contrary to their trust. $irst 5he legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade the property o! the sub<ect and to ma9e themselves or any part o! the community masters or arbitrary disposers o! the lives liberties or !ortunes o! the people. )ec. 222. 5he reason why men enter into society is the preservation o! their propertyK and the end why they chuse and authoriDe a legislative is that there may be laws made and rules set as guards and !ences to the properties o! all the members o! the society to limit the power and moderate the dominion o! every part and member o! the society. !or since it can never be supposed to be the will o! the society that the legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one designs to secure by entering into society and !or which the people submitted themselves to legislators o! their own ma9ingK whenever the legislators endeavour to ta9e away and destroy the property o! the people or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power they put themselves into a state o! war with the people who are thereupon absolved !rom any !arther obedience and are le!t to the common re!uge which Aod hath provided !or all men against !orce and violence. Whensoever there!ore the legislative shall transgress this !undamental rule o! societyK and either by ambition !ear !olly or corruption endeavour to grasp themselves or put into the hands o! any other an absolute power over the lives liberties and estates o! the peopleK by this breach o! trust they !or!eit the power the people had put into their hands !or @uite contrary ends and it devolves to the people who have a right to resume their original liberty and by the establishment o! a new legislative "such as they shall thin9 !it# provide !or their own sa!ety and security which is the end !or which they are in society. What ( have said here concerning the legislative in general
232

holds true also concerning the supreme e=ecutor who having a double trust put in him both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme e=ecution o! the law acts against both when he goes about to set up his own arbitrary will as the law o! the society. He acts also contrary to his trust when he either employs the !orce treasure and o!!ices o! the society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposesK or openly preengages the electors and prescribes to their choice such whom he has by sollicitations threats promises or otherwise won to his designsK and employs them to bring in such who have promised be!ore,hand what to vote and what to enact. 5hus to regulate candidates and electors and new,model the ways o! election what is it but to cut up the government by the roots and poison the very !ountain o! public security7 !or the people having reserved to themselves the choice o! their representatives as the !ence to their properties could do it !or no other end but that they might always be !reely chosen and so chosen !reely act and advise as the necessity o! the common,wealth and the public good should upon e=amination and mature debate be <udged to re@uire. 5his those who give their votes be!ore they hear the debate and have weighed the reasons on all sides are not capable o! doing. 5o prepare such an assembly as this and endeavour to set up the declared abettors o! his own will !or the true representatives o! the people and the law,ma9ers o! the society is certainly as great a breach o! trust and as per!ect a declaration o! a design to subvert the government as is possible to be met with. 5o which i! one shall add rewards and punishments visibly employed to the same end and all the arts o! perverted law made use o! to ta9e o!! and destroy all that stand in the way o! such a design and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties o! their country it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in its !irst institution is easy to determineK and one cannot but see that he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer be trusted. )ec. 22-. 5o this perhaps it will be said that the people being ignorant and always discontented to lay the !oundation o! government in the unsteady opinion and uncertain humour o! the people is to e=pose it to certain ruinK and no government will be able long to subsist i! the people may set up a new legislative whenever they ta9e o!!ence at the old one. 5o this ( answer `uite the contrary. 'eople are not so easily got out o! their old !orms as some are apt to suggest. 5hey are hardly
23-

to be prevailed with to amend the ac9nowledged !aults in the !rame they have been accustomed to. And i! there be any original de!ects or adventitious ones introduced by time or corruptionK it is not an easy thing to get them changed even when all the world sees there is an opportunity !or it. 5his slowness and aversion in the people to @uit their old constitutions has in the many revolutions which have been seen in this 9ingdom in this and !ormer ages still 9ept us to or a!ter some interval o! !ruitless attempts still brought us bac9 again to our old legislative o! 9ing lords and commons. and whatever provocations have made the crown be ta9en !rom some o! our princes heads they never carried the people so !ar as to place it in another line. )ec. 221. *ut it will be said this hypothesis lays a !erment !or !re@uent rebellion. 5o which ( answer $irst +o more than any other hypothesis. !or when the people are made miserable and !ind themselves e=posed to the ill usage o! arbitrary power cry up their governors as much as you will !or sons o! 6upiterK let them be sacred and divine descended or authoriDed !rom heavenK give them out !or whom or what you please the same will happen. 5he people generally ill treated and contrary to right will be ready upon any occasion to ease themselves o! a burden that sits heavy upon them. 5hey will wish and see9 !or the opportunity which in the change wea9ness and accidents o! human a!!airs seldom delays long to o!!er itsel!. He must have lived but a little while in the world who has not seen e=amples o! this in his timeK and he must have read very little who cannot produce e=amples o! it in all sorts o! governments in the world. )ec. 223. )econdly ( answer such revolutions happen not upon every little mismanagement in public a!!airs. Areat mista9es in the ruling part many wrong and inconvenient laws and all the slips o! human !railty will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. *ut i! a long train o! abuses prevarications and arti!ices all tending the same way ma9e the design visible to the people and they cannot but !eel what they lie under and see whither they are goingK it is not to be wondered that they should then rouDe themselves and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may secure to them the ends !or which government was at !irst erectedK and without which ancient names and specious !orms are so !ar !rom being better that they are much worse than the state o! nature or pure anarchyK the inconveniencies being all as great and as near but the remedy !arther o!! and more di!!icult.
231

)ec. 222. 5hirdly ( answer that this doctrine o! a power in the people o! providing !or their sa!ety a,new by a new legislative when their legislators have acted contrary to their trust by invading their property is the best !ence against rebellion and the probablest means to hinder it. !or rebellion being an opposition not to persons but authority which is !ounded only in the constitutions and laws o! the governmentK those whoever they be who by !orce brea9 through and by !orce <usti!y their violation o! them are truly and properly rebels. !or when men by entering into society and civil,government have e=cluded !orce and introduced laws !or the preservation o! property peace and unity amongst themselves those who set up !orce again in opposition to the laws do rebellare that is bring bac9 again the state o! war and are properly rebels. which they who are in power "by the pretence they have to authority the temptation o! !orce they have in their hands and the !lattery o! those about them# being li9eliest to doK the properest way to prevent the evil is to shew them the danger and in<ustice o! it who are under the greatest temptation to run into it. )ec. 220. (n both the !ore,mentioned cases when either the legislative is changed or the legislators act contrary to the end !or which they were constitutedK those who are guilty are guilty o! rebellion. !or i! any one by !orce ta9es away the established legislative o! any society and the laws by them made pursuant to their trust he thereby ta9es away the umpirage which every one had consented to !or a peaceable decision o! all their controversies and a bar to the state o! war amongst them. 5hey who remove or change the legislative ta9e away this decisive power which no body can have but by the appointment and consent o! the peopleK and so destroying the authority which the people did and no body else can set up and introducing a power which the people hath not authoriDed they actually introduce a state o! war which is that o! !orce without authority. and thus by removing the legislative established by the society "in whose decisions the people ac@uiesced and united as to that o! their own will# they untie the 9not and e=pose the people a,new to the state o! war. And i! those who by !orce ta9e away the legislative are rebels the legislators themselves as has been shewn can be no less esteemed soK when they who were set up !or the protection and preservation o! the people their liberties and properties shall by !orce invade and endeavour to ta9e them awayK and so they putting themselves into a state o! war with those who made them the protectors and guardians o! their peace are properly and with the greatest aggravation rebellantes rebels.
233

)ec. 22%. *ut i! they who say it lays a !oundation !or rebellion mean that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they are absolved !rom obedience when illegal attempts are made upon their liberties or properties and may oppose the unlaw!ul violence o! those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties contrary to the trust put in themK and that there!ore this doctrine is not to be allowed being so destructive to the peace o! the world. they may as well say upon the same ground that honest men may not oppose robbers or pirates because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. (! any mischie! come in such cases it is not to be charged upon him who de!ends his own right but on him that invades his neighbours. (! the innocent honest man must @uietly @uit all he has !or peace sa9e to him who will lay violent hands upon it ( desire it may be considered what a 9ind o! peace there will be in the world which consists only in violence and rapineK and which is to be maintained only !or the bene!it o! robbers and oppressors. Who would not thin9 it an admirable peace betwi=t the mighty and the mean when the lamb without resistance yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wol!7 'olyphemusFs den gives us a per!ect pattern o! such a peace and such a government wherein Hlysses and his companions had nothing to do but @uietly to su!!er themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Hlysses who was a prudent man preached up passive obedience and e=horted them to a @uiet submission by representing to them o! what concernment peace was to man9indK and by shewing the inconveniences might happen i! they should o!!er to resist 'olyphemus who had now the power over them. )ec. 22/. 5he end o! government is the good o! man9indK and which is best !or man9ind that the people should be always e=posed to the boundless will o! tyranny or that the rulers should be sometimes liable to be opposed when they grow e=orbitant in the use o! their power and employ it !or the destruction and not the preservation o! the properties o! their people7 )ec. 2-0. +or let any one say that mischie! can arise !rom hence as o!ten as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the alteration o! the government. (t is true such men may stir whenever they pleaseK but it will be only to their own <ust ruin and perdition. !or till the mischie! be grown general and the ill designs o! the rulers become visible or their attempts sensible to the greater part the people who are more disposed to su!!er than right themselves by resistance are not apt to stir. 5he e=amples o! particular in<ustice or oppression o!
232

here and there an un!ortunate man moves them not. *ut i! they universally have a persuasion grounded upon mani!est evidence that designs are carrying on against their liberties and the general course and tendency o! things cannot but give them strong suspicions o! the evil intention o! their governors who is to be blamed !or it7 Who can help it i! they who might avoid it bring themselves into this suspicion7 Are the people to be blamed i! they have the sense o! rational creatures and can thin9 o! things no otherwise than as they !ind and !eel them7 And is it not rather their !ault who put things into such a posture that they would not have them thought to be as they are7 ( grant that the pride ambition and turbulency o! private men have sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths and !actions have been !atal to states and 9ingdoms. *ut whether the mischie! hath o!tener begun in the peoples wantonness and a desire to cast o!! the law!ul authority o! their rulers or in the rulers insolence and endeavours to get and e=ercise an arbitrary power over their peopleK whether oppression or disobedience gave the !irst rise to the disorder ( leave it to impartial history to determine. 5his ( am sure whoever either ruler or sub<ect by !orce goes about to invade the rights o! either prince or people and lays the !oundation !or overturning the constitution and !rame o! any <ust government is highly guilty o! the greatest crime ( thin9 a man is capable o! being to answer !or all those mischie!s o! blood rapine and desolation which the brea9ing to pieces o! governments bring on a country. And he who does it is <ustly to be esteemed the common enemy and pest o! man9ind and is to be treated accordingly.

230

Source 0 Herbert Spencer The (ight to Ignore the State

Herbert )pencer was an incredible prophet and a magni!icent de!ender o! laisseD,!aire. Among his numerous wor9s is 9he 0an <ersus 9he &tate !irst published in 1%%1. 5hat boo9 launched one o! the most spirited attac9s on statism ever written. He ridiculed the idea that government intervention o! any 9ind Owill wor9 as it is intended to wor9 which it never does.O He drew on his tremendous 9nowledge o! history citing one dramatic case a!ter another o! price controls usury laws slum clearance laws and myriad other laws which touted as compassionate policies intensi!ied human misery. *elow is one o! his essays that e=plores the principles o! sel!,government which Henry :avid 5horeau de!ended in his seminal essay Civil :isobedience. The (ight to Ignore the State 1. 5he 8ight to ?oluntary &utlawry As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be subordinated to the law o! e@ual !reedom we cannot choose but admit the right o! the citiDen to adopt a condition o! voluntary outlawry. (! every man has !reedom to do all that he wills provided he in!ringes not the e@ual !reedom o! any other man then he is !ree to drop connection with the state J to relin@uish its protection and to re!use paying toward its support. (t is sel!,evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches upon the liberty o! othersK !or his position is a passive oneK and whilst passive he cannot become an aggressor. (t is e@ually sel!,evident that he cannot be compelled to continue one o! a political corporation without a breach o! the moral law seeing that citiDenship involves payment o! ta=esK and the ta9ing away o! a manFs property against his will is an in!ringement o! his rights. Aovernment being simply an agent employed in common by a number o! individuals to secure to them certain advantages the very nature o! the connection implies that it is !or each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. (! any one o! them determines to ignore this mutual,sa!ety con!ederation nothing can be said e=cept that he loses all claim to its good o!!ices and e=poses himsel! to the danger o! maltreatment J a thing he is @uite at liberty to do i! he li9es. He cannot be coerced into political combination
23%

without a breach o! the law o! e@ual !reedomK he can withdraw !rom it without committing any such breachK and he has there!ore a right so to withdraw. 2. 5he (mmorality o! the )tate O+o human laws are o! any validity i! contrary to the law o! natureK and such o! them as are valid derive all their !orce and all their authority mediately or immediately !rom this original.O 5hus writes *lac9stone1 to whom let all honour be given !or having so !ar outseen the ideas o! his timeK and indeed we may say o! our time. A good antidote this !or those political superstitions which so widely prevail. A good chec9 upon that sentiment o! power,worship which still misleads us by magni!ying the prerogatives o! constitutional governments as it once did those o! monarchs. Let men learn that a legislature is not Oour Aod upon earth O though by the authority they ascribe to it and the things they e=pect !rom it they would seem to thin9 it is. Let them learn rather that it is an institution serving a purely temporary purpose whose power when not stolen is at the best borrowed. +ay indeed have we not seen that government is essentially immoral7 (s it not the o!!spring o! evil bearing about it all the mar9s o! its parentage7 :oes it not e=ist because crime e=ists7 (s it not strong or as we say despotic when crime is great7 (s there not more liberty that is less government as crime diminishes7 And must not government cease when crime ceases !or very lac9 o! ob<ects on which to per!orm its !unction7 +ot only does magisterial power e=ist because o! evilK but it e=ists by evil. ?iolence is employed to maintain itK and all violence involves criminality. )oldiers policemen and gaolersK swords batons and !etters are instruments !or in!licting painK and all in!liction o! pain is in the abstract wrong. 5he state employs evil weapons to sub<ugate evil and is ali9e contaminated by the ob<ects with which it deals and the means by which it wor9s. ;orality cannot recogniDe itK !or morality being simply a statement o! the per!ect law can give no countenance to any thing growing out o! and living by breaches o! that law. Where!ore legislative authority can never be ethical J must always be conventional merely. Hence there is a certain inconsistency in the attempt to determine the right position structure and conduct o! a government by appeal to the !irst principles o! rectitude. $or as <ust pointed out the acts o! an institution which is in both nature and origin imper!ect cannot be made to s@uare with the per!ect law. All that we can do is to ascertain !irstly
23/

in what attitude a legislature must stand to the community to avoid being by its mere e=istence an embodied wrongK J secondly in what manner it must be constituted so as to e=hibit the least incongruity with the moral lawK J and thirdly to what sphere its actions must be limited to prevent it !rom multiplying those breaches o! e@uity it is set up to prevent. 5he !irst condition to be con!ormed to be!ore a legislature can be established without violating the law o! e@ual !reedom is the ac9nowledgment o! the right now under discussion J the right to ignore the state.2 -. 5he 'eople as the )ource o! 'ower Hpholders o! pure despotism may !itly believe state,control to be unlimited and unconditional. 5hey who assert that men are made !or governments and not governments !or men may consistently hold that no one can remove himsel! beyond the pale o! political organiDation. *ut they who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source o! power J that legislative authority is not original but deputed J cannot deny the right to ignore the state without entangling themselves in an absurdity. $or i! legislative authority is deputed it !ollows that those !rom whom it proceeds are the masters o! those on whom it is con!erred. it !ollows !urther that as masters they con!er the said authority voluntarily. and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they please. 5o call that deputed which is wrenched !rom men whether they will or not is nonsense. *ut what is here true o! all collectively is e@ually true o! each separately. As a government can rightly act !or the people only when empowered by them so also can it rightly act !or the individual only when empowered by him. (! A * and C debate whether they shall employ an agent to per!orm !or them a certain service and i! whilst A and * agree to do so C dissents C cannot e@uitably be made a party to the agreement in spite o! himsel!. And this must be e@ually true o! thirty as o! three. and i! o! thirty why not o! three hundred or three thousand or three millions7 1. )ubordination o! Aovernment Authority &! the political superstitions lately alluded to none is so universally di!!used as the notion that ma<orities are omnipotent. Hnder the impression that the preservation o! order will ever re@uire power to be wielded by some party the moral sense o! our time !eels that such
220

power cannot rightly be con!erred on any but the largest moiety o! society. (t interprets literally the saying that Othe voice o! the people is the voice o! Aod O and trans!erring to the one the sacredness attached to the other it concludes that !rom the will o! the people that is o! the ma<ority there can be no appeal. Get is this belie! entirely erroneous. )uppose !or the sa9e o! argument that struc9 by some ;althusian panic a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that all children born during the ne=t ten years should be drowned. :oes any one thin9 such an enactment would be warrantable7 (! not there is evidently a limit to the power o! a ma<ority. )uppose again that o! two races living together J Celts and )a=ons !or e=ample J the most numerous determined to ma9e the others their slaves. Would the authority o! the greatest number be in such case valid7 (! not there is something to which its authority must be subordinate. )uppose once more that all men having incomes under 30 pounds a year were to resolve upon reducing every income above that amount to their own standard and appropriating the e=cess !or public purposes. Could their resolution be <usti!ied7 (! not it must be a third time con!essed that there is a law to which the popular voice must de!er. What then is that law i! not the law o! pure e@uity J the law o! e@ual !reedom7 5hese restraints which all would put to the will o! the ma<ority are e=actly the restraints set up by that law. We deny the right o! a ma<ority to murder to enslave or to rob simply because murder enslaving and robbery are violations o! that law J violations too gross to be overloo9ed. *ut i! great violations o! it are wrong so also are smaller ones. (! the will o! the many cannot supersede the !irst principle o! morality in these cases neither can it in any. )o that however insigni!icant the minority and however tri!ling the proposed trespass against their rights no such trespass is permissible. When we have made our constitution purely democratic thin9s to himsel! the earnest re!ormer we shall have brought government into harmony with absolute <ustice. )uch a !aith though perhaps need!ul !or this age is a very erroneous one. *y no process can coercion be made e@uitable. 5he !reest !orm o! government is only the least ob<ectional !orm. 5he rule o! the many by the !ew we call tyranny. the rule o! the !ew by the many is tyranny alsoK only o! a less intense 9ind. OGou shall do as we will and not as you will O is in either case the declaration. and i! the hundred ma9e it to the ninety,nine instead o! the ninety,nine to the hundred it is only a !raction less immoral. &! two such parties whichever !ul!ils this declaration necessarily brea9s the law o! e@ual
221

!reedom. the only di!!erence being that by the one it is bro9en in the persons o! ninety,nine whilst by the other it is bro9en in the persons o! a hundred. And the merit o! the democratic !orm o! government consists solely in this that it trespasses against the smallest number. 5he very e=istence o! ma<orities and minorities is indicative o! an immoral state. 5he man whose character harmoniDes with the moral law we !ound to be one who can obtain complete happiness without diminishing the happiness o! his !ellows. *ut the enactment o! public arrangements by vote implies a society consisting o! men otherwise constituted J implies that the desires o! some cannot be satis!ied without sacri!icing the desires o! others J implies that in the pursuit o! their happiness the ma<ority in!lict a certain amount o! unhappiness on the minority J implies there!ore organic immorality. 5hus !rom another point o! view we again perceive that even in its most e@uitable !orm it is impossible !or government to dissociate itsel! !rom evilK and !urther that unless the right to ignore the state is recogniDed its acts must be essentially criminal. 3. 5he Limits o! 5a=ation 5hat a man is !ree to abandon the bene!its and throw o!! the burdens o! citiDenship may indeed be in!erred !rom the admissions o! e=isting authorities and o! current opinion. Hnprepared as they probably are !or so e=treme a doctrine as the one here maintained the radicals o! our day yet unwittingly pro!ess their belie! in a ma=im which obviously embodies this doctrine. :o we not continually hear them @uote *lac9stoneFs assertion that Ono sub<ect o! 4ngland can be constrained to pay any aids or ta=es even !or the de!ence o! the realm or the support o! government but such as are imposed by his own consent or that o! his representative in parliament7O And what does this mean7 (t means say they that every man should have a vote. 5rue. but it means much more. (! there is any sense in words it is a distinct enunciation o! the very right now contended !or. (n a!!irming that a man may not be ta=ed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent it a!!irms that he may re!use to be so ta=edK and to re!use to be ta=ed is to cut all connection with the state. 'erhaps it will be said that this consent is not a speci!ic but a general one and that the citiDen is understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do when he voted !or him. *ut suppose he did not vote !or himK and on the contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite views J what them7 5he reply will probably be that by ta9ing part in
222

such an election he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision o! the ma<ority. And how i! he did not vote at all7 Why then he cannot <ustly complain o! any ta= seeing that he made no protest against its imposition. )o curiously enough it seems that he gave his consent in whatever way he acted J whether he said yes whether he said no or whether he remained neuterQ A rather aw9ward doctrine this. Here stands an un!ortunate citiDen who is as9ed i! he will pay money !or a certain pro!!ered advantageK and whether he employs the only means o! e=pressing his re!usal or does not employ it we are told that he practically agreesK i! only the number o! others who agree is greater than the number o! those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to the novel principle that AFs consent to a thing is not determined by what A says but by what * may happen to sayQ (t is !or those who @uote *lac9stone to choose between this absurdity and the doctrine above set !orth. 4ither his ma=im implies the right to ignore the state or it is sheer nonsense. 2. &n Civil and 8eligious Liberty 5here is a strange heterogeneity in our political !aiths. )ystems that have had their day and are beginning here and there to let the daylight through are patched with modern notions utterly unli9e in @uality and colourK and men gravely display these systems wear them and wal9 about in them @uite unconscious o! their grotes@ueness. 5his transition state o! ours parta9ing as it does e@ually o! the past and the !uture breeds hybrid theories e=hibiting the oddest union o! bygone despotism and coming !reedom. Here are types o! the old organiDation curiously disguised by germs o! the new J peculiarities showing adaptation to a preceding state modi!ied by rudiments that prophesy o! something to come J ma9ing altogether so chaotic a mi=ture o! relationships that there is no saying to what class these births o! the age should be re!erred. As ideas must o! necessity bear the stamp o! the time it is useless to lament the contentment with which these incongruous belie!s are held. &therwise it would seem un!ortunate that men do not pursue to the end the trains o! reasoning which have led to these partial modi!ications. (n the present case !or e=ample consistency would !orce them to admit that on other points besides the one <ust noticed they hold opinions and use arguments in which the right to ignore the state is involved. $or what is the meaning o! :issent7 5he time was when a manFs !aith
22-

and his mode o! worship were as much determinable by law as his secular actsK and according to provisions e=tant in our statute,boo9 are so still. 5han9s to the growth o! a 'rotestant spirit however we have ignored the state in this matter J wholly in theory and partly in practice. *ut how have we done so7 *y assuming an attitude which i! consistently maintained implies a right to ignore the state entirely. &bserve the positions o! the two parties. O5his is your creed O says the legislatorK Oyou must believe and openly pro!ess what is here set down !or you.O O( shall not do any thing o! the 9ind O answers the non, con!ormist O( will go to prison rather.O OGour religious ordinances O pursues the legislator Oshall be such as we have prescribed. Gou shall attend the churches we have endowed and adopt the ceremonies used in them.O O+othing shall induce me to do so O is the replyK O( altogether deny your power to dictate to me in such matters and mean to resist to the uttermost.O OLastly O adds the legislator Owe shall re@uire you to pay such sums o! money toward the support o! these religious institutions as we may see !it to as9.O O+ot a !arthing will you have !rom me O e=claims our sturdy (ndependent. Oeven did ( believe in the doctrines o! your church "which ( do not# ( should still rebel against your inter!erenceK and i! you ta9e my property it shall be by !orce and under protest.O What now does this proceeding amount to when regarded in the abstract7 (t amounts to an assertion by the individual o! the right to e=ercise one o! his !aculties J the religious sentiment J without let or hindrance and with no limit save that set up by the e@ual claims o! others. And what is meant by ignoring the state7 )imply an assertion o! the right similarly to e=ercise all the !aculties. 5he one is <ust an e=pansion o! the other J rests on the same !ooting with the other J must stand or !all with the other. ;en do indeed spea9 o! civil and religious liberty as di!!erent thingsK but the distinction is @uite arbitrary. 5hey are parts o! the same whole and cannot philosophically be separated. OGes they can O interposes an ob<ectorK Oassertion o! the one is imperative as being a religious duty. 5he liberty to worship Aod in the way that seems to him right is a liberty without which a man cannot !ul!il what he believes to be :ivine commands and there!ore conscience re@uires him to maintain it.O 5rue enoughK but how i! the same can be asserted o! all other liberty7 How i! maintenance o! this also turns out to be a matter o! conscience7 Have we not seen that human happiness is the :ivine will J that only by e=ercising our
221

!aculties is this happiness obtainable J and that it is impossible to e=ercise them without !reedom7 And i! this !reedom !or the e=ercise o! !aculties is a condition without which the :ivine will cannot be !ul!illed the preservation o! it is by our ob<ectorFs own showing a duty. &r in other words it appears not only that the maintenance o! liberty o! action may be a point o! conscience but that it ought to be one. And thus we are clearly shown that the claims to ignore the state in religious and in secular matters are in essence identical. 5he other reason commonly assigned !or noncon!ormity admits o! similar treatment. *esides resisting state dictation in the abstract the dissenter resists it !rom disapprobation o! the doctrines taught. +o legislative in<unction will ma9e him adopt what he considers an erroneous belie!K and bearing in mind his duty toward his !ellow,men he re!uses to help through the medium o! his purse in disseminating this erroneous belie!. 5he position is per!ectly intelligible. *ut it is one which either commits its adherents to civil noncon!ormity also or leaves them in a dilemma. $or why do they re!use to be instrumental in spreading error7 *ecause error is adverse to human happiness. And on what ground is any piece o! secular legislation disapproved7 $or the same reason J because thought adverse to human happiness. How then can it be shown that the state ought to be resisted in the one case and not in the other7 Will any one deliberately assert that i! a government demands money !rom us to aid in teaching what we thin9 will produce evil we ought to re!use itK but that i! the money is !or the purpose o! doing what we thin9 will produce evil we ought not to re!use it7 Get such is the hope!ul proposition which those have to maintain who recogniDe the right to ignore the state in religious matters but deny it in civil matters. 0. 'rogress Hindered by Lac9 o! )ocial ;orality 5he substance o! the essay once more reminds us o! the incongruity between a per!ect law and an imper!ect state. 5he practicability o! the principle here laid down varies directly as social morality. (n a thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive o! anarchy. (n a completely virtuous one its admission will be both innocuous and inevitable. 'rogress toward a condition o! social health J a condition that is in which the remedial measures o! legislation will no longer be needed is progress toward a condition in which those remedial measures will be cast aside and the authority prescribing them disregarded. 5he two changes are o! necessity coordinate. 5hat
223

moral sense whose supremacy will ma9e society harmonious and government unnecessary is the same moral sense which will then ma9e each man assert his !reedom even to the e=tent o! ignoring the state J is the same moral sense which by deterring the ma<ority !rom coercing the minority will eventually render government impossible. And as what are merely di!!erent mani!estations o! the same sentiment must bear a constant ratio to each other the tendency to repudiate governments will increase only at the same rate that governments become needless. Let not any be alarmed there!ore at the promulgation o! the !oregoing doctrine. 5here are many changes yet to be passed through be!ore it can begin to e=ercise much in!luence. 'robably a long time will elapse be!ore the right to ignore the )tate will be generally admitted even in theory. (t will be still longer be!ore it receives legislative recognition. And even then there will be plenty o! chec9s upon the premature e=ercise o! it. A sharp e=perience will su!!iciently instruct those who may too soon abandon legal protection. Whilst in the ma<ority o! men there is such a love o! tried arrangements and so great a dread o! e=periments that they will probably not act upon this right until long a!ter it is sa!e to do so. %. 5he Coming :ecay o! the )tate (t is a mista9e to assume that government must necessarily last !orever. 5he institution mar9s a certain stage o! civiliDation J is natural to a particular phase o! human development. (t is not essential but incidental. As amongst the *ushmen we !ind a state antecedent to government so may there be one in which it shall have become e=tinct. Already has it lost something o! its importance. 5he time was when the history o! a people was but the history o! its government. (t is otherwise now. 5he once universal despotism was but a mani!estation o! the e=treme necessity o! restraint. $eudalism ser!dom slavery all tyrannical institutions are merely the most vigorous 9inds o! rule springing out o! and necessary to a bad state o! man. 5he progress !rom these is in all cases the same J less government. Constitutional !orms means this. 'olitical !reedom means this. :emocracy means this. (n societies associations <oint,stoc9 companies we have new agencies occupying big !ields !illed in less advanced times and countries by the )tate. With us the legislature is dwar!ed by newer and greater powers J is no longer master but slave. O'ressure !rom withoutO has come to be ac9nowledged as ultimate ruler. 5he triumph
222

o! the Anti,Corn Law League is simply the most mar9ed instance yet o! the new style o! government that o! opinion overcoming the old style that o! !orce. (t bids !air to become a trite remar9 that the law,ma9er is but the servant o! the thin9er. :aily is )tatecra!t held in less repute. 4ven the O5imesO can see that Othe social changes thic9ening around us establish a truth su!!iciently humiliating to legislative bodies O and that Othe great stages o! our progress are determined rather by the spontaneous wor9ings o! society connected as they are with the progress o! art and science the operation o! nature and other such unpolitical causes than by the proposition o! a bill the passing o! an act or any other event o! politics or o! )tate.O 5hus as civiliDation advances does government decay. 5o the bad it is essentialK to the good not. (t is the chec9 which national wic9edness ma9es to itsel! and e=ists only to the same degree. (ts continuance is proo! o! still, e=isting barbarism. What a cage is to the wild beast law is to the sel!ish man. 8estraint is !or the savage the rapacious the violentK not !or the <ust the gentle the benevolent. All necessity !or e=ternal !orce implies a morbid state. :ungeons !or the !elonK a strait <ac9et !or the maniacK crutches !or the lameK stays !or the wea9,bac9edK !or the in!irm o! purpose a masterK !or the !oolish a guideK but !or the sound mind in a sound body none o! these. Were there no thieves and murderers prisons would be unnecessary. (t is only because tyranny is yet ri!e in the world that we have armies. *arristers <udges <uries all the instruments o! law e=ist simply because 9navery e=ists. ;agisterial !orce is the se@uence o! social vice and the policeman is but the complement o! the criminal. 5here!ore it is that we call government Oa necessary evil.O What then must be thought o! a morality which chooses this probationary institution !or its basis builds a vast !abric o! conclusions upon its assumed permanence selects acts o! parliament !or its materials and employs the statesman !or its architect7 5he e=pediency,philosopher does this. (t ta9es government into partnership assigns to it entire control o! its a!!airs en<oins all to de!er to its <udgment ma9es it in short the vital principle the very soul o! its system. When 'aley teaches that Othe interest o! the whole society is binding upon every part o! it O he implies the e=istence o! some supreme power by which Othat interest o! the whole societyO is to be determined. And elsewhere he more e=plicitly tells us that !or the attainment o! a national advantage the private will o! the sub<ect is to give way and that Othe proo! o! this advantage lies with the legislature.O
220

)till more decisive is *entham when he says that Othe happiness o! the individuals o! whom a community is composed J that is their pleasures and their security J is the sole end which the legislator ought to have in view the sole standard in con!ormity with which each individual ought as !ar as depends upon the legislature to be made to !ashion his behavior.O 5hese positions be it remembered are not voluntarily assumedK they are necessitated by the premises. (! as its propounder tells us Oe=pediencyO means the bene!it o! the mass not o! the individual J o! the !uture as much as o! the present J it presupposes some one to <udge o! what will most conduce to that bene!it. Hpon the OutilityO o! this or that measure the views are so various as to render an umpire essential. Whether protective duties or established religions or capital punishments or poor,laws do or do not minister to the Ogeneral goodO are @uestions concerning which there is such di!!erence o! opinion that were nothing to be done till all agreed upon them we might stand still to the end o! time. (! each man carried out independently o! a )tate power his own notions o! what would best secure Othe greatest happiness o! the greatest number O society would @uic9ly lapse into con!usion. Clearly there!ore a morality established upon a ma=im o! which the practical interpretation is @uestionable involves the e=istence o! some authority whose decisions respecting it shall be !inal J that is a legislature. And without that authority such a morality must ever remain inoperative. )ee here then the predicament a system o! moral philosophy pro!esses to be a code o! correct rules !or the control o! human beings J !itted !or the regulation o! the best as well as the worst members o! the race J applicable i! true to the guidance o! humanity in its highest conceivable per!ection. Aovernment however is an institution originating in manFs imper!ectionK an institution con!essedly begotten by necessity out o! evilK one which might be dispensed with were the world peopled with the unsel!ish the conscientious the philanthropicK one in short inconsistent with this same Ohighest conceivable per!ection.O How then can that be a true system o! morality which adopts government as one o! its premises7

22%

AuthorFs 4ndnotes
1

)ir William *lac9stone "102-,10%0# was the most renowned o! 4nglish <urists.
2

Hence may be drawn an argument !or direct ta=ationK seeing that only when ta=ation is direct does repudiation o! state burdens become possible.

22/

Source 0 ) Lysander Spooner No Treason5 The Constitution of No Authority

I5 5he Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. (t has no authority or obligation at all unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now e=isting. (t purports at most to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. \5his essay was written in 1%2/.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years o! discretion so as to be competent to ma9e reasonable and obligatory contracts. $urthermore we 9now historically that only a small portion even o! the people then e=isting were consulted on the sub<ect or as9ed or permitted to e=press either their consent or dissent in any !ormal manner. 5hose persons i! any who did give their consent !ormally are all dead now. ;ost o! them have been dead !orty !i!ty si=ty or seventy years. 2nd the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. 5hey had no natural power or right to ma9e it obligatory upon their children. (t is not only plainly impossible in the nature o! things that they could bind their posterity but they did not even attempt to bind them. 5hat is to say the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but Othe peopleO 5H4+ e=istingK nor does it either e=pressly or impliedly assert any right power or disposition on their part to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. (ts language is. We the people o! the Hnited )tates "that is the people 5H4+ 4>()5(+A in the Hnited )tates# in order to !orm a more per!ect union insure domestic tran@uility provide !or the common de!ense promote the general wel!are and secure the blessings o! liberty to ourselves A+: &H8 '&)548(5G do ordain and establish this Constitution !or the Hnited )tates o! America. (t is plain in the !irst place that this language A) A+ AA844;4+5 purports to be only what it at most really was viD. a contract between the people then e=istingK and o! necessity binding as a contract only
200

upon those then e=isting. (n the second place the language neither e=presses nor implies that they had any right or power to bind their OposterityO to live under it. (t does not say that their OposterityO will shall or must live under it. (t only says in e!!ect that their hopes and motives in adopting it were that it might prove use!ul to their posterity as well as to themselves by promoting their union sa!ety tran@uility liberty etc. )uppose an agreement were entered into in this !orm. We the people o! *oston agree to maintain a !ort on AovernorFs (sland to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion. 5his agreement as an agreement would clearly bind nobody but the people then e=isting. )econdly it would assert no right power or disposition on their part to compel their OposterityO to maintain such a !ort. (t would only indicate that the supposed wel!are o! their posterity was one o! the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the agreement. When a man says he is building a house !or himsel! and his posterity he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought o! binding them nor is it to be in!erred that he is so !oolish as to imagine that he has any right or power to bind them to live in it. )o !ar as they are concerned he only means to be understood as saying that his hopes and motives in building it are that they or at least some o! them may !ind it !or their happiness to live in it. )o when a man says he is planting a tree !or himsel! and his posterity he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought o! compelling them nor is it to be in!erred that he is such a simpleton as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them to eat the !ruit. )o !ar as they are concerned he only means to say that his hopes and motives in planting the tree are that its !ruit may be agreeable to them. )o it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions the legal meaning o! their language so !ar as their OposterityO was concerned simply was that their hopes and motives in entering into the agreement were that it might prove use!ul and acceptable to their posterityK that it might promote their union sa!ety tran@uility and wel!areK and that it might tend Oto secure to them the blessings o! liberty.O 5he language does not assert nor at all imply any right power or disposition on the part o! the original parties to the agreement to compel their OposterityO to live
201

under it. (! they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it they should have said that their ob<ective was not Oto secure to them the blessings o! liberty O but to ma9e slaves o! themK !or i! their OposterityO are bound to live under it they are nothing less than the slaves o! their !oolish tyrannical and dead grand!athers. (t cannot be said that the Constitution !ormed Othe people o! the Hnited )tates O !or all time into a corporation. (t does not spea9 o! Othe peopleO as a corporation but as individuals. A corporation does not describe itsel! as Owe O nor as Opeople O nor as Oourselves.O +or does a corporation in legal language have any Oposterity.O (t supposes itsel! to have and spea9s o! itsel! as having perpetual e=istence as a single individuality. ;oreover no body o! men e=isting at any one time have the power to create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically perpetual only by the voluntary accession o! new members as the old ones die o!!. *ut !or this voluntary accession o! new members the corporation necessarily dies with the death o! those who originally composed it. Legally spea9ing there!ore there is in the Constitution nothing that pro!esses or attempts to bind the OposterityO o! those who established it. (! then those who established the Constitution had no power to bind and did not attempt to bind their posterity the @uestion arises whether their posterity have bound themselves. (! they have done so they can have done so in only one or both o! these two ways viD. by voting and paying ta=es. II5 Let us consider these two matters voting and ta= paying separately. And !irst o! voting. All the voting that has ever ta9en place under the Constitution has been o! such a 9ind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to support the Constitution but it did not even pledge any one o! them to do so as the !ollowing considerations show. 1. (n the very nature o! things the act o! voting could bind nobody but the actual voters. *ut owing to the property @uali!ications re@uired it is probable that during the !irst twenty or thirty years under the Constitution not more than one,tenth !i!teenth or perhaps twentieth o!
202

the whole population "blac9 and white men women and minors# were permitted to vote. Conse@uently so !ar as voting was concerned not more than one,tenth !i!teenth or twentieth o! those then e=isting could have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution. At the present time \1%2/] it is probable that not more than one,si=th o! the whole population are permitted to vote. Conse@uently so !ar as voting is concerned the other !ive,si=ths can have given no pledge that they will support the Constitution. 2. &! the one,si=th that are permitted to vote probably not more than two,thirds "about one,ninth o! the whole population# have usually voted. ;any never vote at all. ;any vote only once in two three !ive or ten years in periods o! great e=citement. +o one by voting can be said to pledge himsel! !or any longer period than that !or which he votes. (! !or e=ample ( vote !or an o!!icer who is to hold his o!!ice !or only a year ( cannot be said to have thereby pledged mysel! to support the government beyond that term. 5here!ore on the ground o! actual voting it probably cannot be said that more than one,ninth or one,eighth o! the whole population are usually under any pledge to support the Constitution. \(n recent years since 1/10 the number o! voters in elections has usually !luctuated between one,third and two,!i!ths o! the populace.] -. (t cannot be said that by voting a man pledges himsel! to support the Constitution unless the act o! voting be a per!ectly voluntary one on his part. Get the act o! voting cannot properly be called a voluntary one on the part o! any very large number o! those who do vote. (t is rather a measure o! necessity imposed upon them by others than one o! their own choice. &n this point ( repeat what was said in a !ormer number viD.. O(n truth in the case o! individuals their actual voting is not to be ta9en as proo! o! consent even for the time being. &n the contrary it is to be considered that without his consent having even been as9ed a man !inds himsel! environed by a government that he cannot resistK a government that !orces him to pay money render service and !orego the e=ercise o! many o! his natural rights under peril o! weighty punishments. He sees too that other men practice this tyranny over him by the use o! the ballot. He sees !urther that i! he will but use the ballot himsel! he
20-

has some chance o! relieving himsel! !rom this tyranny o! others by sub<ecting them to his own. (n short he !inds himsel! without his consent so situated that i! he use the ballot he may become a masterK i! he does not use it he must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than these two. (n sel!,de!ence he attempts the !ormer. His case is analogous to that o! a man who has been !orced into battle where he must either 9ill others or be 9illed himsel!. *ecause to save his own li!e in battle a man ta9es the lives o! his opponents it is not to be in!erred that the battle is one o! his own choosing. +either in contests with the ballot J which is a mere substitute !or a bullet J because as his only chance o! sel!,preservation a man uses a ballot is it to be in!erred that the contest is one into which he voluntarily enteredK that he voluntarily set up all his own natural rights as a sta9e against those o! others to be lost or won by the mere power o! numbers. &n the contrary it is to be considered that in an e=igency into which he had been !orced by others and in which no other means o! sel!,de!ence o!!ered he as a matter o! necessity used the only one that was le!t to him. O:oubtless the most miserable o! men under the most oppressive government in the world i! allowed the ballot would use it i! they could see any chance o! thereby meliorating their condition. *ut it would not there!ore be a legitimate in!erence that the government itsel! that crushes them was one which they had voluntarily set up or even consented to. O5here!ore a manFs voting under the Constitution o! the Hnited )tates is not to be ta9en as evidence that he ever !reely assented to the Constitution even for the time being . Conse@uently we have no proo! that any very large portion even o! the actual voters o! the Hnited )tates ever really and voluntarily consented to the Constitution 4?4+ $&8 5H4 5(;4 *4(+A. +or can we ever have such proo! until every man is le!t per!ectly !ree to consent or not without thereby sub<ecting himsel! or his property to be disturbed or in<ured by others.O
201

As we can have no legal 9nowledge as to who votes !rom choice and who !rom the necessity thus !orced upon him we can have no legal 9nowledge as to any particular individual that he voted !rom choiceK or conse@uently that by voting he consented or pledged himsel! to support the government. Legally spea9ing there!ore the act o! voting utterly !ails to pledge A+G &+4 to support the government. (t utterly !ails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support o! anybody. &n general principles o! law and reason it cannot be said that the government has any voluntary supporters at all until it can be distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are. 1. As ta=ation is made compulsory on all whether they vote or not a large proportion o! those who vote no doubt do so to prevent their own money being used against themselvesK when in !act they would have gladly abstained !rom voting i! they could thereby have saved themselves !rom ta=ation alone to say nothing o! being saved !rom all the other usurpations and tyrannies o! the government. 5o ta9e a manFs property without his consent and then to in!er his consent because he attempts by voting to prevent that property !rom being used to his in<ury is a very insu!!icient proo! o! his consent to support the Constitution. (t is in !act no proo! at all. And as we can have no legal 9nowledge as to who the particular individuals are i! there are any who are willing to be ta=ed !or the sa9e o! voting we can have no legal 9nowledge that any particular individual consents to be ta=ed !or the sa9e o! votingK or conse@uently consents to support the Constitution. 3. At nearly all elections votes are given !or various candidates !or the same o!!ice. 5hose who vote !or the unsuccess!ul candidates cannot properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. 5hey may with more reason be supposed to have voted not to support the Constitution but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate the success!ul candidate intends to practice upon them under color o! the ConstitutionK and there!ore may reasonably be supposed to have voted against the Constitution itsel!. 5his supposition is the more reasonable inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them o! e=pressing their dissent to the Constitution. 2. ;any votes are usually given !or candidates who have no prospect o! success. 5hose who give such votes may reasonably be supposed to have voted as they did with a special intention not to support but to obstruct the e=ecution o! the ConstitutionK and there!ore against the Constitution itsel!.
203

0. As all the di!!erent votes are given secretly "by secret ballot# there is no legal means o! 9nowing !rom the votes themselves who votes !or and who votes against the Constitution. 5here!ore voting a!!ords no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution. And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution it cannot legally be said that anybody supports it. (t is clearly impossible to have any legal proo! o! the intentions o! large numbers o! men where there can be no legal proo! o! the intentions o! any particular one o! them. %. 5here being no legal proo! o! any manFs intentions in voting we can only con<ecture them. As a con<ecture it is probable that a very large proportion o! those who vote do so on this principle viD. that i! by voting they could but get the government into their own hands "or that o! their !riends# and use its powers against their opponents they would then willingly support the ConstitutionK but i! their opponents are to have the power and use it against them then they would +&5 willingly support the Constitution. (n short menFs voluntary support o! the Constitution is doubtless in most cases wholly contingent upon the @uestion whether by means o! the Constitution they can ma9e themselves masters or are to be made slaves. )uch contingent consent as that is in law and reason no consent at all. /. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting "i! there are any such# does so secretly "by secret ballot# and in a way to avoid all personal responsibility !or the acts o! his agents or representatives it cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the Constitution by voting. +o man can reasonably or legally be said to do such a thing as assent to or support the Constitution unless he does it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he delegates to them. 10. As all voting is secret "by secret ballot# and as all secret governments are necessarily only secret bands o! robbers tyrants and murderers the general !act that our government is practically carried on by means o! such voting only proves that there is among us a secret band o! robbers tyrants and murderers whose purpose is to rob enslave and so !ar as necessary to accomplish their purposes
202

murder the rest o! the people. 5he simple !act o! the e=istence o! such a band does nothing towards proving that Othe people o! the Hnited )tates O or any one o! them voluntarily supports the Constitution. $or all the reasons that have now been given voting !urnishes no legal evidence as to who the particular individuals are "i! there are any# who voluntarily support the Constitution. (t there!ore !urnishes no legal evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily. )o !ar there!ore as voting is concerned the Constitution legally spea9ing has no supporters at all. And as a matter o! !act there is not the slightest probability that the Constitution has a single bona !ide supporter in the country. 5hat is to say there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in the country who both understands what the Constitution really is and sincerely supports it for what it really is. 5he ostensible supporters o! the Constitution li9e the ostensible supporters o! most other governments are made up o! three classes viD.. 1. Cnaves a numerous and active class who see in the government an instrument which they can use !or their own aggrandiDement or wealth. 2. :upes J a large class no doubt J each o! whom because he is allowed one voice out o! millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing enslaving and murdering others that others have in robbing enslaving and murdering himsel! is stupid enough to imagine that he is a O!ree man O a OsovereignOK that this is Oa !ree governmentOK Oa government o! e@ual rights O Othe best government on earth O 1 and such li9e absurdities. -. A class who have some appreciation o! the evils o! government but either do not see how to get rid o! them or do not choose to so !ar sacri!ice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the wor9 o! ma9ing a change. III5 5he payment o! ta=es being compulsory o! course !urnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution. 1. (t is true that the 5H4&8G o! our Constitution is that all ta=es are paid voluntarilyK that our government is a mutual insurance company voluntarily entered into by the people with each otherK that each man
200

ma9es a !ree and purely voluntary contract with all others who are parties to the Constitution to pay so much money !or so much protection the same as he does with any other insurance companyK and that he is <ust as !ree not to be protected and not to pay ta= as he is to pay a ta= and be protected. *ut this theory o! our government is wholly di!!erent !rom the practical !act. 5he !act is that the government li9e a highwayman says to a man. OGour money or your li!e.O And many i! not most ta=es are paid under the compulsion o! that threat. 5he government does not indeed waylay a man in a lonely place spring upon him !rom the roadside and holding a pistol to his head proceed to ri!le his poc9ets. *ut the robbery is none the less a robbery on that accountK and it is !ar more dastardly and shame!ul. 5he highwayman ta9es solely upon himsel! the responsibility danger and crime o! his own act. He does not pretend that he has any right!ul claim to your money or that he intends to use it !or your own bene!it. He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not ac@uired impudence enough to pro!ess to be merely a Oprotector O and that he ta9es menFs money against their will merely to enable him to OprotectO those in!atuated travellers who !eel per!ectly able to protect themselves or do not appreciate his peculiar system o! protection. He is too sensible a man to ma9e such pro!essions as these. $urthermore having ta9en your money he leaves you as you wish him to do. He does not persist in !ollowing you on the road against your willK assuming to be your right!ul Osovereign O on account o! the OprotectionO he a!!ords you. He does not 9eep OprotectingO you by commanding you to bow down and serve himK by re@uiring you to do this and !orbidding you to do thatK by robbing you o! more money as o!ten as he !inds it !or his interest or pleasure to do soK and by branding you as a rebel a traitor and an enemy to your country and shooting you down without mercy i! you dispute his authority or resist his demands. He is too much o! a gentleman to be guilty o! such impostures and insults and villanies as these. (n short he does not in addition to robbing you attempt to ma9e you either his dupe or his slave. 5he proceedings o! those robbers and murderers who call themselves Othe government O are directly the opposite o! these o! the single highwayman. (n the !irst place they do not li9e him ma9e themselves individually
20%

9nownK or conse@uently ta9e upon themselves personally the responsibility o! their acts. &n the contrary they secretly "by secret ballot# designate some one o! their number to commit the robbery in their behal! while they 9eep themselves practically concealed. 5hey say to the person thus designated. Ao to AWWWWW *WWWWW and say to him that Othe governmentO has need o! money to meet the e=penses o! protecting him and his property. (! he presumes to say that he has never contracted with us to protect him and that he wants none o! our protection say to him that that is our business and not hisK that we CH&&)4 to protect him whether he desires us to do so or notK and that we demand pay too !or protecting him. (! he dares to in@uire who the individuals are who have thus ta9en upon themselves the title o! Othe government O and who assume to protect him and demand payment o! him without his having ever made any contract with them say to him that that too is our business and not hisK that we do not CH&&)4 to ma9e ourselves (+:(?(:HALLG 9nown to himK that we have secretly "by secret ballot# appointed you our agent to give him notice o! our demands and i! he complies with them to give him in our name a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand !or the present year. (! he re!uses to comply seiDe and sell enough o! his property to pay not only our demands but all your own e=penses and trouble beside. (! he resists the seiDure o! his property call upon the bystanders to help you "doubtless some o! them will prove to be members o! our band.# (! in de!ending his property he should 9ill any o! our band who are assisting you capture him at all haDardsK charge him "in one o! our courts# with murderK convict him and hang him. (! he should call upon his neighbors or any others who li9e him may be disposed to resist our demands and they should come in large numbers to his assistance cry out that they are all rebels and traitorsK that Oour countryO is in dangerK call upon the commander o! our hired murderersK tell him to @uell the rebellion and Osave the country O cost what it may. 5ell him to 9ill all who resist though they should be hundreds o! thousandsK and thus stri9e terror into all others similarly disposed. )ee that the wor9 o! murder is thoroughly doneK that we may have no !urther trouble o! this 9ind herea!ter. When these traitors shall have thus been taught our strength and our determination they will be good loyal citiDens !or many years and pay their ta=es without a why or a where!ore. (t is under such compulsion as this that ta=es so called are paid. And how much proo! the payment o! ta=es a!!ords that the people consent
20/

to Osupport the government O it needs no !urther argument to show. 2. )till another reason why the payment o! ta=es implies no consent or pledge to support the government is that the ta=payer does not 9now and has no means o! 9nowing who the particular individuals are who compose Othe government.O 5o him Othe governmentO is a myth an abstraction an incorporeality with which he can ma9e no contract and to which he can give no consent and ma9e no pledge. He 9nows it only through its pretended agents. O5he governmentO itsel! he never sees. He 9nows indeed by common report that certain persons o! a certain age are permitted to voteK and thus to ma9e themselves parts o! or "i! they choose# opponents o! the government !or the time being. *ut who o! them do thus vote and especially how each one votes "whether so as to aid or oppose the government# he does not 9nowK the voting being all done secretly "by secret ballot#. Who there!ore practically compose Othe government O !or the time being he has no means o! 9nowing. &! course he can ma9e no contract with them give them no consent and ma9e them no pledge. &! necessity there!ore his paying ta=es to them implies on his part no contract consent or pledge to support them J that is to support Othe government O or the Constitution. -. +ot 9nowing who the particular individuals are who call themselves Othe government O the ta=payer does not 9now whom he pays his ta=es to. All he 9nows is that a man comes to him representing himsel! to be the agent o! Othe governmentO J that is the agent o! a secret band o! robbers and murderers who have ta9en to themselves the title o! Othe government O and have determined to 9ill everybody who re!uses to give them whatever money they demand. 5o save his li!e he gives up his money to this agent. *ut as this agent does not ma9e his principals individually 9nown to the ta=payer the latter a!ter he has given up his money 9nows no more who are Othe governmentO J that is who were the robbers J than he did be!ore. 5o say there!ore that by giving up his money to their agent he entered into a voluntary contract with them that he pledges himsel! to obey them to support them and to give them whatever money they should demand o! him in the !uture is simply ridiculous. 1. All political power so called rests practically upon this matter o! money. Any number o! scoundrels having money enough to start with can establish themselves as a OgovernmentOK because with money they can hire soldiers and with soldiers e=tort more moneyK and also
2%0

compel general obedience to their will. (t is with government as Caesar said it was in war that money and soldiers mutually supported each otherK that with money he could hire soldiers and with soldiers e=tort money. )o these villains who call themselves governments well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers and with soldiers e=tort money. And when their authority is denied the !irst use they always ma9e o! money is to hire soldiers to 9ill or subdue all who re!use them more money. $or this reason whoever desires liberty should understand these vital !acts viD.. 1. 5hat every man who puts money into the hands o! a OgovernmentO "so called# puts into its hands a sword which will be used against him to e=tort more money !rom him and also to 9eep him in sub<ection to its arbitrary will. 2. 5hat those who will ta9e his money without his consent in the !irst place will use it !or his !urther robbery and enslavement i! he presumes to resist their demands in the !uture. -. 5hat it is a per!ect absurdity to suppose that any body o! men would ever ta9e a manFs money without his consent !or any such ob<ect as they pro!ess to ta9e it !or viD. that o! protecting himK !or why should they wish to protect him i! he does not wish them to do so7 5o suppose that they would do so is <ust as absurd as it would be to suppose that they would ta9e his money without his consent !or the purpose o! buying !ood or clothing !or him when he did not want it. 1. (! a man wants Oprotection O he is competent to ma9e his own bargains !or itK and nobody has any occasion to rob him in order to OprotectO him against his will. 3. 5hat the only security men can have !or their political liberty consists in their 9eeping their money in their own poc9ets until they have assurances per!ectly satis!actory to themselves that it will be used as they wish it to be used !or their bene!it and not !or their in<ury. 2. 5hat no government so called can reasonably be trusted !or a moment or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in view any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support. 5hese !acts are all so vital and so sel!,evident that it cannot reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a Ogovernment O !or the purpose o! securing its protection unless he !irst ma9e an e=plicit and purely voluntary contract with it !or that purpose. (t is per!ectly evident there!ore that neither such voting nor such payment o! ta=es as actually ta9es place proves anybodyFs consent or obligation to support the Constitution. Conse@uently we have no evidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody or that
2%1

anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And nobody is under any obligation to support it.

)uppose it be Othe best government on earth O does that prove its own goodness or only the badness o! all other governments7

2%2

Source 3 A Tho!as Hobbes Le#iathan

Part I5 6f *an5 Chapter <III 6f The Natural Condition 6f *an"ind As Concerning Their 7elicity And *isery +A5H84 hath made men so e@ual in the !aculties o! body and mind as that though there be !ound one man sometimes mani!estly stronger in body or o! @uic9er mind than another yet when all is rec9oned together the di!!erence between man and man is not so considerable as that one man can thereupon claim to himsel! any bene!it to which another may not pretend as well as he. $or as to the strength o! body the wea9est has strength enough to 9ill the strongest either by secret machination or by con!ederacy with others that are in the same danger with himsel!. And as to the !aculties o! the mind setting aside the arts grounded upon words and especially that s9ill o! proceeding upon general and in!allible rules called science which very !ew have and but in !ew things as being not a native !aculty born with us nor attained as prudence while we loo9 a!ter somewhat else ( !ind yet a greater e@uality amongst men than that o! strength. $or prudence is but e=perience which e@ual time e@ually bestows on all men in those things they e@ually apply themselves unto. 5hat which may perhaps ma9e such e@uality incredible is but a vain conceit o! oneFs own wisdom which almost all men thin9 they have in a greater degree than the vulgarK that is than all men but themselves and a !ew others whom by !ame or !or concurring with themselves they approve. $or such is the nature o! men that howsoever they may ac9nowledge many others to be more witty or more elo@uent or more learned yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselvesK !or they see their own wit at hand and other menFs at a distance. *ut this proveth rather that men are in that point e@ual than une@ual. $or there is not ordinarily a greater sign o! the e@ual distribution o! anything than that every man is contented with his share. $rom this e@uality o! ability ariseth e@uality o! hope in the attaining o!
2%-

our ends. And there!ore i! any two men desire the same thing which nevertheless they cannot both en<oy they become enemiesK and in the way to their end "which is principally their own conservation and sometimes their delectation only# endeavour to destroy or subdue one another. And !rom hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath no more to !ear than another manFs single power i! one plant sow build or possess a convenient seat others may probably be e=pected to come prepared with !orces united to dispossess and deprive him not only o! the !ruit o! his labour but also o! his li!e or liberty. And the invader again is in the li9e danger o! another. And !rom this di!!idence o! one another there is no way !or any man to secure himsel! so reasonable as anticipationK that is by !orce or wiles to master the persons o! all men he can so long till he see no other power great enough to endanger him. and this is no more than his own conservation re@uireth and is generally allowed. Also because there be some that ta9ing pleasure in contemplating their own power in the acts o! con@uest which they pursue !arther than their security re@uires i! others that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest bounds should not by invasion increase their power they would not be able long time by standing only on their de!ence to subsist. And by conse@uence such augmentation o! dominion over men being necessary to a manFs conservation it ought to be allowed him. Again men have no pleasure "but on the contrary a great deal o! grie!# in 9eeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all. $or every man loo9eth that his companion should value him at the same rate he sets upon himsel! and upon all signs o! contempt or undervaluing naturally endeavours as !ar as he dares "which amongst them that have no common power to 9eep them in @uiet is !ar enough to ma9e them destroy each other# to e=tort a greater value !rom his contemners by damageK and !rom others by the e=ample. )o that in the nature o! man we !ind three principal causes o! @uarrel. $irst competitionK secondly di!!idenceK thirdly glory. 5he !irst ma9eth men invade !or gainK the second !or sa!etyK and the third !or reputation. 5he !irst use violence to ma9e themselves masters o! other menFs persons wives children and cattleK the second to de!end themK the third !or tri!les as a word a smile a di!!erent opinion and any other sign o! undervalue either direct in their persons or by re!lection in their 9indred their !riends their nation their pro!ession or their name.
2%1

Hereby it is mani!est that during the time men live without a common power to 9eep them all in awe they are in that condition which is called warK and such a war as is o! every man against every man. $or war consisteth not in battle only or the act o! !ighting but in a tract o! time wherein the will to contend by battle is su!!iciently 9nown. and there!ore the notion o! time is to be considered in the nature o! war as it is in the nature o! weather. $or as the nature o! !oul weather lieth not in a shower or two o! rain but in an inclination thereto o! many days together. so the nature o! war consisteth not in actual !ighting but in the 9nown disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace. Whatsoever there!ore is conse@uent to a time o! war where every man is enemy to every man the same conse@uent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall !urnish them withal. (n such condition there is no place !or industry because the !ruit thereo! is uncertain. and conse@uently no culture o! the earthK no navigation nor use o! the commodities that may be imported by seaK no commodious buildingK no instruments o! moving and removing such things as re@uire much !orceK no 9nowledge o! the !ace o! the earthK no account o! timeK no artsK no lettersK no societyK and which is worst o! all continual !ear and danger o! violent deathK and the li!e o! man solitary poor nasty brutish and short. (t may seem strange to some man that has not well weighed these things that +ature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade and destroy one another. and he may there!ore not trusting to this in!erence made !rom the passions desire perhaps to have the same con!irmed by e=perience. Let him there!ore consider with himsel!. when ta9ing a <ourney he arms himsel! and see9s to go well accompaniedK when going to sleep he loc9s his doorsK when even in his house he loc9s his chestsK and this when he 9nows there be laws and public o!!icers armed to revenge all in<uries shall be done himK what opinion he has o! his !ellow sub<ects when he rides armedK o! his !ellow citiDens when he loc9s his doorsK and o! his children and servants when he loc9s his chests. :oes he not there as much accuse man9ind by his actions as ( do by my words7 *ut neither o! us accuse manFs nature in it. 5he desires and other passions o! man are in themselves no sin. +o more are the actions that proceed !rom those passions till they 9now a law that !orbids themK which till laws be made they cannot 9now nor can any law be made till they have agreed upon the person that shall ma9e it.
2%3

(t may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition o! war as thisK and ( believe it was never generally so over all the world. but there are many places where they live so now. $or the savage people in many places o! America e=cept the government o! small !amilies the concord whereo! dependeth on natural lust have no government at all and live at this day in that brutish manner as ( said be!ore. Howsoever it may be perceived what manner o! li!e there would be where there were no common power to !ear by the manner o! li!e which men that have !ormerly lived under a peace!ul government use to degenerate into a civil war. *ut though there had never been any time wherein particular men were in a condition o! war one against another yet in all times 9ings and persons o! sovereign authority because o! their independency are in continual <ealousies and in the state and posture o! gladiators having their weapons pointing and their eyes !i=ed on one anotherK that is their !orts garrisons and guns upon the !rontiers o! their 9ingdoms and continual spies upon their neighbours which is a posture o! war. *ut because they uphold thereby the industry o! their sub<ects there does not !ollow !rom it that misery which accompanies the liberty o! particular men. 5o this war o! every man against every man this also is conse@uentK that nothing can be un<ust. 5he notions o! right and wrong <ustice and in<ustice have there no place. Where there is no common power there is no lawK where no law no in<ustice. $orce and !raud are in war the two cardinal virtues. 6ustice and in<ustice are none o! the !aculties neither o! the body nor mind. (! they were they might be in a man that were alone in the world as well as his senses and passions. 5hey are @ualities that relate to men in society not in solitude. (t is conse@uent also to the same condition that there be no propriety no dominion no mine and thine distinctK but only that to be every manFs that he can get and !or so long as he can 9eep it. And thus much !or the ill condition which man by mere nature is actually placed inK though with a possibility to come out o! it consisting partly in the passions partly in his reason. 5he passions that incline men to peace are. !ear o! deathK desire o! such things as are necessary to commodious livingK and a hope by their industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth convenient articles o! peace upon which men may be drawn to agreement. 5hese articles are they which otherwise are called the laws o! nature whereo!
2%2

( shall spea9 more particularly in the two !ollowing chapters.

2%0

Source 3 % ?usta#e de *olinari The Production of Security1

5here are two ways o! considering society. According to some the development o! human associations is not sub<ect to providential unchangeable laws. 8ather these associations having originally been organiDed in a purely arti!icial manner by primeval legislators can later be modi!ied or remade by other legislators in step with the progress o! social science. (n this system the government plays a preeminent role because it is upon it the custodian o! the principle o! authority that the daily tas9 o! modi!ying and rema9ing society devolves. According to others on the contrary society is a purely natural !act. Li9e the earth on which it stands society moves in accordance with general pree=isting laws. (n this system there is no such thing strictly spea9ing as social scienceK there is only economic science which studies the natural organism o! society and shows how this organism !unctions. We propose to e=amine within the latter system the !unction and natural organiDation o! government. TH) NATD(AL 6( )( 67 S6CI)TC (n order to de!ine and delimit the !unction o! government it is !irst necessary to investigate the essence and ob<ect o! society itsel!. What natural impulse do men obey when they combine into society7 5hey are obeying the impulse or to spea9 more e=actly the instinct o! sociability. 5he human race is essentially sociable. Li9e beavers and the higher animal species in general men have an instinctive inclination to live in society. Why did this instinct come into being7 ;an e=periences a multitude o! needs on whose satis!action his happiness depends and whose non,satis!action entails su!!ering. Alone and isolated he could only provide in an incomplete insu!!icient manner !or these incessant needs. 5he instinct o! sociability brings him
2%%

together with similar persons and drives him into communication with them. 5here!ore impelled by the self4interest o! the individuals thus brought together a certain division of labor is established necessarily !ollowed by exchanges. (n brie! we see an organization emerge by means o! which man can more completely satis!y his needs than he could living in isolation. 5his natural organiDation is called society. 5he ob<ect o! society is there!ore the most complete satis!action o! manXs needs. 5he division o! labor and e=change are the means by which this is accomplished. Among the needs o! man there is one particular type which plays an immense role in the history o! humanity namely the need !or security. What is this need7 Whether they live in isolation or in society men are above all interested in preserving their e=istence and the !ruits o! their labor. (! the sense o! <ustice were universally prevalent on earthK i! conse@uently each man con!ined himsel! to laboring and e=changing the !ruits o! his labor without wishing to ta9e away by violence or !raud the !ruits o! other menXs laborK i! everyone had in one word an instinctive horror o! any act harm!ul to another person it is certain that security would e=ist naturally on earth and that no arti!icial institution would be necessary to establish it. Hn!ortunately this is not the way things are. 5he sense o! <ustice seems to be the per@uisite o! only a !ew eminent and e=ceptional temperaments. Among the in!erior races it e=ists only in a rudimentary state. Hence the innumerable criminal attempts ever since the beginning o! the world since the days o! Cain and Abel against the lives and property o! individuals. Hence also the creation o! establishments whose ob<ect is to guarantee to everyone the peace!ul possession o! his person and his goods. 5hese establishments were called governments. 4verywhere even among the least enlightened tribes one encounters a government so universal and urgent is the need !or security provided by government. 4verywhere men resign themselves to the most e=treme sacri!ices rather than do without government and hence security without realiDing that in so doing they mis<udge their alternatives.
2%/

)uppose that a man !ound his person and his means o! survival incessantly menacedK wouldnXt his !irst and constant preoccupation be to protect himsel! !rom the dangers that surround him7 5his preoccupation these e!!orts this labor would necessarily absorb the greater portion o! his time as well as the most energetic and active !aculties o! his intelligence. (n conse@uence he could only devote insu!!icient and uncertain e!!orts and his divided attention to the satis!action o! his other needs. 4ven though this man might be as9ed to surrender a very considerable portion o! his time and o! his labor to someone who ta9es it upon himsel! to guarantee the peace!ul possession o! his person and his goods wouldnXt it be to his advantage to conclude this bargain7 )till it would obviously be no less in his sel!,interest to procure his security at the lowest price possible. C6*P)TITI6N IN S)CD(ITC (! there is one well,established truth in political economy it is this. 9hat in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the tangible or intangible needs of the consumer, it is in the consumerEs best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of labor and of trade have as their necessary and permanent result the maximum reduction of price. And this. 9hat the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever should always prevail over the interests of the producer. +ow in pursuing these principles conclusion. one arrives at this rigorous

9hat the production of security should, in the interests of the consumers of this intangible commodity, remain sub$ect to the law of free competition. Whence it !ollows. 9hat no government should have the right to prevent another government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.

2/0

+evertheless ( must admit that up until the present one recoiled be!ore this rigorous implication o! the principle o! !ree competition. &ne economist who has done as much as anyone to e=tend the application o! the principle o! liberty ;. Charles :unoyer thin9s Lthat the !unctions o! government will never be able to !all into the domain o! private activity.M2 +ow here is a citation o! a clear and obvious e=ception to the principle o! !ree competition. 5his e=ception is all the more remar9able !or being uni@ue. Hndoubtedly one can !ind economists who establish more numerous e=ceptions to this principleK but we may emphatically a!!irm that these are not pure economists. 5rue economists are generally agreed on the one hand that the government should restrict itsel! to guaranteeing the security o! its citiDens and on the other hand that the !reedom o! labor and o! trade should otherwise be whole and absolute. *ut why should there be an e=ception relative to security7 What special reason is there that the production o! security cannot be relegated to !ree competition7 Why should it be sub<ected to a di!!erent principle and organiDed according to a di!!erent system7 &n this point the masters o! the science are silent and ;. :unoyer who has clearly noted this e=ception does not investigate the grounds on which it is based. S)CD(ITC AN )<C)PTI6NWe are conse@uently led to as9 ourselves whether his e=ception is well !ounded in the eyes o! the economist. (t o!!ends reason to believe that a well established natural law can admit o! e=ceptions. A natural law must hold everywhere and always or be invalid. ( cannot believe !or e=ample that the universal law o! gravitation which governs the physical world is ever suspended in any instance or at any point o! the universe. +ow ( consider economic laws comparable to natural laws and ( have <ust as much !aith in the principle o! the division o! labor as ( have in the universal law o! gravitation. ( believe that while these principles can be disturbed they admit o! no e=ceptions.

2/1

*ut i! this is the case the production o! security should not be removed !rom the <urisdiction o! !ree competitionK and i! it is removed society as a whole su!!ers a loss. 4ither this is logical and true or else the principles on which economic science is based are invalid. TH) ALT)(NATI')S (t thus has been demonstrated a priori to those o! us who have !aith in the principles o! economic science that the e=ception indicated above is not <usti!ied and that the production o! security li9e anything else should be sub<ect to the law o! !ree competition. &nce we have ac@uired this conviction what remains !or us to do7 (t remains !or us to investigate how it has come about that the production o! security has not been sub<ected to the law o! !ree competition but rather has been sub<ected to di!!erent principles. What are those principles7 5hose o! monopoly and communism. (n the entire world there is not a single establishment o! the security industry that is not based on monopoly or on communism. (n this connection we add in passing a simple remar9. 'olitical economy has disapproved e@ually o! monopoly and communism in the various branches o! human activity wherever it has !ound them. (s it not then strange and unreasonable that it accepts them in the security industry7 *6N6P6LC AN C6**DNIS*

Let us now e=amine how it is that all 9nown governments have either been sub<ected to the law o! monopoly or else organiDed according to the communistic principle. $irst let us investigate what is understood by the words monopoly and communism. (t is an observable truth that the more urgent and necessary are manXs needs the greater will be the sacri!ices he will be willing to endure in
2/2

order to satis!y them. +ow there are some things that are !ound abundantly in nature and whose production does not re@uire a great e=penditure o! labor but which since they satis!y these urgent and necessary wants can conse@uently ac@uire an e=change value all out o! proportion with their natural value. 5a9e salt !or e=ample. )uppose that a man or a group o! men succeed in having the e=clusive production and sale o! salt assigned to themselves. (t is apparent that this man or group could arise the price o! this commodity well above its value well above the price it would have under a regime o! !ree competition. &ne will then say that this man or this group possesses a monopoly and that the price o! salt is a monopoly price. *ut it is obvious that the consumers will not consent !reely to paying the abusive monopoly surta=. (t will be necessary to compel them to pay it and in order to compel them the employment o! !orce will be necessary. 4very monopoly necessarily rests on !orce. When the monopolists are no longer as strong as the consumers they e=ploit what happens7 (n every instance the monopoly !inally disappears either violently or as the outcome o! an amicable transaction. What is it replaced with7 (! the roused and insurgent consumers secure the means o! production o! the salt industry in all probability they will con!iscate this industry !or their own pro!it and their !irst thought will be not to relegate it to !ree competition but rather to e=ploit it in common !or their own account. 5hey will then name a director or a directive committee to operate the saltwor9s to whom they will allocate the !unds necessary to de!ray the costs o! salt production. 5hen since the e=perience o! the past will have made them suspicious and distrust!ul since they will be a!raid that the director named by them will seiDe production !or his own bene!it and simply reconstitute by open or hidden means the old monopoly !or his own pro!it they will elect delegates representatives entrusted with appropriating the !unds necessary !or production with watching over their use and with ma9ing sure that the salt produced is e@ually distributed to those entitled to it. 5he production o! salt will be organiDed in this manner. 5his !orm o! the organiDation o! production has been named
2/-

communism. When this organiDation is applied to a single commodity communism is said to be partial. the

When it is applied to all commodities the communism is said to be complete. *ut whether communism is partial or complete political economy is no more tolerant o! it than it is o! monopoly o! which it is merely an e=tension. TH) *6N6P6LIKATI6N S)CD(ITC IN DST(C AN C6LL)CTI'IKATI6N 67 TH)

(snXt what has <ust been said about salt applicable to security7 (snXt this the history o! all monarchies and all republics7 4verywhere the production o! security began by being organiDed as a monopoly and everywhere nowadays it tends to be organiDed communistically. Here is why. Among the tangible and intangible commodities necessary to man none with the possible e=ception o! wheat is more indispensable and there!ore none can support @uite so large a monopoly duty. +or is any @uite so prone to monopoliDation. What indeed is the situation o! men who need security7 Wea9ness. What is the situation o! those who underta9e to provide them with this necessary security7 )trength. (! it were otherwise i! the consumers o! security were stronger than the producers they obviously would dispense with their assistance. +ow i! the producers o! security are originally stronger than the consumers wonXt it be easy !or the !ormer to impose a monopoly on the latter7 4verywhere when societies originate we see the strongest most warli9e races seiDing the e=clusive government o! the society. 4verywhere we see these races seiDing a monopoly on security within certain more or less e=tensive boundaries depending on their number and strength.
2/1

And this monopoly being by its very nature e=traordinarily pro!itable everywhere we see the races invested with the monopoly on security devoting themselves to bitter struggles in order to add to the extent of their market the number o! their forced consumers and hence the amount o! their gains. War has been the necessary and inevitable conse@uence o! the establishment o! a monopoly on security. Another inevitable conse@uence has been that this monopoly has engendered all other monopolies. When they saw the situation o! the monopoliDers o! security the producers o! other commodities could not help but notice that nothing in the world is more advantageous than monopoly. 5hey in turn were conse@uently tempted to add to the gains !rom their own industry by the same process. *ut what did they re@uire in order to monopoliDe to the detriment o! the consumers the commodity they produced7 5hey re@uired !orce. However they did not possess the !orce necessary to constrain the consumers in @uestion. What did they do7 5hey borrowed it !or a consideration !rom those who had it. 5hey petitioned and obtained at the price o! an agreed upon !ee the e=clusive privilege o! carrying on their industry within certain determined boundaries. )ince the !ees !or these privileges brought the producers o! security a goodly sum o! money the world was soon covered with monopolies. Labor and trade were everywhere shac9led enchained and the condition o! the masses remained as miserable as possible. +evertheless a!ter long centuries o! su!!ering as enlightenment spread through the world little by little the masses who had been smothered under this ne=us o! privileges began to rebel against the privileged and to demand liberty that is to say the suppression o! monopolies. 5his process too9 many !orms. What happened in 4ngland !or e=ample7 &riginally the race which governed the country and which was militarily organiDed "the aristocracy# having at its head a hereditary leader "the 9ing# and an e@ually hereditary administrative council "the House o! Lords# set the price o! security which it had monopoliDed at whatever rate it pleased. 5here was no negotiation between the producers o! security and the consumers. 5his was the rule o! absolutism. *ut as time passed the consumers having become aware o! their numbers and strength arose against the purely arbitrary regime and they obtained the right to negotiate with the producers over
2/3

the price o! the commodity. $or this purpose they sent delegates to the 1ouse of ,ommons to discuss the level o! ta=es the price o! security. 5hey were thus able to improve their lot somewhat. +evertheless the producers o! security had a direct say in the naming o! the members o! the House o! Commons so that debate was not entirely open and the price o! the commodity remained above its natural value. &ne day the e=ploited consumers rose against the producers and dispossessed them o! their industry. 5hey then undertoo9 to carry on this industry by themselves and chose !or this purpose a director o! operations assisted by a Council. 5hus communism replaced monopoly. *ut the scheme did not wor9 and twenty years later primitive monopoly was re, established. &nly this time the monopolists were wise enough not to restore the rule o! absolutismK they accepted !ree debate over ta=es being care!ul all the while incessantly to corrupt the delegates o! the opposition party. 5hey gave these delegates control over various posts in the administration o! security and they even went so !ar as to allow the most in!luential into the bosom o! their superior Council. +othing could have been more clever than this behavior. +evertheless the consumers o! security !inally became aware o! these abuses and demanded the re!orm o! 'arliament. 5his long contested re!orm was !inally achieved and since that time the consumers have won a signi!icant lightening o! their burdens. (n $rance the monopoly on security a!ter having similarly undergone !re@uent vicissitudes and various modi!ications has <ust been overthrown !or the second time. \:e ;olinari was writing one year a!ter the revolutions o! 1%1% J 5r.] As once happened in 4ngland monopoly !or the bene!it o! one caste and then in the name o! a certain class o! society was !inally replaced by communal production. 5he consumers as a whole behaving li9e shareholders named a director responsible !or supervising the actions o! the director and o! his administration. We will content ourselves with ma9ing one simple observation on the sub<ect o! this new regime. 6ust as the monopoly on security logically had to spawn universal monopoly so communistic security must logically spawn universal communism. (n reality we have a choice o! two things. 4ither communistic production is superior to !ree production or it is not. (! it is then it must be !or all things not <ust !or security.
2/2

(! not progress re@uires that it be replaced by !ree production. Complete communism or complete liberty. that is the alternativeQ ?6')(N*)NT AN S6CI)TC

*ut is it conceivable that the production o! security could be organiDed other than as a monopoly or communistically7 Could it conceivably be relegated to !ree competition7 5he response to this @uestion on the part o! political writers is unanimous. +o. Why7 We will tell you why. *ecause these writers who are concerned especially with governments 9now nothing about society. 5hey regard it as an arti!icial !abrication and believe that the mission o! government is to modi!y and rema9e it constantly. +ow in order to modi!y or rema9e society it is necessary to be empowered with a authority superior to that o! the various individuals o! which it is composed. ;onopolistic governments claim to have obtained !rom Aod himsel! this authority which gives them the right to modi!y or rema9e society according to their !ancy and to dispose o! persons and property however they please. Communistic governments appeal to human reason as mani!ested in the ma<ority o! the sovereign people. *ut do monopolistic governments and communistic governments truly possess this superior irresistible authority7 :o they in reality have a higher authority than that which a !ree government could have7 5his is what we must investigate. TH) I'IN) (I?HT 67 =IN?S AN *A,6(ITI)S (! it were true that society were not naturally organiDed i! it were true that the laws which govern its motion were to be constantly modi!ied or remade the legislators would necessarily have to have an immutable sacred authority. *eing the continuators o! 'rovidence on earth they would have to be regarded as almost e@ual to Aod. (! it were otherwise would it not be impossible !or them to !ul!ill their mission7 (ndeed one cannot intervene in human a!!airs one cannot attempt to direct and
2/0

regulate them without daily o!!ending a multitude o! interests. Hnless those in power are believed to have a mandate !rom a superior entity the in<ured interests will resist. Whence the !iction o! divine right. 5his !iction was certainly the best imaginable. (! you succeed in persuading the multitude that Aod himsel! has chosen certain men or certain races to give laws to society and to govern it no one will dream o! revolting against these appointees o! 'rovidence and everything the government does will be accepted. A government based on divine right is imperishable. &n one condition only namely that divine right is believed in. (! one ta9es the thought into oneXs head that the leaders o! the people do not receive their inspirations directly !rom providence itsel! that they obey purely human impulses the prestige that surrounds them will disappear. &ne will irreverently resist their sovereign decisions as one resists anything manmade whose utility has not been clearly demonstrated. (t is accordingly !ascinating to see the pains theoreticians o! the divine right ta9e to establish the superhumanity o! the races in possession o! human government. Let us listen !or e=ample to ;. 6oseph de ;aistre. ;an does not ma9e sovereigns. At the very most he can serve as an instrument !or dispossessing one sovereign and handing his )tate over to another sovereign himsel! already a prince. ;oreover there has never e=isted a sovereign !amily traceable to plebeian origins. (! this phenomenon were to appear it would mar9 a new epoch on earth. ... (t is written. I am the 0aker of sovereigns . 5his is not <ust a religious slogan a preacherXs metaphorK it is the literal truth pure and simpleK it is a law o! the political world. Aod makes 9ings word !or word. He prepares royal races nurtures them at the center o! a cloud which hides their origins. $inally they appear crowned with glory and honor K they ta9e their places.-

2/%

According to this system which embodies the will o! 'rovidence in certain men and which invests these chosen ones these anointed ones with a @uasi,divine authority the sub$ects evidently have no rights at all. 5hey must submit without question to the decrees o! the sovereign authority as i! they were the decrees o! 'rovidence itsel!. According to 'lutarch the body is the instrument o! the soul and the soul is the instrument o! Aod. According to the divine right school Aod selects certain souls and uses them as instruments !or governing the world. (! men had faith in this theory government based on divine right. Why7 *ecause one !ine day they too9 it into their heads to @uestion and to reason and in @uestioning in reasoning they discovered that their governors governed them no better than they simply mortals out o! communication with 'rovidence could have done themselves. (t was free inquiry that demonetiDed the !iction o! divine right to the point where the sub<ects o! monarchs or o! aristocracies based on divine right obey them only inso!ar as they thin9 it in their own self4 interest to obey them. Has the communist !iction !ared any better7 According to the communist theory o! which 8ousseau is the high, priest authority does not descend !rom on high but rather comes up !rom below. 5he government no longer loo9 to 'rovidence !or its authority it loo9s to united man9ind to the one, indivisible, and sovereign nation. Here is what the communists the partisans o! popular sovereignty assume. 5hey assume that human reason has the power to discover the best laws and the organiDation which most per!ectly suits societyK and that in practice these laws reveal themselves at the conclusion o! a !ree debate between con!licting opinions. (! there is no unanimity i! there is still dissension a!ter the debate the ma<ority is in the right since it comprises the larger number o! reasonable individuals. "5hese individuals are o! course assumed to be e@ual otherwise the whole structure collapses.# Conse@uently they insist that the decisions o! the
2//

surely nothing could unsettle a

Hn!ortunately they have completely lost !aith.

ma<ority must become law and that the minority is obliged to submit to it even i! it is contrary to its most deeply rooted convictions and in<ures its most precious interests. 5hat is the theoryK but in practice does the authority o! the decision o! the ma<ority really have this irresistible absolute character as assumed7 (s it always in every instance respected by the minority7 Could it be7 Let us ta9e an e=ample. Let us suppose that socialism succeeds in propagating itsel! among the wor9ing classes in the countryside as it has already among the wor9ing classes in the citiesK that it conse@uently becomes the ma<ority in the country and that pro!iting !rom this situation it sends a socialist ma<ority to the Legislative Assembly and names a socialist president. )uppose that this ma<ority and this president invested with sovereign authority decrees the imposition o! a ta= on the rich o! three billions in order to organiDe the labor o! the poor as ;. 'roudhon demanded. (s it probable that the minority would submit peace!ully to his ini@uitous and absurd yet legal yet constitutional plunder7 +o without a doubt it would not hesitate to disown the authority o! the ma<ority and to de!end its property. Hnder this regime as under the preceding one obeys the custodians o! authority only inso!ar as one thin9s it in oneXs sel!,interest to obey them. 5his leads us to a!!irm that the moral !oundation o! authority is neither as solid nor as wide under a regime o! monopoly or o! communism as it could be under a regime o! liberty. TH) ()?I*) 67 T)((6( )uppose nevertheless that the partisans o! an artificial organization either the monopolists or the communists are rightK that society is not naturally organiDed and that the tas9 o! ma9ing and unma9ing the laws that regulate society continuously devolves upon men loo9 in what a lamentable situation the world would !ind itsel!. 5he moral authority o! governors rests in reality on the sel!,interest o! the governed. 5he latter having a natural tendency to resist anything harm!ul to their sel!, interest unac9nowledged authority would continually re@uire the help
-00

o! physical !orce. 5he monopolist and the understand this necessity. communists !urthermore completely

(! anyone says ;. de ;aistre attempts to detract !rom the authority o! AodXs chosen ones let him be turned over to the secular power let the hangman per!orm his o!!ice. (! anyone does not recogniDe the authority o! those chosen by the people say the theoreticians o! the school o! 8ousseau i! he resists any decision whatsoever o! the ma<ority let him be punished as an enemy o! the sovereign people let the guillotine per!orm <ustice. 5hese two schools which both ta9e artificial organization as their point o! departure necessarily lead to the same conclusion. 5488&8. TH) 7()) *A(=)T 76( S)CD(ITC Allow us now to !ormulate a simple hypothetical situation. Let us imagine a new,born society. 5he men who compose it are busy wor9ing and e=changing the !ruits o! their labor. A natural instinct reveals to these men that their persons the land they occupy and cultivate the !ruits o! their labor are their property and that no one e=cept themselves has the right to dispose o! or touch this property. 5his instinct is not hypotheticalK it e=ists. *ut man being an imper!ect creature this awareness o! the right o! everyone to his person and his goods will not be !ound to the same degree in every soul and certain individuals will ma9e criminal attempts by violence or by !raud against the persons or the property o! others. Hence the need !or an industry that prevents or suppresses these !orcible or !raudulent aggressions. Let us suppose that a man or a combination o! men comes and says. $or a recompense ( will underta9e to prevent or suppress criminal attempts against persons and property. Let those who wish their persons and property to be sheltered !rom all aggression apply to me. *e!ore stri9ing a bargain with this producer of security what will the consumers do7
-01

(n the !irst place they will chec9 i! he is really strong enough to protect them. (n the second place whether his character is such that they will not have to worry about his instigating the very aggressions he is supposed to suppress. (n the third place whether any other producer o! security o!!ering e@ual guarantees is disposed to o!!er them this commodity on better terms. 5hese terms are o! various 9inds. (n order to be able to guarantee the consumers !ull security o! their persons and property and in case o! harm to give them a compensation proportioned to the loss su!!ered it would be necessary indeed. 1. 5hat the producer establish certain penalties against the o!!enders o! persons and the violators o! property and that the consumers agree to submit to these penalties in case they themselves commit o!!ensesK 2. 5hat he impose certain inconveniences on the consumers with the ob<ect o! !acilitating the discovery o! the authors o! o!!ensesK -. 5hat he regularly gather in order to cover his costs o! production as well as an appropriate return !or his e!!orts a certain sum variable according to the situation o! the consumers the particular occupations they engage in and the e=tent value and nature o! their properties. (! these terms necessary !or carrying on this industry are agreeable to the consumers a bargain will be struc9. &therwise the consumers will either do without security or else apply to another producer. +ow i! we consider the particular nature o! the security industry it is apparent that the producers will necessarily restrict their clientele to certain territorial boundaries. 5hey would be unable to cover their costs i! they tried to provide police services in localities comprising only a !ew clients. 5heir clientele will naturally be clustered around the center o! their activities. 5hey would nevertheless be unable to abuse this situation by dictating to the consumers. (n the event o! an abusive rise in the price o! security the consumers would always have the option o! giving their patronage to a new entrepreneur or to a neighboring entrepreneur. 5his option the consumer retains o! being able to buy security wherever he pleases brings about a constant emulation among all the
-02

producers each producer striving to maintain or augment his clientele with the attraction o! cheapness or o! !aster more complete and better <ustice.1 (! on the contrary the consumer is not !ree to buy security wherever he pleases you !orthwith see open up a large pro!ession dedicated to arbitrariness and bad management. 6ustice becomes slow and costly the police ve=atious individual liberty is no longer respected the price o! security is abusively in!lated and ine@uitably apportioned according to the power and in!luence o! this or that class o! consumers. 5he protectors engage in bitter struggles to wrest customers !rom one another. (n a word all the abuses inherent in monopoly or in communism crop up. Hnder the rule o! !ree competition war between the producers o! security entirely loses its <usti!ication. Why would they ma9e war7 5o con@uer consumers7 *ut the consumers would not allow themselves to be con@uered. 5hey would be care!ul not to allow themselves to be protected by men who would unscrupulously attac9 the persons and property o! their rivals. (! some audacious con@ueror tried to become dictator they would immediately call to their aid all the !ree consumers menaced by this aggression and they would treat him as he deserved. 6ust as war is the natural conse@uence o! monopoly peace is the natural conse@uence o! liberty. Hnder a regime o! liberty the natural organiDation o! the security industry would not be di!!erent !rom that o! other industries. (n small districts a single entrepreneur could su!!ice. 5his entrepreneur might leave his business to his son or sell it to another entrepreneur. (n larger districts one company by itsel! would bring together enough resources ade@uately to carry on this important and di!!icult business. (! it were well managed this company could easily last and security would last with it. (n the security industry <ust as in most o! the other branches o! production the latter mode o! organiDation will probably replace the !ormer in the end. &n the one hand this would be a monarchy and on the other hand it would be a republicK but it would be a monarchy without monopoly and a republic without communism. &n either hand this authority would be accepted and respected in the name o! utility and would not be an authority imposed by terror. (t will undoubtedly be disputed whether such a hypothetical situation is
-0-

realiDable. *ut at the ris9 o! being considered utopian we a!!irm that this is not disputable that a care!ul e=amination o! the !acts will decide the problem o! government more and more in !avor o! liberty <ust as it does all other economic problems. We are convinced so !ar as we are concerned that one day societies will be established to agitate !or the freedom of government as they have already been established on behal! o! the !reedom o! commerce. And we do not hesitate to add that a!ter this re!orm has been achieved and all arti!icial obstacles to the !ree action o! the natural laws that govern the economic world have disappeared the situation o! the various members o! society will become the best possible. Notes
1

Although this article may appear utopian in its conclusions we nevertheless believe that we should publish it in order to attract the attention o! economists and <ournalists to a @uestion which has hitherto been treated in only a desultory manner and which should nevertheless in our day and age be approached with greater precision. )o many people e=aggerate the nature and prerogatives o! government that it has become use!ul to !ormulate strictly the boundaries outside o! which the intervention o! authority becomes anarchical and tyrannical rather than protective and pro!itable. \+ote o! the editor,in,chie! o! the .ournal des @conomistes 1%1/.]
2

(n his remar9able boo9 'e la libert3 du travail "8n the 5reedom of -abor# ?ol. ((( p. 23-. "'ublished by Auillaumin.#
-

'u principe g3n3rateur des constitutions politiques . "8n the (enerating +rinciple of +olitical ,onstitutions .# 're!ace.
1

Adam )mith whose remar9able spirit o! observation e=tends to all sub<ects remar9s that the administration o! <ustice gained much in 4ngland !rom the competition between the di!!erent courts o! law. 5he !ees o! court seem originally to have been the principal support o! the di!!erent courts o! <ustice in 4ngland. 4ach court endeavoured to draw to itsel! as much business as it could and was upon that account willing to ta9e cogniDance o! many suits which were not originally intended to !all under its <urisdiction. 5he court o! 9ingXs bench instituted !or the trial o! criminal causes only too9
-01

cogniDance o! civil suitsK the plainti!! pretending that the de!endant in not doing him <ustice had been guilty o! some trespass or misdemeanor. 5he court o! e=che@uer instituted !or the levying o! the 9ingXs revenue and !or en!orcing the payment o! such debts only as were due to the 9ing too9 cogniDance o! all other contract debtsK the plainti!! alleging that he could not pay the 9ing because the de!endant would not pay him. (n conse@uence o! such !ictions it came in many case to depend altogether upon the parties be!ore what court they would chuse to have their cause triedK and each court endeavoured by superior dispatch and impartiality to draw to itsel! as many causes as it could. 5he present admirable constitution o! the courts o! <ustice in 4ngland was perhaps originally in a great measure !ormed by this emulation which anciently too9 place between their respective <udgesK each <udge endeavouring to give in his own court the speediest and most e!!ectual remedy which the law would admit !or every sort o! in<ustice. J 9he ;ealth of /ations "+ew Gor9. ;odern Library 1/-0K originally 1002# p. 20/. &riginally published as L:e la production de la sBcuritB M in .ournal des @conomistes "$eb 1%1/# pp. 200,/0.

-03

Source 3C Hans2Her!ann Hoppe ?o#ern!ent and the Pri#ate Production of efense

It is the %ight of the +eople to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new (overnment, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their &afety and 1appiness. J :eclaration o! (ndependence ( Among the most popular and conse@uential belie!s o! our age is the belie! in collective security. +othing less signi!icant than the legitimacy o! the modern state rests on this belie!. ( will demonstrate that the idea o! collective security is a myth that provides no <usti!ication !or the modern state and that all security is and must be private. $irst ( will present a two,step reconstruction o! the myth o! collective security and at each step ( will raise a !ew theoretical concerns. 5he myth o! collective security can also be called the Hobbesian myth. 5homas Hobbes and countless political philosophers and economists a!ter him argued that in the state o! nature men would constantly be at each othersX throats. 1omo homini lupus est. 'ut in modern <argon in the state o! nature a permanent LunderproductionM o! security would prevail. 4ach individual le!t to his own devices and provisions would spend Ltoo littleM on his own de!ense resulting in permanent interpersonal war!are. 5he solution to this presumably intolerable situation according to Hobbes and his !ollowers is the establishment o! a state. (n order to institute peace!ul cooperation among themselves two individuals A and * re@uire a third independent party ) as ultimate <udge and peacema9er. However this third party ) is not <ust another individual and the good provided by ) that o! security is not <ust another LprivateM good. 8ather ) is a sovereign and has as such two uni@ue powers. &n the one hand ) can insist that his sub$ects A and * not see9 protection !rom anyone but himK that is ) is a compulsory territorial monopolist o! protection. &n the other hand ) can determine unilaterally how much A and * must spend on their own
-02

securityK that is ) has the power to impose ta=es in order to provide security Lcollectively.M 5here is little use in @uarreling over whether or not man is as bad and wol!,li9e as Hobbes supposes e=cept to note that HobbesXs thesis obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and e=clusively by aggressive instincts. (! this were the case man9ind would have died out long ago. 5he !act that he did not demonstrates that man also possesses reason and is capable o! constraining his natural impulses. 5he @uarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. (iven manXs nature as a rational animal is the proposed solution to the problem o! insecurity an improvement7 Can the institution o! a state reduce aggressive behavior and promote peace!ul cooperation and thus provide !or better private security and protection7 5he di!!iculties with HobbesXs argument are obvious. $or one regardless o! how bad men are ) J whether 9ing dictator or elected president J is still one o! them. ;anXs nature is not trans!ormed upon becoming ). Get how can there be better protection !or A and * i! ) must ta= them in order to provide it7 (s there not a contradiction within the very construction o! ) as an e=propriating property protector7 (n !act is this not e=actly what is also J and more appropriately J re!erred to as a protection racket7 5o be sure ) will ma9e peace between A and * but only so that he himsel! can rob both o! them more pro!itably. )urely ) is better protected but the more he is protected the less A and * are protected !rom attac9s by ). Collective security it would seem is not better than private security. 8ather it is the private security o! the state ) achieved through the e=propriation i.e. the economic disarmament o! its sub<ects. $urther statists !rom 5homas Hobbes to 6ames *uchanan have argued that a protective state ) would come about as the result o! some sort o! LconstitutionalM contract.1 Get who in his right mind would agree to a contract that allowed oneXs protector to determine unilaterally J and irrevocably J the sum that the protected must pay !or his protection7 5he fact is no one ever hasQ2 Let me interrupt my discussion and return to the reconstruction o! the Hobbesian myth. &nce it is assumed that in order to institute peace!ul cooperation between A and * it is necessary to have a state ) a two!old conclusion !ollows. (! more than one state e=ists J )1 )2 )- J then <ust as there can presumably be no peace among A and * without ) so can there be no peace between the states )1 )2 and )as long as they remain in a state o! nature "i.e. a state o! anarchy# with
-00

regard to each other. Conse@uently in order to achieve universal peace political centraliDation uni!ication and ultimately the establishment o! a single world government are necessary. (t is use!ul to indicate what can be ta9en as noncontroversial. 5o begin with the argument is correct as !ar as it goes. (! the premise is correct then the conse@uence spelled out does !ollow. 5he empirical assumptions involved in the Hobbesian account appear at !irst glance to be borne out by the !acts as well. (t is true that states are constantly at war with each other and a historical tendency toward political centraliDation and global rule does indeed appear to be occurring. `uarrels arise only with the e=planation o! this !act and tendency and the classi!ication o! a single uni!ied world state as an improvement in the provision o! private security and protection. 5here appears to be an empirical anomaly !or which the Hobbesian argument cannot account. 5he reason !or the warring among di!!erent states )1 )2 and )according to Hobbes is that they are in a state o! anarchy vis4F4vis each other. However be!ore the arrival o! a single world state not only are )1 )2 and )- in a state o! anarchy relative to each other but in !act every sub<ect o! one state is in a state o! anarchy vis4F4vis every sub<ect o! any other state. Accordingly <ust as much war and aggression should e=ist between the private citiDens o! various states as between di!!erent states. 4mpirically however this is not so. 5he private dealings between !oreigners appear to be signi!icantly less warli9e than the dealings between di!!erent governments. +or does this seem to be surprising. A!ter all state agent ) in contrast to every one o! its sub<ects can rely on domestic ta=ation in the conduct o! his L!oreign a!!airs.M Aiven his natural human aggressiveness is it not obvious that ) will be more braDen and aggressive in his conduct toward !oreigners i! he can e=ternaliDe the cost o! such behavior onto others7 )urely ( would be willing to ta9e greater ris9s and engage in more provocation and aggression i! ( could ma9e others pay !or it. And surely there would be a tendency o! one state J one protection rac9et J to want to e=pand its territorial protection monopoly at the e=pense o! other states and thus bring about world government as the ultimate result o! interstate competition.- *ut how is this an improvement in the provision o! private security and protection7 5he opposite seems to be the case. 5he world state is the winner o! all wars and the last surviving protection rac9et. :oesnXt this ma9e it particularly dangerous7 Will not the physical power o! any single world government be
-0%

overwhelming as compared to that o! any one o! its individual sub<ects7 (( Let me pause in my abstract theoretical considerations to ta9e a brie! loo9 at the empirical evidence bearing on the issue at hand. As noted at the outset the myth o! collective security is as widespread as it is conse@uential. ( am not aware o! any survey on this matter but ( would venture to predict that the Hobbesian myth is accepted more or less un@uestioningly by well over /0 percent o! the adult population. However to believe something does not ma9e it true. 8ather i! what one believes is !alse oneXs actions will lead to !ailure. What about the evidence7 :oes it support Hobbes and his !ollowers or does it con!irm the opposite anarchist !ears and contentions7 5he H.). was e=plicitly !ounded as a LprotectiveM state Z la Hobbes. Let me @uote to this e!!ect !rom 6e!!ersonXs 'eclaration of Independence. We hold these truths to be sel!,evident that all men are created e@ual that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable rights that among these are Li!e Liberty and the pursuit o! Happiness. 5hat to secure these rights Aovernments are instituted among ;en deriving their <ust powers !rom the consent o! the governed. Here we have it. 5he H.). government was instituted to !ul!ill one and only one tas9. the protection o! li!e and property. 5hus it should provide the per!ect e=ample !or <udging the validity o! the Hobbesian claim as to the status o! states as protectors. A!ter more than two centuries o! protective statism what is the status o! our protection and peace!ul human cooperation7 Was the American e=periment in protective statism a success7 According to the pronouncements o! our state rulers and their intellectual bodyguards "o! whom there are more than ever be!ore# we are better protected and more secure than ever. We are supposedly protected !rom global warming and coolingK !rom the e=tinction o! animals and plantsK !rom the abuses o! husbands and wives parents and employersK !rom poverty disease disaster ignorance pre<udice racism se=ism homophobia and countless other public enemies and dangers. (n !act however matters are stri9ingly di!!erent. (n order to provide us
-0/

with all this Lprotection M the state managers e=propriate more than 10 percent o! the incomes o! private producers year in and year out. Aovernment debt and liabilities have increased uninterruptedly thus increasing the need !or !uture e=propriations. &wing to the substitution o! government paper money !or gold !inancial insecurity has increased sharply and we are continually robbed through currency depreciation. 4very detail o! private li!e property trade and contract is regulated by ever higher mountains o! laws "legislation# thereby creating permanent legal uncertainty and moral haDard. (n particular we have been gradually stripped o! the right to e=clusion implied in the very concept o! private property. As sellers we cannot sell to and as buyers we cannot buy !rom whomever we wish. And as members o! associations we are not permitted to enter into whatever restrictive covenant we believe to be mutually bene!icial. As Americans we must accept immigrants we do not want as our neighbors. As teachers we cannot get rid o! ill,behaved students. As employers we are stuc9 with incompetent or destructive employees. As landlords we are !orced to cope with bad tenants. As ban9ers and insurers we are not allowed to avoid bad ris9s. As restaurant or bar owners we must accommodate unwelcome customers. And as members o! private associations we are compelled to accept individuals and actions in violation o! our own rules and restrictions. (n short the more the state has increased its e=penditures on LsocialM security and LpublicM sa!ety the more our private property rights have been eroded the more our property has been e=propriated con!iscated destroyed or depreciated and the more we have been deprived o! the very !oundation o! all protection. economic independence !inancial strength and personal wealth. 1 5he path o! every president and practically every member o! congress is littered with hundreds o! thousands o! nameless victims o! personal economic ruin !inancial ban9ruptcy emergency impoverishment despair hardship and !rustration. 5he picture appears even blea9er when we consider !oreign a!!airs. +ever during its entire history has the continental H.). been territorially attac9ed by any !oreign army. "'earl Harbor was the result o! a preceding H.). provocation and the )eptember 11th attac9s were carried out by a terrorist organiDation.# Get the H.). has the distinction o! having had a government that declared war against a large part o! its own population and engaged in the wanton murder o! hundreds o! thousands o! its own citiDens. ;oreover while the relations between American citiDens and !oreigners do not appear to be unusually
-10

contentious almost !rom its very beginning the H.). government relentlessly pursued aggressive e=pansionism. *eginning with the )panish,American War culminating in World War ( and World War (( and continuing to the present the H.). government has become entangled in hundreds o! !oreign con!licts and risen to the ran9 o! the worldXs dominant imperialist power. 5hus nearly every president since the turn o! the twentieth century has also been responsible !or the murder 9illing or starvation o! countless innocent !oreigners all over the world. (n short while we have become more helpless impoverished threatened and insecure the H.). Aovernment has become ever more braDen and aggressive. (n the name o! LnationalM security it Lde!endsM us e@uipped with enormous stoc9piles o! weapons o! aggression and mass destruction by bullying ever new LHitlers M big or small and all suspected Hitlerite sympathiDers anywhere and everywhere outside o! the territory o! the H.).3 5he empirical evidence thus seems clear. 5he belie! in a protective state appears to be a patent error and the American e=periment in protective statism a complete !ailure. 5he H.). government does not protect us. 5o the contrary there e=ists no greater danger to our li!e property and prosperity than the H.). government and the H.). president in particular is the worldXs single most threatening and armed danger capable o! ruining everyone who opposes him and destroying the entire globe. ((( )tatists react much li9e socialists when !aced with the dismal economic per!ormance o! the )oviet Hnion and its satellites. 5hey do not necessarily deny the disappointing !acts but they try to argue them away by claiming that these !acts are the result o! a systematic discrepancy "deviancy# between LrealM and LidealM or LtrueM statism "i.e. socialism#. 5o this day socialists claim that LtrueM socialism has not been re!uted by the empirical evidence and that everything would have turned out well and unparalleled prosperity would have resulted i! only 5rots9yXs or *u9harinXs or better still their very own brand o! socialism rather than )talinXs had been implemented. )imilarly statists interpret all seemingly contradictory evidence as only accidental. (! only some other president had come to power at this or that turn in history or i! only this or that constitutional change or amendment had been adopted everything would have turned out beauti!ully and unparalleled security and peace would have resulted. (ndeed this may still happen
-11

in the !uture i! their own policies are employed. We have learned !rom Ludwig von ;ises how to respond to the socialistsX evasion "immuniDation# strategy. 2 As long as the de!ining characteristic J the essence J o! socialism i.e. the absence o! the private ownership o! !actors o! production remains in place no re!orm will be o! any help. 5he idea o! a socialist economy is a contradiction in terms and the claim that socialism represents a Lhigher M more e!!icient mode o! social production is absurd. (n order to reach oneXs own ends e!!iciently and without waste within the !ramewor9 o! an e=change economy based on division o! labor it is necessary that one engage in monetary calculation "cost,accounting#. 4verywhere outside the system o! a primitive sel!,su!!icient single,household economy monetary calculation is the sole tool o! rational and e!!icient action. &nly by comparing inputs and outputs arithmetically in terms o! a common medium o! e=change "money# can a person determine whether his actions are success!ul or not. (n distinct contrast socialism means to have no economy no economiDing at all because under these conditions monetary calculation and cost,accounting are impossible by de!inition. (! no private property in !actors o! production e=ists then no prices !or any production !actor e=istK hence it is impossible to determine whether or not they are employed economically. Accordingly socialism is not a higher mode o! production but rather economic chaos and regression to primitivism. How to respond to the statistsX evasion strategy has been e=plained by ;urray +. 8othbard.0 *ut 8othbardXs lesson while e@ually simple and clear and o! even more momentous implications has remained to this day !ar less 9nown and appreciated. )o long as the de!ining characteristic J the essence J o! a state remains in place he e=plained no re!orm whether o! personnel or constitution will be to any avail. Aiven the principle o! government J <udicial monopoly and the power to ta= J any notion o! limiting its power and sa!eguarding individual li!e and property is illusory. Hnder monopolistic auspices the price o! <ustice and protection must rise and its @uality must !all. A ta=, !unded protection agency is a contradiction in terms and will lead to ever more ta=es and less protection. 4ven i! a government limited its activities e=clusively to the protection o! pree=isting property rights "as every LprotectiveM state is supposed to do# the !urther @uestion o! how much security to provide would arise. ;otivated "li9e everyone else# by sel!,interest and the disutility o! labor but with the uni@ue power to ta=
-12

a governmentXs answer will invariably be the same. to maximize expenditures on protection J and almost all o! a nationXs wealth can conceivably be consumed by the cost o! protection J and at the same time to minimize the production o! protection. $urthermore a <udicial monopoly must lead to a deterioration in the @uality o! <ustice and protection. (! one can only appeal to government !or <ustice and protection <ustice and protection will be perverted in !avor o! government J constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. A!ter all constitutions and supreme courts are state constitutions and courts and whatever limitations to government action they might contain is determined by agents o! the very institution under consideration. Accordingly the de!inition o! property and protection will continually be altered and the range o! <urisdiction e=panded to the governmentXs advantage. Hence 8othbard pointed out it !ollows that <ust as socialism cannot be re!ormed but must be abolished in order to achieve prosperity so the institution o! a state cannot be re!ormed but must be abolished in order to achieve <ustice and protection. L:e!ense in the !ree society "including such de!ense services to person and property as police protection and <udicial !indings# M 8othbard concluded would there!ore have to be supplied by people or !irms who "a# gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and "b# did not J as the )tate does J arrogate to themselves a compulsory monopoly o! police or <udicial protection. . . . :e!ense !irms would have to be as !reely competitive and as noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers o! goods and services on the !ree mar9et. :e!ense services li9e all other services would be mar9etable and mar9etable only. % 5hat is every private property owner would be able to parta9e o! the advantages o! the division o! labor and see9 better protection o! his property than that a!!orded through sel!,de!ense by cooperation with other owners and their property. Anyone could buy !rom sell to or otherwise contract with anyone else concerning protective and <udicial services and one could at any time unilaterally discontinue any such cooperation with others and !all bac9 on sel!,reliant de!ense or change oneXs protective a!!iliations.

-1-

Notes
1

6ames ;. *uchanan and Aordon 5ulloc9 5he Calculus o! Consent "Ann Arbor. Hniversity o! ;ichigan 'ress 1/22#K 6ames ;. *uchanan 5he Limits o! Liberty "Chicago. Hniversity o! Chicago 'ress 1/03#K !or a criti@ue see ;urray +. 8othbard L*uchanan and 5ulloc9Xs Calculus o! Consent M in idem 5he Logic o! Action ((. Applications and Criticisms !rom the Austrian )chool "Cheltenham H.C.. 4dward 4lgar 1//3#K idem L5he ;yth o! +eutral 5a=ation M 5he Logic o! Action ((K Hans, Hermann Hoppe 5he 4conomics and 4thics o! 'rivate 'roperty "*oston. Cluwer Academic 'ublishers 1//-# chap.1.
2

)ee on this in particular Lysander )pooner +o 5reason. 5he Constitution o! +o Authority "Lar9spur Colo.. 'ine 5ree 'ress 1/22#.
-

)ee Hans,Hermann Hoppe L5he 5rouble With Classical Liberalism M 5riple 8. 8othbard,8oc9well 8eport / no. 1 "1//%#. 1 )ee Hans,Hermann Hoppe LWhere 5he 8ight Aoes Wrong M 5riple 8. 8othbard,8oc9well 8eport % no. 1 "1//0#.
3

)ee 6ohn ?. :enson ed. 5he Costs o! War. AmericaXs 'yrrhic ?ictories "+ew *runswic9 +.6.. 5ransaction 'ublishers 1//0#K idem LA Century o! War. )tudies in Classical LiberalismM "Auburn Ala.. Ludwig von ;ises (nstitute 1///#. )ince the end o! World War (( !or instance the Hnited )tates government has intervened militarily in China "1/13J12# Corea "1/30J3-# China "1/30J3-# (ran "1/3-# Auatemala "1/31# (ndonesia "1/3%# Cuba "1/3/J20# Auatemala "1/20# Congo "1/21# 'eru "1/23# Laos "1/21J0-# ?ietnam "1/21J 0-# Cambodia "1/2/J00# Auatemala "1/20J2/# Arenada "1/%-# Lebanon "1/%-# Libya "1/%2# 4l )alvador "1/%0s# +icaragua "1/%0s# 'anama "1/%/# (ra@ "1//1J//# *osnia "1//3# )udan "1//%# A!ghanistan "1//% and 2002# Gugoslavia "1///# and (ra@ "200-#. ;oreover the Hnited )tates government has troops stationed in nearly 130 countries around the world.
2

Ludwig von ;ises )ocialism "(ndianapolis. LibertyClassics 1/%1#K Hans,Hermann Hoppe A 5heory o! )ocialism and Capitalism "*oston. Cluwer Academic 'ublishers 1/%/# chap. 2.
0

;urray +. 8othbard 5he 4thics o! Liberty "+ew Gor9. +ew Gor9 Hniversity 'ress 1//%# esp. chaps. 22 and 2-.

-11

Source 4A Thucydides Peloponnesian War

%oo" ;5/@2@3 PericlesB 7uneral 6ration 9his famous speech was given by the 2thenian leader +ericles after the first battles of the +eloponnesian war. 5unerals after such battles were public rituals and +ericles used the occasion to make a classic statement of the value of democracy. It is probably not an exact quote, but a composition by 9hucydides representing the recollections of witnesses. (n the same winter the Athenians gave a !uneral at the public cost to those who had !irst !allen in this war. (t was a custom o! their ancestors and the manner o! it is as !ollows. 5hree days be!ore the ceremony the bones o! the dead are laid out in a tent which has been erectedK and their !riends bring to their relatives such o!!erings as they please. (n the !uneral procession cypress co!!ins are borne in cars one !or each tribeK the bones o! the deceased being placed in the co!!in o! their tribe. Among these is carried one empty bier dec9ed !or the missing that is !or those whose bodies could not be recovered. Any citiDen or stranger who pleases <oins in the procession. and the !emale relatives are there to wail at the burial. 5he dead are laid in the public sepulchre in the most beauti!ul suburb o! the city in which those who !all in war are always buriedK with the e=ception o! those slain at ;arathon who !or their singular and e=traordinary valour were interred on the spot where they !ell. A!ter the bodies have been laid in the earth a man chosen by the state o! approved wisdom and eminent reputation pronounces over them an appropriate panegyricK a!ter which all retire. )uch is the manner o! the buryingK and throughout the whole o! the war whenever the occasion arose the established custom was observed. ;eanwhile these were the !irst that had !allen and 'ericles son o! >anthippus was chosen to pronounce their eulogium. When the proper time arrived he advanced !rom the sepulchre to an elevated plat!orm in order to be heard by as many o! the crowd as possible and spo9e as !ollows.

-13

;ost o! my predecessors in this place have commended him who made this speech part o! the law telling us that it is well that it should be delivered at the burial o! those who !all in battle. $or mysel! ( should have thought that the worth which had displayed itsel! in deeds would be su!!iciently rewarded by honours also shown by deedsK such as you now see in this !uneral prepared at the peopleFs cost. And ( could have wished that the reputations o! many brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth o! a single individual to stand or !all according as he spo9e well or ill. $or it is hard to spea9 properly upon a sub<ect where it is even di!!icult to convince your hearers that you are spea9ing the truth. &n the one hand the !riend who is !amiliar with every !act o! the story may thin9 that some point has not been set !orth with that !ullness which he wishes and 9nows it to deserveK on the other he who is a stranger to the matter may be led by envy to suspect e=aggeration i! he hears anything above his own nature. $or men can endure to hear others praised only so long as they can severally persuade themselves o! their own ability to e@ual the actions recounted. when this point is passed envy comes in and with it incredulity. However since our ancestors have stamped this custom with their approval it becomes my duty to obey the law and to try to satis!y your several wishes and opinions as best ( may. ( shall begin with our ancestors. it is both <ust and proper that they should have the honour o! the !irst mention on an occasion li9e the present. 5hey dwelt in the country without brea9 in the succession !rom generation to generation and handed it down !ree to the present time by their valour. And i! our more remote ancestors deserve praise much more do our own !athers who added to their inheritance the empire which we now possess and spared no pains to be able to leave their ac@uisitions to us o! the present generation. Lastly there are !ew parts o! our dominions that have not been augmented by those o! us here who are still more or less in the vigour o! li!eK while the mother country has been !urnished by us with everything that can enable her to depend on her own resources whether !or war or !or peace. 5hat part o! our history which tells o! the
-12

military achievements which gave us our several possessions or o! the ready valour with which either we or our !athers stemmed the tide o! Hellenic or !oreign aggression is a theme too !amiliar to my hearers !or me to dilate on and ( shall there!ore pass it by. *ut what was the road by which we reached our position what the !orm o! government under which our greatness grew what the national habits out o! which it sprangK these are @uestions which ( may try to solve be!ore ( proceed to my panegyric upon these menK since ( thin9 this to be a sub<ect upon which on the present occasion a spea9er may properly dwell and to which the whole assemblage whether citiDens or !oreigners may listen with advantage. &ur constitution does not copy the laws o! neighbouring statesK we are rather a pattern to others than imitators ourselves. (ts administration !avours the many instead o! the !ewK this is why it is called a democracy. (! we loo9 to the laws they a!!ord e@ual <ustice to all in their private di!!erencesK i! no social standing advancement in public li!e !alls to reputation !or capacity class considerations not being allowed to inter!ere with meritK nor again does poverty bar the way i! a man is able to serve the state he is not hindered by the obscurity o! his condition. 5he !reedom which we en<oy in our government e=tends also to our ordinary li!e. 5here !ar !rom e=ercising a <ealous surveillance over each other we do not !eel called upon to be angry with our neighbour !or doing what he li9es or even to indulge in those in<urious loo9s which cannot !ail to be o!!ensive although they in!lict no positive penalty. *ut all this ease in our private relations does not ma9e us lawless as citiDens. Against this !ear is our chie! sa!eguard teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws particularly such as regard the protection o! the in<ured whether they are actually on the statute boo9 or belong to that code which although unwritten yet cannot be bro9en without ac9nowledged disgrace. $urther we provide plenty o! means !or the mind to re!resh itsel! !rom business. We celebrate games and sacri!ices all
-10

the year round and the elegance o! our private establishments !orms a daily source o! pleasure and helps to banish the spleenK while the magnitude o! our city draws the produce o! the world into our harbour so that to the Athenian the !ruits o! other countries are as !amiliar a lu=ury as those o! his own. (! we turn to our military policy there also we di!!er !rom our antagonists. We throw open our city to the world and never by alien acts e=clude !oreigners !rom any opportunity o! learning or observing although the eyes o! an enemy may occasionally pro!it by our liberalityK trusting less in system and policy than to the native spirit o! our citiDensK while in education where our rivals !rom their very cradles by a pain!ul discipline see9 a!ter manliness at Athens we live e=actly as we please and yet are <ust as ready to encounter every legitimate danger. (n proo! o! this it may be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our country alone but bring with them all their con!ederatesK while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory o! a neighbour and !ighting upon a !oreign soil usually van@uish with ease men who are de!ending their homes. &ur united !orce was never yet encountered by any enemy because we have at once to attend to our marine and to dispatch our citiDens by land upon a hundred di!!erent servicesK so that wherever they engage with some such !raction o! our strength a success against a detachment is magni!ied into a victory over the nation and a de!eat into a reverse su!!ered at the hands o! our entire people. And yet i! with habits not o! labour but o! ease and courage not o! art but o! nature we are still willing to encounter danger we have the double advantage o! escaping the e=perience o! hardships in anticipation and o! !acing them in the hour o! need as !earlessly as those who are never !ree !rom them. +or are these the only points in which our city is worthy o! admiration. We cultivate re!inement without e=travagance and 9nowledge without e!!eminacyK wealth we employ more !or use than !or show and place the real disgrace o!
-1%

poverty not in owning to the !act but in declining the struggle against it. &ur public men have besides politics their private a!!airs to attend to and our ordinary citiDens though occupied with the pursuits o! industry are still !air <udges o! public mattersK !or unli9e any other nation regarding him who ta9es no part in these duties not as unambitious but as useless we Athenians are able to <udge at all events i! we cannot originate and instead o! loo9ing on discussion as a stumbling,bloc9 in the way o! action we thin9 it an indispensable preliminary to any wise action at all. Again in our enterprises we present the singular spectacle o! daring and deliberation each carried to its highest point and both united in the same personsK although usually decision is the !ruit o! ignorance hesitation o! re!lection. *ut the palm o! courage will surely be ad<udged most <ustly to those who best 9now the di!!erence between hardship and pleasure and yet are never tempted to shrin9 !rom danger. (n generosity we are e@ually singular ac@uiring our !riends by con!erring not by receiving !avours. Get o! course the doer o! the !avour is the !irmer !riend o! the two in order by continued 9indness to 9eep the recipient in his debtK while the debtor !eels less 9eenly !rom the very consciousness that the return he ma9es will be a payment not a !ree gi!t. And it is only the Athenians who !earless o! conse@uences con!er their bene!its not !rom calculations o! e=pediency but in the con!idence o! liberality. (n short ( say that as a city we are the school o! Hellas while ( doubt i! the world can produce a man who where he has only himsel! to depend upon is e@ual to so many emergencies and graced by so happy a versatility as the Athenian. And that this is no mere boast thrown out !or the occasion but plain matter o! !act the power o! the state ac@uired by these habits proves. $or Athens alone o! her contemporaries is !ound when tested to be greater than her reputation and alone gives no occasion to her assailants to blush at the antagonist by whom they have been worsted or to her sub<ects to @uestion her title by merit to rule. 8ather the admiration o! the present and succeeding ages will be ours since we have not le!t our power without
-1/

witness but have shown it by mighty proo!sK and !ar !rom needing a Homer !or our panegyrist or other o! his cra!t whose verses might charm !or the moment only !or the impression which they gave to melt at the touch o! !act we have !orced every sea and land to be the highway o! our daring and everywhere whether !or evil or !or good have le!t imperishable monuments behind us. )uch is the Athens !or which these men in the assertion o! their resolve not to lose her nobly !ought and diedK and well may every one o! their survivors be ready to su!!er in her cause. (ndeed i! ( have dwelt at some length upon the character o! our country it has been to show that our sta9e in the struggle is not the same as theirs who have no such blessings to lose and also that the panegyric o! the men over whom ( am now spea9ing might be by de!inite proo!s established. 5hat panegyric is now in a great measure completeK !or the Athens that ( have celebrated is only what the heroism o! these and their li9e have made her men whose !ame unli9e that o! most Hellenes will be !ound to be only commensurate with their deserts. And i! a test o! worth be wanted it is to be !ound in their closing scene and this not only in cases in which it set the !inal seal upon their merit but also in those in which it gave the !irst intimation o! their having any. $or there is <ustice in the claim that stead!astness in his countryFs battles should be as a cloa9 to cover a manFs other imper!ectionsK since the good action has blotted out the bad and his merit as a citiDen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual. *ut none o! these allowed either wealth with its prospect o! !uture en<oyment to unnerve his spirit or poverty with its hope o! a day o! !reedom and riches to tempt him to shrin9 !rom danger. +o holding that vengeance upon their enemies was more to be desired than any personal blessings and rec9oning this to be the most glorious o! haDards they <oy!ully determined to accept the ris9 to ma9e sure o! their vengeance and to let their wishes waitK and while committing to hope the uncertainty o! !inal success in the business be!ore them they thought !it to act boldly and trust in themselves. 5hus choosing to die
-20

resisting rather than to live submitting they !led only !rom dishonour but met danger !ace to !ace and a!ter one brie! moment while at the summit o! their !ortune escaped not !rom their !ear but !rom their glory. )o died these men as became Athenians. Gou their survivors must determine to have as un!altering a resolution in the !ield though you may pray that it may have a happier issue. And not contented with ideas derived only !rom words o! the advantages which are bound up with the de!ence o! your country though these would !urnish a valuable te=t to a spea9er even be!ore an audience so alive to them as the present you must yourselves realiDe the power o! Athens and !eed your eyes upon her !rom day to day till love o! her !ills your heartsK and then when all her greatness shall brea9 upon you you must re!lect that it was by courage sense o! duty and a 9een !eeling o! honour in action that men were enabled to win all this and that no personal !ailure in an enterprise could ma9e them consent to deprive their country o! their valour but they laid it at her !eet as the most glorious contribution that they could o!!er. $or this o!!ering o! their lives made in common by them all they each o! them individually received that renown which never grows old and !or a sepulchre not so much that in which their bones have been deposited but that noblest o! shrines wherein their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon every occasion on which deed or story shall call !or its commemoration. $or heroes have the whole earth !or their tombK and in lands !ar !rom their own where the column with its epitaph declares it there is enshrined in every breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it e=cept that o! the heart. 5hese ta9e as your model and <udging happiness to be the !ruit o! !reedom and !reedom o! valour never decline the dangers o! war. $or it is not the miserable that would most <ustly be unsparing o! their livesK these have nothing to hope !or. it is rather they to whom continued li!e may bring reverses as yet un9nown and to whom a !all i! it came would be most tremendous in its conse@uences. And surely to a man o! spirit the degradation o! cowardice must be immeasurably more
-21

grievous than the un!elt death which stri9es him in the midst o! his strength and patriotismQ Com!ort there!ore not condolence is what ( have to o!!er to the parents o! the dead who may be here. +umberless are the chances to which as they 9now the li!e o! man is sub<ectK but !ortunate indeed are they who draw !or their lot a death so glorious as that which has caused your mourning and to whom li!e has been so e=actly measured as to terminate in the happiness in which it has been passed. )till ( 9now that this is a hard saying especially when those are in @uestion o! whom you will constantly be reminded by seeing in the homes o! others blessings o! which once you also boasted. !or grie! is !elt not so much !or the want o! what we have never 9nown as !or the loss o! that to which we have been long accustomed. Get you who are still o! an age to beget children must bear up in the hope o! having others in their steadK not only will they help you to !orget those whom you have lost but will be to the state at once a rein!orcement and a securityK !or never can a !air or <ust policy be e=pected o! the citiDen who does not li9e his !ellows bring to the decision the interests and apprehensions o! a !ather. While those o! you who have passed your prime must congratulate yourselves with the thought that the best part o! your li!e was !ortunate and that the brie! span that remains will be cheered by the !ame o! the departed. $or it is only the love o! honour that never grows oldK and honour it is not gain as some would have it that re<oices the heart o! age and helplessness. 5urning to the sons or brothers o! the dead ( see an arduous struggle be!ore you. When a man is gone all are wont to praise him and should your merit be ever so transcendent you will still !ind it di!!icult not merely to overta9e but even to approach their renown. 5he living have envy to contend with while those who are no longer in our path are honoured with a goodwill into which rivalry does not enter. &n the other hand i! ( must say anything on the sub<ect o! !emale e=cellence to those o! you who will now be in widowhood it will be all comprised in this brie!
-22

e=hortation. Areat will be your glory in not !alling short o! your natural characterK and greatest will be hers who is least tal9ed o! among the men whether !or good or !or bad. ;y tas9 is now !inished. ( have per!ormed it to the best o! my ability and in word at least the re@uirements o! the law are now satis!ied. (! deeds be in @uestion those who are here interred have received part o! their honours already and !or the rest their children will be brought up till manhood at the public e=pense. the state thus o!!ers a valuable priDe as the garland o! victory in this race o! valour !or the reward both o! those who have !allen and their survivors. And where the rewards !or merit are greatest there are !ound the best citiDens. And now that you have brought to a close your lamentations !or your relatives you may depart.

-2-

Source 4 % ,ohann ?ottfried 7ichte Addresses to the ?er!an Nation

Thirteenth Address To The ?er!an Nation The *eans 7or 6ur Preser#ation Dntil We Attain 6ur *ain 6b8ect At the end o! the preceding address we said that there were in circulation among us a number o! worthless thoughts and deceptive theories as to the a!!airs o! peoples and that this prevented the Aermans !rom !orming such a de!inite view o! their present situation as would be in accordance with their own special characteristics. As these vain phantoms are being held up !or public veneration with great Deal <ust at present and as they might be embraced by many people now that so much else has begun to topple over solely in order to !ill up the places that have become vacant it seems appropriate to our purpose to sub<ect these phantoms to a more serious e=amination than their intrinsic importance would deserve. 5o begin with and be!ore all things. the !irst original and truly natural boundaries o! states are beyond doubt their internal boundaries. 5hose who spea9 the same language are <oined to each other by a multitude o! invisible bonds by nature hersel! long be!ore any human art beginsK they understand each other and have the power o! continuing to ma9e themselves understood more and more clearlyK they belong together and are by nature one and an inseparable whole. )uch a whole i! it wishes to absorb and mingle with itsel! any other people o! di!!erent descent and language cannot do so without itsel! becoming con!used in the beginning at any rate and violently disturbing the even progress o! its culture. $rom this internal boundary which is drawn by the spiritual nature o! man himsel! the mar9ing o! the e=ternal boundary by dwelling place results as a conse@uenceK and in the natural view o! things it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and rivers that they are a people but on the contrary men dwell together and i! their luc9 has so arranged it are protected by rivers and mountains because they were a people already by a law o! nature which is much higher. 5hus was the Aerman nation placed su!!iciently united within itsel! by a
-21

common language and a common way o! thin9ing and sharply enough severed !rom the other peoples in the middle o! 4urope as a wall to divide races not a9in. 5he Aerman nation was numerous and brave enough to protect its boundaries against any !oreign attac9K it was le!t to itsel! and by its whole way o! thin9ing was little inclined to ta9e notice o! the neighboring peoples to inter!ere in their a!!airs or to provo9e them to enmity by disturbances. As time went on a 9ind !ortune preserved it !rom direct participation in the con@uest o! other worlds that event which more than any other has been the basis o! the development ta9en by modern world history o! the !ates o! peoples and o! the largest part o! their ideas and opinions. )ince that event and not be!ore Christian 4urope which hitherto without being clearly conscious o! it had been one and by <oint enterprises had shown itsel! to be one Christian 4urope ( say has split itsel! into various separate parts. )ince that event and not be!ore there has been a booty in sight which anyone might seiDeK and each one lusted a!ter it in the same way because all were able to ma9e use o! it in the same wayK and each one was envious on seeing it in the hands o! another. +ow and not be!ore was there a reason !or secret enmity and lust !or war on the part o! all against all. ;oreover now and not be!ore did it become pro!itable !or peoples to incorporate with themselves peoples o! other descent and other languages by con@uest or i! that were not possible by alliances and to appropriate their !orces. A people that has remained true to nature may have the wish when its abode becomes too narrow !or it to enlarge it by con@uest o! the neighboring soil in order to gain more room and then it will drive out the !ormer inhabitants. (t may have the wish to e=change a harsh and un!ruit!ul region !or a milder and more !ortunate one and in this case too it will drive out the !ormer owners. (t may i! it should degenerate underta9e mere pillaging raids in which without craving a!ter the soil or its inhabitants it merely ta9es possession o! every use!ul thing sweeps the countries clear and then departs. $inally it may regard the !ormer inhabitants o! the con@uered soil as one o! the use!ul things and allot them as slaves to individuals. *ut !or it to attach to itsel! as a component part o! the state the !oreign population <ust as it is that will not pro!it it in the least and it will never be tempted to do so. *ut i! the case is thus. that there is a tempting common booty to be !ought !or and to be won !rom an e@ually strong or even stronger rivalK then the calculation is di!!erent. (t matters not how much or how little the con@uered people may blend with usK we can at any rate ma9e use o!
-23

their !ists to overcome the opponent we have to rob and every man is welcome to us as an addition to our !ighting strength. +ow suppose that some wise man who wished !or peace and @uiet had had his eyes opened to this state o! a!!airsK !rom what source could he e=pect @uiet to come7 &bviously not !rom the limitation set by nature to human greed viD. that super!luity is o! no bene!it to anyoneK !or there was a prey which tempted everyone. 6ust as little could he e=pect peace to come !rom the will to set a limit to oneFs sel!K !or where everyone grabs !or himsel! everything that he can anyone who limits himsel! must o! necessity perish. +o one wants to share with another what he then owns himsel!K everyone wants to rob the other o! what he has i! he possibly can. (! one o! them is @uiet it is only because he does not thin9 himsel! strong enough to begin a @uarrelK he will certainly begin it as soon as he perceives the necessary strength in himsel!. Hence the only means o! maintaining peace is this. that no one shall ac@uire enough power to be able to disturb the peace and that each one shall 9now that there is <ust as much strength to resist on the other side as there is to attac9 on his sideK and that thus there may arise a balance and counterbalance o! the total power whereby alone now that all other means have vanished each one is 9ept in possession o! what he has at present and all are 9ept in peace. 5his well,9nown system o! a balance o! power in 4urope there!ore assumes two things. !irst a prey to which no one at all has any right but !or which all have a li9e desireK and second the universal ever,present and unceasingly active lust !or booty. (ndeed on these assumptions this balance o! power would be the only means o! maintaining peace i! only one could !ind the second means namely that o! creating the e@uilibrium and trans!orming it !rom an empty thought into a thing o! reality. *ut were these assumptions in !act to be made universally and without any e=ception7 Had not the mighty Aerman nation in the middle o! 4urope 9ept its hands o!! this prey and was it not untainted by any craving !or it and almost incapable o! ma9ing a claim to it7 (! only the Aerman nation had remained united with a common will and a common strengthQ 5hen though the other 4uropeans might have wanted to murder each other on every sea and shore and on every island too in the middle o! 4urope the !irm wall o! the Aermans would have prevented them !rom reaching each other. Here peace would have remained and the Aermans would have maintained themselves and with themselves also a part o! the other 4uropean peoples in @uiet and prosperity.
-22

5hat things should remain thus did not suit the sel!ishness o! !oreign countries whose calculations did not loo9 more than one moment ahead. 5hey !ound Aerman bravery use!ul in waging their wars and Aerman hands use!ul to snatch the booty !rom their rivals. A means had to be !ound to attain this end and !oreign cunning won an easy victory over Aerman ingenuousness and lac9 o! suspicion. (t was !oreign countries which !irst made use o! the division o! mind produced by religious disputes in Aermany J Aermany which presented on a small scale the !eatures o! Christian 4urope as a whole J !oreign countries ( say made use o! these disputes to brea9 up the close inner unity o! Aermany into separate and disconnected parts. $oreign countries had already destroyed their own unity naturally by splitting into parts over a common preyK and now they arti!icially destroyed Aerman unity. 5hey 9new how to present each o! these separate states that had thus arisen in the lap o! the one nation J which had no enemy e=cept those !oreign countries themselves and no concern e=cept the common one o! setting itsel! with united strength against their seductive cra!t and cunning J !oreign countries ( say 9new how to present each o! these states to the others as a natural enemy against which each state must be perpetually on its guard. &n the other hand they 9new how to ma9e themselves appear to the Aerman states as natural allies against the danger threatening them !rom their own countrymen J as allies with whom alone they would themselves stand or !all and whose enterprises they must in turn support with all their might. (t was only because o! this arti!icial bond that all the disputes which might arise about any matter whatever in the &ld World or the +ew became disputes o! the Aerman races in their relation to each other. 4very war no matter what its cause had to be !ought out on Aerman soil and with Aerman bloodK every disturbance o! the balance had to be ad<usted in that nation to which the whole !ountainhead o! such relationships was un9nownK and the Aerman states whose separate e=istence was in itsel! contrary to all nature and reason were compelled in order that they might count !or something to act as ma9eweights to the chie! !orces in the scale o! the 4uropean e@uilibrium whose movement they !ollowed blindly and without any will o! their own. 6ust as in many states abroad the citiDens are designated as belonging to this or that !oreign party or voting !or this or that !oreign alliance but no name is !ound !or those who belong to the party o! their own country so it was with the AermansK !or long enough they belonged only to some !oreign party or other and one seldom came across a man who supported the party o! the Aermans and was o! the opinion that this country ought to ma9e an
-20

alliance with itsel!. 5his then is the true origin and meaning this the result !or Aermany and !or the world o! that notorious doctrine o! a balance o! power to be arti!icially maintained between the 4uropean states. (! Christian 4urope had remained one as it ought to be and as it originally was there would never have been any occasion to thin9 o! such a thing. 5hat which is one rests upon itsel! and supports itsel! and does not split up into con!licting !orces which must be brought to an e@uilibrium. &nly when 4urope became divided and without a law did the thought o! a balance ac@uire a meaning !rom necessity. 5o this 4urope divided and without a law Aermany did not belong. (! only Aermany at any rate had remained one it would have rested on itsel! in the center o! the civiliDed world li9e the sun in the center o! the universeK it would have 9ept itsel! at peace and with itsel! the ad<acent countriesK and without any arti!icial measures it would have 9ept everything in e@uilibrium by the mere !act o! its natural e=istence. (t was only the deceit o! !oreign countries that dragged Aermany into their own lawlessness and their own disputesK it was they who taught Aermany the treacherous notion o! the balance o! power !or they 9new it to be one o! the most e!!ective means o! deluding Aermany as to its own true advantage and o! 9eeping it in that state o! delusion. 5his aim is now su!!iciently attained and the result that was intended is now complete be!ore our eyes. 4ven i! we cannot do away with this result why should we not at any rate e=tirpate the source o! it in our own understanding which is now almost the only thing over which we still have sovereign power7 Why should the old dream still be placed be!ore our eyes now that disaster has awa9ened us !rom sleep7 Why should we not now at any rate see the truth and perceive the only means that could have saved us7 'erhaps our descendants may do what we see ought to be done <ust as we now su!!er because our !athers dreamed. Let us understand that the conception o! an e@uilibrium to be arti!icially maintained might have been a consoling dream !or !oreign countries amid the guilt and evil that oppressed themK but that this conception being an entirely !oreign product ought never to have ta9en root in the mind o! a Aerman and that the Aermans ought never to have been so situated that it could ta9e root among them. Let us understand that now at any rate we must perceive the utter worthlessness o! such a conception and must see that the salvation o! all is to be !ound not in it but solely in the unity o! the Aermans among themselves. 6ust as !oreign to the Aerman is the !reedom o! the seas which is so
-2%

!re@uently preached in our days whether what is intended be real !reedom or merely the power to e=clude everyone else !rom it. 5hroughout the course o! centuries while all other nations were in rivalry the Aerman showed little desire to participate in this !reedom to any great e=tent and he will never do so. ;oreover he is not in need o! it. 5he abundant supplies o! his own land together with his own diligence a!!ord him all that is needed in the li!e o! a civiliDed manK nor does he lac9 s9ill in the art o! ma9ing his resources serve that purpose. As !or ac@uiring the only true advantage that world trade brings in its train viD. the increase in scienti!ic 9nowledge o! the earth and its inhabitants his own scienti!ic spirit will not let him lac9 a means o! e=change. &h i! only his 9indly !ortune had preserved the Aerman !rom indirect participation in the booty o! other worlds as it preserved him !rom direct participationQ (! only we had not been led by our credulity and by the craving !or a li!e as !ine and as distinguished as that o! other peoples to ma9e necessities o! the wares produced in !oreign parts which we could do withoutK i! only we had made conditions tolerable !or our !ree !ellow citiDen in regard to the wares we can less easily do without instead o! wishing to draw a pro!it !rom the sweat and blood o! a poor slave across the seasQ 5hen at any rate we should not ourselves have !urnished the prete=t !or our present !ateK war would not have been waged against us as purchasers nor would we have been ruined because we are a mar9et place. Almost ten years ago be!ore anyone could !oresee what has since happened the Aermans were advised to ma9e themselves independent o! world trade and to turn themselves into a closed commercial state. 5his proposal ran counter to our habits and especially to our idolatrous veneration o! coined metalsK it was passionately attac9ed and thrust aside. )ince then we have been learning in dishonor and under the compulsion o! a !oreign power to do without those things and !ar more than those things which we then protested we could not do without though we might have done so then in !reedom and with the greatest honor to ourselves. 5hat we might seiDe this opportunity since en<oyment at least is not corrupting us to correct our ideas once !or allQ 5hat we might at last see that all those swindling theories about world trade and manu!acturing !or the world mar9et though they suit the !oreigner and !orm part o! the weapons with which he has always made war on us have no application to the AermansK and that ne=t to the unity o! the Aermans among themselves their internal autonomy and commercial independence !orm the second means !or their salvation and through them !or the salvation o! 4uropeQ
-2/

+ow at last let us be bold enough to loo9 at the deceptive vision o! a universal monarchy which people are beginning to hold up !or public veneration in place o! that e@uilibrium which !or some time has been growing more and more preposterous and let us perceive how hate!ul and contrary to reason that vision is. )piritual nature was able to present the essence o! humanity in e=tremely diverse gradations in individuals and in individuality as a whole in peoples. &nly when each people le!t to itsel! develops and !orms itsel! in accordance with its own peculiar @uality and only when in every people each individual develops himsel! in accordance with that common @uality as well as in accordance with his own peculiar @uality then and then only does the mani!estation o! divinity appear in its true mirror as it ought to beK and only a man who either entirely lac9s the notion o! the rule o! law and divine order or else is an obdurate enemy thereto could ta9e upon himsel! to want to inter!ere with that law which is the highest law in the spiritual world. &nly in the invisible @ualities o! nations which are hidden !rom their own eyes J @ualities as the means whereby these nations remain in touch with the source o! original li!e J only therein is to be !ound the guarantee o! their present and !uture worth virtue and merit. (! these @ualities are dulled by admi=ture and worn away by !riction the !latness that results will bring about a separation !rom spiritual nature and this in its turn will cause all men to be !used together in their uni!orm and collective destruction. As !or the writers who console us !or all our ills with the prospect that we too shall be sub<ects o! the new universal monarchy that is beginning are we to believe them when they say that someone or other has decided upon such a grinding together o! all the germs o! what is human in humanity in order to press the unresisting dough into some new !orm and that so monstrous all act o! brutality or enmity against the human race is possible in this age o! ours7 4ven i! in the !irst place we were willing to ma9e our minds to believe such an utterly incredible thing the !urther @uestion arises. *y what instrument is such a plan to be carried out7 What sort o! people is it to be which in the present state o! 4uropean culture shall con@uer the world !or some new universal monarch7 $or many centuries now the peoples o! 4urope have ceased to be savages or to re<oice in destructive activity !or its own sa9e. All men see9 behind war a !inal peace behind e=ertion rest behind con!usion orderK and all men want to see their career crowned with the peace o! a @uiet and domestic li!e. $or a time they may be made enthusiastic !or
--0

war even by the mere prospect o! advantage to the nationK but when the call comes again and again in the same !ashion the delusion vanishes and with it the !everish strength it produced. 5he longing !or peace and order returns and the @uestion arises. $or what purpose am ( doing and bearing all this7 All these !eelings a world con@ueror in our time would !irst have to stamp outK and as the present age by its nature does not produce a race o! savages he would have to create one with deliberate art. *ut more would remain to be done. A man who has been accustomed !rom youth upwards to cultivated and settled countries to prosperity and order !inds pleasure in these things wherever he sees them i! he is but permitted to be at peace !or a little whileK !or they represent to him the bac9ground o! his own longing which a!ter all can never @uite be rooted outK and it is a source o! pain to himsel! when he is obliged to destroy them. 5o o!!set this 9indly !eeling so deeply implanted in man as a social being and this grie! and sorrow at the evils which the soldier brings upon the countries he con@uers a counterpoise must be !ound. 5here is no other than the lust !or booty. (! it becomes the soldierFs dominating motive to ac@uire a !ortune !or himsel! and i! he becomes accustomed when devastating !lourishing countries to thin9 o! nothing but what he may gain !or himsel! !rom the general wretchedness then it is to be e=pected that the !eelings o! sympathy and pity will become silent in him. (n addition to that barbarous brutality a world con@ueror o! our time would have to train his people to cold,blooded and deliberate lust !or bootyK he would not have to punish e=tortions but rather to encourage them. ;oreover the disgrace that naturally adheres to such a thing would !irst o! all have to be cleared away and robbery would have to be loo9ed upon as the honorable sign o! a superior mindK it would have to be rec9oned among great deeds and pave the way to all dignities and honors. Where is there in modern 4urope a nation so lac9ing in honor that it could be trained up in this way7 4ven supposing that a world con@ueror succeeds in reshaping a nation in this !ashion the very means he ta9es to do it will !rustrate the attainment o! his ob<ect. )uch a people will thence!orward regard the human beings the countries and the wor9s o! art that they have ac@uired by con@uest as nothing more than a means o! ma9ing money with all speed so that they may move on and ma9e more money. 5hey will e=tort rapidly and when they have suc9ed the <uice out o! a thing they will throw it away regardless o! what may happen to itK they will cut down the tree whose !ruits they want to reach. $or a man who wor9s with such tools as these
--1

all the arts o! seduction persuasion and deception will be in vain. &nly !rom a distance can such men deceive anyoneK as soon as they are seen at close @uarters their brutal roughness and their shameless and insolent lust !or booty will be obvious even to the !eeblest mindK and the detestation o! the whole human race will cry aloud upon them. With such tools as these one can indeed plunder and lay waste the earth and grind it down to stupor and chaos but one can never establish it as a universal monarchy. 5he ideas we have mentioned and all ideas o! this 9ind are products o! a !orm o! thin9ing which merely plays a game with itsel! and sometimes too gets caught in its own cobwebs a !orm o! thin9ing which is unworthy o! Aerman thoroughness and earnestness. At best some o! these ideas as !or e=ample that o! a political e@uilibrium are serviceable guidelines to enable one to !ind oneFs way about in the e=tensive and con!used multiplicity o! phenomena and to set it in orderK but to believe that these things e=ist in nature or to strive to realiDe them is the same as to e=pect to !ind the poles the meridians and the tropics by which our survey o! earth is guided actually mar9ed and indicated on the sur!ace o! the globe. ;ay it become the custom in our nation not merely to thin9 idly and as it were e=perimentally <ust to see what will come o! it but to thin9 in such a way that what we thin9 shall be true and have a real e!!ect in li!eQ 5hen it will be super!luous to warn people against such phantoms o! a political wisdom whose origin is !oreign and which only deludes the Aermans. 5his thoroughness earnestness and weightiness in our way o! thin9ing once we have made it our own will show itsel! in our li!e as well. We are de!eatedK whether we are now to be despised as well and rightly despised whether in addition to all other losses we are to lose our honor also that will still depend on ourselves. 5he !ight with weapons has endedK there arises now i! we so will it the new !ight o! principles o! morals o! character. Let us give our guests a picture o! !aith!ul devotion to !riends and !atherland o! incorruptible uprightness and love o! duty o! all civic and domestic virtues to ta9e home with them as a !riendly gi!t !rom their hostsK !or they will return home at last sometime or other. Let us be care!ul not to invite them to despise usK there would however be no surer way !or us to do this than i! we either !eared them beyond measure or gave up our own way o! li!e and strove to resemble them in theirs. *e it !ar !rom us as individuals to be so unmannerly as to
--2

provo9e or irritate individualsK but as to the rest our sa!est measure will be to go our own way in all things as i! we were alone with ourselves and not to establish any relation that is not laid upon us by absolute necessityK and the surest means to this will be !or each one to content himsel! with what the old national conditions are able to a!!ord him to ta9e up his share o! the common burden according to his powers but to loo9 upon any !avor !rom !oreigners as a disgrace and a dishonor. Hn!ortunately it has become an almost general 4uropean custom and there!ore a Aerman custom too !or people to pre!er to descend to the level o! others rather than to appear what is called singular or noticeable when the choice is open to themK indeed the whole system o! what are esteemed good manners may perhaps be regarded as based upon that one principle. Let us Aermans at the present <uncture o!!end rather against this code o! manners than against something higher. Let us remain as we are even though that may be an o!!ense o! this 9indK nay let us become i! we can even stronger and more determined as we ought to be. (t is the custom to tell us that we are sorely lac9ing in @uic9ness and ease and grace and that we grow too serious too heavy and too ponderous over everything. Let us not be in the least ashamed o! this but rather strive to deserve the accusation more and more !ully and to an ever greater e=tent. Let us con!irm ourselves in this resolve by the conviction which is easily to be attained that in spite o! all the trouble we ta9e we shall never do right in the eyes o! our accusers unless we cease entirely to be ourselves which is the same thing as ceasing to e=ist at all. 5here are certain peoples who while preserving their own special characteristics and wishing to have them respected by others yet recogniDe the special characteristics o! other peoples and permit and encourage their retention. 5o such peoples the Aermans belong without a doubtK and this trait is so deeply mar9ed in their whole li!e in the world both past and present that very o!ten in order to be <ust both to contemporary !oreign countries and to anti@uity they have been un<ust to themselves. 5hen there are other peoples whose ego is so closely wrapped up in itsel! that it never allows them the !reedom to detach themselves !or the purpose o! ta9ing a cool and calm view o! what is !oreign to them and who are there!ore compelled to believe that there is only one possible way o! e=istence !or a civiliDed human being and that is always the way which some chance or other has indicated to them alone at the timeK the rest o! man9ind all over the world have no other destiny in their opinion than to become <ust what they are and ought to be
---

e=tremely grate!ul to them i! they ta9e upon themselves the trouble o! molding them in this way. *etween peoples o! the !ormer type there ta9es place an interaction o! culture and education which is most bene!icial to the development o! man as such and an interpenetration which nonetheless allows each one with the good will o! the other to remain its own sel!. 'eoples o! the latter type are unable to !orm anything !or they are unable to apprehend anything in its actual state o! e=istenceK they only want to destroy everything that e=ists and to create everywhere e=cept in themselves a void in which they can reproduce their own image and never anything else. 4ven their apparent acceptance o! !oreign ways when they begin is only gracious condescension on the part o! the tutor to the still !eeble but promising pupil. 4ven the !igures o! the ancient world that has come to an end do not please them until they have clad them in their own garmentsK and they would call them !rom their graves i! they had the power to train them a!ter their own !ashion. $ar !rom me be the presumption o! accusing any e=isting nation as a whole and without e=ception o! such narrow,mindedness. Let us rather assume that here too those who e=press no opinion are the better sort. *ut i! those who have appeared among us and e=pressed their opinions are to be <udged by the opinions they have e=pressed it seems to !ollow that they are to be placed in the class we have described. As such a statement appears to re@uire proo! ( adduce the !ollowing passing over in silence the other mani!estations o! this spirit which are be!ore the eyes o! 4urope. We have been at war with each otherK as !or us we are de!eated and they are the victorsK that is true and is admittedK with that our opponents might doubtless be contented. *ut i! anyone among us went on to maintain that nevertheless we had had the <ust cause and deserved the victory and that it was to be deplored that victory had not !allen to us would this be so very wrong and could those opponents who o! course !or their own part may li9ewise thin9 what they will ta9e it amiss that we should be o! this opinion7 *ut no we must not dare to thin9 that. We must at the same time recogniDe how wrong it is ever to have a will other than theirs and to resist themK we must bless our de!eats as the best thing that could happen to us and bless them as our greatest bene!actors. (t cannot be otherwise and they hope this much o! our good sense. *ut should ( go on e=pounding what was e=pounded with great e=actness almost two thousand years ago !or e=ample in the histories o! 5acitus7 5hat opinion o! the 8omans as to the relationship o! the
--1

con@uered barbarians toward them an opinion which in their case was !ounded on a view o! things that had some e=cuse the opinion that it was criminal rebellion and insurrection against divine and human laws to o!!er resistance to them and that their arms could bring nothing but blessing to the nations and their chains nothing but honor J it is this opinion that has been !ormed about us in these daysK with great good, nature they e=pect us to hold it about ourselves and they assume in advance that we do hold it. ( do not ta9e these utterances as evidence o! arrogance and scornK ( can understand how such opinions may be held in earnest by people who are very conceited and narrow,minded and how they can honestly impute the same belie! to their opponents <ust as ( believe that the 8omans really thought soK but ( only raise a doubt as to whether those among us whose conversion to that way o! thin9ing is !orever impossible can rec9on upon an agreement o! any 9ind whatever. We shall bring the deep contempt o! !oreigners upon ourselves i! in their hearing we accuse each other Aerman races classes and persons o! being responsible !or the !ate that has be!allen every one o! us and bitterly and passionately reproach each other. (n the !irst place all accusations o! this 9ind are !or the most part un!air un<ust and un!ounded. 5he causes that have brought about AermanyFs latest doom we have already indicatedK these causes have !or centuries been native to all Aerman races without e=ception in the same wayK the latest events are not the conse@uences o! any particular error o! any one race or its governmentK they have been in preparation long enough and might <ust as well have happened to us long ago i! it had depended solely on the causes that lie within our own selves. (n this matter the guilt or innocence o! all is one may see e@ually great and a rec9oning is no longer possible. When the !inal result came about in haste it was !ound that the separate Aerman states did not even 9now themselves their powers and their true situationK how then could any one o! them have the presumption to loo9 beyond its own borders and pronounce upon the guilt o! others a !inal <udgment based on thorough 9nowledge7 (t may be that in every race o! the Aerman !atherland the blame !alls with more reason on one special class not because it did not have more insight or greater ability than all the others !or in that respect all were e@ually to blame but because it pretended that it had more insight and greater ability than all the others !or in that respect all were e@ually to blame but because it pretended that it had more insight and
--3

greater ability and 9ept everyone else away !rom the wor9 o! administration in the various states. *ut even i! a reproach o! this 9ind were well !ounded who is to utter it and why is it necessary to utter and discuss it <ust at this moment more loudly and more bitterly then ever7 We see that men o! letters are doing this. (! they had spo9en <ust as they do now in the days when all power and all authority were in the hands o! that class with the tacit approval o! the decisive ma<ority o! the rest o! man9ind who can ob<ect i! they bring to remembrance what they then said now that it has been only too well con!irmed by e=perience7 We hear also that they bring certain persons by name be!ore the tribunal o! the people persons who !ormerly stood at the head o! a!!airs that they set !orth their incapacity their indolence and their evil will and clearly show how !rom such causes such e!!ects were bound to !ollow. (! when power was still in the hands o! the accused persons and when the evils that were the inevitable result o! their administration could have been warded o!! these writers saw what they now see and e=pressed it <ust as loudlyK i! they then accused with the same vigor those whom they now !ind guilty and i! they le!t no means untried to rescue the !atherland out o! their hands and i! no one listened to themK then they do well to recall to mind the warning that was scorn!ully re<ected. *ut i! they have derived their present wisdom only !rom the course o! events !rom which all people since then have derived with them e=actly the same wisdom why do they now say what everyone else now 9nows <ust as well7 &r !urther i! in those days !rom motives o! gain they !lattered or !rom motives o! !ear they remained silent be!ore that class and those persons on whom now that they have lost power they pour the !ull stream o! denunciationK then let them not !orget hence!orth when they are stating the causes o! our present miseries to put with the nobility and the incompetent ministers and generals the writers on politics also who 9now only a!ter the event what ought to have been done <ust li9e the common people and who !latter the holders o! power but with malicious <oy deride the !allenQ &r do they blame the errors o! the past which !or all their blame is indestructible only in order that they may not be repeated in the !utureK and is it solely their Deal to bring about a thorough improvement in human a!!airs which ma9es them so bold in disregarding all considerations o! prudence and decency7 Aladly would we credit them with such good will i! only they were entitled by thorough insight and thorough understanding to have good will in this matter. (t is not so much the particular persons who happen
--2

to have been in the highest places but the connection and complication o! the whole the whole spirit o! the age the errors the ignorance shallowness timidity and the uncertain tread inseparable !rom these things it is the whole way o! li!e o! the age that has brought these miseries upon usK and so it is !ar less the persons who have acted than the placesK it is everyoneFs !aultK and everyone even the violent !ault,!inders themselves may assume with great probability that i! they had been in the same place they would have been !orced by their surroundings to much the same end. Let us not dream so much o! deliberate wic9edness and treacheryQ )tupidity and indolence are in nearly every case su!!icient to e=plain the things that have happenedK and this is a charge o! which no one should entirely clear himsel! without searching sel!,e=amination. 4specially in a state o! a!!airs where there is in the whole mass a very great measure o! indolence the individual who is to !orce his way through must possess the power o! action in a very high degree. )o even i! the mista9es o! individuals are ever so sharply singled out that does not in any way lay bare the cause o! the evilK nor is this cause removed by avoiding these mista9es in !uture. )o long as men remain liable to error they cannot do otherwise than commit errorsK and even i! they avoid those o! their predecessors in the in!inite space o! liability to error they will all too easily ma9e new errors o! their own. &nly a complete regeneration only the beginning o! an entirely new spirit can help us. (! they co, operate !or the development o! this new spirit we shall be ready and willing to give them credit not only !or good will but also !or right and saving understanding. 5hese mutual reproaches besides being un<ust and useless are e=tremely unwise and must degrade us deeply in the eyes o! !oreignersK we not only ma9e it easy !or them to !ind out all about us but positively !orce the 9nowledge on them in every way. (! we never grow weary o! telling them how con!used and stale all things were with us and how miserably we were governed must they not believe that no matter how they behave toward us they are none,the,less much too good !or us and can never become too bad7 ;ust they not believe that because o! our great clumsiness and helplessness we are bound to accept with the humblest than9s any and every thing out o! the rich store o! their art o! government administration and legislation that they have already presented to us or have in contemplation !or us in the !uture7 (s there any need !or us to con!irm their already not un!avorable opinion o! themselves and the low opinion they have o! us7 :o not
--0

certain utterances which would otherwise have to be ta9en as evidence o! bitter scorn !or e=ample that they have been the !irst to bring a !atherland to Aerman countries which previously had none or that they have abolished that slavish dependence o! persons as such on other persons which used to be established by law among us J do not such utterances when we remember what we ourselves have said show themselves as a repetition o! our own statements and an echo o! our own !lattering speeches7 (t is a disgrace which we Aermans share with no other o! the 4uropean peoples whose !ate in other respects has been similar to ours that as soon as ever !oreign arms ruled over us we behaved as i! we had long been awaiting this moment and sought to do ourselves a good turn @uic9ly be!ore it was too late by pouring !orth a stream o! denunciation on our governments and our rulers whom we had !ormerly !lattered in a way that o!!ended against good taste and by railing against everything represented by the word O!atherland.O How shall those o! us who are not guilty ward o!! the disgrace !rom our heads and let the guilty ones stand alone7 5here is a means. +o more scurrilous denunciations will be printed the moment it is certain that no more will be bought and as soon as their authors and publishers can no longer rec9on on readers tempted to buy them !or lac9 o! something better to do by idle curiosity and love o! gossip or by the malicious <oy o! seeing those men humiliated who at one time instilled into them the pain!ul !eeling o! respect. Let everyone who !eels the disgrace hand bac9 with !itting contempt a libel that is o!!ered him to readK let him do this although he believes he is the only one who acts in this way until it becomes the custom among us !or every man o! honor to do the sameK and then without any en!orcement o! restrictions on boo9s we shall soon be !ree o! this scandalous portion o! our literature. $inally we debase ourselves most o! all be!ore !oreigners when we lay ourselves out to !latter them. (n !ormer days certain persons among us made themselves contemptible ludicrous and nauseating beyond measure by o!!ering up musty incense be!ore our own rulers on every occasion and by caring neither !or sense nor decency neither taste nor good manners when they thought there was a chance o! delivering a !lattering address. 5his practice has ceased at this time and these paeans o! praise have been trans!ormed in some cases into words o! abuse. However in order not to get out o! practice as it were we gave our clouds o! incense another direction and turned them towards the place where power now resides. 4ven the old way and not only the
--%

!lattery itsel! but also the !act that it was not declined could not but give pain to every serious,minded AermanK still we 9ept it to ourselves. Are we now going to ma9e !oreigners also the witnesses o! this base craving o! ours and o! the great clumsiness with which we give vent to itK and are we thus going to add to the contemptible e=hibition o! our baseness the ludicrous demonstration o! our lac9 o! adroitness7 $or when we set about these things we are lac9ing in all the re!inement that the !oreigner possessesK so as to avoid not being heard we lay it on thic9 and e=aggerate everythingK we begin straight away with dei!ications and place our heroes among the stars. Another thing is that we give the impression o! being driven to these paeans o! praise chie!ly by !ear and terrorK but there is nothing more ridiculous than a !rightened man who praises the beauty and graciousness o! a creature which in !act he ta9es to be a monster and which he merely see9s to bribe by his !lattery not to swallow him up. &r are these hymns o! praise perhaps not !lattery but the genuine e=pression o! reverence and admiration which they are compelled to pay to the great genius who according to them now directs the a!!airs o! man9ind7 How little they 9now in this case too the character o! true greatnessQ (n all ages and among all peoples true greatness has remained the same in this respect that it was not vainK <ust as on the other hand whatever displayed vanity has always been beyond a doubt base and petty. 5rue greatness resting on itsel! !inds no pleasure in monuments erected by contemporaries or in being called O5he Areat O or in the shrie9ing applause and adulation o! the mobK rather it re<ects these things with !itting contempt and awaits !irst the verdict on itsel! !rom its own indwelling <udge and then the public verdict !rom the <udgment o! posterity. 5rue greatness has always bade this !urther characteristic. it is !illed with awe and reverence in the !ace o! dar9 and mysterious !ate it is mind!ul o! the ever,rolling wheel o! destiny and never allows itsel! to be counted great or happy be!ore its end. Hence those who hymn its praises contradict themselves and by using words they ma9e their words a lie. (! they believed that the ob<ect o! their pretended veneration was really great they would humbly admit that he was e=alted above their acclamations and laudation and they would honor him by reverent silence. *y ma9ing it their business to praise him they show that in !act they ta9e him to be petty and base and so vain that their hymns o! praise can give him pleasure and that they hope thereby to divert some evil !rom themselves or procure themselves some bene!it.
--/

5hat cry o! enthusiasm. OWhat a sublime geniusQ What pro!ound wisdomQ What a comprehensive planQO what a!ter all does it mean when we loo9 at it properly7 (t means that the genius is so great that we too can !ully understand it the wisdom so pro!ound that we too can see through it the plan so comprehensive that we too are able to imitate it complete. Hence it means that he who is praised has about the same measure o! greatness as he who praisesK and yet not @uite !or the latter o! course understands the !ormer !ully and is superior to himK hence he stands above him and i! he only e=erted himsel! thoroughly could no doubt achieve something even greater. He must have a very good opinion o! himsel! who believes that he can pay court acceptably in this wayK and the one who is praised must have a very low opinion o! himsel! i! he !inds pleasure in such tributes. +oQ Aood earnest steady Aerman men and countrymen !ar !rom our spirit be such a lac9 o! understanding and !ar be such de!ilement !rom our language which is !ormed to e=press the truth. Let us leave it to !oreigners to burst into <ubilation and amaDement at every new phenomenon to ma9e a new standard o! greatness every decade to create new gods and to spea9 blasphemies in order to please human beings. Let our standard o! greatness be the old one. that alone is great which is capable o! receiving the ideas which always bring nothing but salvation upon the peoples and which is inspired by those ideas. *ut as regards the living let us leave the verdict to the <udgment o! posterity.

-10

Source 4 C ?iuseppe *a&&ini An )ssay 6n the

Chapter ' 2

uties of *an

Addressed to Wor"ing!en 9+101: uties To$ards Cour Country. pp5 0423/

Gour !irst duties J !irst as regards importance J are as ( have already told you towards Humanity. Gou are men be!ore you are either citiDens or !athers. (! you do not embrace the whole human !amily in your a!!ectionK i! you do not bear witness to your belie! in the Hnity o! that !amily conse@uent upon the Hnity o! Aod and in that !raternity among the peoples which is destined to reduce that Hnity to actionK i! wheresoever a !ellow,creature su!!ers or the dignity o! human nature is violated by !alsehood or tyranny J you are not ready i! able to aid the unhappy and do not !eel called upon to combat i! able !or the redemption o! the betrayed and oppressed J you violate your law o! li!e you comprehend not that 8eligion which will be the guide and blessing o! the !uture. *ut what can each o! you singly do !or the moral improvement and progress o! Humanity7 Gou can !rom time to time give sterile utterance to your belie!K you may on some rare occasions per!orm some act o! charity towards a brother,man not belonging to your own land J no more. *ut charity is not the watchword o! the $aith o! the $uture. 5he watchword o! the !aith o! the !uture is 2ssociation and !raternal cooperation towards a common aimK and this is !ar superior to all charity as the edi!ice which all o! you should unite to raise would be superior to the humble hut each one o! you might build alone or with the mere assistance o! lending and borrowing stone mortar and tools. *ut you tell me you cannot attempt united action distinct and divided as you are in language customs tendencies and capacity. 5he individual is too insigni!icant and Humanity too vast. 5he mariner o! *rittany prays to Aod as he puts to seaK *1elp me, my (odG my boat is so small and 9hy ocean so wideG* And this prayer is the true e=pression o! the condition o! each one o! you until you !ind the means o! in!initely multiplying your !orces and powers o! action. 5his means was provided !or you by Aod when He gave you a countryK
-11

when even as a wise overseer o! labour distributes the various branches o! employment according to the di!!erent capacities o! the wor9men he divided Humanity into distinct groups or nuclei upon the !ace o! the earth thus creating the germ o! nationalities. 4vil governments have dis!igured the :ivine design. +evertheless you may still trace it distinctly mar9ed out J at least as !ar as 4urope is concerned J by the course o! the great rivers the direction o! the higher mountains and other geographical conditions. 5hey have dis!igured it by their con@uests their greed and their <ealousy even o! the righteous power o! othersK dis!igured it so !ar that i! we e=cept 4ngland and $rance there is not perhaps a single country whose present boundaries correspond to that design. 5hese governments did not and do not recogniDe any country save their own !amilies or dynasty the egoism o! caste. *ut the :ivine design will in!allibly be realiDedK natural divisions and the spontaneous innate tendencies o! the peoples will ta9e the place o! the arbitrary divisions sanctioned by evil governments. 5he map o! 4urope will be redrawn. 5he countries o! the peoples de!ined by the vote o! !ree men will arise upon the ruins o! the countries o! 9ings and privileged castes and between these countries harmony and !raternity will e=ist. And the common wor9 o! Humanity o! general amelioration and the gradual discovery and application o! its Law o! li!e being distributed according to local and general capacities will be wrought out in peace!ul and progressive development and advance. 5hen may each one o! you !orti!ied by the power and a!!ection o! many millions all spea9ing the same language gi!ted with the same tendencies and educated by the same historical tradition hope even by your own single e!!orts to be able to bene!it all Humanity. & my brothers love your CountryQ &ur country is our Home a house Aod has given us placing therein a numerous !amily that loves us and whom we loveK a !amily with whom we sympathiDe more readily and whom we understand more @uic9ly than we do othersK and which !rom its being centred round a given spot and !rom the homogeneous nature o! its elements is adapted to a special branch o! activity. &ur Country is our common wor9shop whence the products o! our activity are sent !orth !or the bene!it o! the whole worldK wherein the tools and implements o! labour we can most use!ully employ are gathered togetherK nor may we re<ect them without disobeying the plan o! the Almighty and diminishing our own strength.

-12

(n labouring !or our own country on the right principle we labour !or Humanity. &ur country is the !ulcrum o! the lever we have to wield !or the common good. (! we abandon the !ulcrum we run the ris9 o! rendering ourselves useless not only to Humanity but to our country itsel!. *e!ore men can associate with the nations o! which Humanity is composed they must have a national e=istence. 5here is no true association e=cept among e@uals. (t is only through our country that we can have a recogniDed collective e=istence. Humanity is a vast army advancing to the con@uest o! lands un9nown against enemies both power!ul and astute. 5he peoples are the di!!erent corps the divisions o! that army. 4ach o! them has its post assigned to it and its special operation to e=ecuteK and the common victory depends upon the e=actitude with which those distinct operations are !ul!illed. :isturb not the order o! battle. $orsa9e not the banner given to you by Aod. Wheresoever you may be in the centre o! whatsoever people circumstances may have placed you be ever ready to combat !or the liberty o! that people should it be necessary but combat in such wise that the blood you shed may re!lect glory not on yoursel! alone but on your country. )ay not I but ;e. Let each man among you strive to incarnate his country in himsel!. Let each man among you regard himsel! as a guarantor responsible !or his !ellow,countrymen and learn so to govern his actions as to cause his country to be loved and respected through him. Gour country is the sign o! the ;ission Aod has given you to !ul!ill towards Humanity. 5he !aculties and !orces o! all her sons should be associated in the accomplishment o! that mission. 5he true country is a community o! !ree men and e@uals bound together in !raternal concord to labour towards a common aim. Gou are bound to ma9e it and to maintain it such. 5he country is not an aggregation but an association. 5here is there!ore no true country without a uni!orm right. 5here is no true country where the uni!ormity o! that right is violated by the e=istence o! caste privilege and ine@uality. Where the activity o! a portion o! the powers and !aculties o! the individual is either cancelled or dormantK where there is not a common 'rinciple recogniDed accepted and developed by all there is no true +ation no 'eopleK but only a multitude a !ortuitous agglomeration o! men whom circumstances have called together and whom circumstances may again divide. (n the name o! the love you bear your country you must peace!ully but untiringly combat the e=istence o! privilege and ine@uality in the land that gave you li!e. 5here is but one sole legitimate privilege the privilege o! Aenius when
-1-

it reveals itsel! united with virtue. *ut this is a privilege given by Aod and when you ac9nowledge it and !ollow its inspiration you do so !reely e=ercising your own reason and your own choice. 4very privilege which demands submission !rom you in virtue o! power inheritance or any other right than the 8ight common to all is a usurpation and a tyranny which you are bound to resist and destroy. *e your country your 5emple. Aod at the summitK a people o! e@uals at the base. Accept no other !ormula no other moral law i! you would not dishonour ali9e your country and yourselves. Let all secondary laws be but the gradual regulation o! your e=istence by the progressive application o! this )upreme law. And in order that they may be such it is necessary that all o! you should aid in !raming them. Laws !ramed only by a single !raction o! the citiDens can never in the very nature o! things be other than the mere e=pression o! the thoughts aspirations and desires o! that !ractionK the representation not o! the country but o! a third or !ourth part o! a class or Done o! the country. 5he laws should be the e=pression o! the universal aspiration and promote the universal good. 5hey should be a pulsation o! the heart o! the nation. 5he entire nation should either directly or indirectly legislate. *y yielding up this mission into the hands o! a !ew you substitute the sel!ishness o! one class !or the Country which is the union o! all classes. Country is not only a mere Done o! territory. 5he true Country is the (dea to which it gives birthK it is the 5hought o! love the sense o! communion which unites in one all the sons o! that territory. )o long as a single one amongst your brothers has no vote to represent him in the development o! the national li!e so long as there is one le!t to vegetate in ignorance where others are educated so long as a single man able and willing to wor9 languishes in poverty through want o! wor9 to do you have no country in the sense in which Country ought to e=ist J the country o! all and !or all. 4ducation labour and the !ranchise are the three main pillars o! the +ationK rest not until you have built them thoroughly up with your own labour and e=ertions. *e it yours to evolve the li!e o! your country in loveliness and strengthK
-11

!ree !rom all servile !ears or sceptical doubtsK maintaining as its basis the 'eopleK as its guide the principles o! its 8eligious $aith logically and energetically appliedK its strength the united strength o! allK its aim the !ul!illment o! the mission given to it by Aod. And so long as you are ready to die !or Humanity the li!e o! your country will be immortal.

-13

Source 4 Theodor Her&l The ,e$ish State

I5 Introduction (t is astonishing how little insight into the science o! economics many o! the men who move in the midst o! active li!e possess. Hence it is that even 6ews !aith!ully repeat the cry o! the Anti,)emites. OWe depend !or sustenance on the nations who are our hosts and i! we had no hosts to support us we should die o! starvation.O 5his is a point that shows how un<ust accusations may wea9en our sel!,9nowledge. *ut what are the true grounds !or this statement concerning the nations that act as OhostsO7 Where it is not based on limited physiocratic views it is !ounded on the childish error that commodities pass !rom hand to hand in continuous rotation. We need not wa9e !rom long slumber li9e 8ip van Win9le to realiDe that the world is considerably altered by the production o! new commodities. 5he technical progress made during this wonder!ul era enables even a man o! most limited intelligence to note with his short,sighted eyes the appearance o! new commodities all around him. 5he spirit o! enterprise has created them. Labor without enterprise is the stationary labor o! ancient daysK and typical o! it is the wor9 o! the husbandman who stands now <ust where his progenitors stood a thousand years ago. All our material wel!are has been brought about by men o! enterprise. ( !eel almost ashamed o! writing down so trite a remar9. 4ven i! we were a nation o! entrepreneurs J such as absurdly e=aggerated accounts ma9e us out to be J we should not re@uire another nation to live on. We do not depend on the circulation o! old commodities because we produce new ones. 5he world possesses slaves o! e=traordinary capacity !or wor9 whose appearance has been !atal to the production o! handmade goods. these slaves are the machines. (t is true that wor9men are re@uired to set machinery in motionK but !or this we have men in plenty in super, abundance. &nly those who are ignorant o! the conditions o! 6ews in many countries o! 4astern 4urope would venture to assert that 6ews
-12

are either un!it or unwilling to per!orm manual labor. *ut ( do not wish to ta9e up the cudgels !or the 6ews in this pamphlet. (t would be useless. 4verything rational and everything sentimental that can possibly be said in their de!ense has been said already. (! oneFs hearers are incapable o! comprehending themK one is a preacher in a desert. And i! oneFs hearers are broad and high,minded enough to have grasped them already then the sermon is super!luous. ( believe in the ascent o! man to higher and yet higher grades o! civiliDationK but ( consider this ascent to be desperately slow. Were we to wait till over age humanity had become as charitably inclined as was Lessing when he wrote O+athan the Wise O we should wait beyond our day beyond the days o! our children o! our grandchildren and o! our great, grandchildren. *ut the worldFs spirit comes to our aid in another way. 5his century has given the world a wonder!ul renaissance by means o! its technical achievementsK but at the same time its miraculous improvements have not been employed in the service o! humanity. :istance has ceased to be an obstacle yet we complain o! insu!!icient space. &ur great steamships carry us swi!tly and surely over hitherto unvisited seas. &ur railways carry us sa!ely into a mountain,world hitherto tremblingly scaled on !oot. 4vents occurring in countries undiscovered when 4urope con!ined the 6ews in Ahettos are 9nown to us in the course o! an hour. Hence the misery o! the 6ews is an anachronism J not because there was a period o! enlightenment one hundred years ago !or that enlightenment reached in reality only the choicest spirits. ( believe that electric light was not invented !or the purpose o! illuminating the drawing,rooms o! a !ew snobs but rather !or the purpose o! throwing light on some o! the dar9 problems o! humanity. &ne o! these problems and not the least o! them is the 6ewish @uestion. (n solving it we are wor9ing not only !or ourselves but also !or many other over,burdened and oppressed beings. 5he 6ewish @uestion still e=ists. (t would be !oolish to deny it. (t is a remnant o! the ;iddle Ages which civiliDed nations do not even yet seem able to sha9e o!! try as they will. 5hey certainly showed a generous desire to do so when they emancipated us. 5he 6ewish @uestion e=ists wherever 6ews live in perceptible numbers. Where it does not e=ist it is carried by 6ews in the course o! their migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted and there our presence produces persecution. 5his is the case in every
-10

country and will remain so even in those highly civiliDed J !or instance $rance J until the 6ewish @uestion !inds a solution on a political basis. 5he un!ortunate 6ews are now carrying the seeds o! Anti,)emitism into 4nglandK they have already introduced it into America. ( believe that ( understand Anti,)emitism which is really a highly comple= movement. ( consider it !rom a 6ewish standpoint yet without !ear or hatred. ( believe that ( can see what elements there are in it o! vulgar sport o! common trade <ealousy o! inherited pre<udice o! religious intolerance and also o! pretended sel!,de!ense. ( thin9 the 6ewish @uestion is no more a social than a religious one notwithstanding that it sometimes ta9es these and other !orms. (t is a national @uestion which can only be solved by ma9ing it a political world,@uestion to be discussed and settled by the civiliDed nations o! the world in council. We are a people J one people. We have honestly endeavored everywhere to merge ourselves in the social li!e o! surrounding communities and to preserve the !aith o! our !athers. We are not permitted to do so. (n vain are we loyal patriots our loyalty in some places running to e=tremesK in vain do we ma9e the same sacri!ices o! li!e and property as our !ellow,citiDensK in vain do we strive to increase the !ame o! our native land in science and art or her wealth by trade and commerce. (n countries where we have lived !or centuries we are still cried down as strangers and o!ten by those whose ancestors were not yet domiciled in the land where 6ews had already had e=perience o! su!!ering. 5he ma<ority may decide which are the strangersK !or this as indeed every point which arises in the relations between nations is a @uestion o! might. ( do not here surrender any portion o! our prescriptive right when ( ma9e this statement merely in my own name as an individual. (n the world as it now is and !or an inde!inite period will probably remain might precedes right. (t is useless there!ore !or us to be loyal patriots as were the Huguenots who were !orced to emigrate. (! we could only be le!t in peace. . . . *ut ( thin9 we shall not be le!t in peace. &ppression and persecution cannot e=terminate us. +o nation on earth has survived such struggles and su!!erings as we have gone through. 6ew,baiting has merely stripped o!! our wea9lingsK the strong among us were invariably true to their race when persecution bro9e out against
-1%

them. 5his attitude was most clearly apparent in the period immediately !ollowing the emancipation o! the 6ews. 5hose 6ews who were advanced intellectually and materially entirely lost the !eeling o! belonging to their race. Wherever our political well,being has lasted !or any length o! time we have assimilated with our surroundings. ( thin9 this is not discreditable. Hence the statesman who would wish to see a 6ewish strain in his nation would have to provide !or the duration o! our political well,beingK and even a *ismarc9 could not do that. $or old pre<udices against us still lie deep in the hearts o! the people. He who would have proo!s o! this need only listen to the people where they spea9 with !ran9ness and simplicity. proverb and !airy,tale are both Anti,)emitic. A nation is everywhere a great child which can certainly be educatedK but its education would even in most !avorable circumstances occupy such a vast amount o! time that we could as already mentioned remove our own di!!iculties by other means long be!ore the process was accomplished. Assimilation by which ( understood not only e=ternal con!ormity in dress habits customs and language but also identity o! !eeling and manner J assimilation o! 6ews could be e!!ected only by intermarriage. *ut the need !or mi=ed marriages would have to be !elt by the ma<orityK their mere recognition by law would certainly not su!!ice. 5he Hungarian Liberals who have <ust given legal sanction to mi=ed marriages have made a remar9able mista9e which one o! the earliest cases clearly illustratesK a baptiDed 6ew married a 6ewess. At the same time the struggle to obtain the present !orm o! marriage accentuated distinctions between 6ews and Christians thus hindering rather than aiding the !usion o! races. 5hose who really wished to see the 6ews disappear through intermi=ture with other nations can only hope to see it come about in one way. 5he 6ews must previously ac@uire economic power su!!iciently great to overcome the old social pre<udice against them. 5he aristocracy may serve as an e=ample o! this !or in its ran9s occur the proportionately largest numbers o! mi=ed marriages. 6ewish !amilies which regaled the old nobility with money become gradually absorbed. *ut what !orm would this phenomenon assume in the middle classes where "the 6ews being a bourgeois people# the 6ewish @uestion is mainly concentrated7 A previous ac@uisition o! power could be synonymous with that economic supremacy which 6ews are already erroneously declared to possess. And i! the power they now possess
-1/

creates rage and indignation among the Anti,)emites what outbrea9s would such an increase o! power create7 Hence the !irst step towards absorption will never be ta9en because this step would involve the sub<ection o! the ma<ority to a hitherto scorned minority possessing neither military nor administrative power o! its own. ( thin9 there!ore that the absorption o! 6ews by means o! their prosperity is unli9ely to occur. (n countries which now are Anti,)emitic my view will be approved. (n others where 6ews now !eel com!ortable it will probably be violently disputed by them. ;y happier coreligionists will not believe me till 6ew,baiting teaches them the truthK !or the longer Anti,)emitism lies in abeyance the more !iercely will it brea9 out. 5he in!iltration o! immigrating 6ews attracted to a land by apparent security and the ascent in the social scale o! native 6ews combine power!ully to bring about a revolution. +othing is plainer than this rational conclusion. *ecause ( have drawn this conclusion with complete indi!!erence to everything but the @uest o! truth ( shall probably be contradicted and opposed by 6ews who are in easy circumstances. (nso!ar as private interests alone are held by their an=ious or timid possessors to be in danger they can sa!ely be ignored !or the concerns o! the poor and oppressed are o! greater importance than theirs. *ut ( wish !rom the outset to prevent any misconception !rom arising particularly the mista9en notion that my pro<ect i! realiDed would in the least degree in<ure property now held by 6ews. ( shall there!ore e=plain everything connected with rights o! property very !ully. Whereas i! my plan never becomes anything more than a piece o! literature things will merely remain as they are. (t might more reasonably be ob<ected that ( am giving a handle to anti,)emitism when ( say we are a people J one peopleK that ( am hindering the assimilation o! 6ews where it is about to be consummated and endangering it where it is an accomplished !act inso!ar as it is possible !or a solitary writer to hinder or endanger anything. 5his ob<ection will be especially brought !orward in $rance. (t will probably also be made in other countries but ( shall answer only the $rench 6ews be!orehand because these a!!ord the most stri9ing e=ample o! my point. However much ( may worship personality J power!ul individual personality in statesmen inventors artists philosophers or leaders as well as the collective personality o! a historic group o! human beings which we call a nation J however much ( may worship personality ( do not regret its disappearance. Whoever can will and must perish let him perish. *ut the distinctive nationality o! 6ews neither can will nor
-30

must be destroyed. (t cannot be destroyed because e=ternal enemies consolidate it. (t will not be destroyedK this is shown during two thousand years o! appalling su!!ering. (t must not be destroyed and that as a descendant o! numberless 6ews who re!used to despair ( am trying once more to prove in this pamphlet. Whole branches o! 6udaism may wither and !all but the trun9 will remain. Hence i! all or any o! the $rench 6ews protest against this scheme on account o! their own Oassimilation O my answer is simple. 5he whole thing does not concern them at all. 5hey are 6ewish $renchmen well and goodQ 5his is a private a!!air !or the 6ews alone. 5he movement towards the organiDation o! the )tate ( am proposing would o! course harm 6ewish $renchmen no more than it would harm the OassimilatedO o! other countries. (t would on the contrary be distinctly to their advantage. $or they would no longer be disturbed in their Ochromatic !unction O as :arwin puts it but would be able to assimilate in peace because the present Anti,)emitism would have been stopped !or ever. 5hey would certainly be credited with being assimilated to the very depths o! their souls i! they stayed where they were a!ter the new 6ewish )tate with its superior institutions had become a reality. 5he OassimilatedO would pro!it even more than Christian citiDens by the departure o! !aith!ul 6ewsK !or they would be rid o! the dis@uieting incalculable and unavoidable rivalry o! a 6ewish proletariat driven by poverty and political pressure !rom place to place !rom land to land. 5his !loating proletariat would become stationary. ;any Christian citiDens J whom we call Anti,)emites J now o!!er determined resistance to the immigration o! !oreign 6ews. 6ewish citiDens cannot do this although it a!!ects them !ar more directlyK !or on them they !eel !irst o! all the 9een competition o! individuals carrying on similar branches o! industry who in addition either introduce Anti,)emitism where it does not e=ist or intensi!y it where it does. 5he OassimilatedO give e=pression to this secret grievance in OphilanthropicO underta9ings. 5hey organiDe emigration societies !or wandering 6ews. 5here is a reverse to the picture which would be comic i! it did not deal with human beings. $or some o! these charitable institutions are created not !or but against persecuted 6ewsK they are created to despatch these poor creatures <ust as !ast and !ar as possible. And thus many an apparent !riend o! the 6ews turns out on care!ul inspection to be nothing more than an Anti,)emite o! 6ewish origin disguised as a philanthropist. *ut the attempts at coloniDation made even by really benevolent men
-31

interesting attempts though they were have so !ar been unsuccess!ul. ( do not thin9 that this or that man too9 up the matter merely as an amusement that they engaged in the emigration o! poor 6ews as one indulges in the racing o! horses. 5he matter was too grave and tragic !or such treatment. 5hese attempts were interesting in that they represented on a small scale the practical !ore,runners o! the idea o! a 6ewish )tate. 5hey were even use!ul !or out o! their mista9es may be gathered e=perience !or carrying the idea out success!ully on a larger scale. 5hey have o! course done harm also. 5he transportation o! Anti,)emitism to new districts which is the inevitable conse@uence o! such arti!icial in!iltration seems to me to be the least o! these evils. $ar worse is the circumstance that unsatis!actory results tend to cast doubts on intelligent men. What is impractical or impossible to simple argument will remove this doubt !rom the minds o! intelligent men. What is unpractical or impossible to accomplish on a small scale need not necessarily be so on a larger one. A small enterprise may result in loss under the same conditions which would ma9e a large one pay. A rivulet cannot even be navigated by boats the river into which it !lows carries stately iron vessels. +o human being is wealthy or power!ul enough to transplant a nation !rom one habitation to another. An idea alone can achieve that and this idea o! a )tate may have the re@uisite power to do so. 5he 6ews have dreamt this 9ingly dream all through the long nights o! their history. O+e=t year in 6erusalemO is our old phrase. (t is now a @uestion o! showing that the dream can be converted into a living reality. $or this many old outgrown con!used and limited notions must !irst be entirely erased !rom the minds o! men. :ull brains might !or instance imagine that this e=odus would be !rom civiliDed regions into the desert. 5hat is not the case. (t will be carried out in the midst o! civiliDation. We shall not revert to a lower stage we shall rise to a higher one. We shall not dwell in mud hutsK we shall build new more beauti!ul and more modern houses and possess them in sa!ety. We shall not lose our ac@uired possessions we shall realiDe them. We shall surrender our well earned rights only !or better ones. We shall not sacri!ice our beloved customsK we shall !ind them again. We shall nor leave our old home be!ore the new one is prepared !or us. 5hose only will depart who are sure thereby to improve their positionK those who are now desperate will go !irst a!ter them the poorK ne=t the prosperous and last o! all the wealthy. 5hose who go in advance will raise themselves to a higher grade e@ual to those whose representatives will shortly
-32

!ollow. 5hus the e=odus will be at the same time an ascent o! the class. 5he departure o! the 6ews will involve no economic disturbances no crises no persecutionsK in !act the countries they abandon will revive to a new period o! prosperity. 5here will be an inner migration o! Christian citiDens into the positions evacuated by 6ews. 5he outgoing current will be gradual without any disturbance and its initial movement will put an end to Anti,)emitism. 5he 6ews will leave as honored !riends and i! some o! them return they will receive the same !avorable welcome and treatment at the hands o! civiliDed nations as is accorded to all !oreign visitors. 5heir e=odus will have no resemblance to a !light !or it will be a well,regulated movement under control o! public opinion. 5he movement will not only be inaugurated with absolute con!ormity to law but it cannot even be carried out without the !riendly cooperation o! interested Aovernments who would derive considerable bene!its !rom it. )ecurity !or the integrity o! the idea and the vigor o! its e=ecution will be !ound in the creation o! a body corporate or corporation. 5his corporation will be called O5he )ociety o! 6ews.O (n addition to it there will be a 6ewish company an economically productive body. An individual who attempted even to underta9e this huge tas9 alone would be either an impostor or a madman. 5he personal character o! the members o! the corporation will guarantee its integrity and the ade@uate capital o! the Company will prove its stability. 5hese pre!atory remar9s are merely intended as a hasty reply to the mass o! ob<ections which the very words O6ewish )tateO are certain to arouse. Hence!orth we shall proceed more slowly to meet !urther ob<ections and to e=plain in detail what has been as yet only indicatedK and we shall try in the interests o! this pamphlet to avoid ma9ing it a dull e=position. )hort aphoristic chapters will there!ore best answer the purpose. (! ( wish to substitute a new building !or an old one ( must demolish be!ore ( construct. ( shall there!ore 9eep to this natural se@uence. (n the !irst and general part ( shall e=plain my ideas remove all pre<udices determine essential political and economic conditions and develop the plan. (n the special part which is divided into three principal sections ( shall describe its e=ecution. 5hese three sections are. 5he 6ewish Company Local Aroups and the )ociety o! 6ews. 5he )ociety is to be created
-3-

!irst the Company lastK but in this e=position the reverse order is pre!erable because it is the !inancial soundness o! the enterprise which will chie!ly be called into @uestion and doubts on this score must be removed !irst. (n the conclusion ( shall try to meet every !urther ob<ection that could possibly be made. ;y 6ewish readers will ( hope !ollow me patiently to the end. )ome will naturally ma9e their ob<ections in an order o! succession other than that chosen !or their re!utation. *ut whoever !inds his doubts dispelled should give allegiance to the cause. Although ( spea9 o! reason ( am !ully aware that reason alone will not su!!ice. &ld prisoners do not willingly leave their cells. We shall see whether the youth whom we need are at our command J the youth who irresistibly draw on the old carry them !orward on strong arms and trans!orm rational motives into enthusiasm.

-31

Source 1 A Aristotle Politics

%oo" 'II. Part <III 8eturning to the constitution itsel! let us see9 to determine out o! what and what sort o! elements the state which is to be happy and well, governed should be composed. 5here are two things in which all well, being consists. one o! them is the choice o! a right end and aim o! action and the other the discovery o! the actions which are means towards itK !or the means and the end may agree or disagree. )ometimes the right end is set be!ore men but in practice they !ail to attain itK in other cases they are success!ul in all the means but they propose to themselves a bad endK and sometimes they !ail in both. 5a9e !or e=ample the art o! medicineK physicians do not always understand the nature o! health and also the means which they use may not e!!ect the desired end. (n all arts and sciences both the end and the means should be e@ually within our control. 5he happiness and well,being which all men mani!estly desire some have the power o! attaining but to others !rom some accident or de!ect o! nature the attainment o! them is not grantedK !or a good li!e re@uires a supply o! e=ternal goods in a less degree when men are in a good state in a greater degree when they are in a lower state. &thers again who possess the conditions o! happiness go utterly wrong !rom the !irst in the pursuit o! it. *ut since our ob<ect is to discover the best !orm o! government that namely under which a city will be best governed and since the city is best governed which has the greatest opportunity o! obtaining happiness it is evident that we must clearly ascertain the nature o! happiness. We maintain and have said in the 4thics i! the arguments there adduced are o! any value that happiness is the realiDation and per!ect e=ercise o! virtue and this not conditional but absolute. And ( used the term FconditionalF to e=press that which is indispensable and FabsoluteF to e=press that which is good in itsel!. 5a9e the case o! <ust actionsK <ust punishments and chastisements do indeed spring !rom a good principle but they are good only because we cannot do without them J
-33

it would be better that neither individuals nor states should need anything o! the sort J but actions which aim at honor and advantage are absolutely the best. 5he conditional action is only the choice o! a lesser evilK whereas these are the !oundation and creation o! good. A good man may ma9e the best even o! poverty and disease and the other ills o! li!eK but he can only attain happiness under the opposite conditions "!or this also has been determined in accordance with ethical arguments that the good man is he !or whom because he is virtuous the things that are absolutely good are goodK it is also plain that his use o! these goods must be virtuous and in the absolute sense good#. 5his ma9es men !ancy that e=ternal goods are the cause o! happiness yet we might as well say that a brilliant per!ormance on the lyre was to be attributed to the instrument and not to the s9ill o! the per!ormer. (t !ollows then !rom what has been said that some things the legislator must !ind ready to his hand in a state others he must provide. And there!ore we can only say. ;ay our state be constituted in such a manner as to be blessed with the goods o! which !ortune disposes "!or we ac9nowledge her power#. whereas virtue and goodness in the state are not a matter o! chance but the result o! 9nowledge and purpose. A city can be virtuous only when the citiDens who have a share in the government are virtuous and in our state all the citiDens share in the governmentK let us then in@uire how a man becomes virtuous. $or even i! we could suppose the citiDen body to be virtuous without each o! them being so yet the latter would be better !or in the virtue o! each the virtue o! all is involved. 5here are three things which ma9e men good and virtuousK these are nature habit rational principle. (n the !irst place every one must be born a man and not some other animalK so too he must have a certain character both o! body and soul. *ut some @ualities there is no use in having at birth !or they are altered by habit and there are some gi!ts which by nature are made to be turned by habit to good or bad. Animals lead !or the most part a li!e o! nature although in lesser particulars some are in!luenced by habit as well. ;an has rational principle in addition and man only. Where!ore nature habit rational principle must be in harmony with one anotherK !or they do not always agreeK men do many things against habit and nature i! rational principle persuades them that they ought. We have already determined what natures are li9ely to be most easily molded by the hands o! the legislator. All else is the wor9 o! educationK we learn some things by
-32

habit and some by instruction.

-30

Source 1 % Ada! 7erguson An )ssay on the History of Ci#il Society5

Part I5 Sections I<. <5 6f National 7elicity &! +ational $elicity ;an is by nature the member o! a communityK and when considered in this capacity the individual appears to be no longer made !or himsel!. He must !orego his happiness and his !reedom where these inter!ere with the good o! society. He is only part o! a wholeK and the praise we thin9 due to his virtue is but a branch o! that more general commendation we bestow on the member o! a body on the part o! a !abric or engine !or being well !itted to occupy its place and to produce its e!!ect. (! this !ollow !rom the relation o! a part to its whole and i! the public good be the principal ob<ect with individuals it is li9ewise true that the happiness o! individuals is the great end o! civil society. !or in what sense can a public en<oy any good i! its members considered apart be unhappy7 5he interests o! society however and o! its members are easily reconciled. (! the individual owe every degree o! consideration to the public he receives in paying that very consideration the greatest happiness o! which his nature is capableK and the greatest blessing that the public can bestow on its members is to 9eep them attached to itsel!. 5hat is the most happy state which is most beloved by its sub<ectsK and they are the most happy men whose hearts are engaged to a community in which they !ind every ob<ect o! generosity and Deal and a scope to the e=ercise o! every talent and o! every virtuous disposition. A!ter we have thus !ound general ma=ims the greater part o! our trouble remains their <ust application to particular cases. +ations are di!!erent in respect to their e=tent numbers o! people and wealthK in respect to the arts they practise and the accommodations they have procured. 5hese circumstances may not only a!!ect the manners o!
-3%

menK they even in our esteem come into competition with the article o! manners itsel!K are supposed to constitute a national !elicity independent o! virtueK and give a title upon which we indulge our own vanity and that o! other nations as we do that o! private men on the score o! their !ortunes and honours. *ut i! this way o! measuring happiness when applied to private men be ruinous and !alse it is so no less when applied to nations. Wealth commerce e=tent o! territory and the 9nowledge o! arts are when properly employed the means o! preservation and the !oundations o! power. (! they !ail in part the nation is wea9enedK i! they were entirely withheld the race would perish. their tendency is to maintain numbers o! men but not to constitute happiness. 5hey will accordingly maintain the wretched as well as the happy. 5hey answer one purpose but are not there!ore su!!icient !or allK and are o! little signi!icance when only employed to maintain a timid de<ected and servile people. Areat and power!ul states are able to overcome and subdue the wea9K polished and commercial nations have more wealth and practise a greater variety o! arts than the rude. but the happiness o! men in all cases ali9e consists in the blessings o! a candid an active and strenuous mind. And i! we consider the state o! society merely as that into which man9ind are led by their propensities as a state to be valued !rom its e!!ect in preserving the species in ripening their talents and e=citing their virtues we need not enlarge our communities in order to en<oy these advantages. We !re@uently obtain them in the most remar9able degree where nations remain independent and are o! a small e=tent. 5o increase the numbers o! man9ind may be admitted as a great and important ob<ect. but to e=tend the limits o! any particular state is not perhaps the way to obtain itK while we desire that our !ellow,creatures should multiply it does not !ollow that the whole should i! possible be united under one head. We are apt to admire the empire o! the 8omans as a model o! national greatness and splendour. but the greatness we admire in this case was ruinous to the virtue and the happiness o! man9indK it was !ound to be inconsistent with all the advantages which that con@uering people had !ormerly en<oyed in the articles o! government and manners. 5he emulation o! nations proceeds !rom their division. A cluster o!
-3/

states li9e a company o! men !ind the e=ercise o! their reason and the test o! their virtues in the a!!airs they transact upon a !oot o! e@uality and o! separate interest. 5he measures ta9en !or sa!ety including great part o! the national policy are relative in every state to what is apprehended !rom abroad. Athens was necessary to )parta in the e=ercise o! her virtue as steel is to !lint in the production o! !ireK and i! the cities o! Areece had been united under one head we should never have heard o! 4paminondas or 5hrasybulus o! Lycurgus or )olon. When we reason in behal! o! our species there!ore although we may lament the abuses which sometimes arise !rom independence and opposition o! interestK yet whilst any degrees o! virtue remain with man9ind we cannot wish to croud under one establishment numbers o! men who may serve to constitute severalK or to commit a!!airs to the conduct o! one senate one legislative or e=ecutive power which upon a distinct and separate !ooting might !urnish an e=ercise o! ability and a theatre o! glory to many. 5his may be a sub<ect upon which no determinate rule can be given but the admiration o! boundless dominion is a ruinous errorK and in no instance perhaps is the real interest o! man9ind more entirely mista9en. 5he measure o! enlargement to be wished !or any particular state is o!ten to be ta9en !rom the condition o! its neighbours. Where a number o! states are contiguous they should be near an e@uality in order that they may be mutually ob<ects o! respect and consideration and in order that they may possess that independence in which the political li!e o! a nation consists. When the 9ingdoms o! )pain were united when the great !ie!s in $rance were anne=ed to the crown it was no longer e=pedient !or the nations o! Areat *ritain to continue dis<oined. 5he small republics o! Areece indeed by their subdivisions and the balance o! their power !ound almost in every village the ob<ect o! nations. 4very little district was a nursery o! e=cellent men and what is now the wretched corner o! a great empire was the !ield on which man9ind have reaped their principal honours. *ut in modern 4urope republics o! a similar e=tent are li9e shrubs under the shade o! a taller wood cho9ed by the neighbourhood o! more power!ul states. (n their
-20

case a certain disproportion o! !orce !rustrates in a great measure the advantage o! separation. 5hey are li9e the trader in 'oland who is the more despicable and the less secure that he is neither master nor slave. (ndependent communities in the mean time however wea9 are averse to a coalition not only where it comes with an air o! imposition or une@ual treaty but even where it implies no more than the admission o! new members to an e@ual share o! consideration with the old. 5he citiDen has no interest in the anne=ation o! 9ingdomsK he must !ind his importance diminished as the state is enlarged. but ambitious men under the enlargement o! territory !ind a more plenti!ul harvest o! power and o! wealth while government itsel! is an easier tas9. Hence the ruinous progress o! empireK and hence !ree nations under the shew o! ac@uiring dominion su!!er themselves in the end to be yo9ed with the slaves they had con@uered. &ur desire to augment the !orce o! a nation is the only prete=t !or enlarging its territoryK but this measure when pursued to e=tremes seldom !ails to !rustrate itsel!. +otwithstanding the advantage o! numbers and superior resources in war the strength o! a nation is derived !rom the character not !rom the wealth nor !rom the multitude o! its people. (! the treasure o! a state can hire numbers o! men erect ramparts and !urnish the implements o! warK the possessions o! the !ear!ul are easily seiDedK a timorous multitude !alls into rout o! itsel!K ramparts may be scaled where they are not de!ended by valourK and arms are o! conse@uence only in the hands o! the brave. 5he band to which Agesilaus pointed as the wall o! his city made a de!ence !or their country more permanent and more e!!ectual than the roc9 and the cement with which other cities were !orti!ied. We should owe little to that statesman who were to contrive a de!ence that might supersede the e=ternal uses o! virtue. (t is wisely ordered !or man as a rational being that the employment o! reason is necessary to his preservation. it is !ortunate !or him in the pursuit o! distinction that his personal consideration depends on his characterK and it is !ortunate !or nations that in order to be power!ul and sa!e they must strive to maintain the courage and cultivate the virtues o! their people. *y the use o! such means they at once gain their e=ternal ends and
-21

are happy. 'eace and unanimity are commonly considered as the principal !oundations o! public !elicityK yet the rivalship o! separate communities and the agitations o! a !ree people are the principles o! political li!e and the school o! men. How shall we reconcile these <arring and opposite tenets7 (t is perhaps not necessary to reconcile them F5he paci!ic may do what they can to allay the animosities and to reconcile the opinions o! menK and it will be happy i! they can succeed in repressing their crimes and in calming the worst o! their passions. +othing in the mean time but corruption or slavery can suppress the debates that subsist among men o! integrity who bear an e@ual part in the administration o! state. A per!ect agreement in matters o! opinion is not to be obtained in the most select companyK and i! it were what would become o! society7 F5he )partan legislator F says 'lutarch Fappears to have sown the seeds o! variance and dissension among his countrymen.F he meant that good citiDens should be led to disputeK he considered emulation as the brand by which their virtues were 9indledK and seemed to apprehend that a complaisance by which men submit their opinions without e=amination is a principal source o! corruption. $orms o! government are supposed to decide o! the happiness or misery o! man9ind. *ut !orms o! government must be varied in order to suit the e=tent the way o! subsistence the character and the manners o! di!!erent nations. (n some cases the multitude may be su!!ered to govern themselvesK in others they must be severely restrained. 5he inhabitants o! a village in some primitive age may have been sa!ely intrusted to the conduct o! reason and to the suggestion o! their innocent viewsK but the tenants o! +ewgate can scarcely be trusted with chains loc9ed to their bodies and bars o! iron !i=ed to their legs. How is it possible there!ore to !ind any single !orm o! government that would suit man9ind in every condition7 We proceed however in the !ollowing section to point out the distinctions and to e=plain the language which occurs in this place on the head o! di!!erent models !or subordination and government.

-22

)ection > 5he same sub<ect continued (t is a common observation that man9ind were originally e@ual. 5hey have indeed by nature e@ual rights to their preservation and to the use o! their talentsK but they are !itted !or di!!erent stationsK and when they are classed by a rule ta9en !rom this circumstance they su!!er no in<ustice on the side o! their natural rights. (t is obvious that some mode o! subordination is as necessary to men as society itsel!K and this not only to attain the ends o! government but to comply with an order established by nature. 'rior to any political institution whatever men are @uali!ied by a great diversity o! talents by a di!!erent tone o! the soul and ardour o! the passions to act a variety o! parts. *ring them together each will !ind his place. 5hey censure or applaud in a bodyK they consult and deliberate in more select partiesK they ta9e or give an ascendant as individualsK and numbers are by this means !itted to act in company and to preserve their communities be!ore any !ormal distribution o! o!!ice is made. We are !ormed to act in this mannerK and i! we have any doubts with relation to the rights o! government in general we owe our perple=ity more to the subtilties o! the speculative than to any uncertainty in the !eelings o! the heart. (nvolved in the resolutions o! our company we move with the croud be!ore we have determined the rule by which its will is collected. We !ollow a leader be!ore we have settled the ground o! his pretensions or ad<usted the !orm o! his election. and it is not till a!ter man9ind have committed many errors in the capacities o! magistrate and sub<ect that they thin9 o! ma9ing government itsel! a sub<ect o! rules. (! there!ore in considering the variety o! !orms under which societies subsist the casuist is pleased to in@uire What title one man or any number o! men have to controul his actions7 He may be answered +one at all provided that his actions have no e!!ect to the pre<udice o! his !ellow,creaturesK but i! they have the rights o! de!ence and the obligation to repress the commission o! wrongs belong to collective bodies as well as to individuals. ;any rude nations having no !ormal tribunals !or the <udgement o! crimes assemble when alarmed by any
-2-

!lagrant o!!ence and ta9e their measures with the criminal as they would with an enemy. *ut will this consideration which con!irms the title to sovereignty where it is e=ercised by the society in its collective capacity or by those to whom the powers o! the whole are committed li9ewise support the claim to dominion wherever it is casually lodged or even where it is only maintained by !orce7 5his @uestion may be su!!iciently answered by observing that a right to do <ustice and to do good is competent to every individual or order o! men and that the e=ercise o! this right has no limits but in the de!ect o! power. *ut a right to do wrong and commit in<ustice is an abuse o! language and a contradiction in terms. (t is no more competent to the collective body o! a people than it is to any single usurper. When we admit such a prerogative in the case o! any sovereign we can only mean to e=press the e=tent o! his power and the !orce with which he is enabled to e=ecute his pleasure. )uch a prerogative is assumed by the leader o! banditti at the head o! his gang or by a despotic prince at the head o! his troops. When the sword is presented by either the traveller or the inhabitant may submit !rom a sense o! necessity or !earK but he lies under no obligation !rom a motive o! duty or <ustice. 5he multiplicity o! !orms in the mean time which di!!erent societies o!!er to our view is almost in!inite. 5he classes into which they distribute their members the manner in which they establish the legislative and e=ecutive powers the imperceptible circumstances by which they are led to have di!!erent customs and to con!er on their governors une@ual measures o! power and authority give rise to perpetual distinctions between constitutions the most nearly resembling one another and give to human a!!airs a variety in detail which in its !ull e=tent no understanding can comprehend and no memory retain. (n order to have a general and comprehensive 9nowledge o! the whole we must be determined on this as on every other sub<ect to overloo9 many particulars and singularities distinguishing di!!erent governmentsK to !i= our attention on certain points in which many agreeK and thereby establish a !ew general heads under which the sub<ect may be distinctly considered. When we have mar9ed the characteristics which !orm the general points o! coincidenceK when we have pursued them to their conse@uences in the several modes o!
-21

legislation e=ecution and <udicature in the establishments which relate to police commerce religion or domestic li!eK we have made an ac@uisition o! 9nowledge which though it does not supersede the necessity o! e=perience may serve to direct our in@uiries and in the midst o! a!!airs to give an order and a method !or the arrangement o! particulars that occur to our observation. When ( recollect what the 'resident ;ontes@uieu has written ( am at a loss to tell why ( should treat o! human a!!airs. but ( too am instigated by my re!lections and my sentimentsK and ( may utter them more to the comprehension o! ordinary capacities because ( am more on the level o! ordinary men. (! it be necessary to pave the way !or what !ollows on the general history o! nations by giving some account o! the heads under which various !orms o! government may be conveniently ranged the reader should perhaps be re!erred to what has been already delivered on the sub<ect by this pro!ound politician and amiable moralist. (n his writings will be !ound not only the original o! what ( am now !or the sa9e o! order to copy !rom him but li9ewise probably the source o! many observations which in di!!erent places ( may under the belie! o! invention have repeated without @uoting their author. 5he ancient philosophers treated o! government commonly under three headsK the :emocratic the Aristocratic and the :espotic. 5heir attention was chie!ly occupied with the varieties o! republican governmentK and they paid little regard to a very important distinction which ;r ;ontes@uieu has made between despotism and monarchy. He too has considered government as reducible to three general !ormsK and Fto understand the nature o! each F he observes Fit is su!!icient to recall ideas which are !amiliar with men o! the least re!lection who admit three de!initions or rather three !acts. 5hat a republic is a state in which the people in a collective body or a part o! the people possess the sovereign power. 5hat monarchy is that in which one man governs according to !i=ed and determinate laws. And a despotism is that in which one man without law or rule o! administration by the mere impulse o! will or caprice decides and carries every thing be!ore him.F 8epublics admit o! a very material distinction which is pointed out in the general de!initionK that between democracy and aristocracy. (n the !irst supreme power remains in the hands o! the collective body. 4very o!!ice o! magistracy at the nomination o! this sovereign is open to every citiDenK who in the discharge o! his duty becomes the minister o!
-23

the people and accountable to them !or every ob<ect o! his trust. (n the second the sovereignty is lodged in a particular class or order o! menK who being once named continue !or li!eK or by the hereditary distinctions o! birth and !ortune are advanced to a station o! permanent superiority. $rom this order and by their nomination all the o!!ices o! magistracy are !illedK and in the di!!erent assemblies which they constitute whatever relates to the legislation the e=ecution or <urisdiction is !inally determined. ;r ;ontes@uieu has pointed out the sentiments or ma=ims !rom which men must be supposed to act under these di!!erent governments. (n democracy they must love e@ualityK they must respect the rights o! their !ellow,citiDensK they must unite by the common ties o! a!!ection to the state. (n !orming personal pretensions they must be satis!ied with that degree o! consideration they can procure by their abilities !airly measured with those o! an opponentK they must labour !or the public without hope o! pro!itK they must re<ect every attempt to create a personal dependence. Candour !orce and elevation o! mind in short are the props o! democracyK and virtue is the principle o! conduct re@uired to its preservation. How beauti!ul a pre,eminence on the side o! popular governmentQ and how ardently should man9ind wish !or the !orm i! it tended to establish the principle or were in every instance a sure indication o! its presenceQ *ut perhaps we must have possessed the principle in order with any hopes o! advantage to receive the !ormK and where the !irst is entirely e=tinguished the other may be !raught with evil i! any additional evil deserves to be shunned where men are already unhappy. At Constantinople or Algiers it is a miserable spectacle when men pretend to act on a !oot o! e@uality. they only mean to sha9e o!! the restraints o! government and to seiDe as much as they can o! that spoil which in ordinary times is ingrossed by the master they serve. (t is one advantage o! democracy that the principal ground o! distinction being personal @ualities men are classed according to their abilities and to the merit o! their actions. 5hough all have e@ual
-22

pretensions to power yet the state is actually governed by a !ew. 5he ma<ority o! the people even in their capacity o! sovereign only pretend to employ their sensesK to !eel when pressed by national inconveniencies or threatened by public dangersK and with the ardour which is apt to arise in crouded assemblies to urge the pursuits in which they are engaged or to repel the attac9s with which they are menaced. 5he most per!ect e@uality o! rights can never e=clude the ascendant o! superior minds nor the assemblies o! a collective body govern without the direction o! select councils. &n this account popular government may be con!ounded with aristocracy. *ut this alone does not constitute the character o! aristocratical government. Here the members o! the state are divided at least into two classesK o! which one is destined to command the other to obey. +o merits or de!ects can raise or sin9 a person !rom one class to the other. 5he only e!!ect o! personal character is to procure the individual a suitable degree o! consideration with his own order not to vary his ran9. (n one situation he is taught to assume in another to yield the pre,eminence. He occupies the station o! patron or client and is either the sovereign or the sub<ect o! his country. 5he whole citiDens may unite in e=ecuting the plans o! state but never in deliberating on its measures or enacting its laws. What belongs to the whole people under democracy is here con!ined to a part. ;embers o! the superior order are among themselves possibly classed according to their abilities but retain a perpetual ascendant over those o! in!erior station. 5hey are at once the servants and the masters o! the state and pay with their personal attendance and their blood !or the civil or military honours they en<oy. 5o maintain !or himsel! and to admit in his !ellow,citiDen a per!ect e@uality o! privilege and station is no longer the leading ma=im o! the member o! such a community. 5he rights o! men are modi!ied by their condition. &ne order claims more than it is willing to yieldK the other must be ready to yield what it does not assume to itsel!. and it is with good reason that ;r ;ontes@uieu gives to the principle o! such governments the name o! moderation not o! virtue. 5he elevation o! one class is a moderated arroganceK the submission o! the other a limited de!erence. 5he !irst must be care!ul by concealing the invidious part o! their distinction to palliate what is grievous in the public arrangement and by their education their cultivated manners
-20

and improved talents to appear @uali!ied !or the stations they occupy. 5he other must be taught to yield !rom respect and personal attachment what could not otherwise be e=torted by !orce. When this moderation !ails on either side the constitution totters. A populace enraged to mutiny may claim the right o! e@uality to which they are admitted in democratical statesK or a nobility bent on dominion may chuse among themselves or !ind already pointed out to them a sovereign who by advantages o! !ortune popularity or abilities is ready to seiDe !or his own !amily that envied power which has already carried his order beyond the limits o! moderation and in!ected particular men with a boundless ambition. ;onarchies have accordingly been !ound with the recent mar9s o! aristocracy. 5here however the monarch is only the !irst among the noblesK he must be satis!ied with a limited powerK his sub<ects are ranged into classesK he !inds on every @uarter a pretence to privilege that circumscribes his authorityK and he !inds a !orce su!!icient to con!ine his administration within certain bounds o! e@uity and determinate laws. Hnder such governments however the love o! e@uality is preposterous and moderation itsel! is unnecessary. 5he ob<ect o! every ran9 is precedency and every order may display its advantages to their !ull e=tent. 5he sovereign himsel! owes great part o! his authority to the sounding titles and the daDDling e@uipage which he e=hibits in public. 5he subordinate ran9s lay claim to importance by a li9e e=hibition and !or that purpose carry in every instant the ensigns o! their birth or the ornaments o! their !ortune. What else could mar9 out to the individual the relation in which he stands to his !ellow,sub<ects or distinguish the numberless ran9s that !ill up the interval between the state o! the sovereign and that o! the peasant7 &r what else could in states o! a great e=tent preserve any appearance o! order among members disunited by ambition and interest and destined to !orm a community without the sense o! any common concern7 ;onarchies are generally !ound where the state is enlarged in population and in territory beyond the numbers and dimensions that are consistent with republican government. 5ogether with these circumstances great ine@ualities arise in the distribution o! propertyK and the desire o! pre,eminence becomes the predominant passion. 4very ran9 would e=ercise its prerogative and the sovereign is
-2%

perpetually tempted to enlarge his ownK i! sub<ects who despair o! precedence plead !or e@uality he is willing to !avour their claims and to aid them in procuring what must wea9en a !orce with which he himsel! is on many occasions obliged to contend. (n the event o! such a policy many invidious distinctions and grievances peculiar to monarchical government may in appearance be removedK but the state o! e@uality to which the sub<ects approach is that o! slaves e@ually dependent on the will o! a master not that o! !reemen in a condition to maintain their own. 5he principle o! monarchy according to ;ontes@uieu is honour. ;en may possess good @ualities elevation o! mind and !ortitudeK but the sense o! e@uality that will bear no incroachment on the personal rights o! the meanest citiDenK the indignant spirit that will not court a protection nor accept as a !avour what is due as a rightK the public a!!ection which is !ounded on the neglect o! personal considerations are neither consistent with the preservation o! the constitution nor agreeable to the habits ac@uired in any station assigned to its members. 4very condition is possessed o! peculiar dignity and points out a propriety o! conduct which men o! station are obliged to maintain. (n the commerce o! superiors and in!eriors it is the ob<ect o! ambition and o! vanity to re!ine on the advantages o! ran9K while to !acilitate the intercourse o! polite society it is the aim o! good breeding to disguise or re<ect them. 5hough the ob<ects o! consideration are rather the dignities o! station than personal @ualitiesK though !riendship cannot be !ormed by mere inclination nor alliances by the mere choice o! the heartK yet men so united and even without changing their order are highly susceptible o! moral e=cellence or liable to many di!!erent degrees o! corruption. 5hey may act a vigorous part as members o! the state an amiable one in the commerce o! private societyK or they may yield up their dignity as citiDens even while they raise their arrogance and presumption as private parties. (n monarchy all orders o! men derive their honours !rom the crownK but they continue to hold them as a right and they e=ercise a subordinate power in the state !ounded on the permanent ran9 they en<oy and on the attachment o! those whom they are appointed to lead and protect. 5hough they do not !orce themselves into national councils and public assemblies and though the name o! senate is un9nownK yet the
-2/

sentiments they adopt must have weight with the sovereignK and every individual in his separate capacity in some measure deliberates !or his country. (n whatever does not derogate !rom his ran9 he has an arm ready to serve the communityK in whatever alarms his sense o! honour he has aversions and disli9es which amount to a negative on the will o! his prince. (ntangled together by the reciprocal ties o! dependence and protection though not combined by the sense o! a common interest the sub<ects o! monarchy li9e those o! republics !ind themselves occupied as the members o! an active society and engaged to treat with their !ellow, creatures on a liberal !ooting. (! those principles o! honour which save the individual !rom servility in his own person or !rom becoming an engine o! oppression in the hands o! another should !ailK i! they should give way to the ma=ims o! commerce to the re!inements o! a supposed philosophy or to the misplaced ardours o! a republican spiritK i! they are betrayed by the cowardice o! sub<ects or subdued by the ambition o! princesK what must become o! the nations o! 4urope7 :espotism is monarchy corrupted in which a court and a prince in appearance remain but in which every subordinate ran9 is destroyedK in which the sub<ect is told that he has no rightsK that he cannot possess any property nor !ill any station independent o! the momentary will o! his prince. 5hese doctrines are !ounded on the ma=ims o! con@uestK they must be inculcated with the whip and the swordK and are best received under the terror o! chains and imprisonment. $ear there!ore is the principle which @uali!ies the sub<ect to occupy his station. and the sovereign who holds out the ensigns o! terror so !reely to others has abundant reason to give this passion a principal place with himsel!. 5hat tenure which he has devised !or the rights o! others is soon applied to his ownK and !rom his eager desire to secure or to e=tend his power he !inds it become li9e the !ortunes o! his people a creature o! mere imagination and unsettled caprice. Whilst we thus with so much accuracy can assign the ideal limits that may distinguish constitutions o! government we !ind them in reality both in respect to the principle and the !orm variously blended together. (n what society are not men classed by e=ternal distinctions as well as personal @ualities7 (n what state are they not actuated by a variety o! principlesK <ustice honour moderation and !ear7 (t is the
-00

purpose o! science not to disguise this con!usion in its ob<ect but in the multiplicity and combination o! particulars to !ind the principal points which deserve our attention and which being well understood save us !rom the embarrassment which the varieties o! singular cases might otherwise create. (n the same degree in which governments re@uire men to act !rom principles o! virtue o! honour or o! !ear they are more or less !ully comprised under the heads o! republic monarchy or despotism and the general theory is more or less applicable to their particular case. $orms o! government in !act mutually approach or recede by many and o!ten insensible gradations. :emocracy by admitting certain ine@ualities o! ran9 approaches to aristocracy. (n popular as well as aristocratical governments particular men by their personal authority and sometimes by the credit o! their !amily have maintained a species o! monarchical power. 5he monarch is limited in di!!erent degrees. even the despotic prince is only that monarch whose sub<ects claim the !ewest privileges or who is himsel! best prepared to subdue them by !orce. All these varieties are but steps in the history o! man9ind and mar9 the !leeting and transient situations through which they have passed while supported by virtue or depressed by vice. 'er!ect democracy and despotism appear to be the opposite e=tremes to which constitutions o! government are sometimes carried. Hnder the !irst a per!ect virtue is re@uiredK under the second a total corruption is supposed. yet in point o! mere !orm there being nothing !i=ed in the ran9s and distinctions o! men beyond the casual and temporary possession o! power societies easily pass !rom a condition in which every individual has an e@ual title to reign into one in which they are e@ually destined to serve. 5he same @ualities in both courage popularity address and military conduct raise the ambitious to eminence. With these @ualities the citiDen or the slave easily passes !rom the ran9s to the command o! an army !rom an obscure to an illustrious station. (n either a single person may rule with unlimited swayK and in both the populace may brea9 down every barrier o! order and restraint o! law. (! we suppose that the e@uality established among the sub<ects o! a despotic state has inspired its members with con!idence intrepidity and the love o! <usticeK the despotic prince having ceased to be an ob<ect o! !ear must sin9 among the croud. (! on the contrary the
-01

personal e@uality which is en<oyed by the members o! a democratical state should be valued merely as an e@ual pretension to the ob<ects o! avarice and ambition the monarch may start up anew and be supported by those who mean to share in his pro!its. When the covetous and mercenary assemble in parties it is o! no conse@uence under what leader they inlist whether Caesar or 'ompeyK the hopes o! rapine or power are the only motives !rom which they become attached to either. (n the disorder o! corrupted societies the scene has been !re@uently changed !rom democracy to despotism and !rom the last too in its turn to the !irst. $rom amidst the democracy o! corrupt men and !rom a scene o! lawless con!usion the tyrant ascends a throne with arms ree9ing in blood. *ut his abuses or his wea9nesses in the station which he has gained in their turn awa9en and give way to the spirit o! mutiny and revenge. 5he cries o! murder and desolation which in the ordinary course o! military government terri!ied the sub<ect in his private retreat are carried through the vaults and made to pierce the grates and iron doors o! the seraglio. :emocracy seems to revive in a scene o! wild disorder and tumult. but both the e=tremes are but the transient !its o! paro=ysm or languor in a distempered state. (! men be anywhere arrived at this measure o! depravity there appears no immediate hope o! redress. +either the ascendency o! the multitude nor that o! the tyrant will secure the administration o! <ustice. neither the licence o! mere tumult nor the calm o! de<ection and servitude will teach the citiDen that he was born !or candour and a!!ection to his !ellow,creatures. And i! the speculative would !ind that habitual state o! war which they are sometimes pleased to honour with the name o! the state o! nature they will !ind it in the contest that subsists between the despotical prince and his sub<ects not in the !irst approaches o! a rude and simple tribe to the condition and the domestic arrangement o! nations.

-02

Source 1 C ,ere!y %entha! Introduction to the Principles of *orals and Legislation

Chapter +5 6f the Principle of Dtility (. +ature has placed man9ind under the governance o! two sovereign masters pain and pleasure. (t is !or them alone to point out what we ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do. &n the one hand the standard o! right and wrong on the other the chain o! causes and e!!ects are !astened to their throne. 5hey govern us in all we do in all we say in all we thin9. every e!!ort we can ma9e to throw o!! our sub<ection will serve but to demonstrate and con!irm it. (n words a man may pretend to ab<ure their empire. but in reality he will remain sub<ect to it all the while. 5he principle o! utility recogniDes this sub<ection and assumes it !or the !oundation o! that system the ob<ect o! which is to rear the !abric o! !elicity by the hands o! reason and o! law. )ystems which attempt to @uestion it deal in sounds instead o! sense in caprice instead o! reason in dar9ness instead o! light. *ut enough o! metaphor and declamation. it is not by such means that moral science is to be improved. ((. 5he principle o! utility is the !oundation o! the present wor9. it will be proper there!ore at the outset to give an e=plicit and determinate account o! what is meant by it. *y the principle o! utility is meant that principle which approves or disapproves o! every action whatsoever according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish the happiness o! the party whose interest is in @uestion. or what is the same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. ( say o! every action whatsoever and there!ore not only o! every action o! a private individual but o! every measure o! government. (((. *y utility is meant that property in any ob<ect whereby it tends to produce bene!it advantage pleasure good or happiness "all this in the present case comes to the same thing# or "what comes again to the same thing# to prevent the happening o! mischie! pain evil or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered. i! that party be the community in general then the happiness o! the community. i! a particular individual then the happiness o! that individual.
-0-

(?. 5he interest o! the community is one o! the most general e=pressions that can occur in the phraseology o! morals. no wonder that the meaning o! it is o!ten lost. When it has a meaning it is this. 5he community is a !ictitious body composed o! the individual persons who are considered as constituting as it were its members. 5he interest o! the community then is what is it7 J the sum o! the interests o! the several members who compose it. ?. (t is in vain to tal9 o! the interest o! the community without understanding what is the interest o! the individual. A thing is said to promote the interest or to be !or the interest o! an individual when it tends to add to the sum total o! his pleasures. or what comes to the same thing to diminish the sum total o! his pains. ?(. An action then may be said to be con!ormable to the principle o! utility or !or shortness sa9e to utility "meaning with respect to the community at large# when the tendency it has to augment the happiness o! the community is greater than any it has to diminish it. ?((. A measure o! government "which is but a particular 9ind o! action per!ormed by a particular person or persons# may be said to be con!ormable to or dictated by the principle o! utility when in li9e manner the tendency which it has to augment the happiness o! the community is greater than any which it has to diminish it. ?(((. When an action or in particular a measure o! government is supposed by a man to be con!ormable to the principle o! utility it may be convenient !or the purposes o! discourse to imagine a 9ind o! law or dictate called a law or dictate o! utility. and to spea9 o! the action in @uestion as being con!ormable to such law or dictate. (>. A man may be said to be a partiDan o! the principle o! utility when the approbation or disapprobation he anne=es to any action or to any measure is determined by and proportioned to the tendency which he conceives it to have to augment or to diminish the happiness o! the community. or in other words to its con!ormity or uncon!ormity to the laws or dictates o! utility. >. &! an action that is con!ormable to the principle o! utility one may always say either that it is one that ought to be done or at least that it is not one that ought not to be done. &ne may say also that it is right it should be doneK at least that it is not wrong it should be done. that it is a right actionK at least that it is not a wrong action. When thus interpreted the words ought and right and wrong and others o! that
-01

stamp have a meaning. when otherwise they have none. >(. Has the rectitude o! this principle been ever !ormally contested7 (t should seem that it had by those who have not 9nown what they have been meaning. (s it susceptible o! any direct proo!7 (t should seem not. !or that which is used to prove everything else cannot itsel! be proved. a chain o! proo!s must have their commencement somewhere. 5o give such proo! is as impossible as it is needless. >((. +ot that there is or ever has been that human creature at breathing however stupid or perverse who has not on many perhaps on most occasions o! his li!e de!erred to it. *y the natural constitution o! the human !rame on most occasions o! their lives men in general embrace this principle without thin9ing o! it. i! not !or the ordering o! their own actions yet !or the trying o! their own actions as well as o! those o! other men. 5here have been at the same time not many perhaps even o! the most intelligent who have been disposed to embrace it purely and without reserve. 5here are even !ew who have not ta9en some occasion or other to @uarrel with it either on account o! their not understanding always how to apply it or on account o! some pre<udice or other which they were a!raid to e=amine into or could not bear to part with. $or such is the stu!! that man is made o!. in principle and in practice in a right trac9 and in a wrong one the rarest o! all human @ualities is consistency. >(((. When a man attempts to combat the principle o! utility it is with reasons drawn without his being aware o! it !rom that very principle itsel!. His arguments i! they prove any thing prove not that the principle is wrong, but that according to the applications he supposes to be made o! it it is misapplied. (s it possible !or a man to move the earth7 GesK but he must !irst !ind out another earth to stand upon. >(?. 5o disprove the propriety o! it by arguments is impossibleK but !rom the causes that have been mentioned or !rom some con!used or partial view o! it a man may happen to be disposed not to relish it. Where this is the case i! he thin9s the settling o! his opinions on such a sub<ect worth the trouble let him ta9e the !ollowing steps and at length perhaps he may come to reconcile himsel! to it.

-03

Source EA Tho!as Hobbes e Ci#e Philosophicall )le!ents of a true Citi&en5

Liberty Chapter I5 6f the state of !en $ithout Ci#ill Society (. 5he !aculties o! Humane nature may be reducFd unto !our 9indsK *odily strength 4=perience 8eason 'assion. 5a9ing the beginning o! this !ollowing :octrine !rom these we will declare in the !irst place what manner o! inclinations men who are endued with these !aculties bare towards each other and whether and by what !aculty they are born apt !or )ociety and so preserve themselves against mutuall violenceK then proceeding we will shew what advice was necessary to be ta9en !or this businesse and what are the conditions o! )ociety or o! Humane 'eaceK that is to say "changing the words onely# what are the !undamentall -awes of /ature. ((. 5he greatest part o! those men who have written ought concerning Commonwealths either suppose or re@uire us or beg o! us to believe 5hat ;an is a Creature born !it !or )ociety. 5he Aree9s call him Hoon politikon and on this !oundation they so build up the :octrine o! Civill )ociety as i! !or the preservation o! 'eace and the Aovernment o! ;an,9ind there were nothing else necessary than that ;en should agree to ma9e certaine Covenants and Conditions together which themselves should then call Lawes. Which A=iom though received by most is yet certainly $alse and an 4rrour proceeding !rom our too slight contemplation o! Humane +atureK !or they who shall more narrowly loo9 into the Causes !or which ;en come together and delight in each others company shall easily !ind that this happens not because naturally it could happen no otherwise but by Accident. $or i! by nature one ;an should Love another "that is# as ;an there could no reason be returnFd why every ;an should not e@ually Love every ;an as being e@ually ;an or why he should rather !re@uent those
-02

whose )ociety a!!ords him Honour or 'ro!it. We doe not there!ore by nature see9 )ociety !or its own sa9e but that we may receive some Honour or 'ro!it !rom itK these we desire 'rimarily that )econdarily. How by what advice ;en doe meet will be best 9nown by observing those things which they doe when they are met. $or i! they meet !or 5ra!!i@ue itFs plaine every man regards not his $ellow but his *usinesseK i! to discharge some &!!ice a certain ;ar9et,!riendship is begotten which hath more o! 6ealousie in it than 5rue love and whence $actions sometimes may arise but Aood will neverK i! !or 'leasure and 8ecreation o! mind every man is wont to please himsel! most with those things which stirre up laughter whence he may "according to the nature o! that which is 8idiculous# by comparison o! another mans :e!ects and (n!irmities passe the more currant in his owne opinionK and although this be sometimes innocent and without o!!enceK yet it is mani!est they are not so much delighted with the )ociety as their own ?ain glory. *ut !or the most part in these 9ind o! meetings we wound the absentK their whole li!e sayings actions are e=aminFd <udgFd condemnFdK nay it is very rare but some present receive a !ling be!ore they part so as his reason was not ill who was wont alwayes at parting to goe out last. And these are indeed the true delights o! )ociety unto which we are carryed by nature "i.e.# by those passions which are incident to all Creatures untill either by sad e=perience or good precepts it so !all out "which in many never happens# that the Appetite o! present matters be dulFd with the memory o! things past without which the discourse o! most @uic9 and nimble men on this sub<ect is but cold and hungry. *ut i! it so happen that being met they passe their time in relating some )tories and one o! them begins to tell one which concernes himsel!eK instantly every one o! the rest most greedily desires to spea9 o! himsel! tooK i! one relate some wonder the rest will tell you miracles i! they have them i! not theyFl !ein them. Lastly that ( may say somewhat o! them who pretend to be wiser than othersK i! they meet to tal9 o! 'hilosophy loo9 how many men so many would be esteemFd ;asters or else they not only love not their !ellowes but even persecute them with hatred. )o clear is it by e=perience to all men who a little more narrowly consider Humane a!!aires that all !ree congress ariseth either !rom mutual poverty or !rom vain glory whence the parties met endeavour to carry with them either some bene!it or to leave behind them that same eudokimein some esteem and honour with those with whom they have been conversant. 5he same is also
-00

collected by reason out o! the de!initions themselves o! ;ill, (ood, 1onour, +rofitable. $or when we voluntarily contract )ociety in all manner o! )ociety we loo9 a!ter the ob<ect o! the Will i.e. that which every one o! those who gather together propounds to himsel!e !or goodK now whatsoever seemes good is pleasant and relates either to the senses or the mind but all the mindes pleasure is either Alory "or to have a good opinion o! ones sel!e# or re!erres to Alory in the endK the rest are )ensuall or conducing to sensuality which may be all comprehended under the word ,onveniencies. All )ociety there!ore is either !or Aain or !or AloryK "i.e.# not so much !or love o! our $ellowes as !or love o! our )elves. but no society can be great or lasting which begins !rom ?ain AloryK because that Alory is li9e Honour i! all men have it no man hath it !or they consist in comparison and precellenceK neither doth the society o! others advance any whit the cause o! my glorying in my sel!eK !or every man must account himsel! such as he can ma9e himsel!e without the help o! others. *ut though the bene!its o! this li!e may be much !arthered by mutuall help since yet those may be better attainFd to by :ominion than by the society o! others. ( hope no body will doubt but that men would much more greedily be carryed by +ature i! all !ear were removed to obtain :ominion than to gaine )ociety. We must there!ore resolve that the &riginall o! all great and lasting )ocieties consisted not in the mutuall good will men had towards each other but in the mutuall !ear they had o! each other. %orn fit )ince we now see actually a constituted )ociety among men and none living out o! it since we discern all desirous o! congresse and mutuall correspondence it may seeme a wonder!ull 9ind o! stupidity to lay in the very threshold o! this :octrine such a stumbling bloc9 be!ore the 8eaders as to deny ;an to be born !it !or )ociety. 5here!ore ( must more plainly say 5hat it is true indeed that to ;an by nature or as ;an that is as soone as he is born )olitude is an enemyK !or (n!ants have need o! others to help them to live and those o! riper years to help them to live well where!ore ( deny not that men "even nature compelling# desire to come together. *ut civill )ocieties are not meer ;eetings but *onds to the ma9ing whereo! $aith and Compacts are necessary. 5he ?ertue whereo! to Children and $ooles and the pro!it whereo! to those who have not yet tasted the miseries which accompany its de!ects is altogether un9nownK whence it happens that those because they 9now not what )ociety is cannot enter into itK
-0%

these because ignorant o! the bene!it it brings care not !or it. ;ani!est there!ore it is that all men because they are born in (n!ancy are born unapt !or )ociety. ;any also "perhaps most men# either through de!ect o! minde or want o! education remain un!it during the whole course o! their livesK yet have (n!ants as well as those o! riper years an humane natureK where!ore ;an is made !it !or )ociety not by +ature but by 4ducation. !urthermore although ;an were born in such a condition as to desire it it !ollowes not that he there!ore were *orn !it to enter into itK !or it is one thing to desire another to be in capacity !it !or what we desireK !or even they who through their pride will not stoop to e@uall conditions without which there can be no )ociety do yet desire it. The !utuall fear (t is ob<ected. (t is so improbable that men should grow into civill )ocieties out o! !ear that i! they had been a!raid they would not have endurFd each others loo9s. 5hey 'resume ( believe that to !ear is nothing else then to be a!!righted. ( comprehend in this word $ear a certain !oresight o! !uture evillK neither doe ( conceive !light the sole property o! !ear but to distrust suspect ta9e heed provide so that they may not !ear is also incident to the !ear!ull. 5hey who go to )leep shut their :oresK they who 5ravell carry their )words with them because they !ear 5heives. Cingdomes guard their Coasts and $rontiers with $orts and CastlesK Cities are compast with Walls and all !or !ear o! neighbouring Cingdomes and 5ownesK even the strongest Armies and most accomplisht !or $ight yet sometimes 'arly !or 'eace as !earing each others 'ower and lest they might be overcome. (t is through !ear that men secure themselves by !light indeed and in corners i! they thin9 they cannot escape otherwise but !or the most part by Armes and :e!ensive WeaponsK whence it happens that daring to come !orth they 9now each others )piritsK but then i! they !ight Civill )ociety ariseth !rom the ?ictory i! they agree !rom their Agreement. (((. 5he cause o! mutuall !ear consists partly in the naturall e@uality o! men partly in their mutuall will o! hurting. whence it comes to passe that we can neither e=pect !rom others nor promise to our selves the least security. $or i! we loo9 on men !ullgrown and consider how brittle the !rame o! our humane body is "which perishing all its strength vigour and wisdome it sel!e perisheth with it# and how easie a matter it is even !or the wea9est man to 9ill the strongest there is no reason why any man trusting to his own strength should conceive himsel!
-0/

made by nature above others. they are e@ualls who can doe e@uall things one against the otherK but they who can do the greatest things "namely 9ill# can doe e@uall things. All men there!ore among themselves are by nature e@uallK the ine@uality we now discern hath its spring !rom the Civill Law. (?. All men in the )tate o! nature have a desire and will to hurt but not proceeding !rom the same cause neither e@ually to be condemnFdK !or one man according to that naturall e@uality which is among us permits as much to others as he assumes to himsel! "which is an argument o! a temperate man and one that rightly values his power#K another supposing himsel!e above others will have a License to doe what he lists and challenges 8espect and Honour as due to him be!ore others "which is an Argument o! a !iery spirit.# 5his mans will to hurt ariseth !rom ?ain glory and the !alse esteeme he hath o! his owne strengthK the otherFs !rom the necessity o! de!ending himsel!e his liberty and his goods against this mans violence. ?. $urthermore since the combate o! Wits is the !iercest the greatest discords which are must necessarily arise !rom this ContentionK !or in this case it is not only odious to contend against but also not to consentK !or not to approve o! what a man saith is no lesse than tacitely to accuse him o! an 4rrour in that thing which he spea9ethK as in very many things to dissent is as much as i! you accounted him a !ool whom you dissent !romK which may appear hence that there are no Warres so sharply wagFd as between )ects o! the same 8eligion and $actions o! the same Commonweale where the Contestation is 4ither concerning :octrines or 'oliti@ue 'rudence. And since all the pleasure and <ollity o! the mind consists in thisK even to get some with whom comparing it may !ind somewhat wherein to 5ryumph and ?aunt it sel!K its impossible but men must declare sometimes some mutuall scorn and contempt either by Laughter or by Words or by Aesture or some signe or otherK than which there is no greater ve=ation o! mindK and than !rom which there cannot possibly arise a greater desire to doe hurt. ?(. *ut the most !re@uent reason why men desire to hurt each other ariseth hence that many men at the same time have an Appetite to the same thingK which yet very o!ten they can neither en<oy in common nor yet divide itK whence it !ollowes that the strongest must have it and who is strongest must be decided by the )word. ?((. Among so many dangers there!ore as the naturall lusts o! men do
-%0

daily threaten each other withall to have a care o! ones sel!e is not a matter so scorn!ully to be loo9t upon as i! so be there had not been a power and will le!t in one to have done otherwiseK !or every man is desirous o! what is good !or him and shuns what is evill but chie!ly the chie!est o! naturall evills which is :eathK and this he doth by a certain impulsion o! nature no lesse than that whereby a )tone moves downward. (t is there!ore neither absurd nor reprehensibleK neither against the dictates o! true reason !or a man to use all his endeavours to preserve and de!end his *ody and the ;embers thereo! !rom death and sorrowesK but that which is not contrary to right reason that all men account to be done <ustly and with rightK +either by the word %ight is any thing else signi!ied than that liberty which every man hath to ma9e use o! his naturall !aculties according to right reason. 5here!ore the !irst !oundation o! naturall 8ight is this 5hat every man as much as in him lies endeavour to protect his life and members . ?(((. *ut because it is in vaine !or a man to have a 8ight to the end i! the 8ight to the necessary meanes be denyFd himK it !ollowes that since every man hath a 8ight to preserve himsel! he must also be allowed a 8ight to use all the means, and do all the actions, without which 1e cannot +reserve himself. (>. +ow whether the means which he is about to use and the action he is per!orming be necessary to the preservation o! his Li!e and ;embers or not he Himsel! by the right o! nature must be <udgK !or say another man <udg that it is contrary to right reason that ( should <udg o! mine own perill. why now because he <udgeth o! what concerns me by the same reason because we are e@uall by nature will ( <udge also o! things which doe belong to himK there!ore it agrees with right reason "that is# it is the right o! nature that ( <udge o! his opinion "i.e.# whether it conduce to my preservation or not. >. +ature hath given to every one a right to all . 5hat is it was law!ull !or every man in the bare state o! nature or be!ore such time as men had engagFd themselves by any Covenants or *onds to doe what hee would and against whom he thought !it and to possesse use and en<oy all what he would or could get. +ow because whatsoever a man would it there!ore seems good to him because he wills it and either it really doth or at least seems to him to contribute toward his preservation "but we have already allowed him to be <udge in the !oregoing Article whether it doth or not in so much as we are to hold all !or necessary whatsoever he shall esteeme so# and by the 0. Article it
-%1

appeares that by the right o! +ature those things may be done and must be had which necessarily conduce to the protection o! li!e and members it !ollowes that in the state o! nature 5o have all and do all is law!ull !or all. And this is that which is meant by that common saying /ature hath given all to all !rom whence we understand li9ewise that in the state o! nature 'ro!it is the measure o! 8ight. In the !eere state of Nature 5his is thus to be understood. What any man does in the bare state o! +ature is in<urious to no manK not that in such a )tate he cannot o!!end Aod or brea9 the Lawes o! +atureK !or (n<ustice against men presupposeth Humane Lawes such as in the )tate o! +ature there are none. +ow the truth o! this proposition thus conceived is su!!iciently demonstrated to the mind!ull 8eader in the Articles immediately !oregoingK but because in certaine cases the di!!iculty o! the conclusion ma9es us !orget the premises ( will contract this Argument and ma9e it most evident to a single viewK every man hath right to protect himsel! as appears by the seventh Article. 5he same man there!ore hath a right to use all the means which necessarily conduce to this end by the eight Article. *ut those are the necessary means which he shall <udge to be such by the ninth Article. He there!ore hath a right to ma9e use o! and to doe all whatsoever he shall <udge re@uisite !or his preservation. where!ore by the <udgement o! him that doth it the thing done is either right or wrongK and there!ore right. 5rue it is there!ore in the bare )tate o! +ature Yc but i! any man pretend somewhat to tend necessarily to his preservation which yet he himsel! doth not con!idently believe so he may o!!end against the Lawes o! +ature as in the third Chapter o! this *oo9 is more at large declarFd. (t hath been ob<ected by some. (! a )onne 9ill his $ather doth he him no in<ury7 ( have answered 5hat a )onne cannot be understood to be at any time in the )tate o! +ature as being under the 'ower and command o! them to whom he ownes his protection as soon as ever he is born namely either his $athers or his ;others or his that nourisht him as is demonstrated in the ninth Chapter. >(. *ut it was the least bene!it !or men thus to have a common 8ight to all thingsK !or the e!!ects o! this 8ight are the same almost as i! there had been no 8ight at allK !or although any man might say o! every thing 9his is mine yet could he not en<oy it by reason o! his +eighbour who having e@uall 8ight and e@uall power would pretend the same thing to
-%2

be his. >((. (! now to this naturall proclivity o! men to hurt each other which they derive !rom their 'assions but chie!ly !rom a vain esteeme o! themselves. Gou adde the right o! all to all wherewith one by right invades the other by right resists and whence arise perpetuall <ealousies and suspicions on all hands and how hard a thing it is to provide against an enemy invading us with an intention to oppresse and ruine though he come with a small +umber and no great 'rovisionK it cannot be denyFd but that the naturall state o! men be!ore they entrFd into )ociety was a meer War and that not simply but a War o! all men against all menK !or what is WA8 but that same time in which the will o! contesting by !orce is !ully declarFd either by Words or :eeds7 5he time remaining is termed '4AC4. >(((. *ut it is easily <udgFd how disagreeable a thing to the preservation either o! ;an,9ind or o! each single ;an a perpetuall War is. *ut it is perpetuall in its own nature because in regard o! the e@uality o! those that strive it cannot be ended by ?ictoryK !or in this state the Con@uerour is sub<ect to so much danger as it were to be accounted a ;iracle i! any even the most strong should close up his li!e with many years and old age. 5hey o! America are 4=amples hereo! even in this present Age. &ther +ations have been in !ormer Ages which now indeed are become Civill and $lourishing but were then !ew !ierce short,lived poor nasty and destroyFd o! all that 'leasure and *eauty o! li!e which 'eace and )ociety are wont to bring with them. Whosoever there!ore holds that it had been best to have continued in that state in which all things were law!ull !or all men he contradicts himsel!K !or every man by naturall necessity desires that which is good !or him. nor is there any that esteemes a war o! all against all which necessarily adheres to such a )tate to be good !or him. And so it happens that through !eare o! each other we thin9 it !it to rid our selves o! this condition and to get some !ellowesK that i! there needs must be war it may not yet be against all men nor without some helps. >(?. $ellowes are gotten either by constraint or by consentK *y Constraint when a!ter !ight the Con@ueror ma9es the con@uered serve him either through !eare o! death or by laying !etters on him. *y consent when men enter into society to helpe each other both parties consenting without any constraint. *ut the Con@ueror may by right compell the Con@uered or the strongest the wea9er "as a man in health may one that is sic9 or he that is o! riper yeares a childe#
-%-

unlesse he will choose to die to give caution o! his !uture obedience. $or since the right o! protecting our selves according to our owne wills proceeded !rom our danger and our danger !rom our e@uality its more consonant to reason and more certaine !or our conservation using the present advantage to secure our selves by ta9ing cautionK then when they shall be !ull growne and strong and got out o! our power to endeavour to recover that power againe by doubt!ull !ight. And on the other side nothing can be thought more absurd than by discharging whom you already have wea9 in your power to ma9e him at once both an enemy and a strong one. $rom whence we may understand li9ewise as a Corollarie in the naturall state o! men 9hat a sure and irresistible +ower confers the right of 'ominion, and ruling over those who cannot resistK insomuch as the right o! all things that can be done adheres essentially and immediately unto this omnipotence hence arising. >?. Get cannot men e=pect any lasting preservation continuing thus in the state o! nature "i.e.# o! War by reason o! that e@uality o! power and other humane !aculties they are endued withall. Where!ore to see9 'eace where there is any hopes o! obtaining it and where there is none to en@uire out !or Au=iliaries o! War is the dictate o! right 8easonK that is the Law o! +ature as shall be shewed in the ne=t Chapter. o!inion Chapter '5 6f the causes. and first begining of ci#ill ?o#ern!ent (. (t is o! it sel!e mani!est that the actions o! men proceed !rom the will and the will !rom hope and !eare insomuch as when they shall see a greater good or lesse evill li9ely to happen to them by the breach than observation o! the Lawes theyFl wittingly violate them. 5he hope there!ore which each man hath o! his security and sel!,preservation consists in this that by !orce or cra!t he may disappoint his neighbour either openly or by stratagem. Whence we may understand that the naturall lawes though well understood doe not instantly secure any man in their practise and conse@uently that as long as there is no caution had !rom the invasion o! others there remains to every man
-%1

that same primitive 8ight o! sel!e,de!ence by such means as either he can or will ma9e use o! "that is# a 8ight to all things or the 8ight o! warreK and it is su!!icient !or the !ul!iling o! the naturall law that a man be prepared in mind to embrace 'eace when it may be had. ((. (t is an old saying 5hat all lawes are silent in the time o! warre and it is a true one not onely i! we spea9 o! the civill but also o! the naturall lawes provided they be re!errFd not to the mind but to the actions o! men by the third Chapter Art. 2/. And we mean such a war as is o! all men against all menK such as is the meer state o! natureK although in the warre o! nation against nation a certain mean was wont to be observed. And there!ore in old time there was a manner o! living and as it were a certain oeconomy which they called leotrikon living by 8apine which was neither against the law o! nature "things then so standing# nor voyd o! glory to those who e=ercised it with valour not with cruelty. 5heir custome was ta9ing away the rest to spare li!e and abstain !rom &=en !it !or plough and every instrument serviceable to husbandry which yet is not so to be ta9en as i! they were bound to doe thus by the law o! nature but that they had regard to their own glory herein lest by too much cruelty they might be suspected guilty o! !eare. (((. )ince there!ore the e=ercise o! the naturall law is necessary !or the preservation o! 'eace and that !or the e=ercise o! the naturall law security is no lesse necessary it is worth the considering what that is which a!!ords such a security. !or this matter nothing else can be imagined but that each man provide himsel!e o! such meet helps as the invasion o! one on the other may bee rendered so dangerous as either o! them may thin9 it better to re!rain than to meddle. *ut !irst it is plain that the consent o! two or three cannot ma9e good such a securityK because that the addition but o! one or some !ew on the other side is su!!icient to ma9e the victory undoubtedly sure and hartens the enemy to attac@ue us. (t is there!ore necessary to the end the security sought !or may be obtained that the number o! them who conspire in a mutuall assistance be so great that the accession o! some !ew to the enemies party may not prove to them a matter o! moment su!!icient to assure the victory. (?. $urthermore how great soever the number o! them is who meet on sel!e,de!ence i! yet they agree not among themselves o! some e=cellent means whereby to compasse this but every man a!ter his own manner shall ma9e use o! his endeavours nothing will be doneK
-%3

because that divided in their opinions they will be an hinderance to each other or i! they agree well enough to some one action through hope o! victory spoyle or revenge yet a!terward through diversity o! wits and Counsels or emulation and envy with which men naturally contend they will be so torne and rent as they will neither give mutuall help nor desire peace e=cept they be constrained to it by some common !eare. Whence it !ollowes that the consent o! many "which consists in this onely as we have already de!ined in the !oregoing section that they direct all their actions to the same end and the common good# that is to say that the society proceeding !rom mutuall help onely yeelds not that security which they see9 !or who meet and agree in the e=ercise o! the above,named lawes o! natureK but that somewhat else must be done that those who have once consented !or the common good to peace and mutuall help may by !ear be restrained lest a!terward they again dissent when their private (nterest shall appear discrepant !rom the common good. ?. Aristotle rec9ons among those animals which he calls 'oliti@ue not man only but divers othersK as the Ant the *ee Yc. which though they be destitute o! reason by which they may contract and submit to government notwithstanding by consenting "that is to say# ensuing or eschewing the same things they so direct their actions to a common end that their meetings are not obno=ious unto any seditions. Get is not their gathering together a civill government and there!ore those animals not to be termed politicall because their government is onely a consent or many wills concurring in one ob<ect not "as is necessary in civill government# one will. (t is very true that in those creatures living only by sense and appetite their consent o! minds is so durable as there is no need o! any thing more to secure it and "by conse@uence# to preserve peace among them than barely their naturall inclination. *ut among men the case is otherwise. $or !irst among them there is a contestation o! honour and pre!ermentK among beasts there is none. whence hatred and envy out o! which arise sedition and warre is among menK among beasts no such matter. +e=t the naturall appetite o! *ees and the li9e creatures is con!ormable and they desire the common good which among them di!!ers not !rom their privateK but man scarce esteems any thing good which hath not somewhat o! eminence in the en<oyment more than that which others doe possesse. 5hirdly those creatures which are voyd o! reason see no de!ect or thin9 they see none in the administration o! their Common,wealesK but in a multitude o! men there are many who supposing themselves wiser than
-%2

others endeavour to innovate and divers (nnovators innovate divers wayes which is a meer distraction and civill warre. $ourthly these brute creatures howsoever they may have the use o! their voyce to signi!y their a!!ections to each other yet want they that same art o! words which is necessarily re@uired to those motions in the mind whereby good is represented to it as being better and evill as worse than in truth it isK *ut the tongue o! man is a trumpet o! warre and seditionK and it is reported o! 'ericles that he sometimes by his elegant speeches thundered and lightened and con!ounded whole Areece it sel!e. $i!tly they cannot distinguish between in$ury and harmeK 5hence it happens that as long as it is well with them they blame not their !ellowes. *ut those men are o! most trouble to the 8epubli@ue who have most leasure to be idleK !or they use not to contend !or publi@ue places be!ore they have gotten the victory over hunger and cold. Last o! all the consent o! those brutall creatures is naturall that o! men by compact onely "that is to say# arti!iciallK it is there!ore no matter o! wonder i! somewhat more be need!ull !or men to the end they may live in peace. Where!ore consent or contracted society without some common power whereby particular men may be ruled through !eare o! punishment doth not su!!ice to ma9e up that security which is re@uisite to the e=ercise o! naturall <ustice. ?(. )ince there!ore the conspiring o! many wills to the same end doth not su!!ice to preserve peace and to ma9e a lasting de!ence it is re@uisite that in those necessary matters which concern 'eace and sel!e,de!ence there be but one will o! all men. *ut this cannot be done unlesse every man will so sub<ect his will to some other one to wit either ;an or Counsell that whatsoever his will is in those things which are necessary to the common peace it be received !or the wills o! all men in generall and o! every one in particular. +ow the gathering together o! many men who deliberate o! what is to be done or not to be done !or the common good o! all men is that which ( call a C&H+)4LL. ?((. 5his submission o! the wills o! all those men to the will o! one man or one Counsell is then made when each one o! them obligeth himsel! by contract to every one o! the rest not to resist the will o! that one man or counsell to which he hath submitted himsel!eK that is that he re!use him not the use o! his wealth and strength against any others whatsoever "!or he is supposed still to retain a 8ight o! de!ending himsel!e against violence# and this is called H+(&+. *ut we understand that to be the will o! the counsell which is the will o! the ma<or part o!
-%0

those men o! whom the Counsell consists. ?(((. *ut though the will it sel! be not voluntary but only the beginning o! voluntary actions "!or we will not to will but to act# and there!ore !alls least o! all under deliberation and compactK yet he who submits his will to the will o! an other conveighs to that other the 8ight o! his strength and !acultiesK insomuch as when the rest have done the same he to whom they have submitted hath so much power as by the terrour o! it hee can con!orme the wills o! particular men unto unity and concord. (>. +ow union thus made is called a City or civill society and also a civill 'ersonK !or when there is one will o! all men it is to be esteemed !or one 'erson and by the word " one# it is to be 9nowne and distinguished !rom all particular men as having its own 8ights and propertiesK insomuch as neither any one CitiDen nor all o! them together "i! we e=cept him whose will stands !or the will o! all# is to be accounted the City. A C(5G there!ore "that we may de!ine it# is one +erson whose will by the compact o! many men is to be received !or the will o! them allK so as he may use all the power and !aculties o! each particular person to the maintenance o! peace and !or common de!ence. >. *ut although every City be a civill 'erson yet every civill 'erson is not a CityK !or it may happen that many CitiDens by the permission o! the City may <oyne together in one 'erson !or the doing o! certain things. 5hese now will be civill 'ersons as the companies o! ;erchants and many other ConventsK but Cities they are not because they have not submitted themselves to the will o! the company simply and in all things but in certain things onely determined by the CityK and on such termes as it is law!ull !or any one o! them to contend in <udgement against the body it sel!e o! the sodalityK which is by no means allowable to a CitiDen against the CityK such li9e societies there!ore are civill 'ersons subordinate to the City. >(. (n every city 5hat ;an or Counsell to whose will each particular man hath sub<ected his will "so as hath been declared# is said to have the )H'84;4 '&W48 or CH(4$4 C&;;A+: or :&;(+(&+K which 'ower and 8ight o! commanding consists in this that each CitiDen hath conveighed all his strength and power to that man or CounsellK which to have done "because no man can trans!erre his power in a naturall manner# is nothing else than to have parted with his 8ight o! resisting. 4ach CitiDen as also every subordinate civill 'erson is called the )H*64C5 o! him who hath the chie!e command.
-%%

>((. *y what hath been sayed it is su!!iciently shewed in what manner and by what degrees many naturall 'ersons through desire o! preserving themselves and by mutuall !eare have growne together into a civill 'erson whom we have called a ,ity. *ut they who submit themselves to another !or !eare either submit to him whom they !eare or some other whom they con!ide in !or protectionK 5hey act according to the !irst manner who are van@uished in warre that they may not be slainK they according to the second who are not yet overcome that they may not be overcome. 5he !irst manner receives its beginning !rom naturall 'ower and may be called the naturall beginning o! a CityK the latter !rom the Counsell and constitution o! those who meet together which is a beginning by institution. Hence it is that there are two 9inds o! Cities the one naturall such as is the paternall and despoticallK the other institutive which may be also called politicall. (n the !irst the Lord ac@uires to himsel!e such CitiDens as he willK in the other the CitiDens by their own wills appoint a Lord over themselves whether he be one man or one company o! men endued with the command in chie!e. *ut we will spea9 in the !irst place o! a City politicall or by institution and ne=t o! a City naturall.

-%/

Source E % ,ohn Loc"e The Second Treatise of Ci#il ?o#ern!ent

Chapter 'III5 6f the %eginning of Political Societies5 )ect. /3. ;4+ being as has been said by nature all !ree e@ual and independent no one can be put out o! this estate and sub<ected to the political power o! another without his own consent. 5he only way whereby any one divests himsel! o! his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to <oin and unite into a community !or their com!ortable sa!e and peaceable living one amongst another in a secure en<oyment o! their properties and a greater security against any that are not o! it. 5his any number o! men may do because it in<ures not the !reedom o! the restK they are le!t as they were in the liberty o! the state o! nature. When any number o! men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated and ma9e one body politic, wherein the ma$ority have a right to act and conclude the rest. )ect. /2. $or when any number o! men have by the consent o! every individual made a community, they have thereby made that community one body with a power to act as one body which is only by the will and determination o! the ma$ority> !or that which acts any community being only the consent o! the individuals o! it and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one wayK it is necessary the body should move that way whither the greater !orce carries it which is the consent of the ma$ority> or else it is impossible it should act or continue one body one community, which the consent o! every individual that united into it agreed that it shouldK and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the ma$ority. And there!ore we see that in assemblies impowered to act by positive laws where no number is set by that positive law which impowers them the act of the ma$ority passes !or the act o! the whole and o! course determines as having by the law o! nature and reason the power o! the whole. )ect. /0. And thus every man by consenting with others to ma9e one body politic under one government puts himsel! under an obligation to every one o! that society to submit to the determination o! the ma$ority, and to be concluded by itK or else this original compact, whereby he
-/0

with others incorporates into one society, would signi!y nothing and be no compact i! he be le!t !ree and under no other ties than he was in be!ore in the state o! nature. $or what appearance would there be o! any compact7 what new engagement i! he were no !arther tied by any decrees o! the society than he himsel! thought !it and did actually consent to7 5his would be still as great a liberty as he himsel! had be!ore his compact or any one else in the state o! nature hath who may submit himsel! and consent to any acts o! it i! he thin9s !it. )ect. /%. $or i! the consent of the ma$ority shall not in reason be received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individualK nothing but the consent o! every individual can ma9e any thing to be the act o! the whole. but such a consent is ne=t to impossible ever to be had i! we consider the in!irmities o! health and avocations o! business which in a number though much less than that o! a common,wealth will necessarily 9eep many away !rom the public assembly. 5o which i! we add the variety o! opinions and contrariety o! interests which unavoidably happen in all collections o! men the coming into society upon such terms would be only li9e ,ato's coming into the theatre only to go out again. )uch a constitution as this would ma9e the mighty -eviathan o! a shorter duration than the !eeblest creatures and not let it outlast the day it was born in. which cannot be supposed till we can thin9 that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only to be dissolved. !or where the ma$ority cannot conclude the rest there they cannot act as one body and conse@uently will be immediately dissolved again. )ect. //. Whosoever there!ore out o! a state o! nature unite into a community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to the ends !or which they unite into society to the ma$ority o! the community unless they e=presly agreed in any number greater than the ma<ority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one political society, which is all the compact that is or needs be between the individuals that enter into or ma9e up a common4wealth. And thus that which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is nothing but the consent o! any number o! !reemen capable o! a ma<ority to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that and that only which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the world. )ect. 100. 5o this ( !ind two ob<ections made. $irst 9hat there are no instances to be found in story, of a company of
-/1

men independent, and equal one amongst another, that met together, and in this way began and set up a government. )econdly It is impossible of right, that men should do so, because all men being born under government, they are to submit to that, and are not at liberty to begin a new one. )ect. 101. 5o the !irst there is this to answer 5hat it is not at all to be wondered that history gives us but a very little account o! men, that lived together in the state of nature. 5he inconveniences o! that condition and the love and want o! society no sooner brought any number o! them together but they presently united and incorporated i! they designed to continue together. And i! we may not suppose men ever to have been in the state of nature, because we hear not much o! them in such a state we may as well suppose the armies o! &almanasser or Ierxes were never children because we hear little o! them till they were men and imbodied in armies. Aovernment is everywhere antecedent to records and letters seldom come in amongst a people till a long continuation o! civil society has by other more necessary arts provided !or their sa!ety ease and plenty. and then they begin to loo9 a!ter the history o! their !ounders and search into their original, when they have outlived the memory o! it. !or it is with common4wealths as with particular persons they are commonly ignorant of their own births and infancies> and i! they 9now any thing o! their original, they are beholden !or it to the accidental records that others have 9ept o! it. And those that we have o! the beginning o! any polities in the world e=cepting that o! the .ews, where Aod himsel! immediately interposed and which !avours not at all paternal dominion are all either plain instances o! such a beginning as ( have mentioned or at least have mani!est !ootsteps o! it. )ect. 102. He must shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter o! !act when it agrees not with his hypothesis who will not allow that shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter o! !act when it agrees not with his hypothesis who will not allow that the beginning of %ome and <enice were by the uniting together o! several men !ree and independent one o! another amongst whom there was no natural superiority or sub<ection. And i! .osephus 2costa's word may be ta9en he tells us that in many parts o! 2merica there was no government at all. 9here are great and apparent con$ectures, says he that these men, spea9ing o! those o! 'eru for a long time had neither kings nor common4wealths, but lived in troops, as they do this day in $lorida the
-/2

Cheri@uanas those of *raDil and many other nations, which have no certain kings, but as occasion is offered, in peace or war, they choose their captains as they please, 1. i. c. 23. (! it be said that every man there was born sub<ect to his !ather or the head o! his !amilyK that the sub<ection due !rom a child to a !ather too9 not away his !reedom o! uniting into what political society he thought !it has been already proved. *ut be that as it will these men it is evident were actually free: and whatever superiority some politicians now would place in any o! them they themselves claimed it not but by consent were all equal, till by the same consent they set rulers over themselves. )o that their politic societies all began !rom a voluntary union and the mutual agreement o! men !reely acting in the choice o! their governors and !orms o! government. )ect. 10-. And ( hope those who went away !rom &parta with +alantus, mentioned by .ustin, 1. iii. c. 1. will be allowed to have been freemen independent one o! another and to have set up a government over themselves by their own consent. 5hus ( have given several e=amples out o! history o! people free and in the state of nature, that being met together incorporated and began a common4wealth. And i! the want o! such instances be an argument to prove that government were not nor could not be so begun, ( suppose the contenders !or paternal empire were better let it alone than urge it against natural liberty. !or i! they can give so many instances out o! history o! governments begun upon paternal right ( thin9 "though at best an argument !rom what has been to what should o! right be has no great !orce# one might without any great danger yield them the cause. *ut i! ( might advise them in the case they would do well not to search too much into the original of governments, as they have begun de facto, lest they should !ind at the !oundation o! most o! them something very little !avourable to the design they promote and such a power as they contend !or. )ect. 101. *ut to conclude reason being plain on our side that men are naturally !ree and the e=amples o! history shewing that the governments o! the world that were begun in peace had their beginning laid on that !oundation and were made by the consent of the people: there can be little room !or doubt either where the right is or what has been the opinion or practice o! man9ind about the first erecting of governments. )ect. 103. ( will not deny that i! we loo9 bac9 as !ar as history will direct us towards the original of common4wealths, we shall generally !ind
-/-

them under the government and administration o! one man. And ( am also apt to believe that where a !amily was numerous enough to subsist by itsel! and continued entire together without mi=ing with others as it o!ten happens where there is much land and !ew people the government commonly began in the !ather. !or the !ather having by the law o! nature the same power with every man else to punish as he thought !it any o!!ences against that law might thereby punish his transgressing children even when they were men and out o! their pupilageK and they were very li9ely to submit to his punishment and all <oin with him against the o!!ender in their turns giving him thereby power to e=ecute his sentence against any transgression and so in e!!ect ma9e him the law,ma9er and governor over all that remained in con<unction with his !amily. He was !ittest to be trustedK paternal a!!ection secured their property and interest under his careK and the custom o! obeying him in their childhood made it easier to submit to him rather than to any other. (! there!ore they must have one to rule them as government is hardly to be avoided amongst men that live togetherK who so li9ely to be the man as he that was their common !atherK unless negligence cruelty or any other de!ect o! mind or body made him un!it !or it7 *ut when either the !ather died and le!t his ne=t heir !or want o! age wisdom courage or any other @ualities less !it !or ruleK or where several !amilies met and consented to continue togetherK there it is not to be doubted but they used their natural !reedom to set up him whom they <udged the ablest and most li9ely to rule well over them. Con!ormable hereunto we !ind the people o! 2merica, who "living out o! the reach o! the con@uering swords and spreading domination o! the two great empires o! +eru and 0exico# en<oyed their own natural !reedom though ceteris paribus, they commonly pre!er the heir o! their deceased 9ingK yet i! they !ind him any way wea9 or uncapable they pass him by and set up the stoutest and bravest man !or their ruler. )ect. 102. 5hus though loo9ing bac9 as !ar as records give us any account o! peopling the world and the history o! nations we commonly !ind the government to be in one handK yet it destroys not that which ( a!!irm viz. that the beginning of politic society depends upon the consent o! the individuals to <oin into and ma9e one societyK who when they are thus incorporated might set up what !orm o! government they thought !it. *ut this having given occasion to men to mista9e and thin9 that by nature government was monarchical and belonged to the !ather it may not be amiss here to consider why people in the
-/1

beginning generally pitched upon this !orm which though perhaps the !atherFs pre,eminency might in the !irst institution o! some common, wealths give a rise to and place in the beginning the power in one handK yet it is plain that the reason that continued the !orm o! government in a single person, was not any regard or respect to paternal authorityK since all petty monarchies, that is almost all monarchies near their original have been commonly at least upon occasion elective. )ect. 100. $irst then in the beginning o! things the !atherFs government o! the childhood o! those sprung !rom him having accustomed them to the rule of one man, and taught them that where it was e=ercised with care and s9ill with a!!ection and love to those under it it was su!!icient to procure and preserve to men all the political happiness they sought !or in society. (t was no wonder that they should pitch upon and naturally run into that !orm o! government which !rom their in!ancy they had been all accustomed toK and which by e=perience they had !ound both easy and sa!e. 5o which i! we add that monarchy being simple and most obvious to men whom neither e=perience had instructed in !orms o! government nor the ambition or insolence o! empire had taught to beware o! the encroachments o! prerogative or the inconveniences o! absolute power which monarchy in succession was apt to lay claim to and bring upon them it was not at all strange that they should not much trouble themselves to thin9 o! methods o! restraining any e=orbitances o! those to whom they had given the authority over them and o! balancing the power o! government by placing several parts o! it in di!!erent hands. 5hey had neither !elt the oppression o! tyrannical dominion nor did the !ashion o! the age nor their possessions or way o! living "which a!!orded little matter !or covetousness or ambition# give them any reason to apprehend or provide against itK and there!ore it is no wonder they put themselves into such a frame of government, as was not only as ( said most obvious and simple but also best suited to their present state and conditionK which stood more in need o! de!ence against !oreign invasions and in<uries than o! multiplicity o! laws. 5he e@uality o! a simple poor way o! living con!ining their desires within the narrow bounds o! each manFs small property made !ew controversies and so no need o! many laws to decide them or variety o! o!!icers to superintend the process or loo9 a!ter the e=ecution o! <ustice where there were but !ew trespasses and !ew o!!enders. )ince then those who li9e one another so well as to <oin into society cannot but be
-/3

supposed to have some ac@uaintance and !riendship together and some trust one in anotherK they could not but have greater apprehensions o! others than o! one another. and there!ore their !irst care and thought cannot but be supposed to be how to secure themselves against !oreign !orce. (t was natural !or them to put themselves under a frame of government which might best serve to that end and chuse the wisest and bravest man to conduct them in their wars and lead them out against their enemies and in this chie!ly be their ruler. )ect. 10%. 5hus we see that the kings of the Indians in 2merica, which is still a pattern o! the !irst ages in Asia and 4urope whilst the inhabitants were too !ew !or the country and want o! people and money gave men no temptation to enlarge their possessions o! land or contest !or wider e=tent o! ground are little more than generals of their armies: and though they command absolutely in war yet at home and in time o! peace they e=ercise very little dominion and have but a very moderate sovereignty the resolutions o! peace and war being ordinarily either in the people or in a council. 5hoF the war itsel! which admits not o! plurality o! governors naturally devolves the command into the king's sole authority. )ect. 10/. And thus in Israel itsel! the chief business of their $udges, and first kings, seems to have been to be captains in war, and leaders o! their armiesK which "besides what is signi!ied by going out and in before the people, which was to march !orth to war and home again in the heads o! their !orces# appears plainly in the story o! .ephtha. 5he 2mmonites ma9ing war upon Israel, the (ileadites in !ear send to .ephtha, a bastard o! their !amily whom they had cast o!! and article with him i! he will assist them against the 2mmonites, to ma9e him their rulerK which they do in these words 2nd the people made him head and captain over them, 6udg. =i ii. which was as it seems all one as to be $udge. 2nd he $udged Israel, <udg. =ii. 0. that is was their captain4general six years. )o when .otham upbraids the &hechemites with the obligation they had to (ideon, who had been their $udge and ruler he tells them 1e fought for you, and adventured his life far, and delivered you out of the hands of 0idian, 6udg. i=. 10. +othing mentioned o! him but what he did as a general> and indeed that is all is !ound in his history or in any o! the rest o! the <udges. And 2bimelech particularly is called king, though at most he was but their general. And when being weary o! the ill conduct o! &amuel's sons, the children o! Israel desired a king, like all the nations to $udge them, and to go out
-/2

before them, and to fight their battles, (. )am viii. 20. Aod granting their desire says to &amuel, I will send thee a man, and thou shalt anoint him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people out of the hands of the +hilistines, i=. 12. As i! the only business of a king had been to lead out their armies and !ight in their de!enceK and accordingly at his inauguration pouring a vial o! oil upon him declares to &aul, that the -ord had anointed him to be captain over his inheritance, =. 1. And there!ore those who a!ter )aulFs being solemnly chosen and saluted king by the tribes at 0ispah, were unwilling to have him their 9ing made no other ob<ection but this 1ow shall this man save us= v. 20. as i! they should have said this man is un!it to be our king, not having s9ill and conduct enough in war to be able to de!end us. And when Aod resolved to trans!er the government to 'avid, it is in these words )ut now thy kingdom shall not continue> the -ord hath sought him a man after his own heart, and the -ord hath commanded him to be captain over his people, =iii. 11. As i! the whole kingly authority were nothing else but to be their general> and there!ore the tribes who had stuc9 to &aul's !amily and opposed 'avid's reign when they came to 1ebron with terms o! submission to him they tell him amongst other arguments they had to submit to him as to their 9ing that he was in e!!ect their king in &aul's time and there!ore they had no reason but to receive him as their king now. 2lso "say they# in time past, when &aul was king over us, thou wast he that reddest out and broughtest in Israel, and the -ord said unto thee, 9hou shalt feed my people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel. )ect. 110. 5hus whether a family by degrees grew up into a common4 wealth, and the !atherly authority being continued on to the elder son every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it and the easiness and e@uality o! it not o!!ending any one every one ac@uiesced till time seemed to have con!irmed it and settled a right o! succession by prescription. or whether several !amilies or the descendants o! several !amilies whom chance neighbourhood or business brought together uniting into society the need o! a general whose conduct might de!end them against their enemies in war and the great con!idence the innocence and sincerity o! that poor but virtuous age "such as are almost all those which begin governments that ever come to last in the world# gave men one o! another made the !irst beginners o! common,wealths generally put the rule into one manFs hand without any other e=press limitation or restraint but what the nature o! the thing and the end o! government re@uired. which ever o!
-/0

those it was that at !irst put the rule into the hands o! a single person certain it is no body was intrusted with it but !or the public good and sa!ety and to those ends in the in!ancies o! common,wealths those who had it commonly used it. And unless they had done so young societies could not have subsistedK without such nursing !athers tender and care!ul o! the public weal all governments would have sun9 under the wea9ness and in!irmities o! their in!ancy and the prince and the people had soon perished together. )ect. 111. *ut though the golden age "be!ore vain ambition and amor sceleratus habendi, evil concupiscence had corrupted menFs minds into a mista9e o! true power and honour# had more virtue and conse@uently better governors as well as less vicious sub<ects and there was then no stretching prerogative on the one side to oppress the peopleK nor conse@uently on the other any dispute about privilege, to lessen or restrain the power o! the magistrate and so no contest betwi=t rulers and people about governors or government. yet when ambition and lu=ury in !uture ages 1 would retain and increase the power without doing the business !or which it was givenK and aided by !lattery taught princes to have distinct and separate interests !rom their people men !ound it necessary to e=amine more care!ully the original and rights of government: and to !ind out ways to restrain the exorbitances, and prevent the abuses o! that power which they having intrusted in anotherFs hands only !or their own good they !ound was made use o! to hurt them. )ect. 112. 5hus we may see how probable it is that people that were naturally !ree and by their own consent either submitted to the government o! their !ather or united together out o! di!!erent !amilies to ma9e a government should generally put the rule into one man's hands, and chuse to be under the conduct o! a single person, without so much as by e=press conditions limiting or regulating his power which they thought sa!e enough in his honesty and prudenceK though they never dreamed o! monarchy being .ure 'ivino, which we never heard o! among man9ind till it was revealed to us by the divinity o! this last ageK nor ever allowed paternal power to have a right to dominion or to be the !oundation o! all government. And thus much may su!!ice to shew that as !ar as we have any light !rom history we have reason to conclude that all peace!ul beginnings o! government have been laid in the consent of the people. ( say peaceful, because ( shall have occasion in another place to spea9 o! con@uest which some esteem a way o! beginning o! governments.
-/%

9he other ob$ection I find urged against the beginning of polities, in the way I have mentioned, is this, viD. )ect. 11-. 9hat all men being born under government, some or other, it is impossible any of them should ever be free, and at liberty to unite together, and begin a new one, or ever be able to erect a lawful government. (! this argument be goodK ( as9 how came so many law!ul monarchies into the world7 !or i! any body upon this supposition can shew me any one man in any age o! the world free to begin a law!ul monarchy ( will be bound to shew him ten other free men at liberty at the same time to unite and begin a new government under a regal or any other !ormK it being demonstration that i! any one born under the dominion o! another may be so free as to have a right to command others in a new and distinct empire every one that is born under the dominion o! another may be so !ree too and may become a ruler or sub<ect o! a distinct separate government. And so by this their own principle either all men however born, are free, or else there is but one law!ul prince one law!ul government in the world. And then they have nothing to do but barely to shew us which that isK which when they have done ( doubt not but all man9ind will easily agree to pay obedience to him. )ect. 111. 5hough it be a su!!icient answer to their ob<ection to shew that it involves them in the same di!!iculties that it doth those they use it againstK yet ( shall endeavour to discover the wea9ness o! this argument a little !arther. 2ll men, say they, are born under government, and therefore they cannot be at liberty to begin a new one. @very one is born a sub$ect to his father, or his prince, and is therefore under the perpetual tie of sub$ection and allegiance. (t is plain man9ind never owned nor considered any such natural sub<ection that they were born in to one or to the other that tied them without their own consents to a sub<ection to them and their heirs. )ect. 113. $or there are no e=amples so !re@uent in history both sacred and pro!ane as those o! men withdrawing themselves and their obedience !rom the <urisdiction they were born under and the !amily or community they were bred up in and setting up new governments in other placesK !rom whence sprang all that number o! petty common, wealths in the beginning o! ages and which always multiplied as long as there was room enough till the stronger or more !ortunate
-//

swallowed the wea9erK and those great ones again brea9ing to pieces dissolved into lesser dominions. All which are so many testimonies against paternal sovereignty and plainly prove that it was not the natural right o! the father descending to his heirs that made governments in the beginning since it was impossible upon that ground there should have been so many little 9ingdomsK all must have been but only one universal monarchy i! men had not been at liberty to separate themselves !rom their !amilies and the government be it what it will that was set up in it and go and ma9e distinct common, wealths and other governments as they thought !it. )ect. 112. 5his has been the practice o! the world !rom its !irst beginning to this dayK nor is it now any more hindrance to the !reedom o! man9ind that they are born under constituted and ancient polities, that have established laws and set !orms o! government than i! they were born in the woods amongst the uncon!ined inhabitants that run loose in them. !or those who would persuade us that by being born under any government, we are naturally sub$ects to it, and have no more any title or pretence to the !reedom o! the state o! nature have no other reason "bating that o! paternal power which we have already answered# to produce !or it but only because our !athers or progenitors passed away their natural liberty and thereby bound up themselves and their posterity to a perpetual sub<ection to the government which they themselves submitted to. (t is true that whatever engagements or promises any one has made !or himsel! he is under the obligation o! them but cannot, by any compact whatsoever bind his children or posterity> !or his son when a man being altogether as !ree as the !ather any act of the father can no more give away the liberty of the son, than it can o! any body else. he may indeed anne= such conditions to the land he en<oyed as a sub<ect o! any common,wealth as may oblige his son to be o! that community i! he will en<oy those possessions which were his !atherFsK because that estate being his !atherFs property he may dispose or settle it as he pleases. )ect. 110. And this has generally given the occasion to mista9e in this matterK because common,wealths not permitting any part o! their dominions to be dismembered nor to be en<oyed by any but those o! their community the son cannot ordinarily en<oy the possessions o! his !ather but under the same terms his !ather did by becoming a member o! the societyK whereby he puts himsel! presently under the government he !inds there established as much as any other sub<ect o! that
100

common,wealth. And thus the consent of freemen, born under government, which only makes them members of it, being given separately in their turns as each comes to be o! age and not in a multitude togetherK people ta9e no notice o! it and thin9ing it not done at all or not necessary conclude they are naturally sub<ects as they are men. )ect. 11%. *ut it is plain governments themselves understand it otherwiseK they claim no power over the son, because of that they had over the father: nor loo9 on children as being their sub<ects by their !athers being so. (! a sub<ect o! @ngland have a child by an @nglish woman in 5rance, whose sub<ect is he7 +ot the 9ing o! @ngland's: !or he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges o! it. nor the 9ing o! 5rance's: !or how then has his !ather a liberty to bring him away and breed him as he pleases7 and who ever was <udged as a traytor or deserter, i! he le!t or warred against a country !or being barely born in it o! parents that were aliens there7 (t is plain then by the practice o! governments themselves as well as by the law o! right reason that a child is born a sub$ect of no country or government. He is under his !atherFs tuition and authority till he comes to age o! discretionK and then he is a !reeman at liberty what government he will put himsel! under what body politic he will unite himsel! to. !or i! an @nglishman's son born in 5rance, be at liberty and may do so it is evident there is no tie upon him by his !atherFs being a sub<ect o! this 9ingdomK nor is he bound up by any compact o! his ancestors. And why then hath not his son by the same reason the same liberty though he be born any where else7 )ince the power that a !ather hath naturally over his children is the same wherever they be born and the ties o! natural obligations are not bounded by the positive limits o! 9ingdoms and common,wealths. )ect. 11/. @very man being as has been shewed naturally free, and nothing being able to put him into sub<ection to any earthly power but only his own consent: it is to be considered what shall be understood to be a sufficient declaration o! a manFs consent, to make him sub$ect to the laws o! any government. 5here is a common distinction o! an e=press and a tacit consent which will concern our present case. +o body doubts but an e=press consent, o! any man entering into any society ma9es him a per!ect member o! that society a sub<ect o! that government. 5he di!!iculty is what ought to be loo9ed upon as a tacit consent, and how !ar it binds i.e. how !ar any one shall be loo9ed on to have consented and thereby submitted to any government where he
101

has made no e=pressions o! it at all. And to this ( say that every man that hath any possessions or en<oyment o! any part o! the dominions o! any government doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as !ar !orth obliged to obedience to the laws o! that government during such en<oyment as any one under itK whether this his possession be o! land to him and his heirs !or ever or a lodging only !or a wee9K or whether it be barely travelling !reely on the highwayK and in e!!ect it reaches as !ar as the very being o! any one within the territories o! that government. )ect. 120. 5o understand this the better it is !it to consider that every man when he at !irst incorporates himsel! into any commonwealth he by his uniting himsel! thereunto anne=ed also and submits to the community those possessions which he has or shall ac@uire that do not already belong to any other government. !or it would be a direct contradiction !or any one to enter into society with others !or the securing and regulating o! propertyK and yet to suppose his land whose property is to be regulated by the laws o! the society should be e=empt !rom the <urisdiction o! that government to which he himsel! the proprietor o! the land is a sub<ect. *y the same act there!ore whereby any one unites his person which was be!ore !ree to any common, wealth by the same he unites his possessions which were be!ore !ree to it alsoK and they become both o! them person and possession sub<ect to the government and dominion o! that common,wealth as long as it hath a being. Whoever there!ore !rom thence!orth by inheritance purchase permission or otherways en$oys any part of the land so anne=ed to and under the government o! that common, wealth must ta9e it with the condition it is underK that is of submitting to the government of the common4wealth, under whose <urisdiction it is as !ar !orth as any sub<ect o! it. )ect. 121. *ut since the government has a direct <urisdiction only over the land and reaches the possessor o! it "be!ore he has actually incorporated himsel! in the society# only as he dwells upon and en<oys thatK the obligation any one is under by virtue o! such en<oyment to submit to the government, begins and ends with the en$oyment: so that whenever the owner who has given nothing but such a tacit consent to the government will by donation sale or otherwise @uit the said possession he is at liberty to go and incorporate himsel! into any other common,wealthK or to agree with others to begin a new one in vacuis locis, in any part o! the world they can !ind !ree and unpossessed. whereas he that has once by actual agreement and any express
102

declaration given his consent to be o! any common,wealth is perpetually and indispensably obliged to be and remain unalterably a sub<ect to it and can never be again in the liberty o! the state o! natureK unless by any calamity the government he was under comes to be dissolvedK or else by some public act cuts him o!! !rom being any longer a member o! it. )ect. 122. *ut submitting to the laws o! any country living @uietly and en<oying privileges and protection under them makes not a man a member of that society> this is only a local protection and homage due to and !rom all those who not being in a state o! war come within the territories belonging to any government to all parts whereo! the !orce o! its laws e=tends. *ut this no more makes a man a member of that society, a perpetual sub<ect o! that common,wealth than it would ma9e a man a sub<ect to another in whose !amily he !ound it convenient to abide !or some timeK though whilst he continued in it he were obliged to comply with the laws and submit to the government he !ound there. And thus we see that foreigners, by living all their lives under another government and en<oying the privileges and protection o! it though they are bound even in conscience to submit to its administration as !ar !orth as any denisonK yet do not thereby come to be sub$ects or members of that common4wealth. +othing can ma9e any man so but his actually entering into it by positive engagement and e=press promise and compact. 5his is that which ( thin9 concerning the beginning o! political societies and that consent which makes any one a member of any common4wealth. Notes:
1

At !irst when some certain 9ind o! regiment was once approved it may be nothing was then !arther thought upon !or the manner o! governing but all permitted unto their wisdom and discretion which were to rule till by e=perience they !ound this !or all parts very inconvenient so as the thing which they had devised !or a remedy did indeed but increase the sore which it should have cured. 5hey saw that to live by one manFs will became the cause o! all menFs misery. 5his constrained them to come unto laws wherein all men might see their duty be!ore hand and 9now the penalties o! transgressing them. Hoo9erFs 4ccl. 'ol. l. i. sect. 10.

10-

Source E C ,ean2,ac>ues (ousseau Social Contract

35 The Social Co!pact ( )H''&)4 men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way o! their preservation in the state o! nature show their power o! resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal o! each individual !or his maintenance in that state. 5hat primitive condition can then subsist no longerK and the human race would perish unless it changed its manner o! e=istence. *ut as men cannot engender new !orces but only unite and direct e=isting ones they have no other means o! preserving themselves than the !ormation by aggregation o! a sum o! !orces great enough to overcome the resistance. 5hese they have to bring into play by means o! a single motive power and cause to act in concert. 5his sum o! !orces can arise only where several persons come together. but as the !orce and liberty o! each man are the chie! instruments o! his sel!,preservation how can he pledge them without harming his own interests and neglecting the care he owes to himsel!7 5his di!!iculty in its bearing on my present sub<ect may be stated in the !ollowing terms. *9he problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.* 5his is the !undamental problem o! which the &ocial ,ontract provides the solution. 5he clauses o! this contract are so determined by the nature o! the act that the slightest modi!ication would ma9e them vain and ine!!ectiveK so that although they have perhaps never been !ormally set !orth they are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognised until on the violation o! the social compact each regains his original rights and resumes his natural liberty while losing the conventional liberty in !avour o! which he renounced it.

101

5hese clauses properly understood may be reduced to one J the total alienation o! each associate together with all his rights to the whole communityK !or in the !irst place as each gives himsel! absolutely the conditions are the same !or allK and this being so no one has any interest in ma9ing them burdensome to others. ;oreover the alienation being without reserve the union is as per!ect as it can be and no associate has anything more to demand. !or i! the individuals retained certain rights as there would be no common superior to decide between them and the public each being on one point his own <udge would as9 to be so on allK the state o! nature would thus continue and the association would necessarily become inoperative or tyrannical. $inally each man in giving himsel! to all gives himsel! to nobodyK and as there is no associate over whom he does not ac@uire the same right as he yields others over himsel! he gains an e@uivalent !or everything he loses and an increase o! !orce !or the preservation o! what he has. (! then we discard !rom the social compact what is not o! its essence we shall !ind that it reduces itsel! to the !ollowing terms. *@ach of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.* At once in place o! the individual personality o! each contracting party this act o! association creates a moral and collective body composed o! as many members as the assembly contains votes and receiving !rom this act its unity its common identity its li!e and its will. 5his public person so !ormed by the union o! all other persons !ormerly too9 the name o! city and now ta9es that o! %epublic or body politicK it is called by its members &tate when passive. &overeign when active and +ower when compared with others li9e itsel!. 5hose who are associated in it ta9e collectively the name o! people and severally are called citizens as sharing in the sovereign power and sub$ects as being under the laws o! the )tate. *ut these terms are o!ten con!used and ta9en one !or another. it is enough to 9now how to distinguish them when they are being used with precision.

103

Source E a#id Hu!e 6f The 6riginal Contract

As no party in the present age can well support itsel! without a philosophical or speculative system o! principles anne=ed to its political or practical one we accordingly !ind that each o! the !actions into which this nation is divided has reared up a !abric o! the !ormer 9ind in order to protect and cover that scheme o! actions which it pursues. 5he people being commonly very rude builders especially in this speculative way and more especially still when actuated by party,Deal it is natural to imagine that their wor9manship must be a little unshapely and discover evident mar9s o! that violence and hurry in which it was raised. 5he one party by tracing up government to the :eity endeavoured to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be little less than sacrilege however tyrannical it may become to touch or invade it in the smallest article. 5he other party by !ounding government altogether on the consent o! the people suppose that there is a 9ind o! original contract, by which the sub<ects have tacitly reserved the power o! resisting their sovereign whenever they !ind themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have !or certain purposes voluntarily intrusted him. 5hese are the speculative principles o! the two parties and these too are the practical conse@uences deduced !rom them. ( shall venture to a!!irm 9hat both these systems of speculative principles are $ust: though not in the sense intended by the parties> and 9hat both the schemes of practical consequences are prudent: though not in the extremes to which each party, in opposition to the other, has commonly endeavoured to carry them. 5hat the :eity is the ultimate author o! all government will never be denied by any who admit a general providence and allow that all events in the universe are conducted by an uni!orm plan and directed to wise purposes. As it is impossible !or the human race to subsist at least in any com!ortable or secure state without the protection o! government this institution must certainly have been intended by that bene!icent *eing who means the good o! all his creatures. and as it has universally in !act ta9en place in all countries and all ages we
102

may conclude with still greater certainty that it was intended by that omniscient *eing who can never be deceived by any event or operation. *ut since he gave rise to it not by any particular or miraculous interposition but by his concealed and universal e!!icacy a sovereign cannot properly spea9ing be called his vicegerent in any other sense than every power or !orce being derived !rom him may be said to act by his commission. Whatever actually happens is comprehended in the general plan or intention o! 'rovidenceK nor has the greatest and most law!ul prince any more reason upon that account to plead a peculiar sacredness or inviolable authority than an in!erior magistrate or even an usurper or even a robber and a pirate. 5he same :ivine )uperintendent who !or wise purposes invested a 5itus or a 5ra<an with authority did also !or purposes no doubt e@ually wise though un9nown bestow power on a *orgia or an Angria. 5he same causes which gave rise to the sovereign power in every state established li9ewise every petty <urisdiction in it and every limited authority. A constable there!ore no less than a 9ing acts by a divine commission and possesses an inde!easible right. When we consider how nearly e@ual all men are in their bodily !orce and even in their mental powers and !aculties till cultivated by education we must necessarily allow that nothing but their own consent could at !irst associate them together and sub<ect them to any authority. 5he people i! we trace government to its !irst origin in the woods and deserts are the source o! all power and <urisdiction and voluntarily !or the sa9e o! peace and order abandoned their native liberty and received laws !rom their e@ual and companion. 5he conditions upon which they were willing to submit were either e=pressed or were so clear and obvious that it might well be esteemed super!luous to e=press them. (! this then be meant by the original contract, it cannot be denied that all government is at !irst !ounded on a contract and that the most ancient rude combinations o! man9ind were !ormed chie!ly by that principle. (n vain are we as9ed in what records this charter o! our liberties is registered. (t was not written on parchment nor yet on leaves or bar9s o! trees. (t preceded the use o! writing and all the other civiliDed arts o! li!e. *ut we trace it plainly in the nature o! man and in the e@uality or something approaching e@uality which we !ind in all the individuals o! that species. 5he !orce which now prevails and which is !ounded on !leets and armies is plainly political and derived !rom authority the e!!ect o! established government. A manFs natural !orce consists only in the vigour o! his
100

limbs and the !irmness o! his courageK which could never sub<ect multitudes to the command o! one. +othing but their own consent and their sense o! the advantages resulting !rom peace and order could have had that in!luence. Get even this consent was long very imper!ect and could not be the basis o! a regular administration. 5he chie!tain who had probably ac@uired his in!luence during the continuance o! war ruled more by persuasion than commandK and till he could employ !orce to reduce the re!ractory and disobedient the society could scarcely be said to have attained a state o! civil government. +o compact or agreement it is evident was e=pressly !ormed !or general submissionK an idea !ar beyond the comprehension o! savages. each e=ertion o! authority in the chie!tain must have been particular and called !orth by the present e=igencies o! the case. the sensible utility resulting !rom his interposition made these e=ertions become daily more !re@uentK and their !re@uency gradually produced an habitual and i! you please to call it so a voluntary and there!ore precarious ac@uiescence in the people. *ut philosophers who have embraced a party "i! that be not a contradiction in terms# are not contented with these concessions. 5hey assert not only that government in its earliest in!ancy arose !rom consent or rather the voluntary ac@uiescence o! the peopleK but also that even at present when it has attained its !ull maturity it rests on no other !oundation. 5hey a!!irm that all men are still born e@ual and owe allegiance to no prince or government unless bound by the obligation and sanction o! a promise. And as no man without some e@uivalent would !orego the advantages o! his native liberty and sub<ect himsel! to the will o! another this promise is always understood to be conditional and imposes on him no obligation unless he meet with <ustice and protection !rom his sovereign. 5hese advantages the sovereign promises him in returnK and i! he !ail in the e=ecution he has bro9en on his part the articles o! engagement and has thereby !reed his sub<ect !rom all obligations to allegiance. )uch according to these philosophers is the !oundation o! authority in every government and such the right o! resistance possessed by every sub<ect. *ut would these reasoners loo9 abroad into the world they would meet with nothing that in the least corresponds to their ideas or can warrant so re!ined and philosophical a system. &n the contrary we !ind everywhere princes who claim their sub<ects as their property and
10%

assert their independent right o! sovereignty !rom con@uest or succession. We !ind also everywhere sub<ects who ac9nowledge this right in their prince and suppose themselves born under obligations o! obedience to a certain sovereign as much as under the ties o! reverence and duty to certain parents. 5hese conne=ions are always conceived to be e@ually independent o! our consent in 'ersia and ChinaK in $rance and )painK and even in Holland and 4ngland wherever the doctrines above,mentioned have not been care!ully inculcated. &bedience or sub<ection becomes so !amiliar that most men never ma9e any in@uiry about its origin or cause more than about the principle o! gravity resistance or the most universal laws o! nature. &r i! curiosity ever move them as soon as they learn that they themselves and their ancestors have !or several ages or !rom time immemorial been sub<ect to such a !orm o! government or such a !amily they immediately ac@uiesce and ac9nowledge their obligation to allegiance. Were you to preach in most parts o! the world that political conne=ions are !ounded altogether on voluntary consent or a mutual promise the magistrate would soon imprison you as seditious !or loosening the ties o! obedienceK i! your !riends did not be!ore shut you up as delirious !or advancing such absurdities. (t is strange that an act o! the mind which every individual is supposed to have !ormed and a!ter he came to the use o! reason too otherwise it could have no authorityK that this act ( say should be so much un9nown to all o! them that over the !ace o! the whole earth there scarcely remain any traces or memory o! it. *ut the contract on which government is !ounded is said to be the original contract: and conse@uently may be supposed too old to !all under the 9nowledge o! the present generation. (! the agreement by which savage men !irst associated and con<oined their !orce be here meant this is ac9nowledged to be realK but being so ancient and being obliterated by a thousand changes o! government and princes it cannot now be supposed to retain any authority. (! we would say any thing to the purpose we must assert that every particular government which is law!ul and which imposes any duty o! allegiance on the sub<ect was at !irst !ounded on consent and a voluntary compact. *ut besides that this supposes the consent o! the !athers to bind the children even to the most remote generations "which republican writers will never allow# besides this ( say it is not <usti!ied by history or e=perience in any age or country o! the world. Almost all the governments which e=ist at present or o! which there
10/

remains any record in story have been !ounded originally either on usurpation or con@uest or both without any presence o! a !air consent or voluntary sub<ection o! the people. When an art!ul and bold man is placed at the head o! an army or !action it is o!ten easy !or him by employing sometimes violence sometimes !alse presences to establish his dominion over a people a hundred times more numerous than his partisans. He allows no such open communication that his enemies can 9now with certainty their number or !orce. He gives them no leisure to assemble together in a body to oppose him. 4ven all those who are the instruments o! his usurpation may wish his !allK but their ignorance o! each otherFs intention 9eeps them in awe and is the sole cause o! his security. *y such arts as these many governments have been establishedK and this is all the original contract which they have to boast o!. 5he !ace o! the earth is continually changing by the increase o! small 9ingdoms into great empires by the dissolution o! great empires into smaller 9ingdoms by the planting o! colonies by the migration o! tribes. (s there anything discoverable in all these events but !orce and violence7 Where is the mutual agreement or voluntary association so much tal9ed o!7 4ven the smoothest way by which a nation may receive a !oreign master by marriage or a will is not e=tremely honourable !or the peopleK but supposes them to be disposed o! li9e a dowry or a legacy according to the pleasure or interest o! their rulers. *ut where no !orce interposes and election ta9es placeK what is this election so highly vaunted7 (t is either the combination o! a !ew great men who decide !or the whole and will allow o! no oppositionK or it is the !ury o! a multitude that !ollow a seditious ringleader who is not 9nown perhaps to a doDen among them and who owes his advancement merely to his own impudence or to the momentary caprice o! his !ellows. Are these disorderly elections which are rare too o! such mighty authority as to be the only law!ul !oundation o! all government and allegiance7 (n reality there is not a more terrible event than a total dissolution o! government which gives liberty to the multitude and ma9es the determination or choice o! a new establishment depend upon a number which nearly approaches to that o! the body o! the people. !or
110

it never comes entirely to the whole body o! them. 4very wise man then wishes to see at the head o! a power!ul and obedient army a general who may speedily seiDe the priDe and give to the people a master which they are so un!it to choose !or themselves. )o little correspondent is !act and reality to those philosophical notions. Let not the establishment at the %evolution deceive us or ma9e us so much in love with a philosophical origin to government as to imagine all others monstrous and irregular. 4ven that event was !ar !rom corresponding to these re!ined ideas. (t was only the succession and that only in the regal part o! the government which was then changed. and it was only the ma<ority o! seven hundred who determined that change !or near ten millions. ( doubt not indeed but the bul9 o! those ten millions ac@uiesced willingly in the determination. but was the matter le!t in the least to their choice7 Was it not <ustly supposed to be !rom that moment decided and every man punished who re!used to submit to the new sovereign7 How otherwise could the matter have ever been brought to any issue or conclusion7 5he republic o! Athens was ( believe the most e=tensive democracy that we read o! in history. yet i! we ma9e the re@uisite allowances !or the women the slaves and the strangers we shall !ind that that establishment was not at !irst made nor any law ever voted by a tenth part o! those who were bound to pay obedience to itK not to mention the islands and !oreign dominions which the Athenians claimed as theirs by right o! con@uest. And as it is well 9nown that popular assemblies in that city were always !ull o! license and disorder not withstanding the institutions and laws by which they were chec9edK how much more disorderly must they prove where they !orm not the established constitution but meet tumultuously on the dissolution o! the ancient government in order to give rise to a new one7 How chimerical must it be to tal9 o! a choice in such circumstances7 5he Achbans en<oyed the !reest and most per!ect democracy o! all anti@uityK yet they employed !orce to oblige some cities to enter into their league as we learn !rom 'olybius. Harry the (?th and Harry the ?((th o! 4ngland had really no title to the throne but a parliamentary electionK yet they never would ac9nowledge it lest they should thereby wea9en their authority. )trange i! the only real !oundation o! all authority be consent and promise7 (t is in vain to say that all governments are or should be at !irst
111

!ounded on popular consent as much as the necessity o! human a!!airs will admit. 5his !avours entirely my pretension. ( maintain that human a!!airs will never admit o! this consent seldom o! the appearance o! itK but that con@uest or usurpation that is in plain terms !orce by dissolving the ancient governments is the origin o! almost all the new ones which were ever established in the world. And that in the !ew cases where consent may seem to have ta9en place it was commonly so irregular so con!ined or so much intermi=ed either with !raud or violence that it cannot have any great authority. ;y intention here is not to e=clude the consent o! the people !rom being one <ust !oundation o! government where it has place. (t is surely the best and most sacred o! any. ( only pretend that it has very seldom had place in any degree and never almost in its !ull e=tentK and that there!ore some other !oundation o! government must also be admitted. Were all men possessed o! so in!le=ible a regard to <ustice that o! themselves they would totally abstain !rom the properties o! othersK they had !or ever remained in a state o! absolute liberty without sub<ection to any magistrate or political society. but this is a state o! per!ection o! which human nature is <ustly deemed incapable. Again were all men possessed o! so per!ect an understanding as always to 9now their own interests no !orm o! government had ever been submitted to but what was established on consent and was !ully canvassed by every member o! the society. but this state o! per!ection is li9ewise much superior to human nature. 8eason history and e=perience shew us that all political societies have had an origin much less accurate and regularK and were one to choose a period o! time when the peopleFs consent was the least regarded in public transactions it would be precisely on the establishment o! a new government. (n a settled constitution their inclinations are o!ten consultedK but during the !ury o! revolutions con@uests and public convulsions military !orce or political cra!t usually decides the controversy. When a new government is established by whatever means the people are commonly dissatis!ied with it and pay obedience more !rom !ear and necessity than !rom any idea o! allegiance or o! moral obligation. 5he prince is watch!ul and <ealous and must care!ully guard against every beginning or appearance o! insurrection. 5ime by degrees removes all these di!!iculties and accustoms the nation to regard as their law!ul or native princes that !amily which at !irst they
112

considered as usurpers or !oreign con@uerors. (n order to !ound this opinion they have no recourse to any notion o! voluntary consent or promise which they 9now never was in this case either e=pected or demanded. 5he original establishment was !ormed by violence and submitted to !rom necessity. 5he subse@uent administration is also supported by power and ac@uiesced in by the people not as a matter o! choice but o! obligation. 5hey imagine not that their consent gives their prince a title. but they willingly consent because they thin9 that !rom long possession he has ac@uired a title independent o! their choice or inclination. )hould it be said that by living under the dominion o! a prince which one might leave every individual has given a tacit consent to his authority and promised him obedienceK it may be answered that such an implied consent can only have place where a man imagines that the matter depends on his choice. *ut where he thin9s "as all man9ind do who are born under established governments# that by his birth he owes allegiance to a certain prince or certain !orm o! governmentK it would be absurd to in!er a consent or choice which he e=pressly in this case renounces and disclaims. Can we seriously say that a poor peasant or artisan has a !ree choice to leave his country when he 9nows no !oreign language or manners and lives !rom day to day by the small wages which he ac@uires7 We may as well assert that a man by remaining in a vessel !reely consents to the dominion o! the masterK though he was carried on board while asleep and must leap into the ocean and perish the moment he leaves her. What i! the prince !orbid his sub<ects to @uit his dominionsK as in 5iberiusFs time it was regarded as a crime in a 8oman 9night that he had attempted to !ly to the 'arthians in order to escape the tyranny o! that emperor71 &r as the ancient ;uscovites prohibited all travelling under pain o! death7 And did a prince observe that many o! his sub<ects were seiDed with the !renDy o! migrating to !oreign countries he would doubtless with great reason and <ustice restrain them in order to prevent the depopulation o! his own 9ingdom. Would he !or!eit the allegiance o! all his sub<ects by so wise and reasonable a law7 Get the !reedom o! their choice is surely in that case ravished !rom them. A company o! men who should leave their native country in order to people some uninhabited region might dream o! recovering their native !reedomK but they would soon !ind that their prince still laid claim to
11-

them and called them his sub<ects even in their new settlement. And in this he would but act con!ormably to the common ideas o! man9ind. 5he truest tacit consent o! this 9ind that is ever observed is when a !oreigner settles in any country and is be!orehand ac@uainted with the prince and government and laws to which he must submit. yet is his allegiance though more voluntary much less e=pected or depended on than that o! a natural born sub<ect. &n the contrary his native prince still asserts a claim to him. And i! he punish not the renegade where he seiDes him in war with his new princeFs commissionK this clemency is not !ounded on the municipal law which in all countries condemns the prisonerK but on the consent o! princes who have agreed to this indulgence in order to prevent reprisals. :id one generation o! men go o!! the stage at once and another succeed as is the case with sil9worms and butter!lies the new race i! they had sense enough to choose their government which surely is never the case with men might voluntarily and by general consent establish their own !orm o! civil polity without any regard to the laws or precedents which prevailed among their ancestors. *ut as human society is in perpetual !lu= one man every hour going out o! the world another coming into it it is necessary in order to preserve stability in government that the new brood should con!orm themselves to the established constitution and nearly !ollow the path which their !athers treading in the !ootsteps o! theirs had mar9ed out to them. )ome innovations must necessarily have place in every human institutionK and it is happy where the enlightened genius o! the age give these a direction to the side o! reason liberty and <ustice. but violent innovations no individual is entitled to ma9e. they are even dangerous to be attempted by the legislature. more ill than good is ever to be e=pected !rom them. and i! history a!!ords e=amples to the contrary they are not to be drawn into precedent and are only to be regarded as proo!s that the science o! politics a!!ords !ew rules which will not admit o! some e=ception and which may not sometimes be controlled by !ortune and accident. 5he violent innovations in the reign o! Henry ?(((. proceeded !rom an imperious monarch seconded by the appearance o! legislative authority. those in the reign o! Charles (. were derived !rom !action and !anaticismK and both o! them have proved happy in the issue. *ut even the !ormer were long the source o! many disorders and still more dangersK and i! the measures o! allegiance were to be ta9en !rom the latter a total anarchy must have place in human society and a !inal period at once be put to every government.
111

)uppose that an usurper a!ter having banished his law!ul prince and royal !amily should establish his dominion !or ten or a doDen years in any country and should preserve so e=act a discipline in his troops and so regular a disposition in his garrisons that no insurrection had ever been raised or even murmur heard against his administration. can it be asserted that the people who in their hearts abhor his treason have tacitly consented to his authority and promised him allegiance merely because !rom necessity they live under his dominion7 )uppose again their native prince restored by means o! an army which he levies in !oreign countries. they receive him with <oy and e=ultation and shew plainly with what reluctance they had submitted to any other yo9e. ( may now as9 upon what !oundation the princeFs title stands7 +ot on popular consent surely. !or though the people willingly ac@uiesce in his authority they never imagine that their consent made him sovereign. 5hey consentK because they apprehend him to be already by birth their law!ul sovereign. And as to that tacit consent which may now be in!erred !rom their living under his dominion this is no more than what they !ormerly gave to the tyrant and usurper. When we assert that all law!ul government arises !rom the consent o! the people we certainly do them a great deal more honour than they deserve or even e=pect and desire !rom us. A!ter the 8oman dominions became too unwieldy !or the republic to govern them the people over the whole 9nown world were e=tremely grate!ul to Augustus !or that authority which by violence he had established over themK and they shewed an e@ual disposition to submit to the successor whom he le!t them by his last will and testament. (t was a!terwards their mis!ortune that there never was in one !amily any long regular successionK but that their line o! princes was continually bro9en either by private assassinations or public rebellions. 5he prJtorian bands on the !ailure o! every !amily set up one emperorK the legions in the 4ast a secondK those in Aermany perhaps a thirdK and the sword alone could decide the controversy. 5he condition o! the people in that mighty monarchy was to be lamented not because the choice o! the emperor was never le!t to them !or that was impracticable but because they never !ell under any succession o! masters who might regularly !ollow each other. As to the violence and wars and bloodshed occasioned by every new settlement these were not blameable because they were inevitable. 5he house o! Lancaster ruled in this island about si=ty yearsK yet the partisans o! the white rose seemed daily to multiply in 4ngland. 5he
113

present establishment has ta9en place during a still longer period. Have all views o! right in another !amily been utterly e=tinguished even though scarce any man now alive had arrived at the years o! discretion when it was e=pelled or could have consented to its dominion or have promised it allegiance7 J a su!!icient indication surely o! the general sentiment o! man9ind on this head. $or we blame not the partisans o! the abdicated !amily merely on account o! the long time during which they have preserved their imaginary loyalty. We blame them !or adhering to a !amily which we a!!irm has been <ustly e=pelled and which !rom the moment the new settlement too9 place had !or!eited all title to authority. *ut would we have a more regular at least a more philosophical re!utation o! this principle o! an original contract or popular consent perhaps the !ollowing observations may su!!ice. All moral duties may be divided into two 9inds. 5he first are those to which men are impelled by a natural instinct or immediate propensity which operates on them independent o! all ideas o! obligation and o! all views either to public or private utility. &! this nature are love o! children gratitude to bene!actors pity to the un!ortunate. When we re!lect on the advantage which results to society !rom such humane instincts we pay them the <ust tribute o! moral approbation and esteem. but the person actuated by them !eels their power and in!luence antecedent to any such re!lection. 5he second 9ind o! moral duties are such as are not supported by any original instinct o! nature but are per!ormed entirely !rom a sense o! obligation when we consider the necessities o! human society and the impossibility o! supporting it i! these duties were neglected. (t is thus $ustice, or a regard to the property o! others fidelity, or the observance o! promises become obligatory and ac@uire an authority over man9ind. $or as it is evident that every man loves himsel! better than any other person he is naturally impelled to e=tend his ac@uisitions as much as possibleK and nothing can restrain him in this propensity but re!lection and e=perience by which he learns the pernicious e!!ects o! that license and the total dissolution o! society which must ensue !rom it. His original inclination there!ore or instinct is here chec9ed and restrained by a subse@uent <udgment or observation. 5he case is precisely the same with the political or civil duty o! allegiance as with the natural duties o! <ustice and !idelity. &ur primary instincts lead us either to indulge ourselves in unlimited !reedom or to
112

see9 dominion over othersK and it is re!lection only which engages us to sacri!ice such strong passions to the interests o! peace and public order. A small degree o! e=perience and observation su!!ices to teach us that society cannot possibly be maintained without the authority o! magistrates and that this authority must soon !all into contempt where e=act obedience is not paid to it. 5he observation o! these general and obvious interests is the source o! all allegiance and o! that moral obligation which we attribute to it. What necessity there!ore is there to !ound the duty o! allegiance or obedience to magistrates on that o! fidelity or a regard to promises and to suppose that it is the consent o! each individual which sub<ects him to government when it appears that both allegiance and !idelity stand precisely on the same !oundation and are both submitted to by man9ind on account o! the apparent interests and necessities o! human society7 We are bound to obey our sovereign it is said because we have given a tacit promise to that purpose. *ut why are we bound to observe our promise7 (t must here be asserted that the commerce and intercourse o! man9ind which are o! such mighty advantage can have no security where men pay no regard to their engagements. (n li9e manner may it be said that men could not live at all in society at least in a civiliDed society without laws and magistrates and <udges to prevent the encroachments o! the strong upon the wea9 o! the violent upon the <ust and e@uitable. 5he obligation to allegiance being o! li9e !orce and authority with the obligation to !idelity we gain nothing by resolving the one into the other. 5he general interests or necessities o! society are su!!icient to establish both. (! the reason be as9ed o! that obedience which we are bound to pay to government ( readily answer )ecause society could not otherwise subsist: and this answer is clear and intelligible to all man9ind. Gour answer is )ecause we should keep our word. *ut besides that no body till trained in a philosophical system can either comprehend or relish this answerK besides this ( say you !ind yoursel! embarrassed when it is as9ed ;hy we are bound to keep our word= +or can you give any answer but what would immediately without any circuit have accounted !or our obligation to allegiance. *ut to whom is allegiance due= 2nd who is our lawful sovereign= 5his @uestion is o!ten the most di!!icult o! any and liable to in!inite discussions. When people are so happy that they can answer 8ur
110

present sovereign, who inherits, in a direct line, from ancestors that have governed us for many ages, this answer admits o! no reply even though historians in tracing up to the remotest anti@uity the origin o! that royal !amily may !ind as commonly happens that its !irst authority was derived !rom usurpation and violence. (t is con!essed that private <ustice or the abstinence !rom the properties o! others is a most cardinal virtue. Get reason tells us that there is no property in durable ob<ects such as lands or houses when care!ully e=amined in passing !rom hand to hand but must in some period have been !ounded on !raud and in<ustice. 5he necessities o! human society neither in private nor public li!e will allow o! such an accurate in@uiryK and there is no virtue or moral duty but what may with !acility be re!ined away i! we indulge a !alse philosophy in si!ting and scrutiniDing it by every captious rule o! logic in every light or position in which it may be placed. 5he @uestions with regard to private property have !illed in!inite volumes o! law and philosophy i! in both we add the commentators to the original te=tK and in the end we may sa!ely pronounce that many o! the rules there established are uncertain ambiguous and arbitrary. 5he li9e opinion may be !ormed with regard to the succession and rights o! princes and !orms o! government. )everal cases no doubt occur especially in the in!ancy o! any constitution which admit o! no determination !rom the laws o! <ustice and e@uityK and our historian 8apin pretends that the controversy between 4dward the 5hird and 'hilip de ?alois was o! this nature and could be decided only by an appeal to heaven that is by war and violence. Who shall tell me whether Aermanicus or :rusus ought to have succeeded to 5iberius had he died while they were both alive without naming any o! them !or his successor7 &ught the right o! adoption to be received as e@uivalent to that o! blood in a nation where it had the same e!!ect in private !amilies and had already in two instances ta9en place in the public7 &ught Aermanicus to be esteemed the elder son because he was born be!ore :rususK or the younger because he was adopted a!ter the birth o! his brother7 &ught the right o! the elder to be regarded in a nation where he had no advantage in the succession o! private !amilies7 &ught the 8oman empire at that time to be deemed hereditary because o! two e=amplesK or ought it even so early to be regarded as belonging to the stronger or to the present possessor as being !ounded on so recent an usurpation7

11%

Commodus mounted the throne a!ter a pretty long succession o! e=cellent emperors who had ac@uired their title not by birth or public election but by the !ictitious rite o! adoption. 5hat bloody debauchee being murdered by a conspiracy suddenly !ormed between his wench and her gallant who happened at that time to be +rJtorian +rJfect: these immediately deliberated about choosing a master to human 9ind to spea9 in the style o! those agesK and they cast their eyes on 'ertina=. *e!ore the tyrantFs death was 9nown the +rJfect went secretly to that senator who on the appearance o! the soldiers imagined that his e=ecution had been ordered by Commodus. He was immediately saluted emperor by the o!!icer and his attendants cheer!ully proclaimed by the populace unwillingly submitted to by the guards !ormally recogniDed by the senate and passively received by the provinces and armies o! the empire. 5he discontent o! the +rJtorian bands bro9e out in a sudden sedition which occasioned the murder o! that e=cellent princeK and the world being now without a master and without government the guards thought proper to set the empire !ormally to sale. 6ulian the purchaser was proclaimed by the soldiers recogniDed by the senate and submitted to by the peopleK and must also have been submitted to by the provinces had not the envy o! the legions begotten opposition and resistance. 'escennius +iger in )yria elected himsel! emperor gained the tumultuary consent o! his army and was attended with the secret good,will o! the senate and people o! 8ome. Albinus in *ritain !ound an e@ual right to set up his claimK but )everus who governed 'annonia prevailed in the end above both o! them. 5hat able politician and warrior !inding his own birth and dignity too much in!erior to the imperial crown pro!essed at !irst an intention only o! revenging the death o! 'ertina=. He marched as general into (taly de!eated 6ulian and without our being able to !i= any precise commencement even o! the soldiersF consent he was !rom necessity ac9nowledged emperor by the senate and people and !ully established in his violent authority by subduing +iger and Albinus. Inter hJc (ordianus ,Jsar "says Capitolinus spea9ing o! another period# sublatus a militibus. (mperator est appellatus, quia non erat alius in prJsenti. (t is to be remar9ed that Aordian was a boy o! !ourteen years o! age. $re@uent instances o! a li9e nature occur in the history o! the emperorsK in that o! Ale=anderFs successorsK and o! many other countries. nor can
11/

anything be more unhappy than a despotic government o! this 9indK where the succession is dis<ointed and irregular and must be determined on every vacancy by !orce or election. (n a !ree government the matter is o!ten unavoidable and is also much less dangerous. 5he interests o! liberty may there !re@uently lead the people in their own de!ence to alter the succession o! the crown. And the constitution being compounded o! parts may still maintain a su!!icient stability by resting on the aristocratical or democratical members though the monarchical be altered !rom time to time in order to accommodate it to the !ormer. (n an absolute government when there is no legal prince who has a title to the throne it may sa!ely be determined to belong to the !irst occupant. (nstances o! this 9ind are but too !re@uent especially in the eastern monarchies. When any race o! princes e=pires the will or destination o! the last sovereign will be regarded as a title. 5hus the edict o! Louis the >(?th who called the bastard princes to the succession in case o! the !ailure o! all the legitimate princes would in such an event have some authority.2 5hus the will o! Charles the )econd disposed o! the whole )panish monarchy. 5he cession o! the ancient proprietor especially when <oined to con@uest is li9ewise deemed a good title. 5he general obligation which binds us to government is the interest and necessities o! societyK and this obligation is very strong. 5he determination o! it to this or that particular prince or !orm o! government is !re@uently more uncertain and dubious. 'resent possession has considerable authority in these cases and greater than in private propertyK because o! the disorders which attend all revolutions and changes o! government. We shall only observe be!ore we conclude that though an appeal to general opinion may <ustly in the speculative sciences o! metaphysics natural philosophy or astronomy be deemed un!air and inconclusive yet in all @uestions with regard to morals as well as criticism there is really no other standard by which any controversy can ever be decided. And nothing is a clearer proo! that a theory o! this 9ind is erroneous than to !ind that it leads to parado=es repugnant to the common sentiments o! man9ind and to the practice and opinion o! all nations and all ages. 5he doctrine which !ounds all law!ul government on an original contract, or consent o! the people is plainly o! this 9indK nor has the most noted o! its partisans in prosecution o! it scrupled to a!!irm that absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society, and so can be no form of civil government at all:- and that the supreme power
120

in a state cannot take from any man, by taxes and impositions, any part of his property, without his own consent or that of his representatives. 1 What authority any moral reasoning can have which leads into opinions so wide o! the general practice o! man9ind in every place but this single 9ingdom it is easy to determine. 5he only passage ( meet with in anti@uity where the obligation o! obedience to government is ascribed to a promise is in 'latoFs ,rito: where )ocrates re!uses to escape !rom prison because he had tacitly promised to obey the laws. 5hus he builds a 9ory conse@uence o! passive obedience on a ;hig !oundation o! the original contract. +ew discoveries are not to be e=pected in these matters. (! scarce any man till very lately ever imagined that government was !ounded on compact it is certain that it cannot in general have any such !oundation. 5he crime o! rebellion among the ancients was commonly e=pressed by the terms neoteriDein novas res moliri. Notes:
1 2

5acit. 2nn. vi. Cap. 11.

(t is remar9able that in the remonstrance o! the :u9e o! *ourbon and the legitimate princes against this destination o! Louis the >(?th the doctrine o! the original contract is insisted on even in that absolute government. 5he $rench nation say they choosing Hugh Capet and his posterity to rule over them and their posterity where the !ormer line !ails there is a tacit right reserved to choose a new royal !amilyK and this right is invaded by calling the bastard princes to the throne without the consent o! the nation. *ut the Comte de *oulainvilliers who wrote in de!ence o! the bastard princes ridicules this notion o! an original contract especially when applied to Hugh CapetK who mounted the throne says he by the same arts which have ever been employed by all con@uerors and usurpers. He got his title indeed recogniDed by the states a!ter he had put himsel! in possession. but is this a choice or contract7 5he Comte de *oulainvilliers we may observe was a noted republicanK but being a man o! learning and very conversant in history he 9new that the people were almost never consulted in these revolutions and new establishments and that time alone bestowed right and authority on what was commonly at !irst !ounded on !orce and
121

violence. )ee @tat de la 5rance, vol. iii.

1

)ee Loc9e on Aovernment chap. vii. 3 /0. (bid. chap. =i. 33 1-% 1-/ 110.

122

Source +F A Aristotle Politics

%oo" 'II. Part 'III As in other natural compounds the conditions o! a composite whole are not necessarily organic parts o! it so in a state or in any other combination !orming a unity not everything is a part which is a necessary condition. 5he members o! an association have necessarily some one thing the same and common to all in which they share e@ually or une@ually !or e=ample !ood or land or any other thing. *ut where there are two things o! which one is a means and the other an end they have nothing in common e=cept that the one receives what the other produces. )uch !or e=ample is the relation which wor9men and tools stand to their wor9K the house and the builder have nothing in common but the art o! the builder is !or the sa9e o! the house. And so states re@uire property but property even though living beings are included in it is no part o! a stateK !or a state is not a community o! living beings only but a community o! e@uals aiming at the best li!e possible. +ow whereas happiness is the highest good being a realiDation and per!ect practice o! virtue which some can attain while others have little or none o! it the various @ualities o! men are clearly the reason why there are various 9inds o! states and many !orms o! governmentK !or di!!erent men see9 a!ter happiness in di!!erent ways and by di!!erent means and so ma9e !or themselves di!!erent modes o! li!e and !orms o! government. We must see also how many things are indispensable to the e=istence o! a state !or what we call the parts o! a state will be !ound among the indispensables. Let us then enumerate the !unctions o! a state and we shall easily elicit what we want. $irst there must be !oodK secondly arts !or li!e re@uires many instrumentsK thirdly there must be arms !or the members o! a community have need o! them and in their own hands too in order to maintain authority both against disobedient sub<ects and against e=ternal assailantsK !ourthly there must be a certain amount o! revenue both !or internal needs and !or the purposes o! warK !i!thly or rather !irst there must be a care o! religion which is commonly called worshipK si=thly and most necessary o! all there must be a power o!
12-

deciding what is !or the public interest and what is <ust in menFs dealings with one another. 5hese are the services which every state may be said to need. $or a state is not a mere aggregate o! persons but a union o! them su!!icing !or the purposes o! li!eK and i! any o! these things be wanting it is as we maintain impossible that the community can be absolutely sel!, su!!icing. A state then should be !ramed with a view to the !ul!illment o! these !unctions. 5here must be husbandmen to procure !ood and artisans and a warli9e and a wealthy class and priests and <udges to decide what is necessary and e=pedient.

121

Source +F % I!!anuel =ant The Natural Principle of the Political 6rder

Whatever metaphysical theory may be !ormed regarding the 5reedom of the ;ill, it holds e@ually true that the manifestations of the ;ill in human actions are determined li9e all other e=ternal events by universal natural laws. +ow History is occupied with the narration o! these mani!estations as !acts however deeply their causes may lie concealed. Hence in view o! this natural principle o! regulation it may be hoped that when the play o! the !reedom o! the human Will is e=amined on the great scale o! universal history a regular march will be discovered in its movementsK and that in this way what appears to be tangled and unregulated in the case o! individuals will be recognised in the history o! the whole species as a continually advancing though slow development o! its original capacities and endowments. 5hus marriages births and deaths appear to be incapable o! being reduced to any rule by which their numbers might be calculated be!orehand on account o! the great in!luence which the !ree will o! man e=ercises upon themK and yet the annual )tatistics o! great countries prove that these events ta9e place according to constant natural laws. (n this respect they may be compared with the very inconstant changes o! the weather which cannot be determined be!orehand in detail but which yet on the whole do not !ail to maintain the growth o! plants the !low o! rivers and other natural processes in a uni!orm uninterrupted course. (ndividual men and even whole nations little thin9 while they are pursuing their own purposes J each in his own way and o!ten one in direct opposition to another J that they are advancing unconsciously under the guidance o! a 'urpose o! +ature which is un9nown to them and that they are toiling !or the realisation o! an 4nd which even i! it were 9nown to them might be regarded as o! little importance. ;en viewed as a whole are not guided in their e!!orts merely by instinct li9e the lower animalsK nor do they proceed in their actions li9e the citiDens o! a purely rational world according to a preconcerted plan. And so it appears as i! no regular systematic History o! man9ind would be possible as in the case !or instance o! bees and beavers. +or can one help !eeling a certain repugnance in loo9ing at the conduct o! men
123

as it is e=hibited on the great stage o! the World. With glimpses o! wisdom appearing in individuals here and there it seems on e=amining it e=ternally as i! the whole web o! human history were woven out o! !olly and childish vanity and the !renDy o! destruction so that at the end one hardly 9nows what idea to !orm o! our race albeit so proud o! its prerogatives. (n such circumstances there is no resource !or the 'hilosopher but while recognising the !act that a rational conscious purpose cannot be supposed to determine man9ind in the play o! their actions as a whole to try whether he cannot discover a universal purpose of /ature in this parado=ical movement o! human things and whether in view o! this purpose a history o! creatures who proceed without a plan o! their own may nevertheless be possible according to a determinate plan o! +ature. J We will accordingly see whether we can succeed in !inding a clue to such a HistoryK and in the event o! doing so we shall then leave it to nature to bring !orth the man who will be !it to compose it. 5hus did she bring !orth a Cepler who in an une=pected way reduced the eccentric paths o! the planets to de!inite LawsK and then she brought !orth a +ewton who e=plained those Laws by a universal natural Cause. $(8)5 '8&'&)(5(&+. All the capacities implanted in a Creature by nature are destined to un!old themselves completely and con!ormably to their 4nd in the course o! time. 5his 'roposition is established by &bservation e=ternal as well as internal or anatomical in the case o! all animals. An organ which is not to be used or an arrangement which does not attain its 4nd is a contradiction in the teleological science o! +ature. $or i! we turn away !rom that !undamental principle we have then be!ore us a +ature moving without a purpose and no longer con!ormable to lawK and the cheerless gloom o! chance ta9es the place o! the guiding light o! 8eason. )4C&+: '8&'&)(5(&+. (n ;an as the only rational creature on earth those natural capacities which are directed towards the use o! his 8eason could be completely developed only in the species and not in the individual. 8eason in a creature is a !aculty o! which it is characteristic to e=tend
122

the laws and purposes involved in the use o! all its powers !ar beyond the sphere o! natural instinct and it 9nows no limit in its e!!orts. 8eason however does not itsel! wor9 by instinct but re@uires e=periments e=ercise and instruction in order to advance gradually !rom one stage o! insight to another. Hence each individual man would necessarily have to live an enormous length o! time in order to learn by himsel! how to ma9e a complete use o! all his natural 4ndowments. &therwise i! +ature should have given him but a short lease o! li!e J as is actually the case J 8eason would then re@uire the production o! an almost inconceivable series o! generations the one handing down its enlightenment to the other in order that her germs as implanted in our species may be at last un!olded to that stage o! development which is completely con!ormable to her inherent design. And the point o! time at which this is to be reached must at least in (dea !orm the goal and aim o! manXs endeavours because his natural capacities would otherwise have to be regarded as !or the most part purposeless and bestowed in vain. *ut such a view would abolish all our practical principles and thereby also throw on +ature the suspicion o! practising a childish play in the case o! man alone while her wisdom must otherwise be recognised as a !undamental principle in <udging o! all other arrangements. 5H(8: '8&'&)(5(&+. +ature has willed that ;an shall produce wholly out o! himsel! all that goes beyond the mechanical structure and arrangement o! his animal e=istence and that he shall participate in no other happiness or per!ection but what he has procured !or himsel! apart !rom (nstinct by his own 8eason. +ature according to this view does nothing that is super!luous and is not prodigal in the use o! means !or her 4nds. As she gave man 8eason and !reedom o! Will on the basis o! reason this was at once a clear indication o! her purpose in respect o! his endowments. With such e@uipment he was not to be guided by instinct nor !urnished and instructed by innate 9nowledgeK much rather must he produce everything out o! himsel!. 5he invention o! his own covering and shelter !rom the elements and the means o! providing !or his e=ternal security and de!ence J !or which nature gave him neither the horns o! the bull nor the claws o! the lion nor the !angs o! the dog J as well as all the sources o! delight which could ma9e li!e agreeable his very insight and
120

prudence and even the goodness o! his Will all these were to be entirely his own wor9. +ature seems to have ta9en pleasure in e=ercising her utmost parsimony in this case and to have measured her animal e@uipments very sparingly. )he seems to have e=actly !itted them to the most necessitous re@uirements o! the mere beginning o! an e=istence as i! it had been her will that ;an when he had at last struggled up !rom the greatest crudeness o! li!e to the highest capability and to internal per!ection in his habit o! thought and thereby also J so !ar as it is possible on earth J to happiness should claim the merit o! it as all his own and owe it only to himsel!. (t thus loo9s as i! +ature had laid more upon his rational self4esteem than upon his mere well,being. $or in this movement o! human li!e a great host o! toils and troubles wait upon man. (t appears however that the purpose o! nature was not so much that he should have an agreeable li!e but that he should carry !orward his own sel!,culture until he made himsel! worthy o! li!e and well,being. (n this connection it is always a sub<ect o! wonder that the older generations appear only to pursue their weary toil !or the sa9e o! those who come a!ter them preparing !or the latter another stage on which they may carry higher the structure which +ature has in viewK and that it is to be the happy !ate o! only the latest generations to dwell in the building upon which the long series o! their !ore!athers have laboured without so much as intending it and yet with no possibility o! participating in the happiness which they were preparing. Get however mysterious this may be it is as necessary as it is mysterious when we once accept the position that one species o! animals was destined to possess 8eason and that !orming a class o! rational beings mortal in all the individuals but immortal in the species it was yet to attain to a complete development o! its capacities. $&H85H '8&'&)(5(&+. 5he means which +ature employs to bring about the development o! all the capacities implanted in men is their mutual Antagonism in society but only so !ar as this antagonism becomes at length the cause o! an &rder among them that is regulated by Law. *y this Antagonism ( mean the unsocial sociability o! menK that is their tendency to enter into society con<oined however with an accompanying resistance which continually threatens to dissolve this society. 5he disposition !or this lies mani!estly in human nature. ;an has an inclination to socialise himsel! by associating with others
12%

because in such a state he !eels himsel! more than a natural man in the development o! his natural capacities. He has moreover a great tendency to individualise himsel! by isolation !rom others because he li9ewise !inds in himsel! the unsocial disposition o! wishing to direct everything merely according to his own mindK and hence he e=pects resistance everywhere <ust as he 9nows with regard to himsel! that he is inclined on his part to resist others. +ow it is this resistance or mutual antagonism that awa9ens all the powers o! man that drives him to overcome all his propensity to indolence and that impels him through the desire o! honour or power or wealth to strive a!ter ran9 among his !ellow,men J whom he can neither bear to inter!ere with himsel! nor yet let alone. 5hen the !irst real steps are ta9en !rom the rudeness o! barbarism to the culture o! civilisation which particularly lies in the social worth o! man. All his talents are now gradually developed and with the progress o! enlightenment a beginning is made in the institution o! a mode o! thin9ing which can trans!orm the crude natural capacity !or moral distinctions in the course o! time into de!inite practical principles o! actionK and thus a pathologically constrained combination into a !orm o! society is developed at last to a moral and rational whole. Without those @ualities o! an unsocial 9ind out o! which this Antagonism arises J which viewed by themselves are certainly not amiable but which everyone must necessarily !ind in the movements o! his own sel!ish propensities J men might have led an Arcadian shepherd li!e in complete harmony contentment and mutual love but in that case all their talents would have !orever remained hidden in their germ. As gentle as the sheep they tended such men would hardly have won !or their e=istence a higher worth than belonged to their domesticated cattleK they would not have !illed up with their rational nature the void remaining in the Creation in respect o! its !inal 4nd. 5han9s be then to +ature !or this unsociableness !or this envious <ealousy and vanity !or this unsatiable desire o! possession or even o! powerQ Without them all the e=cellent capacities implanted in man9ind by nature would slumber eternally undeveloped. ;an wishes concordK but +ature 9nows better what is good !or his species and she will have discord. He wishes to live com!ortably and pleasantlyK but +ature wills that turning !rom idleness and inactive contentment he shall throw himsel! into toil and su!!ering even in order to !ind out remedies against them and to e=tricate his li!e prudently !rom them again. 5he natural impulses that urge man in this direction the sources o! that unsociableness and general antagonism !rom which so many evils arise do yet at the same time impel him to new e=ertion o! his powers
12/

and conse@uently to !urther development o! his natural capacities. Hence they clearly mani!est the arrangement o! a wise Creator and do not at all as is o!ten supposed betray the hand o! a malevolent spirit that has deteriorated His glorious creation or spoiled it !rom envy. $($5H '8&'&)(5(&+. 5he greatest practical 'roblem !or the human race to the solution o! which it is compelled by +ature is the establishment o! a Civil )ociety universally administering 8ight according to Law. (t is only in a )ociety which possesses the greatest Liberty and which conse@uently involves a thorough Antagonism o! its members J with however the most e=act determination and guarantee o! the limits o! this Liberty in order that it may coe=ist with the liberty o! others J that the highest purpose o! +ature which is the development o! all her capacities can be attained in the case o! man9ind. +ow +ature also wills that the human race shall attain through itsel! to this as to all the other ends !or which it was destined. Hence a )ociety in which Liberty under external laws may be !ound combined in the greatest possible degree with irresistible 'ower or a per!ectly $ust Civil Constitution is the highest natural problem prescribed to the human species. And this is so because +ature can only by means o! the solution and !ul!ilment o! this problem realise her other purposes with our race. A certain necessity compels man who is otherwise so greatly prepossessed in !avour o! unlimited !reedom to enter into this state o! coercion and restraint. And indeed it is the greatest necessity o! all that does thisK !or it is created by men themselves whose inclinations ma9e it impossible !or them to e=ist long beside each other in wild lawless !reedom. *ut in such a complete growth as the Civil Hnion these very inclinations a!terwards produce the best e!!ects. (t is with them as with the trees in a !orestK !or <ust because everyone strives to deprive the other o! air and sun they compel each other to see9 them both above and thus they grow beauti!ul and straight whereas those that in !reedom and apart !rom one another shoot out their branches at will grow stunted and croo9ed and awry. All the culture and art that adorn humanity and the !airest social order are !ruits o! that unsociableness which is necessitated o! itsel! to discipline itsel! and which thus constrains man by compulsive art to develop completely the germs o! his +ature.

1-0

)(>5H '8&'&)(5(&+. 5his 'roblem is li9ewise the most di!!icult o! its 9ind and it is the latest to be solved by the Human 8ace. 5he di!!iculty which the mere idea o! this 'roblem brings into view is that man is an animal, and i! he lives among others o! his 9ind he has need of a 0aster. $or he certainly misuses his !reedom in relation to his !ellow,menK and although as a rational creature he desires a law which may set bounds to the !reedom o! all yet his own sel!ish animal inclinations lead him wherever he can to e=cept himsel! !rom it. He there!ore re@uires a master to brea9 his sel!,will and compel him to obey a Will that is universally valid and in relation to which everyone may be !ree. Where then does he obtain this master7 +owhere but in the Human 8ace. *ut this master is an animal too and also re@uires a master. *egin then as he may it is not easy to see how he can procure a supreme Authority over public <ustice that would be essentially <ust whether such an authority may be sought in a single person or in a society o! many selected persons. 5he highest authority has to be $ust in itself, and yet to be a man. 5his problem is there!ore the most di!!icult o! its 9indK and indeed its per!ect solution is impossible. &ut o! such croo9ed material as man is made o! nothing can be hammered @uite straight. )o it is only an appro=imation to this (dea that is imposed upon us by +ature.1 (t !urther !ollows that this problem is the last to be practically wor9ed out because it re@uires correct conceptions o! the nature o! a possible Constitution great e=perience !ounded on the practice o! ages and above all a good will prepared !or the reception o! the solution. *ut these three conditions could not easily be !ound togetherK and i! they are !ound it can only be very late in time and a!ter many attempts to solve the problem had been made in vain. )4?4+5H '8&'&)(5(&+. 5he problem o! the establishment o! a per!ect Civil Constitution is dependent on the problem o! the regulation o! the e=ternal relations between the )tates con!ormably to LawK and without the solution o! this latter problem it cannot be solved. What avails it to labour at the arrangement o! a Commonwealth as a Civil Constitution regulated by law among individual men7 5he same unsociableness which !orced men to it becomes again the cause o!
1-1

each Commonwealth assuming the attitude o! uncontrolled !reedom in its e=ternal relations that is as one )tate in relation to other )tatesK and conse@uently any one )tate must e=pect !rom any other the same sort o! evils as oppressed individual men and compelled them to enter into a Civil Hnion regulated by law. +ature has accordingly again used the unsociableness o! men and even o! great societies and political bodies her creatures o! this 9ind as a means to wor9 out through their mutual Antagonism a condition o! rest and security. )he wor9s through wars through the strain o! never rela=ed preparation !or them and through the necessity which every )tate is at last compelled to !eel within itsel! even in the midst o! peace to begin some imper!ect e!!orts to carry out her purpose. And at last a!ter many devastations overthrows and even complete internal e=haustion o! their powers the nations are driven !orward to the goal which 8eason might have well impressed upon them even without so much sad e=perience. 5his is none other than the advance out o! the lawless state o! savages and the entering into a $ederation o! +ations. (t is thus brought about that every )tate including even the smallest may rely !or its sa!ety and its rights not on its own power or its own <udgment o! 8ight but only on this great (nternational $ederation "5Kdus 2mphictionum# on its combined power and on the decision o! the common will according to laws. However visionary this idea may appear to be J and it has been ridiculed in the way in which it has been presented by an AbbB de )t 'ierre or 8ousseau "perhaps because they believed its realisation to be so near# J it is nevertheless the inevitable issue o! the necessity in which men involve one another. $or this necessity must compel the +ations to the very resolution J however hard it may appear J to which the savage in his uncivilised state was so unwillingly compelled when he had to surrender his brutal liberty and see9 rest and security in a Constitution regulated by law. J All wars are accordingly so many attempts J not indeed in the intention o! men but yet according to the purpose o! +ature J to bring about new relations between the +ationsK and by destruction or at least dismemberment o! them all to !orm new political corporations. 5hese new organisations again are not capable o! being preserved either in themselves or beside one another and they must there!ore pass in turn through similar new 8evolutions till at last partly by the best possible arrangement o! the Civil Constitution within and partly by common convention and legislation without a condition will be attained which in the li9eness o! a Civil Commonwealth and a!ter the manner o! an Automaton will be able to preserve itsel!.
1-2

5hree views may be put !orward as to the way in which this condition is to be attained. (n the !irst place it may be held that !rom an @picurean concourse o! causes in action it is to be e=pected that the )tates li9e the little particles o! matter will try by their !ortuitous con<unctions all sort o! !ormations which will be again destroyed by new collisions till at last some one constitution will by chance succeed in preserving itsel! in its proper !orm J a luc9y accident which will hardly ever come aboutQ (n the second place it may rather be maintained that +ature here pursues a regular march in carrying our species up !rom the lower stage o! animality to the highest stage o! humanity and that this is done by a compulsive art that is inherent in man whereby his natural capacities and endowments are developed in per!ect regularity through an apparently wild disorder. &r in the third place it may even be asserted that out o! all these actions and reactions o! men as a whole nothing at all J or at least nothing rational J will ever be producedK that it will be in the !uture as it has ever been in the past and that no one will ever be able to say whether the discord which is so natural to our species may not be preparing !or us even in this civilised state o! society a hell o! evils at the endK nay that it is not perhaps advancing even now to annihilate again by barbaric devastation this actual state o! society and all the progress hitherto made in civilisation J a !ate against which there is no guarantee under a government o! blind chance identical as it is with lawless !reedom in action unless a connecting wisdom is covertly assumed to underlie the system o! +ature. +ow which o! these views is to be adopted depends almost entirely on the @uestion whether it is rational to recognise harmony and design in the parts o! the Constitution o! +ature and to deny them o! the whole7 We have glanced at what has been done by the seemingly purposeless state o! savagesK how it chec9ed !or a time all the natural capacities o! our species but at last by the very evils in which it involved man9ind it compelled them to pass !rom this state and to enter into a civil Constitution in which all the germs o! humanity could be un!olded. And in li9e manner the barbarian !reedom o! the )tates when once they were !ounded proceeded in the same way o! progress. *y the e=penditure o! all the resources o! the Commonwealth in military preparations against each other by the devastations occasioned by war and still more by the necessity o! holding themselves continually in readiness !or it the !ull development o! the capacities o! man9ind are undoubtedly retarded in their progressK but on the other hand the very evils which thus arise compel men to !ind out means against them. A law o! 4@uilibrium is thus discovered !or the regulation o! the really
1--

wholesome antagonism o! contiguous )tates as it springs up out o! their !reedomK and a united 'ower giving emphasis to this law is constituted whereby there is introduced a universal condition o! public security among the +ations. And that the powers o! man9ind may not !all asleep this condition is not entirely !ree !rom danger: but it is at the same time not without a principle which operates so as to equalise the mutual action and reaction o! these powers that they may not destroy each other. *e!ore the last step o! bringing in a universal Hnion o! the )tates is ta9en J and accordingly when human nature is only hal! way in its progress J it has to endure the hardest evils o! all under the deceptive semblance o! outward prosperityK and 8ousseau was not so !ar wrong when he pre!erred the state o! the savages i! the last stage which our race has yet to surmount be le!t out o! view. We are cultivated in a high degree by )cience and Art. We are civilised, even to e=cess in the way o! all sorts o! social !orms o! politeness and elegance. *ut there is still much to be done be!ore we can be regarded as moralised. 5he idea o! morality certainly belongs to real CultureK but an application o! this idea which e=tends no !arther than the li9eness o! morality in the sense o! honour and e=ternal propriety merely constitutes civilisation. )o long however as )tates lavish all their resources upon vain and violent schemes o! aggrandisement so long as they continually impede the slow movements o! the endeavour to cultivate the newer habits o! thought and character on the part o! the citiDens and even withdraw !rom them all the means o! !urthering it nothing in the way o! moral progress can be e=pected. A long internal process o! improvement is thus re@uired in every Commonwealth as a condition !or the higher culture o! its citiDens. *ut all apparent good that is not gra!ted upon a morally good disposition is nothing but mere illusion and glittering misery. (n this condition the Human 8ace will remain until it shall have wor9ed itsel! in the way that has been indicated out o! the e=isting chaos o! its political relations. 4(AH5H '8&'&)(5(&+. 5he history o! the human race viewed as a whole may be regarded as the realisation o! a hidden plan o! +ature to bring about a political Constitution internally and !or this purpose also e=ternally per!ect as the only state in which all the capacities implanted by her in ;an9ind can be !ully developed. 5his proposition is a corollary !rom the preceding proposition. We see
1-1

by it that philosophy may also have its millennial view but in this case the Chiliasm is o! such a nature that the very idea o! it J although only in a !ar,o!! way J may help to !urther its realisationK and such a prospect is there!ore anything but visionary. 5he real @uestion is whether e=perience discloses anything o! such a movement in the purpose o! +ature. ( can only say it does a little: !or the movement in this orbit appears to re@uire such a long time till it goes !ull round that the !orm o! its path and the relation o! its parts to the whole can hardly be determined out o! the small portion which the human race has yet passed through in this relation. 5he determination o! this problem is <ust as di!!icult and uncertain as it is to calculate !rom all previous astronomical observations what course our sun with the whole host o! his attendant train is pursuing in the great system o! the !i=ed stars although on the ground o! the total arrangement o! the structure o! the universe and the little that has been observed o! it we may in!er con!idently enough to the result o! such a movement. Human +ature however is so constituted that it cannot be indi!!erent even in regard to the most distant epoch that may a!!ect our race i! only it can be e=pected with certainty. And such indi!!erence is the less possible in the case be!ore us when it appears that we might by our own rational arrangements hasten the coming o! this <oyous period !or our descendants. Hence the !aintest traces o! the approach o! this period will be very important to ourselves. +ow the )tates are already involved in the present day in such close relations with each other that none o! them can pause or slac9en in its internal civilisation without losing power and in!luence in relation to the restK and hence the maintenance i! not the progress o! this end o! +ature is in a manner secured even by the ambitious designs o! the )tates themselves. $urther Civil Liberty cannot now be easily assailed without in!licting such damage as will be !elt in all trades and industries and especially in commerceK and this would entail a diminution o! the powers o! the )tate in e=ternal relations. 5his Liberty moreover gradually advances !urther. *ut i! the citiDen is hindered in see9ing his prosperity in any way suitable to himsel! that is consistent with the liberty o! others the activity o! business is chec9ed generallyK and thereby the powers o! the whole )tate again are wea9ened. Hence the restrictions on personal liberty o! action are always more and more removed and universal liberty even in 8eligion comes to be conceded. And thus it is that notwithstanding the intrusion o! many a delusion and caprice the spirit of @nlightenment gradually arises as a great Aood which the human race must derive even !rom the sel!ish purposes o! aggrandisement on
1-3

the part o! its rulers i! they understand what is !or their own advantage. 5his 4nlightenment however and along with it a certain sympathetic interest which the enlightened man cannot avoid ta9ing in the good which he per!ectly understands must by and by pass up to the throne and e=ert an in!luence even upon the principles o! Aovernment. 5hus although our rulers at present have no money to spend on public educational institutions or in general on all that concerns the highest good o! the world J because all their resources are already placed to the account o! the ne=t war J yet they will certainly !ind it to be to their own advantage at least not to hinder the people in their own e!!orts in this direction however wea9 and slow these may be. $inally war itsel! comes to be regarded as a very haDardous and ob<ectionable underta9ing not only !rom its being so arti!icial in itsel! and so uncertain as regards its issue on both sides but also !rom the a!terpains which the )tate !eels in the ever,increasing burdens it entails in the !orm o! national debt J a modern in!liction J which it becomes almost impossible to e=tinguish. And to this is to be added the in!luence which every political disturbance o! any )tate o! our continent J lin9ed as it is so closely to others by the connections o! trade J e=erts upon all the )tates and which becomes so observable that they are !orced by their common danger although without law!ul authority to o!!er themselves as arbiters in the troubles o! any such )tate. (n doing so they are beginning to arrange !or a great !uture political *ody such as the world has never yet seen. Although this political *ody may as yet e=ist only in a rough outline nevertheless a !eeling begins as it were to stir in all its members each o! which has a common interest in the maintenance o! the whole. And this may well inspire the hope that a!ter many political revolutions and trans!ormations the highest purpose o! +ature will be at last realised in the establishment o! a universal ,osmopolitical Institution, in the bosom o! which all the original capacities and endowments o! the human species will be un!olded and developed. +(+5H '8&'&)(5(&+. A philosophical attempt to wor9 out the Hniversal History o! the world according to the plan o! +ature in its aiming at a per!ect Civil Hnion must be regarded as possible and as even capable o! helping !orward the purpose o! +ature. (t seems at !irst sight a strange and even an absurd proposal to suggest the composition o! a 1istory according to the idea o! how the
1-2

course o! the world must proceed i! it is to be con!ormable to certain rational laws. (t may well appear that only a %omance could be produced !rom such a point o! view. However i! it be assumed that +ature even in the play o! human !reedom does not proceed without plan and design the idea may well be regarded as practicableK and although we are too shortsighted to see through the secret mechanism o! her constitution yet the idea may be serviceable as a clue to enable us to penetrate the otherwise planless 2ggregate o! human actions as a whole and to represent them as constituting a &ystem. $or the idea may so !ar be easily veri!ied. 5hus suppose we start !rom the history o! (reece, as that by which all the older or contemporaneous History has been preserved or at least accredited to us.2 5hen i! we study its in!luence upon the !ormation and mal!ormation o! the political institutions o! the 8oman people which swallowed up the Aree9 )tates and i! we !urther !ollow the in!luence o! the 8oman 4mpire upon the *arbarians who destroyed it in turn and continue this investigation down to our own day con<oining with it episodically the political history o! other peoples according as the 9nowledge o! them has gradually reached us through these more enlightened nations we shall discover a regular movement o! progress through the political institutions o! our Continent which is probably destined to give laws to all other parts o! the world. Applying the same method o! study everywhere both to the internal civil constitutions and laws o! the )tates and to their e=ternal relations to each other we see how in both relations the good they contained served !or a certain period to elevate and glori!y particular nations and with themselves their arts and sciences J until the de!ects attaching to their institutions came in time to cause their overthrow. And yet their very ruin leaves always a germ o! growing enlightenment behind which being !urther developed by every revolution acts as a preparation !or a subse@uent higher stage o! progress and improvement. 5hus as ( believe we can discover a clue which may serve !or more than the e=planation o! the con!used play o! human things or !or the art o! political prophecy in re!erence to !uture changes in )tates J a use which has been already made o! the history o! man9ind even although it was regarded as the incoherent e!!ect o! an unregulated !reedomQ ;uch more than all this is attained by the idea o! Human History viewed as !ounded upon the assumption o! a universal plan in +ature. $or this idea gives us a new ground o! hope as it opens up to us a consoling view o! the !uture in which the human species is represented in the !ar distance as having at last wor9ed itsel! up to a condition in which all the germs implanted in it by +ature may
1-0

be !ully developed and its destination here on earth !ul!illed. )uch a $ustification of /ature, or rather let us say o! +rovidence, is no insigni!icant motive !or choosing a particular point o! view in contemplating the course o! the world. $or what avails it to magni!y the glory and wisdom o! the creation in the irrational domain o! +ature and to recommend it to devout contemplation i! that part o! the great display o! the supreme wisdom which presents the 4nd o! it all in the history o! the Human 8ace is to be viewed as only !urnishing perpetual ob<ections to that glory and wisdom7 5he spectacle o! History i! thus viewed would compel us to turn away our eyes !rom it against our willK and the despair o! ever !inding a per!ect rational 'urpose in its movement would reduce us to hope !or it i! at all only in another world. 5his (dea o! a Hniversal History is no doubt to a certain e=tent o! an a priori character but it would be a misunderstanding o! my ob<ect were it imagined that ( have any wish to supplant the empirical cultivation o! History or the narration o! the actual !acts o! e=perience. (t is only a thought o! what a philosophical mind J which as such must be thoroughly versed in History J might be induced to attempt !rom another standpoint. *esides the praiseworthy circumstantiality with which our history is now written may well lead one to raise the @uestion as to how our remote posterity will be able to cope with the burden o! history as it will be transmitted to them a!ter a !ew centuries7 5hey will surely estimate the history o! the oldest times o! which the documentary records may have been long lost only !rom the point o! view o! what will interest themK and no doubt this will be what the nations and governments have achieved or !ailed to achieve in the universal world,wide relation. (t is well to be giving thought to this relationK and at the same time to draw the attention o! ambitious rulers and their servants to the only means by which they can leave an honourable memorial o! themselves to latest times. And this may also !orm a minor motive !or attempting to produce such a philosophical History. Notes:
1

5he part that has to be played by man is there!ore a very arti!icial one. We do not 9now how it may be with the inhabitants o! other planets or what are the conditions o! their natureK but i! we e=ecute well the commission o! +ature we may certainly !latter ourselves to the
1-%

e=tent o! claiming a not insigni!icant ran9 among our neighbours in the universe. (t may perhaps be the case that in those other planets every individual completely attains his destination in this li!e. With us it is otherwiseK only the species can hope !or this.
2

(t is only a learned +ublic which has had an uninterrupted e=istence !rom its beginning up to our time that can authenticate Ancient History. *eyond it all is terra incognita: and the History o! the peoples who lived out o! its range can only be begun !rom the date at which they entered within it. (n the case o! the .ewish 'eople this happened in the time o! the 'tolemies through the Aree9 5ranslation o! the *ible without which little !aith would have been given to their isolated accounts o! themselves. $rom that date ta9en as a beginning when it has been determined their records may then be traced upwards. And so it is with all other peoples. 5he !irst page o! 5hucydides says Hume is the beginning o! all true History.

1-/

Source +F C ?eorg Wilhel! 7riedrich Hegel Philosophy of (ight5

The State5 LL ;04. ;01 I 230 5he state is the actuality o! the ethical (dea. (t is ethical mind qua the substantial will mani!est and revealed to itsel! 9nowing and thin9ing itsel! accomplishing what it 9nows and in so !ar as it 9nows it. 5he state e=ists immediately in custom mediately in individual sel!, consciousness 9nowledge and activity while sel!,consciousness in virtue o! its sentiment towards the state !inds in the state as its essence and the end,product o! its activity its substantive !reedom. 8emar9. 5he +enates are inward gods gods o! the underworldK the mind o! a nation "Athene !or instance# is the divine 9nowing and willing itsel!. $amily piety is !eeling ethical behaviour directed by !eelingK political virtue is the willing o! the absolute end in terms o! thought. I 23% 5he state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality o! the substantial will which it possesses in the particular sel!,consciousness once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness o! its universality. 5his substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itsel! in which !reedom comes into its supreme right. &n the other hand this !inal end has supreme right against the individual whose supreme duty is to be a member o! the state. 8emar9. (! the state is con!used with civil society and i! its speci!ic end is laid down as the security and protection o! property and personal !reedom then the interest o! the individuals as such becomes the ultimate end o! their association and it !ollows that membership o! the state is something optional. *ut the stateXs relation to the individual is @uite di!!erent !rom this. )ince the state is mind ob<ecti!ied it is only as one o! its members that the individual himsel! has ob<ectivity genuine individuality and an ethical li!e. Hni!ication pure and simple is the true content and aim o! the individual and the individualXs destiny is the living o! a universal li!e. His !urther particular satis!action activity and
110

mode o! conduct have this substantive and universally valid li!e as their starting point and their result. 8ationality ta9en generally and in the abstract consists in the thorough,going unity o! the universal and the single. 8ationality concrete in the state consists "a# so !ar as its content is concerned in the unity o! ob<ective !reedom "i.e. !reedom o! the universal or substantial will# and sub<ective !reedom "i.e. !reedom o! everyone in his 9nowing and in his volition o! particular ends#K and conse@uently "b# so !ar as its form is concerned in sel!,determining action on laws and principles which are thoughts and so universal. 5his (dea is the absolutely eternal and necessary being o! mind. *ut i! we as9 what is or has been the historical origin o! the state in general still more i! we as9 about the origin o! any particular state o! its rights and institutions or again i! we in@uire whether the state originally arose out o! patriarchal conditions or out o! !ear or trust or out o! Corporations Yc. or !inally i! we as9 in what light the basis o! the stateXs rights has been conceived and consciously established whether this basis has been supposed to be positive divine right or contract custom Yc. J all these @uestions are no concern o! the (dea o! the state. We are here dealing e=clusively with the philosophic science o! the state and !rom that point o! view all these things are mere appearance and there!ore matters !or history. )o !ar as the authority o! any e=isting state has anything to do with reasons these reasons are culled !rom the !orms o! the law authoritative within it. 5he philosophical treatment o! these topics is concerned only with their inward side with the thought o! their concept. 5he merit o! 8ousseauXs contribution to the search !or this concept is that by adducing the will as the principle o! the state he is adducing a principle which has thought both !or its !orm and its content a principle indeed which is thin9ing itsel! not a principle li9e gregarious instinct !or instance or divine authority which has thought as its !orm only. Hn!ortunately however as $ichte did later he ta9es the will only in a determinate !orm as the individual will and he regards the universal will not as the absolutely rational element in the will but only as a cgeneralX will which proceeds out o! this individual will as out o! a conscious will. 5he result is that he reduces the union o! individuals in the state to a contract and there!ore to something based on their arbitrary wills their opinion and their capriciously given e=press consentK and abstract reasoning proceeds to draw the logical in!erences which destroy the absolutely
111

divine principle o! the state together with its ma<esty and absolute authority. $or this reason when these abstract conclusions came into power they a!!orded !or the !irst time in human history the prodigious spectacle o! the overthrow o! the constitution o! a great actual state and its complete reconstruction ab initio on the basis o! pure thought alone a!ter the destruction o! all e=isting and given material. 5he will o! its re, !ounders was to give it what they alleged was a purely rational basis but it was only abstractions that were being usedK the (dea was lac9ingK and the e=periment ended in the ma=imum o! !right!ulness and terror. Con!ronted with the claims made !or the individual will we must remember the !undamental conception that the ob<ective will is rationality implicit or in conception whether it be recognised or not by individuals whether their whims be deliberately !or it or not. We must remember that its opposite i.e. 9nowing and willing or sub<ective !reedom "the only thing contained in the principle o! the individual will# comprises only one moment and there!ore a one,sided moment o! the (dea o! the rational will i.e. o! the will which is rational solely because what it is implicitly that it also is e=plicitly. 5he opposite to thin9ing o! the state as something to be 9nown and apprehended as e=plicitly rational is ta9ing e=ternal appearances J i.e. contingencies such as distress need !or protection !orce riches Yc. J not as moments in the stateXs historical development but as its substance. Here again what constitutes the guiding thread o! discovery is the individual in isolation J not however even so much as the thought o! this individuality but instead only empirical individuals with attention !ocused on their accidental characteristics their strength and wea9ness riches and poverty Yc. 5his ingenious idea o! ignoring the absolute in!inity and rationality in the state and e=cluding thought !rom apprehension o! its inward nature has assuredly never been put !orward in such an unadulterated !orm as in Herr von HallerXs %estauration der &taatswissenschaft. ( say cunadulteratedX because in all other attempts to grasp the essence o! the state no matter on what one,sided or super!icial principles this very intention o! comprehending the state rationally has brought with it thoughts i.e. universal determinations. Herr von Haller however with his eyes open has not merely renounced the rational material o! which the state consists as well as the !orm o! thought but he has even gone on with passionate !ervour to inveigh against the !orm and the material so set aside. 'art o! what Herr von Haller assures us is the cwidespreadX e!!ect o! his principles. 5his %estauration undoubtedly owes to the !act that in his
112

e=position he has deliberately dispensed with thought altogether and has deliberately 9ept his whole boo9 all o! a piece with its lac9 o! thought. $or in this way he has eliminated the con!usion and disorder which lessen the !orce o! an e=position where the accidental is treated along with hints o! the substantial where the purely empirical and e=ternal are mi=ed with a reminiscence o! the universal and rational and where in the midst o! wretched inanities the reader is now and again reminded o! the lo!tier sphere o! the in!inite. $or the same reason again his e=position is consistent. He ta9es as the essence o! the state not what is substantive but the sphere o! accident and consistency in dealing with a sphere o! that 9ind amounts to the complete inconsistency o! utter thoughtlessness which <ogs along without loo9ing behind and is <ust as much at home now with the e=act opposite o! what it approved a moment ago. Addition. 5he state in and by itsel! is the ethical whole the actualisation o! !reedomK and it is an absolute end o! reason that !reedom should be actual. 5he state is mind on earth and consciously realising itsel! there. (n nature on the other hand mind actualises itsel! only as its own other as mind asleep. &nly when it is present in consciousness when it 9nows itsel! as a really e=istent ob<ect is it the state. (n considering !reedom the starting,point must be not individuality the single sel!, consciousness but only the essence o! sel!,consciousnessK !or whether man 9nows it or not this essence is e=ternally realised as a sel!,subsistent power in which single individuals are only moments. 5he march o! Aod in the world that is what the state is. 5he basis o! the state is the power o! reason actualising itsel! as will. (n considering the (dea o! the state we must not have our eyes on particular states or on particular institutions. (nstead we must consider the (dea this actual Aod by itsel!. &n some principle or other any state may be shown to be bad this or that de!ect may be !ound in itK and yet at any rate i! one o! the mature states o! our epoch is in @uestion it has in it the moments essential to the e=istence o! the state. *ut since it is easier to !ind de!ects than to understand the a!!irmative we may readily !all into the mista9e o! loo9ing at isolated aspects o! the state and so !orgetting its inward organic li!e. 5he state is no ideal wor9 o! artK it stands on earth and so in the sphere o! caprice chance and error and bad behaviour may dis!igure it in many respects. *ut the ugliest o! men or a criminal or an invalid or a cripple is still always a living man. 5he a!!irmative li!e subsists despite his de!ects and it is this a!!irmative !actor which is our theme here.
11-

$ootnote. ( have described the boo9 su!!iciently to show that it is o! an original 9ind. 5here might be something noble in the authorXs indignation by itsel! since it was 9indled by the !alse theories mentioned above emanating principally !rom 8ousseau and especially by the attempt to realise them in practice. *ut to save himsel! !rom these theories Herr von Haller has gone to the other e=treme by dispensing with thought altogether and conse@uently it cannot be said that there is anything o! intrinsic value in his virulent hatred o! all laws and legislation o! all e=pressly and legally determinate rights. 5he hatred o! law o! right made determinate in law is the shibboleth whereby !anaticism !labby,mindedness and the hypocrisy o! good intentions are clearly and in!allibly recognised !or what they are disguise themselves as they may. &riginality li9e Herr von HallerXs is always a curious phenomenon and !or those o! my readers who are not yet ac@uainted with his boo9 ( will @uote a !ew specimen passages. 5his is how he lays down his most important basic proposition. c6ust as in the inorganic world the greater dislodges the less and the mighty the wea9 .... so in the animal 9ingdom and then amongst human beings the same law appears in noblerX "o!ten too surely in ignobler7# c!ormsX and cthis there!ore is the eternal unalterable ordinance o! Aod that the mightier rules must rule and will always ruleX. (t is clear enough !rom this let alone !rom what !ollows in what sense cmightX is ta9en here. (t is not the might o! <ustice and ethics but only the irrational power o! brute !orce. Herr von Haller then goes on to support this doctrine on various grounds amongst them that cnature with amaDing wisdom has so ordered it that the mere sense o! personal superiority irresistibly ennobles the character and encourages the development o! <ust those virtues which are most necessary !or dealing with subordinatesX. He as9s with a great elaboration o! undergraduate rhetoric \ibid.] cwhether it is the strong or the wea9 in the 9ingdom o! science who more misuse their trust and their authority in order to achieve their petty sel!ish ends and the ruin o! the credulousK whether to be a past master in legal learning is not to be a petti!ogger a leguleius one who cheats the hopes o! unsuspecting clients who ma9es white blac9 and blac9 white who misapplies the law and ma9es it a vehicle !or wrongdoing who brings to beggary those who need his assistance and tends them as the hungry vulture tends the innocent lambX Yc. Yc. Herr von Haller !orgets here that the point o! this rhetoric is to support his proposition that the rule o! the mightier is an everlasting ordnance o! AodK so presumably it is by the
111

same ordinance that the vulture rends the innocent lamb and that hence the mighty are @uite right to treat their unsuspecting clients as the wea9 and to ma9e use o! 9nowledge o! the law to empty their poc9ets. (t would be too much however to as9 that two thoughts should be put together where there is really not a single one. (t goes without saying that Herr von Haller is an enemy o! codes o! law. (n his view the laws o! the land are on the one hand in principle cunnecessary because they spring sel!,e=planatory !rom the laws o! natureX. (! men had remained satis!ied with csel!,e=planatoryX as the basis o! their thin9ing then they would have been spared the endless labour devoted since ever there were states to legislation and legal codes and which is still devoted thereto and to the study o! positive law. c&n the other hand laws are not e=actly promulgated !or private individuals but as instructions to puisne <udges ac@uainting them with the will o! the high courtX. Apart !rom that the provision o! law,courts is and all over the place# not a state duty but a !avour help rendered by the authorities and c@uite supererogatoryXK it is not the most per!ect method o! guaranteeing menXs rightsK on the contrary it is an insecure and uncertain method cthe only one le!t to us by our modern lawyers. 5hey have re!t us o! the other three methods o! <ust those which lead most swi!tly and surely to the goal those which unli9e law,courts !riendly nature has given to man !or the sa!eguarding o! his right!ul !reedomX. And these three methods are J what do you suppose7 J "1# 'ersonal acceptance and inculcation o! the law o! natureK "2# 8esistance to wrongK "-# $light when there is no other remedy. Lawyers are un!riendly indeed it appears in comparison with the !riendliness o! natureQ c*ut the natural divine law given to everyone by nature the all,bounti!ul is. Honour everyone as thine e@ualX "on the authorXs principles this should read cHonour not the man who is thine e@ual but the one who is mightierX#K churt no man who hurts thee notK demand !rom him nothing but what he owesX "but what does he owe7#K cnay more love thy neighbour and serve him when thou canstX. 5he cimplanting o! this lawX is to ma9e a legislator and a constitution super!luous. (t would be curious to see how Herr von Haller ma9es it intelligible why legislators and constitutions have appeared in the world despite this cimplantingX. (n vol. iii the author comes to the cso,called national libertiesX by which he means the laws and constitutions o! nation states. 4very legally constituted right is in this wide sense o! the word a clibertyX. &! these laws he says inter alia that ctheir content is usually very insigni!icant
113

although in boo9s a high value may be placed on documentary liberties o! that 9indX. When we then realise that the author is spea9ing here o! the national liberties o! the Aerman 4states o! the 4nglish people "e.g. ;agna Carta which is little read and on account o! its archaic phraseology still less understood the *ill o! 8ights and so !orth# o! the people o! Hungary Yc. we are surprised to !ind that these 'ossessions !ormerly so highly priDed are only insigni!icantK and no less )urprised to learn that it is only in boo9s that these nations place a value on laws whose co,operation has entered into every coat that is worn and every crust that is eaten and still enters into every day and hour o! the lives o! everyone. 5o carry @uotation !urther Herr von Haller spea9s particularly ill o! the 'russian Aeneral Legal Code because o! the cincredibleX in!luence on it o! the errors o! !alse philosophy "though in this instance at any rate the !ault cannot be ascribed to CantXs philosophy a topic on which Herr von Haller is at his angriest# especially where it spea9s o! the state the resources o! the state the end o! the state the head o! the state his duties and those o! civil servants and so !orth. Herr von Haller !inds particularly mischievous cthe right o! de!raying the e=penses o! the state by levying ta=es on the private wealth o! individuals on their businesses on goods produced or consumed. Hnder those circumstances neither the 9ing himsel! "since the resources o! the state belong to the state and are not the private property o! the 9ing# nor the 'russian citiDens can call anything their own neither their person nor their propertyK and all sub<ects are bondslaves to the law since they may not withdraw themselves !rom the service o! the state.X (n this welter o! incredible crudity what is perhaps most comical o! all is the emotion with which Herr von Haller describes his unspea9able pleasure in his discoveries J ca <oy such as only the !riend o! truth can !eel when a!ter honest search he has become con!ident that he has !ound as it wereX "yes indeed7 cis it wereX is rightQ# cthe voice o! nature the very word o! AodX. "5he truth is that the word o! Aod very clearly distinguishes its revelations !rom the voices o! nature and unregenerate man.# 5he author could have sun9 to the ground in open amaDement a stream o! <oy!ul tears burst !rom his eyes and living religious !eeling sprang up in him there and then. Herr von Haller might have discovered by his creligious !eelingX that he should rather bewail his condition as the hardest chastisement o! Aod. $or the hardest thing which man can e=perience is to be so !ar e=cluded !rom thought and reason !rom respect !or the laws and !rom 9nowing how in!initely
112

important and divine it is that the duties o! the state and the rights o! the citiDens as well as the rights o! the state and the duties o! the citiDens should be de!ined by law J to be so !ar e=cluded !rom all this that absurdity can !oist itsel! upon him as the word o! Aod.

110

Source +F *urray N5 (othbard The Anato!y 6f The Stated

What the State Is Not 5he )tate is almost universally considered an institution o! social service. )ome theorists venerate the )tate as the apotheosis o! societyK others regard it as an amiable though o!ten ine!!icient organiDation !or achieving social endsK but almost all regard it as a necessary means !or achieving the goals o! man9ind a means to be ranged against the Oprivate sectorO and o!ten winning in this competition o! resources. With the rise o! democracy the identi!ication o! the )tate with society has been redoubled until it is common to hear sentiments e=pressed which violate virtually every tenet o! reason and common sense such as Owe are the government.O 5he use!ul collective term OweO has enabled an ideological camou!lage to be thrown over the reality o! political li!e. (! Owe are the government O then anything a government does to an individual is not only <ust and untyrannical but also OvoluntaryO on the part o! the individual concerned. (! the government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by ta=ing one group !or the bene!it o! another this reality o! burden is obscured by saying that Owe owe it to ourselvesOK i! the government conscripts a man or throws him into <ail !or dissident opinion then he is Odoing it to himsel!O and there!ore nothing untoward has occurred. Hnder this reasoning any 6ews murdered by the +aDi government were not murderedK instead they must have Ocommitted suicide O since they were the government "which was democratically chosen# and there!ore anything the government did to them was voluntary on their part. &ne would not thin9 it necessary to belabor this point and yet the overwhelming bul9 o! the people hold this !allacy to a greater or lesser degree. We must there!ore emphasiDe that OweO are not the governmentK the government is not Ous.O 5he government does not in any accurate sense OrepresentO the ma<ority o! the people.1 *ut even i! it did even i! 00 percent o! the people decided to murder the remaining -0 percent this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the part o! the slaughtered minority. 2 +o organicist metaphor no irrelevant
11%

bromide that Owe are all part o! one another O must be permitte d to obscure this basic !act. (! then the )tate is not Ous O i! it is not Othe human !amilyO getting together to decide mutual problems i! it is not a lodge meeting or country club what is it7 *rie!ly the )tate is that organiDation in society which attempts to maintain a monopoly o! the use o! !orce and violence in a given territorial areaK in particular it is the only organiDation in society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or payment !or services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals or institutions obtain their income by production o! goods and services and by the peace!ul and voluntary sale o! these goods and services to others the )tate obtains its revenue by the use o! compulsionK that is by the use and the threat o! the <ailhouse and the bayonet. - Having used !orce and violence to obtain its revenue the )tate generally goes on to regulate and dictate the other actions o! its individual sub<ects. &ne would thin9 that simple observation o! all )tates through history and over the globe would be proo! enough o! this assertionK but the miasma o! myth has lain so long over )tate activity that elaboration is necessary. What the State Is ;an is born na9ed into the world and needing to use his mind to learn how to ta9e the resources given him by nature and to trans!orm them "!or e=ample by investment in OcapitalO# into shapes and !orms and places where the resources can be used !or the satis!action o! his wants and the advancement o! his standard o! living. 5he only way by which man can do this is by the use o! his mind and energy to trans!orm resources "OproductionO# and to e=change these products !or products created by others. ;an has !ound that through the process o! voluntary mutual e=change the productivity and hence the living standards o! all participants in e=change may increase enormously. 5he only OnaturalO course !or man to survive and to attain wealth there!ore is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production, and,e=change process. He does this !irst by !inding natural resources and then by trans!orming them "by Omi=ing his laborO with them as Loc9e puts it# to ma9e them his individual property and then by e=changing this property !or the similarly obtained property o! others. 5he social path dictated by the re@uirements o! manFs nature there!ore is the path o! Oproperty rightsO and the O!ree mar9etO o! gi!t or e=change
11/

o! such rights. 5hrough this path men have learned how to avoid the O<ungleO methods o! !ighting over scarce resources so that A can only ac@uire them at the e=pense o! * and instead to multiply those resources enormously in peace!ul and harmonious production and e=change. 5he great Aerman sociologist $ranD &ppenheimer pointed out that there are two mutually e=clusive ways o! ac@uiring wealthK one the above way o! production and e=change he called the Oeconomic means.O 5he other way is simpler in that it does not re@uire productivityK it is the way o! seiDure o! anotherFs goods or services by the use o! !orce and violence. 5his is the method o! one,sided con!iscation o! the!t o! the property o! others. 5his is the method which &ppenheimer termed Othe political meansO to wealth. (t should be clear that the peace!ul use o! reason and energy in production is the OnaturalO path !or man. the means !or his survival and prosperity on this earth. (t should be e@ually clear that the coercive e=ploitative means is contrary to natural lawK it is parasitic !or instead o! adding to production it subtracts !rom it. 5he Opolitical meansO siphons production o!! to a parasitic and destructive individual or groupK and this siphoning not only subtracts !rom the number producing but also lowers the producerFs incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. (n the long run the robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the source o! his own supply. *ut not only thatK even in the short,run the predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man. We are now in a position to answer more !ully the @uestion. what is the &tate7 5he )tate in the words o! &ppenheimer is the OorganiDation o! the political meansOK it is the systematiDation o! the predatory process over a given territory. 1 $or crime at best is sporadic and uncertainK the parasitism is ephemeral and the coercive parasitic li!eline may be cut o!! at any time by the resistance o! the victims. 5he )tate provides a legal orderly systematic channel !or the predation o! private propertyK it renders certain secure and relatively Opeace!ulO the li!eline o! the parasitic caste in society. 3 )ince production must always precede predation the !ree mar9et is anterior to the )tate. 5he )tate has never been created by a Osocial contractOK it has always been born in con@uest and e=ploitation. 5he classic paradigm was a con@uering tribe pausing in its time,honored method o! looting and murdering a con@uered tribe to realiDe that the time,span o! plunder would be longer and more secure and the situation more pleasant i! the con@uered tribe were allowed to live and produce with the con@uerors
130

settling among them as rulers e=acting a steady annual tribute. 2 &ne method o! the birth o! a )tate may be illustrated as !ollows. in the hills o! southern O8uritania O a bandit group manages to obtain physical control over the territory and !inally the bandit chie!tain proclaims himsel! OCing o! the sovereign and independent government o! )outh 8uritaniaOK and i! he and his men have the !orce to maintain this rule !or a while lo and beholdQ a new )tate has <oined the O!amily o! nations O and the !ormer bandit leaders have been trans!ormed into the law!ul nobility o! the realm. Ho$ the State Preser#es Itself &nce a )tate has been established the problem o! the ruling group or OcasteO is how to maintain their rule. 0 While !orce is their modus operandi their basic and long,run problem is ideological. $or in order to continue in o!!ice any government "not simply a OdemocraticO government# must have the support o! the ma<ority o! its sub<ects. 5his support it must be noted need not be active enthusiasmK it may well be passive resignation as i! to an inevitable law o! nature. *ut support in the sense o! acceptance o! some sort it must beK else the minority o! )tate rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance o! the ma<ority o! the public. )ince predation must be supported out o! the surplus o! production it is necessarily true that the class constituting the )tate J the !ull,time bureaucracy "and nobility# J must be a rather small minority in the land although it may o! course purchase allies among important groups in the population. 5here!ore the chie! tas9 o! the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance o! the ma<ority o! the citiDens.% / &! course one method o! securing support is through the creation o! vested economic interests. 5here!ore the Cing alone cannot ruleK he must have a siDable group o! !ollowers who en<oy the prere@uisites o! rule !or e=ample the members o! the )tate apparatus such as the !ull, time bureaucracy or the established nobility. 10 *ut this still secures only a minority o! eager supporters and even the essential purchasing o! support by subsidies and other grants o! privilege still does not obtain the consent o! the ma<ority. $or this essential acceptance the ma<ority must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good wise and at least inevitable and certainly better than other conceivable alternatives. 'romoting this ideology among the people is the vital social tas9 o! the Ointellectuals.O $or the masses o! men do not create
131

their own ideas or indeed thin9 through these ideas independentlyK they !ollow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body o! intellectuals. 5he intellectuals are there!ore the Oopinion,moldersO in society. And since it is precisely a molding o! opinion that the )tate most desperately needs the basis !or age,old alliance between the )tate and the intellectuals becomes clear. (t is evident that the )tate needs the intellectualsK it is not so evident why intellectuals need the )tate. 'ut simply we may state that the intellectualFs livelihood in the !ree mar9et is never too secureK !or the intellectual must depend on the values and choices o! the masses o! his !ellow men and it is precisely characteristic o! the masses that they are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. 5he )tate on the other hand is willing to o!!er the intellectuals a secure and permanent berth in the )tate apparatusK and thus a secure income and the panoply o! prestige. $or the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded !or the important !unction they per!orm !or the )tate rulers o! which group they now become a part.11 5he alliance between the )tate and the intellectuals was symboliDed in the eager desire o! pro!essors at the Hniversity o! *erlin in the nineteenth century to !orm the Ointellectual bodyguard o! the House o! HohenDollern.O (n the present day let us note the revealing comment o! an eminent ;ar=ist scholar concerning 'ro!essor Witt!ogelFs critical study o! ancient &riental despotism. O5he civiliDation which 'ro!essor Witt!ogel is so bitterly attac9ing was one which could ma9e poets and scholars into o!!icials.O12 &! innumerable e=amples we may cite the recent development o! the OscienceO o! strategy in the service o! the governmentFs main violence,wielding arm the military. 1- A venerable institution !urthermore is the o!!icial or OcourtO historian dedicated to purveying the rulersF views o! their own and their predecessorsF actions.11 ;any and varied have been the arguments by which the )tate and its intellectuals have induced their sub<ects to support their rule. *asically the strands o! argument may be summed up as !ollows. "a# the )tate rulers are great and wise men "they Orule by divine right O they are the OaristocracyO o! men they are the Oscienti!ic e=pertsO# much greater and wiser than the good but rather simple sub<ects and "b# rule by the e=tent government is inevitable absolutely necessary and !ar better than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its down!all. 5he union o! Church and )tate was one o! the oldest and most success!ul
132

o! these ideological devices. 5he ruler was either anointed by Aod or in the case o! the absolute rule o! many &riental despotisms was himsel! AodK hence any resistance to his rule would be blasphemy. 5he )tatesF priestcra!t per!ormed the basic intellectual !unction o! obtaining popular support and even worship !or the rulers. 13 Another success!ul device was to instill !ear o! any alternative systems o! rule or nonrule. 5he present rulers it was maintained supply to the citiDens an essential service !or which they should be most grate!ul. protection against sporadic criminals and marauders. $or the )tate to preserve its own monopoly o! predation did indeed see to it that private and unsystematic crime was 9ept to a minimumK the )tate has always been <ealous o! its own preserve. 4specially has the )tate been success!ul in recent centuries in instilling !ear o! other )tate rulers. )ince the land area o! the globe has been parceled out among particular )tates one o! the basic doctrines o! the )tate was to identi!y itsel! with the territory it governed. )ince most men tend to love their homeland the identi!ication o! that land and its people with the )tate was a means o! ma9ing natural patriotism wor9 to the )tateFs advantage. (! O8uritaniaO was being attac9ed by OWaldavia O the !irst tas9 o! the )tate and its intellectuals was to convince the people o! 8uritania that the attac9 was really upon them and not simply upon the ruling caste. (n this way a war between rulers was converted into a war between peoples with each people coming to the de!ense o! its rulers in the erroneous belie! that the rulers were de!ending them. 5his device o! OnationalismO has only been success!ul in Western civiliDation in recent centuriesK it was not too long ago that the mass o! sub<ects regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets o! nobles. ;any and subtle are the ideological weapons that the )tate has wielded through the centuries. &ne e=cellent weapon has been tradition. 5he longer that the rule o! a )tate has been able to preserve itsel! the more power!ul this weaponK !or then the > :ynasty or the G )tate has the seeming weight o! centuries o! tradition behind it. 12 Worship o! oneFs ancestors then becomes a none too subtle means o! worship o! oneFs ancient rulers. 5he greatest danger to the )tate is independent intellectual criticismK there is no better way to sti!le that criticism than to attac9 any isolated voice any raiser o! new doubts as a pro!ane violator o! the wisdom o! his ancestors. Another potent ideological !orce is to deprecate the individual and e=alt the collectivity o! society. $or since any given rule implies ma<ority acceptance any ideological danger to that rule can only start !rom one or a !ew
13-

independently,thin9ing individuals. 5he new idea much less the new critical idea must needs begin as a small minority opinionK there!ore the )tate must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that de!ies the opinions o! the mass. OListen only to your brothersO or Oad<ust to societyO thus become ideological weapons !or crushing individual dissent.10 *y such measures the masses will never learn o! the none=istence o! their 4mperorFs clothes. 1% (t is also important !or the )tate to ma9e its rule seem inevitableK even i! its reign is disli9ed it will then be met with passive resignation as witness the !amiliar coupling o! Odeath and ta=es.O &ne method is to induce historiographical determinism as opposed to individual !reedom o! will. (! the > :ynasty rules us this is because the (ne=orable Laws o! History "or the :ivine Will or the Absolute or the ;aterial 'roductive $orces# have so decreed and nothing any puny individuals may do can change this inevitable decree. (t is also important !or the )tate to inculcate in its sub<ects an aversion to any Oconspiracy theory o! historyKO !or a search !or OconspiraciesO means a search !or motives and an attribution o! responsibility !or historical misdeeds. (! however any tyranny imposed by the )tate or venality or aggressive war was caused not by the )tate rulers but by mysterious and arcane Osocial !orces O or by the imper!ect state o! the world or i! in some way everyone was responsible "OWe Are All ;urderers O proclaims one slogan# then there is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such misdeeds. $urthermore an attac9 on Oconspiracy theoriesO means that the sub<ects will become more gullible in believing the Ogeneral wel!areO reasons that are always put !orth by the )tate !or engaging in any o! its despotic actions. A Oconspiracy theoryO can unsettle the system by causing the public to doubt the )tateFs ideological propaganda. Another tried and true method !or bending sub<ects to the )tateFs will is inducing guilt. Any increase in private well,being can be attac9ed as Ounconscionable greed O Omaterialism O or Oe=cessive a!!luence O pro!it, ma9ing can be attac9ed as Oe=ploitationO and Ousury O mutually bene!icial e=changes denounced as Osel!ishness O and somehow with the conclusion always being drawn that more resources should be siphoned !rom the private to the Opublic sector.O 5he induced guilt ma9es the public more ready to do <ust that. $or while individual persons tend to indulge in Osel!ish greed O the !ailure o! the )tateFs rulers to engage in e=changes is supposed to signi!y their devotion to higher and nobler causes J parasitic predation being apparently morally and esthetically lo!ty as compared to peace!ul and productive
131

wor9. (n the present more secular age the divine right o! the )tate has been supplemented by the invocation o! a new god )cience. )tate rule is now proclaimed as being ultrascienti!ic as constituting planning by e=perts. *ut while OreasonO is invo9ed more than in previous centuries this is not the true reason o! the individual and his e=ercise o! !ree willK it is still collectivist and determinist still implying holistic aggregates and coercive manipulation o! passive sub<ects by their rulers. 5he increasing use o! scienti!ic <argon has permitted the )tateFs intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia !or )tate rule that would have only met with derision by the populace o! a simpler age. A robber who <usti!ied his the!t by saying that he really helped his victims by his spending giving a boost to retail trade would !ind !ew convertsK but when this theory is clothed in Ceynesian e@uations and impressive re!erences to the Omultiplier e!!ect O it un!ortunately carries more conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds each age per!orming the tas9 in its own ways. 5hus ideological support being vital to the )tate it must unceasingly try to impress the public with its Olegitimacy O to distinguish its activities !rom those o! mere brigands. 5he unremitting determination o! its assaults on common sense is no accident !or as ;enc9en vividly maintained. 5he average man whatever his errors otherwise at least sees clearly that government is something lying outside him and outside the generality o! his !ellow men J that it is a separate independent and hostile power only partly under his control and capable o! doing him great harm. (s it a !act o! no signi!icance that robbing the government is everywhere regarded as a crime o! less magnitude than robbing an individual or even a corporation7 . . . What lies behind all this ( believe is a deep sense o! the !undamental antagonism between the government and the people it governs. (t is apprehended not as a committee o! citiDens chosen to carry on the communal business o! the whole population but as a separate and autonomous corporation mainly devoted to e=ploiting the population !or the bene!it o! its own members. . . . When a private citiDen is robbed a worthy man is deprived o! the !ruits o! his industry and thri!tK when the government is robbed the worst that happens is that certain rogues and loa!ers have less money to play with than
133

they had be!ore. 5he notion that they have earned that money is never entertainedK to most sensible men it would seem ludicrous.1/

Ho$ the State Transcends Its Li!its As *ertrand de 6ouvenel has sagely pointed out through the centuries men have !ormed concepts designed to chec9 and limit the e=ercise o! )tate ruleK and one a!ter another the )tate using its intellectual allies has been able to trans!orm these concepts into intellectual rubber stamps o! legitimacy and virtue to attach to its decrees and actions. &riginally in Western 4urope the concept o! divine sovereignty held that the 9ings may rule only according to divine lawK the 9ings turned the concept into a rubber stamp o! divine approval !or any o! the 9ingsF actions. 5he concept o! parliamentary democracy began as a popular chec9 upon absolute monarchical ruleK it ended with parliament being the essential part o! the )tate and its every act totally sovereign. As de 6ouvenel concludes. ;any writers on theories o! sovereignty have wor9ed out one . . . o! these restrictive devices. *ut in the end every single such theory has sooner or later lost its original purpose and come to act merely as a springboard to 'ower by providing it with the power!ul aid o! an invisible sovereign with whom it could in time success!ully identi!y itsel!.20 )imilarly with more speci!ic doctrines. the Onatural rightsO o! the individual enshrined in 6ohn Loc9e and the *ill o! 8ights became a statist Oright to a <obOK utilitarianism turned !rom arguments !or liberty to arguments against resisting the )tateFs invasions o! liberty etc. Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the )tate has been the *ill o! 8ights and other restrictive parts o! the American Constitution in which written limits on government became the !undamental law to be interpreted by a <udiciary supposedly independent o! the other branches o! government. All Americans are !amiliar with the process by which the construction o! limits in the Constitution has been ine=orably broadened over the last century. *ut !ew have been as 9een as 'ro!essor Charles *lac9 to see that the )tate has in the process largely trans!ormed <udicial review itsel! !rom a limiting device to yet another instrument !or !urnishing ideological
132

legitimacy to the governmentFs actions. $or i! a <udicial decree o! OunconstitutionalO is a mighty chec9 to government power an implicit or e=plicit verdict o! OconstitutionalO is a mighty weapon !or !ostering public acceptance o! ever,greater government power. 'ro!essor *lac9 begins his analysis by pointing out the crucial necessity o! OlegitimacyO !or any government to endure this legitimation signi!ying basic ma<ority acceptance o! the government and its actions.21 Acceptance o! legitimacy becomes a particular problem in a country such as the Hnited )tates where Osubstantive limitations are built into the theory on which the government rests.O What is needed adds *lac9 is a means by which the government can assure the public that its increasing powers are indeed Oconstitutional.O And this he concludes has been the ma<or historic !unction o! <udicial review. Let *lac9 illustrate the problem. 5he supreme ris9 \to the government] is that o! disa!!ection and a !eeling o! outrage widely disseminated throughout the population and loss o! moral authority by the government as such however long it may be propped up by !orce or inertia or the lac9 o! an appealing and immediately available alternative. Almost everybody living under a government o! limited powers must sooner or later be sub<ected to some governmental action which as a matter o! private opinion he regards as outside the power o! government or positively !orbidden to government. A man is dra!ted though he !inds nothing in the Constitution about being dra!ted. . . . A !armer is told how much wheat he can raiseK he believes and he discovers that some respectable lawyers believe with him that the government has no more right to tell him how much wheat he can grow than it has to tell his daughter whom she can marry. A man goes to the !ederal penitentiary !or saying what he wants to and he paces his cell reciting . . . OCongress shall ma9e no laws abridging the !reedom o! speech.O. . . A businessman is told what he can as9 and must as9 !or buttermil9. 5he danger is real enough that each o! these people "and who is not o! their number7# will con!ront the concept o! governmental limitation with the reality "as he sees it# o! the !lagrant overstepping o! actual limits and draw the obvious conclusion as to the status o! his government with respect to legitimacy.22
130

5his danger is averted by the )tateFs propounding the doctrine that one agency must have the ultimate decision on constitutionality and that this agency in the last analysis must be part o! the !ederal government.2- $or while the seeming independence o! the !ederal <udiciary has played a vital part in ma9ing its actions virtual Holy Writ !or the bul9 o! the people it is also and ever true that the <udiciary is part and parcel o! the government apparatus and appointed by the e=ecutive and legislative branches. *lac9 admits that this means that the )tate has set itsel! up as a <udge in its own cause thus violating a basic <uridical principle !or aiming at <ust decisions. He brus@uely denies the possibility o! any alternative.21 *lac9 adds. 5he problem then is to devise such governmental means o! deciding as will \hope!ully] reduce to a tolerable minimum the intensity o! the ob<ection that government is <udge in its own cause. Having done this you can only hope that this ob<ection though theoretically still tenable \italics mine] will practically lose enough o! its !orce that the legitimating wor9 o! the deciding institution can win acceptance. 23 (n the last analysis *lac9 !inds the achievement o! <ustice and legitimacy !rom the )tateFs perpetual <udging o! its own cause as Osomething o! a miracle.O22 Applying his thesis to the !amous con!lict between the )upreme Court and the +ew :eal 'ro!essor *lac9 9eenly chides his !ellow pro,+ew :eal colleagues !or their shortsightedness in denouncing <udicial obstruction. \t]he standard version o! the story o! the +ew :eal and the Court though accurate in its way displaces the emphasis. . . . (t concentrates on the di!!icultiesK it almost !orgets how the whole thing turned out. 5he upshot o! the matter was \and this is what ( li9e to emphasiDe] that a!ter some twenty,!our months o! bal9ing . . . the )upreme Court without a single change in the law o! its composition or indeed in its actual manning placed the affirmative stamp of legitimacy on the /ew 'eal, and on the whole new conception of government in 2meric a.20 (n this way the )upreme Court was able to put the @uietus on the large body o! Americans who had had strong constitutional ob<ections to the
13%

+ew :eal. &! course not everyone was satis!ied. 5he *onnie 'rince Charlie o! constitutionally commanded laisseD,!aire still stirs the hearts o! a !ew Dealots in the Highlands o! choleric unreality. *ut there is no longer any signi!icant or dangerous public doubt as to the constitutional power o! Congress to deal as it does with the national economy. . . . We had no means other than the )upreme Court !or imparting legitimacy to the +ew :eal.2% As *lac9 recogniDes one ma<or political theorist who recogniDed J and largely in advance J the glaring loophole in a constitutional limit on government o! placing the ultimate interpreting power in the )upreme Court was 6ohn C. Calhoun. Calhoun was not content with the Omiracle O but instead proceeded to a pro!ound analysis o! the constitutional problem. (n his 'isquisition Calhoun demonstrated the inherent tendency o! the )tate to brea9 through the limits o! such a constitution. A written constitution certainly has many and considerable advantages but it is a great mista9e to suppose that the mere insertion o! provisions to restrict and limit the power o! the government without investing those for whose protection they are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance \my italics] will be su!!icient to prevent the ma<or and dominant party !rom abusing its powers. *eing the party in possession o! the government they will !rom the same constitution o! man which ma9es government necessary to protect society be in !avor o! the powers granted by the constitution and opposed to the restrictions intended to limit them. . . . 5he minor or wea9er party on the contrary would ta9e the opposite direction and regard them \the restrictions] as essential to their protection against the dominant party. . . . *ut where there are no means by which they could compel the ma<or party to observe the restrictions the only resort le!t them would be a strict construction o! the constitution. . . . 5o this the ma<or party would oppose a liberal construction. . . . (t would be construction against construction J the one to contract and the other to enlarge the powers o! the government to the utmost. *ut o! what possible avail could the strict construction o! the minor party be against the liberal construction o! the ma<or
13/

when the one would have all the power o! the government to carry its construction into e!!ect and the other be deprived o! all means o! en!orcing its construction7 (n a contest so une@ual the result would not be doubt!ul. 5he party in !avor o! the restrictions would be overpowered. . . . 5he end o! the contest would be the subversion o! the constitution . . . the restrictions would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted into one o! unlimited powers.2/ &ne o! the !ew political scientists who appreciated CalhounFs analysis o! the Constitution was 'ro!essor 6. Allen )mith. )mith noted that the Constitution was designed with chec9s and balances to limit any one governmental power and yet had then developed a )upreme Court with the monopoly o! ultimate interpreting power. (! the $ederal Aovernment was created to chec9 invasions o! individual liberty by the separate states who was to chec9 the $ederal power7 )mith maintained that implicit in the chec9,and,balance idea o! the Constitution was the concomitant view that no one branch o! government may be conceded the ultimate power o! interpretation. O(t was assumed by the people that the new government could not be permitted to determine the limits o! its own authority since this would ma9e it and not the Constitution supreme.O-0 5he solution advanced by Calhoun "and seconded in this century by such writers as )mith# was o! course the !amous doctrine o! the Oconcurrent ma<ority.O (! any substantial minority interest in the country speci!ically a state government believed that the $ederal Aovernment was e=ceeding its powers and encroaching on that minority the minority would have the right to veto this e=ercise o! power as unconstitutional. Applied to state governments this theory implied the right o! Onulli!icationO o! a $ederal law or ruling within a stateFs <urisdiction. (n theory the ensuing constitutional system would assure that the $ederal Aovernment chec9 any state invasion o! individual rights while the states would chec9 e=cessive $ederal power over the individual. And yet while limitations would undoubtedly be more e!!ective than at present there are many di!!iculties and problems in the Calhoun solution. (! indeed a subordinate interest should right!ully have a veto over matters concerning it then why stop with the states7 Why not place veto power in counties cities wards7 $urthermore interests are not only sectional they are also occupational social etc. What o!
120

ba9ers or ta=i drivers or any other occupation7 )hould they not be permitted a veto power over their own lives7 5his brings us to the important point that the nulli!ication theory con!ines its chec9s to agencies of government itsel!. Let us not !orget that !ederal and state governments and their respective branches are still states are still guided by their own state interests rather than by the interests o! the private citiDens. What is to prevent the Calhoun system !rom wor9ing in reverse with states tyranniDing over their citiDens and only vetoing the !ederal government when it tries to intervene to stop that state tyranny7 &r !or states to ac@uiesce in !ederal tyranny7 What is to prevent !ederal and state governments !rom !orming mutually pro!itable alliances !or the <oint e=ploitation o! the citiDenry7 And even i! the private occupational groupings were to be given some !orm o! O!unctionalO representation in government what is to prevent them !rom using the )tate to gain subsidies and other special privileges !or themselves or !rom imposing compulsory cartels on their own members7 (n short Calhoun does not push his pathbrea9ing theory on concurrence !ar enough. he does not push it down to the individual himsel!. (! the individual a!ter all is the one whose rights are to be protected then a consistent theory o! concurrence would imply veto power by every individualK that is some !orm o! Ounanimity principle.O When Calhoun wrote that it should be Oimpossible to put or to 9eep it \the government] in action without the concurrent consent o! all O he was perhaps unwittingly implying <ust such a conclusion. -1 *ut such speculation begins to ta9e us away !rom our sub<ect !or down this path lie political systems which could hardly be called O)tatesO at all. -2 $or one thing <ust as the right o! nulli!ication !or a state logically implies its right o! secession so a right o! individual nulli!ication would imply the right o! any individual to OsecedeO !rom the )tate under which he lives. -5hus the )tate has invariably shown a stri9ing talent !or the e=pansion o! its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it. )ince the )tate necessarily lives by the compulsory con!iscation o! private capital and since its e=pansion necessarily involves ever,greater incursions on private individuals and private enterprise we must assert that the )tate is pro!oundly and inherently anticapitalist. (n a sense our position is the reverse o! the ;ar=ist dictum that the )tate is the Oe=ecutive committeeO o! the ruling class in the present day supposedly the capitalists. (nstead the )tate J the organiDation o! the political means J constitutes and is the source o! the Oruling classO "rather ruling caste# and is in permanent opposition to genuinely
121

private capital. We may there!ore say with de 6ouvenel. &nly those who 9now nothing o! any time but their own who are completely in the dar9 as to the manner o! 'owerFs behaving through thousands o! years would regard these proceedings \nationaliDation the income ta= etc.] as the !ruit o! a particular set o! doctrines. 5hey are in !act the normal mani!estations o! 'ower and di!!er not at all in their nature !rom Henry ?(((Fs con!iscation o! the monasteries. 5he same principle is at wor9K the hunger !or authority the thirst !or resourcesK and in all o! these operations the same characteristics are present including the rapid elevation o! the dividers o! the spoils. Whether it is )ocialist or whether it is not 'ower must always be at war with the capitalist authorities and despoil the capitalists o! their accumulated wealthK in doing so it obeys the law o! its nature. -1

What the State 7ears What the )tate !ears above all o! course is any !undamental threat to its own power and its own e=istence. 5he death o! a )tate can come about in two ma<or ways. "a# through con@uest by another )tate or "b# through revolutionary overthrow by its own sub<ects J in short by war or revolution. War and revolution as the two basic threats invariably arouse in the )tate rulers their ma=imum e!!orts and ma=imum propaganda among the people. As stated above any way must always be used to mobiliDe the people to come to the )tateFs de!ense in the belie! that they are de!ending themselves. 5he !allacy o! the idea becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who re!use to Ode!endO themselves and are there!ore !orced into <oining the )tateFs military band. needless to add no Ode!enseO is permitted them against this act o! Otheir ownO )tate. (n war )tate power is pushed to its ultimate and under the slogans o! Ode!enseO and Oemergency O it can impose a tyranny upon the public such as might be openly resisted in time o! peace. War thus provides many bene!its to a )tate and indeed every modern war has brought to the warring peoples a permanent legacy o! increased )tate burdens upon society. War moreover provides to a )tate tempting opportunities !or con@uest o! land areas over which it may e=ercise its monopoly o! !orce. 8andolph *ourne was certainly correct when he wrote that Owar is the health o! the )tate O but to any particular )tate a
122

war may spell either health or grave in<ury. -3 We may test the hypothesis that the )tate is largely interested in protecting itself rather than its sub<ects by as9ing. which category o! crimes does the )tate pursue and punish most intensely J those against private citiDens or those against itself7 5he gravest crimes in the )tateFs le=icon are almost invariably not invasions o! private person or property but dangers to its own contentment !or e=ample treason desertion o! a soldier to the enemy !ailure to register !or the dra!t subversion and subversive conspiracy assassination o! rulers and such economic crimes against the )tate as counter!eiting its money or evasion o! its income ta=. &r compare the degree o! Deal devoted to pursuing the man who assaults a policeman with the attention that the )tate pays to the assault o! an ordinary citiDen. Get curiously the )tateFs openly assigned priority to its own de!ense against the public stri9es !ew people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d'etre.-2 Ho$ States (elate to 6ne Another )ince the territorial area o! the earth is divided among di!!erent )tates inter,)tate relations must occupy much o! a )tateFs time and energy. 5he natural tendency o! a )tate is to e=pand its power and e=ternally such e=pansion ta9es place by con@uest o! a territorial area. Hnless a territory is stateless or uninhabited any such e=pansion involves an inherent con!lict o! interest between one set o! )tate rulers and another. &nly one set o! rulers can obtain a monopoly o! coercion over any given territorial area at any one time. complete power over a territory by )tate > can only be obtained by the e=pulsion o! )tate G. War while ris9y will be an ever,present tendency o! )tates punctuated by periods o! peace and by shi!ting alliances and coalitions between )tates. We have seen that the OinternalO or OdomesticO attempt to limit the )tate in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries reached its most notable !orm in constitutionalism. (ts Oe=ternal O or O!oreign a!!airs O counterpart was the development o! Ointernational law O especially such !orms as the Olaws o! warO and OneutralsF rights.O -0 'arts o! international law were originally purely private growing out o! the need o! merchants and traders everywhere to protect their property and ad<udicate disputes. 4=amples are admiralty law and the law merchant. *ut even the governmental rules emerged voluntarily and were not imposed by any international super,)tate. 5he ob<ect o! the Olaws o! warO was to
12-

limit inter,)tate destruction to the &tate apparatus itself thereby preserving the innocent OcivilianO public !rom the slaughter and devastation o! war. 5he ob<ect o! the development o! neutralsF rights was to preserve private civilian international commerce even with OenemyO countries !rom seiDure by one o! the warring parties. 5he overriding aim then was to limit the e=tent o! any war and particularly to limit its destructive impact on the private citiDens o! the neutral and even the warring countries. 5he <urist $.6.'. ?eale charmingly describes such OciviliDed war!areO as it brie!ly !lourished in !i!teenth,century (taly. the rich burghers and merchants o! medieval (taly were too busy ma9ing money and en<oying li!e to underta9e the hardships and dangers o! soldiering themselves. )o they adopted the practice o! hiring mercenaries to do their !ighting !or them and being thri!ty businessli9e !ol9 they dismissed their mercenaries immediately a!ter their services could be dispensed with. Wars were there!ore !ought by armies hired !or each campaign. . . . $or the !irst time soldiering became a reasonable and comparatively harmless pro!ession. 5he generals o! that period maneuvered against each other o!ten with consummate s9ill but when one had won the advantage his opponent generally either retreated or surrendered. (t was a recogniDed rule that a town could only be sac9ed i! it o!!ered resistance. immunity could always be purchased by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural conse@uence no town ever resisted it being obvious that a government too wea9 to de!end its citiDens had !or!eited their allegiance. Civilians had little to !ear !rom the dangers o! war which were the concern only o! pro!essional soldiers. -% 5he well,nigh absolute separation o! the private civilian !rom the )tateFs wars in eighteenth,century 4urope is highlighted by +e!. 4ven postal communications were not success!ully restricted !or long in wartime. Letters circulated without censorship with a !reedom that astonishes the twentieth,century mind. . . . 5he sub<ects o! two warring nations tal9ed to each other i! they met and when they could not meet corresponded not as enemies but as !riends. 5he modern notion hardly e=isted that . . . sub<ects o! any enemy country are partly accountable !or the belligerent acts o! their rulers. +or had the warring rulers any
121

!irm disposition to stop communications with sub<ects o! the enemy. 5he old in@uisitorial practices o! espionage in connection with religious worship and belie! were disappearing and no comparable in@uisition in connection with political or economic communications was even contemplated. 'assports were originally created to provide sa!e conduct in time o! war. :uring most o! the eighteenth century it seldom occurred to 4uropeans to abandon their travels in a !oreign country which their own was !ighting.-/ And trade being increasingly recogniDed as bene!icial to both partiesK eighteenth,century war!are also counterbalances a considerable amount o! Otrading with the enemy.O 10 How !ar )tates have transcended rules o! civiliDed war!are in this century needs no elaboration here. (n the modern era o! total war combined with the technology o! total destruction the very idea o! 9eeping war limited to the )tate apparati seems even more @uaint and obsolete than the original Constitution o! the Hnited )tates. When )tates are not at war agreements are o!ten necessary to 9eep !rictions at a minimum. &ne doctrine that has gained curiously wide acceptance is the alleged Osanctity o! treaties.O 5his concept is treated as the counterpart o! the Osanctity o! contract.O *ut a treaty and a genuine contract have nothing in common. A contract trans!ers in a precise manner titles to private property. )ince a government does not in any proper sense OownO its territorial area any agreements that it concludes do not con!er titles to property. (! !or e=ample ;r. 6ones sells or gives his land to ;r. )mith 6onesFs heir cannot legitimately descend upon )mithFs heir and claim the land as right!ully his. 5he property title has already been trans!erred. &ld 6onesFs contract is automatically binding upon young 6ones because the !ormer had already trans!erred the propertyK young 6ones there!ore has no property claim. Goung 6ones can only claim that which he has inherited !rom old 6ones and old 6ones can only be@ueath property which he still owns. *ut i! at a certain date the government o! say 8uritania is coerced or even bribed by the government o! Waldavia into giving up some o! its territory it is absurd to claim that the governments or inhabitants o! the two countries are !orever barred !rom a claim to reuni!ication o! 8uritania on the grounds o! the sanctity o! a treaty. +either the people nor the land o! northwest 8uritania are owned by either o! the two governments. As a corollary one government can
123

certainly not bind by the dead hand o! the past a later government through treaty. A revolutionary government which overthrew the 9ing o! 8uritania could similarly hardly be called to account !or the 9ingFs actions or debts !or a government is not as is a child a true OheirO to its predecessorFs property. History as a (ace %et$een State Po$er and Social Po$er 6ust as the two basic and mutually e=clusive interrelations between men are peace!ul cooperation or coercive e=ploitation production or predation so the history o! man9ind particularly its economic history may be considered as a contest between these two principles. &n the one hand there is creative productivity peace!ul e=change and cooperationK on the other coercive dictation and predation over those social relations. Albert 6ay +oc9 happily termed these contesting !orces. Osocial powerO and O)tate power.O 11 )ocial power is manFs power over nature his cooperative trans!ormation o! natureFs resources and insight into natureFs laws !or the bene!it o! all participating individuals. )ocial power is the power over nature the living standards achieved by men in mutual e=change. )tate power as we have seen is the coercive and parasitic seiDure o! this production J a draining o! the !ruits o! society !or the bene!it o! nonproductive "actually antiproductive# rulers. While social power is over nature )tate power is power over man. 5hrough history manFs productive and creative !orces have time and again carved out new ways o! trans!orming nature !or manFs bene!it. 5hese have been the times when social power has spurted ahead o! )tate power and when the degree o! )tate encroachment over society has considerably lessened. *ut always a!ter a greater or smaller time lag the )tate has moved into these new areas to cripple and con!iscate social power once more. 12 (! the seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were in many countries o! the West times o! accelerating social power and a corollary increase in !reedom peace and material wel!are the twentieth century has been primarily an age in which )tate power has been catching up J with a conse@uent reversion to slavery war and destruction. 1(n this century the human race !aces once again the virulent reign o! the )tate J o! the )tate now armed with the !ruits o! manFs creative powers con!iscated and perverted to its own aims. 5he last !ew centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other limits on the )tate only to !ind that such limits as with all other
122

attempts have !ailed. &! all the numerous !orms that governments have ta9en over the centuries o! all the concepts and institutions that have been tried none has succeeded in 9eeping the )tate in chec9. 5he problem o! the )tate is evidently as !ar !rom solution as ever. 'erhaps new paths o! in@uiry must be e=plored i! the success!ul !inal solution o! the )tate @uestion is ever to be attained. 11 Notes: d @galitarianism as a %evolt 2gainst /ature and 8ther @ssays by ;urray +. 8othbard "Auburn. ;ises (nstitute 2000 \1/01]# pp. 33,%%.
1

We cannot in this chapter develop the many problems and !allacies o! Odemocracy.O )u!!ice it to say here that an individualFs true agent or OrepresentativeO is always sub<ect to that individualFs orders can be dismissed at any time and cannot act contrary to the interests or wishes o! his principal. Clearly the OrepresentativeO in a democracy can never !ul!ill such agency !unctions the only ones consonant with a libertarian society.
2

)ocial democrats o!ten retort that democracy J ma<ority choice o! rulers J logically implies that the ma<ority must leave certain !reedoms to the minority !or the minority might one day become the ma<ority. Apart !rom other !laws this argument obviously does not hold where the minority cannot become the ma<ority !or e=ample when the minority is o! a di!!erent racial or ethnic group !rom the ma<ority.
-

6oseph A. )chumpeter ,apitalism, &ocialism, and 'emocracy "+ew Gor9. Harper and *ros. 1/12# p. 1/%. 5he !riction or antagonism between the private and the public sphere was intensi!ied !rom the !irst by the !act that . . . the )tate has been living on a revenue which was being produced in the private sphere !or private purposes and had to be de!lected !rom these purposes by political !orce. 5he theory which construes ta=es on the analogy o! club dues or o! the purchase o! the service o! say a doctor only proves how !ar removed this part o! the social sciences is !rom scienti!ic habits o! mind. Also see ;urray +. 8othbard O5he $allacy o! the F'ublic )ector OF /ew Individualist %eview ")ummer 1/21#. -!!.
1

$ranD &ppenheimer 9he &tate "+ew Gor9. ?anguard 'ress 1/22# pp. 21J20.
120

5here are two !undamentally opposed means whereby man re@uiring sustenance is impelled to obtain the necessary means !or satis!ying his desires. 5hese are wor9 and robbery oneFs own labor and the !orcible appropriation o! the labor o! others. . . . ( propose in the !ollowing discussion to call oneFs own labor and the e@uivalent e=change o! oneFs own labor !or the labor o! others the Oeconomic meansO !or the satis!action o! need while the unre@uited appropriation o! the labor o! others will be called the Opolitical meansO. . . . 5he )tate is an organiDation o! the political means. +o )tate there!ore can come into being until the economic means has created a de!inite number o! ob<ects !or the satis!action o! needs which ob<ects may be ta9en away or appropriated by warli9e robbery.
3

Albert 6ay +oc9 wrote vividly that the )tate claims and e=ercises the monopoly o! crime. . . . (t !orbids private murder but itsel! organiDes murder on a colossal scale. (t punishes private the!t but itsel! lays unscrupulous hands on anything it wants whether the property o! citiDen or o! alien.

+oc9 8n 'oing the %ight 9hing, and 8ther @ssays "+ew Gor9. Harper and *ros. 1/2/# p. 11-K @uoted in 6ac9 )chwartDman OAlbert 6ay +oc9 J A )uper!luous ;an O 5aith and 5reedom ":ecember 1/3-#. 11.
2

&ppenheimer 9he &tate p. 13. What then is the )tate as a sociological concept7 5he )tate completely in its genesis . . . is a social institution !orced by a victorious group o! men on a de!eated group with the sole purpose o! regulating the dominion o! the victorious group o! men on a de!eated group and securing itsel! against revolt !rom within and attac9s !rom abroad. 5eleologically this dominion had no other purpose than the economic e=ploitation o! the van@uished by the victors.

And de 6ouvenel has written. Othe )tate is in essence the result o! the successes achieved by a band o! brigands who superimpose themselves on small distinct societies.O *ertrand de 6ouvenel 8n +ower "+ew Gor9. ?i9ing 'ress 1/1/# pp. 100J01.
0

&n the crucial distinction between Ocaste O a group with privileges or

12%

burdens coercively granted or imposed by the )tate and the ;ar=ian concept o! OclassO in society see Ludwig von ;ises 9heory and 1istory "+ew Haven Conn.. Gale Hniversity 'ress 1/30# pp. 112!!.
%

)uch acceptance does not o! course imply that the )tate rule has become OvoluntaryOK !or even i! the ma<ority support be active and eager this support is not unanimous by every individual.
/

5hat every government no matter how OdictatorialO over individuals must secure such support has been demonstrated by such acute political theorists as Etienne de la *oBtie :avid Hume and Ludwig von ;ises. 5hus c!. :avid Hume O&! the $irst 'rinciples o! Aovernment O in @ssays, -iterary, 0oral and +olitical "London. Ward Loc9e and 5aylor n.d.# p. 2-K Etienne de la *oBtie 2nti4'ictator "+ew Gor9. Columbia Hniversity 'ress 1/12# pp. %J/K Ludwig von ;ises 1uman 2ction "Auburn Ala.. ;ises (nstitute 1//%# pp. 1%%!!. $or more on the contribution to the analysis o! the )tate by la *oBtie see &scar 6asDi and 6ohn :. Lewis 2gainst the 9yrant "Alencoe (ll.. 5he $ree 'ress 1/30# pp. 33J30.
10

La *oBtie 2nti4'ictator pp. 1-J11. Whenever a ruler ma9es himsel! dictator . . . all those who are corrupted by burning ambition or e=traordinary avarice these gather around him and support him in order to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chie!s under the big tyrant.

11

5his by no means implies that all intellectuals ally themselves with the )tate. &n aspects o! the alliance o! intellectuals and the )tate c!. *ertrand de 6ouvenel O5he Attitude o! the (ntellectuals to the ;ar9et )ociety O 9he 8wl "6anuary 1/31#. 1/J20K idem O5he 5reatment o! Capitalism by Continental (ntellectuals O in $.A. Haye9 ed. ,apitalism and the 1istorians "Chicago. Hniversity o! Chicago 'ress 1/31# pp. /-J12-K reprinted in Aeorge *. de HusDar 9he Intellectuals "Alencoe (ll.. 5he $ree 'ress 1/20# pp. -%3J//K and )chumpeter Imperialism and &ocial ,lasses "+ew Gor9. ;eridian *oo9s 1/03# pp. 11-J33.
12

6oseph +eedham O8eview o! Carl A. Witt!ogel 8riental 'espotism,* &cience and &ociety "1/3%#. 23. +eedham also writes that Othe successive \Chinese] emperors were served in all ages by a great company o! pro!oundly humane and disinterested scholars O p. 21. Witt!ogel notes the Con!ucian doctrine that the glory o! the ruling class
12/

rested on its gentleman scholar,bureaucrat o!!icials destined to be pro!essional rulers dictating to the mass o! the populace. Carl A. Witt!ogel 8riental 'espotism "+ew Haven Conn.. Gale Hniversity 'ress 1/30# pp. -20J21 and passim. $or an attitude contrasting to +eedhamFs c!. 6ohn Lu9acs O(ntellectual Class or (ntellectual 'ro!ession7O in de HusDar 9he Intellectuals pp. 321J22.
1-

6eanne 8ibs O5he War 'lotters O -iberation "August 1/21#. 1-. O\s]trategists insist that their occupation deserves the Fdignity o! the academic counterpart o! the military pro!ession.FO Also see ;arcus 8as9in O5he ;egadeath (ntellectuals O /ew Lork %eview of )ooks "+ovember 11 1/2-#. 2J0.
11

5hus the historian Conyers 8ead in his presidential address advocated the suppression o! historical !act in the service o! OdemocraticO and national values. 8ead proclaimed that Ototal war whether it is hot or cold enlists everyone and calls upon everyone to play his part. 5he historian is not !reer !rom this obligation than the physicist.O 8ead O5he )ocial 8esponsibilities o! the Historian O 2merican 1istorical %eview "1/31#. 2%-!!. $or a criti@ue o! 8ead and other aspects o! court history see Howard C. *eale O5he 'ro!essional Historian. His 5heory and 'ractice O 9he +acific 1istorical %eview "August 1/3-#. 220J33. Also c!. Herbert *utter!ield O&!!icial History. (ts 'it!alls and Criteria O 1istory and 1uman %elations "+ew Gor9. ;acmillan 1/32# pp. 1%2J221K and Harry 4lmer *arnes 9he ,ourt 1istorians <ersus %evisionism "n.d.# pp. 2!!.
13

C!. Witt!ogel 8riental 'espotism pp. %0J100. &n the contrasting roles o! religion vis,e,vis the )tate in ancient China and 6apan see +orman 6acobs 9he 8rigin of 0odern ,apitalism and @astern 2sia "Hong Cong. Hong Cong Hniversity 'ress 1/3%# pp. 121J/1.
12

:e 6ouvenel 8n +ower p. 22. 5he essential reason !or obedience is that it has become a habit o! the species. . . . 'ower is !or us a !act o! nature. $rom the earliest days o! recorded history it has always presided over human destinies . . . the authorities which ruled \societies] in !ormer times did not disappear without be@ueathing to their successors their privilege nor without leaving in menFs minds imprints which are cumulative in their e!!ect. 5he succession o! governments which in the course o! centuries rule the same society may be loo9ed on as one underlying government which
100

ta9es on continuous accretions.

10 1%

&n such uses o! the religion o! China see +orman 6acobs passim.

H.L. ;enc9en 2 0encken ,hrestomathy "+ew Gor9. Cnop! 1/1/# p. 113. All \government] can see in an original idea is potential change and hence an invasion o! its prerogatives. 5he most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to thin9 things out !or himsel! without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest insane and intolerable and so i! he is romantic he tries to change it. And even i! he is not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent among those who are.
1/ 20 21

(bid. pp. 112J10. :e 6ouvenel 8n +ower pp. 20!!.

Charles L. *lac9. 6r. 9he +eople and the ,ourt "+ew Gor9. ;acmillan 1/20# pp. -3!!.
22 2-

(bid. pp. 12J1-. (bid. p. 32. 5he prime and most necessary !unction o! the \)upreme] Court has been that o! validation not that o! invalidation. What a government o! limited powers needs at the beginning and !orever is some means o! satis!ying the people that it has ta9en all steps humanly possible to stay within its powers. 5his is the condition o! its legitimacy and its legitimacy in the long run is the condition o! its li!e. And the Court through its history has acted as the legitimation o! the government.

21

5o *lac9 this Osolution O while parado=ical is blithely sel!,evident. the !inal power o! the )tate . . . must stop where the law stops it. And who shall set the limit and who shall en!orce the stopping against the mightiest power7 Why the )tate itsel! o! course through its <udges and its laws. Who controls the temperate7 Who teaches the wise7 "(bid. pp. -2J--#
101

And. Where the @uestions concern governmental power in a sovereign nation it is not possible to select an umpire who is outside government. 4very national government so long as it is a government must have the !inal say on its own power. "(bid. pp. 1%J1/#
23 22

(bid. p. 1/.

5his ascription o! the miraculous to government is reminiscent o! 6ames *urnhamFs <usti!ication o! government by mysticism and irrationality. (n ancient times be!ore the illusions o! science had corrupted traditional wisdom the !ounders o! cities were 9nown to be gods or demigods. . . . +either the source nor the <usti!ication o! government can be put in wholly rational terms . . . why should ( accept the hereditary or democratic or any other principle o! legitimacy7 Why should a principle <usti!y the rule o! that man over me7 . . . ( accept the principle well . . . because ( do because that is the way it is and has been. 6ames *urnham ,ongress and the 2merican 9radition "Chicago. 8egnery 1/3/# pp. -J%. *ut what i! one does not accept the principle7 What will Othe wayO be then7
20 2% 2/

*lac9 9he +eople and the ,ourt p. 21. (bid. p. 23.

6ohn C. Calhoun 2 'isquisition on (overnment "+ew Gor9. Liberal Arts 'ress 1/3-# pp. 23J20. Also c!. ;urray +. 8othbard OConservatism and $reedom. A Libertarian Comment O 0odern 2ge ")pring 1/21#. 21/.
-0

6. Allen )mith 9he (rowth and 'ecadence of ,onstitutional (overnment "+ew Gor9. Henry Holt 1/-0# p. %%. )mith added. it was obvious that where a provision o! the Constitution was designed to limit the powers o! a governmental organ it could be e!!ectively nulli!ied i! its interpretation and en!orcement are le!t to the authorities as it designed to restrain. Clearly common sense re@uired that no organ o! the government should be able
102

to determine its own powers. Clearly common sense and OmiraclesO dictate very di!!erent views o! government "p. %0#.
-1 -2

Calhoun 2 'isquisition on (overnment pp. 20J21.

(n recent years the unanimity principle has e=perienced a highly diluted revival particularly in the writings o! 'ro!essor 6ames *uchanan. (n<ecting unanimity into the present situation however and applying it only to changes in the status quo and not to e=isting laws can only result in another trans!ormation o! a limiting concept into a rubber stamp !or the )tate. (! the unanimity principle is to be applied only to changes in laws and edicts the nature o! the initial Opoint o! originO then ma9es all the di!!erence. C!. 6ames *uchanan and Aordon 5ulloc9 9he ,alculus of ,onsent "Ann Arbor. Hniversity o! ;ichigan 'ress 1/22# passim.
--

C!. Herbert )pencer O5he 8ight to (gnore the )tate O in &ocial &tatics "+ew Gor9. :. Appleton 1%/0# pp. 22/J-/.
-1 -3

:e 6ouvenel 8n +ower p. 101.

We have seen that essential to the )tate is support by the intellectuals and this includes support against their two acute threats. 5hus on the role o! American intellectuals in AmericaFs entry into World War ( see 8andolph *ourne O5he War and the (ntellectuals O in 9he 1istory of a -iterary %adical and 8ther +apers "+ew Gor9. ).A. 8ussell 1/32# pp. 203J22. As *ourne states a common device o! intellectuals in winning support !or )tate actions is to channel any discussion within the limits o! basic )tate policy and to discourage any !undamental or total criti@ue o! this basic !ramewor9.
-2

As ;enc9en puts it in his inimitable !ashion. 5his gang "Othe e=ploiters constituting the governmentO# is well nigh immune to punishment. (ts worst e=tortions even when they are baldly !or private pro!it carry no certain penalties under our laws. )ince the !irst days o! the 8epublic less than a !ew doDen o! its members have been impeached and only a !ew obscure understrappers have ever been put into prison. 5he number o! men sitting at Atlanta and Leavenworth !or revolting against the e=tortions o! the government is always ten times as great as the number o! government o!!icials condemned !or oppressing the ta=payers to their own gain. ";enc9en 2 0encken
10-

,hrestomathy pp. 110J1%# $or a vivid and entertaining description o! the lac9 o! protection !or the individual against incursion o! his liberty by his Oprotectors O see H.L. ;enc9en O5he +ature o! Liberty O in +re$udices> 2 &election "+ew Gor9. ?intage *oo9s 1/3%# pp. 1-%J1-.
-0

5his is to be distinguished !rom modern international law with its stress on ma=imiDing the e=tent o! war through such concepts as Ocollective security.O
-%

$.6.'. ?eale 2dvance to )arbarism "Appleton Wis.. C.C. +elson 1/3-# p. 2-. )imilarly 'ro!essor +e! writes o! the War o! :on Carlos waged in (taly between $rance )pain and )ardinia against Austria in the eighteenth century. at the siege o! ;ilan by the allies and several wee9s later at 'arma . . . the rival armies met in a !ierce battle outside the town. (n neither place were the sympathies o! the inhabitants seriously moved by one side or the other. 5heir only !ear as that the troops o! either army should get within the gates and pillage. 5he !ear proved groundless. At 'arma the citiDens ran to the town walls to watch the battle in the open country beyond. "6ohn H. +e! ;ar and 1uman +rogress \Cambridge ;ass.. Harvard Hniversity 'ress 1/30] p. 13%. Also c!. Ho!!man +ic9erson ,an ;e -imit ;ar7 \+ew Gor9. $rederic9 A. )to9e 1/-1]#
-/ 10

+e! ;ar and 1uman +rogress p. 122.

(bid. p. 121. &n advocacy o! trading with the enemy by leaders o! the American 8evolution see 6oseph :or!man 9he @conomic 0ind in 2merican ,ivilization "+ew Gor9. ?i9ing 'ress 1/12# vol. 1 pp. 210J 11.
11

&n the concepts o! )tate power and social power see Albert 6. +oc9 8ur @nemy the &tate "Caldwell (daho. Ca=ton 'rinters 1/12#. Also see +oc9 0emoirs of a &uperfluous 0an "+ew Gor9. Harpers 1/1-# and $ran9 Chodorov 9he %ise and 5all of &ociety "+ew Gor9. :evin, Adair 1/3/#.
12

Amidst the !lu= o! e=pansion or contraction the )tate always ma9es sure that it seiDes and retains certain crucial Ocommand postsO o! the economy and society. Among these command posts are a monopoly o!
101

violence monopoly o! the ultimate <udicial power the channels o! communication and transportation "post o!!ice roads rivers air routes# irrigated water in &riental despotisms and education J to mold the opinions o! its !uture citiDens. (n the modern economy money is the critical command post.
1-

5his parasitic process o! Ocatching upO has been almost openly proclaimed by Carl ;ar= who conceded that socialism must be established through seiDure o! capital previously accumulated under capitalism.
11

Certainly one indispensable ingredient o! such a solution must be the sundering o! the alliance o! intellectual and )tate through the creation o! centers o! intellectual in@uiry and education which will be independent o! )tate power. Christopher :awson notes that the great intellectual movements o! the 8enaissance and the 4nlightenment were achieved by wor9ing outside o! and sometimes against the entrenched universities. 5hese academia o! the new ideas were established by independent patrons. )ee Christopher :awson 9he ,risis of ;estern @ducation "+ew Gor9. )heed and Ward 1/21#.

103