the american republic-第12章
按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！
overnment。 He may be silent because speech would avail nothing； because to protest might be dangerouscost him his liberty； if not his life； because he sees and knows nothing better； and is ignorant that he has any choice in the case； or because； as very likely is the fact with the majority； he has never for moment thought of the matter； or ever had his attention called to it； and has no mind on the subject。
But however this may be； there certainly must be excluded from the compact or obligation to obey the government created by it all the women of a nation； all the children too young to be capable of giving their consent； and all who are too ignorant； too weak of mind to be able to understand the terms of the contract。 These several classes cannot be less than three…fourths of the population of any country。 What is to be done with them？ Leave them without government？ Extend the power of the government over them？ By what right？ Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed； and that consent they have not given。 Whence does one…fourth of the population get its right to govern the other three…fourths？
But what is to be done with the rights of 61 minorities？ Is the rule of unanimity to be insisted on in the convention and in the government； when it goes into operation？ Unanimity is impracticable； for where there are many men there will be differences of opinion。 The rule of unanimity gives to each individual a veto on the whole proceeding； which was the grand defect of the Polish constitution。 Each member of the Polish Diet； which included the whole body of the nobility； had an absolute veto； and could； alone； arrest the whole action of the government。 Will you substitute the rule of the majority； and say the majority must govern？ By what right？ It is agreed to in the convention。 Unanimously； or only by a majority？ The right of the majority to have their will is； on the social compact theory； a conventional right； and therefore cannot come into play before the convention is completed； or the social compact is framed and accepted。 How； in settling the terms of the compact； will you proceed？ By majorities？ But suppose a minority objects； and demands two…thirds； three…fourths； or four…fifths； and votes against the majority rule； which is carried only by a simple plurality of votes； will the proceedings of the convention bind the dissenting minority？ 62 What gives to the majority the right to govern the minority who dissent from its action？
On the supposition that society has rights not derived from individuals； and which are intrusted to the government； there is a good reason why the majority should prevail within the legitimate sphere of government； because the majority is the best representative practicable of society itself； and if the constitution secures to minorities and dissenting individuals their natural rights and their equal rights as citizens； they have no just cause of complaint； for the majority in such case has no power to tyrannize over them or to oppress them。 But the theory under examination denies that society has any rights except such as it derives from individuals who all have equal rights。 According to it； society is itself conventional； and created by free； independent； equal； sovereign individuals。 Society is a congress of sovereigns； in which no one has authority over another； and no one can be rightfully forced to submit to any decree against his will。 In such a congress the rule of the majority is manifestly improper； illegitimate； and invalid； unless adopted by unanimous consent。
But this is not all。 The individual is always the equal of himself； and if the government 63 derives its powers from the consent of the governed； he governs in the government； and parts with none of his original sovereignty。 The government is not his master； but his agent； as the principal only delegates； not surrenders； his rights and powers to the agent。 He is free at any time he pleases to recall the powers he has delegated； to give new instructions； or to dismiss him。 The sovereignty of the individual survives the compact； and persists through all the acts of his agent； the government。 He must； then； be free to withdraw from the compact whenever be judges it advisable。 Secession is perfectly legitimate if government is simply a contract between equals。 The disaffected； the criminal； the thief the government would send to prison； or the murderer it would hang； would be very likely to revoke his consent； and to secede from the state。 Any number of individuals large enough to count a majority among themselves； indisposed to pay the government taxes； or to perform the military service exacted； might hold a convention； adopt a secession ordinance； and declare themselves a free； independent； sovereign state； and bid defiance to the tax…collector and the provost…marshall； and that； too； without forfeiting their estates or changing their domicile。 Would 64 the government employ military force to coerce them back to their allegiance？ By what right？ Government is their agent； their creature； and no man owes allegiance to his own agent； or creature。
The compact could bind only temporarily； and could at any moment be dissolved。 Mr。 Jefferson saw this； and very consistently maintained that one generation has no power to bind another； and； as if this was not enough； he asserted the right of revolution； and gave it as his opinion that in every nation a revolution once in every generation is desirable； that is； according to his reckoning； once every nineteen years。 The doctrine that one generation has no power to bind its successor is not only a logical conclusion from the theory that governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed； since a generation cannot give its consent before it is born； but is very convenient for a nation that has contracted a large national debt； yet； perhaps； not so convenient to the public creditor； since the new generation may take it into its head not to assume or discharge the obligations of its predecessor； but to repudiate them。 No man； certainly； can contract for any one but himself； and how then can the son be bound； without his own personal or 65 individual consent； freely given； by the obligations entered into by his father？
The social compact is necessarily limited to the individuals who form it； and as necessarily； unless renewed； expires with them。 It thus creates no state； no political corporation； which survives in all its rights and powers； though individuals die。 The state is on this theory a voluntary association； and in principle； except that it is not a secret society； in no respect differs from the Carbonari； or the Knights of the Golden Circle。 When Orsini attempted to execute the sentence of death on the Emperor of the French； in obedience to the order of the Carbonari； of which the Emperor was a member； he was； if the theory of the origin of government in compact be true； no more an assassin than was the officer who executed on the gallows the rebel spies and incendiaries Beal and Kennedy。
Certain it is that the alleged social compact has in it no social or civil element。 It does not and cannot create society。 It can give only an aggregation of individuals； and society is not an aggregation nor even an organization of individuals。 It is an organism； and individuals live in its life as well as it in theirs。 There is a real living solidarity； which makes individuals members of the social body； and members one 66 of another。 There is no society without individuals； and there are no individuals without society； but in society there is that which is not individual； and is more than all individuals。 The social compact is an attempt to substitute for this real living solidarity； which gives to society at once unity of life and diversity of members； an artificia
