the origins of contemporary france-4-第38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！



testaments；　then　it　is　not　respect　for　the　will　of　individuals　which

solely　guides　it；　it　does　not　content　itself　with　obliging　everybody

to　pay　his　debts；　including　even　those　which　are　tacit；　involuntary

and　innate；　it　takes　into　account　the　public　interest；　it　calculates

remote　probabilities；　future　contingencies；　all　results　singly　and

collectively。　　Manifestly；　in　allowing　or　forbidding　divorce；　in

extending　or　restricting　what　a　man　may　dispose　of　by　testament；　in

favoring　or　interdicting　substitutions；　it　is　chiefly　in　view　of　some

political；　economical　or　social　advantage；　either　to　refine　or

consolidate　the　union　of　the　sexes；　to　implant　in　the　family　habits　of

discipline　or　sentiments　of　affection；　to　excite　in　children　an

initiatory　spirit；　or　one　of　concord；　to　prepare　for　the　nation　a

staff　of　natural　chieftains；　or　an　army　of　small　proprietors；　and

always　authorized　by　the　universal　assent。　　Moreover；　and　always　with

this　universal　assent；　it　does　other　things　outside　the　task

originally　assigned　to　it；　and　nobody　finds　that　it　usurps　when；



*　it　coins　money；

*　it　regulates　weights　and　measures；

*　it　establishes　quarantines；

*　on　condition　of　an　indemnity；　it　expropriates　private　property　for

public　utility；

*　it　builds　lighthouses；　harbors；　dikes；　canals；　roads；

*　it　defrays　the　cost　of　scientific　expeditions；

*　it　founds　museums　and　public　libraries；

*　at　times；　toleration　is　shown　for　its　support　of　universities；

schools；　churches；　and　theaters；

and；　to　justify　fresh　drafts　on　private　purses　for　such　objects；　no

reason　is　assigned　for　it　but　the　common　interest。　　（l'intérêt　commun）

…　Why　should　it　not；　in　like　manner；　take　upon　itself　every　enterprise

for　the　benefit　of　all？　Why　should　it　hesitate　in　commanding　the

execution　of　every　work　advantageous　to　the　community；　and　why　abstain

from　forbidding　every　harmful　work？　Now　please　note　that　in　human

society　every　act　or　omission；　even　the　most　concealed　or　private；　is

either　a　loss　or　a　gain　to　society。　　So　if　I　neglect　to　take　care　of

my　property　or　of　my　health；　of　my　intellect　or　of　my　soul；　I

undermine　or　weaken　in　my　person　a　member　of　the　community　which　can

only　be　rich；　healthy　and　strong　through　the　wealth；　health　and

strength　of　his　fellow　members；　so　that；　from　this　point　of　view；　my

private　actions　are　all　public　benefits　or　public　injuries。　　Why　then；

from　this　point　of　view；　should　the　State　scruple　about　prescribing

some　of　these　to　me　and　forbidding　others？　Why；　in　order　to　better

exercise　this　right；　and　better　fulfill　this　obligation；　should　it　not

constitute　itself　the　universal　contractor　for　labor；　and　the

universal　distributor　of　productions？　Why　should　it　not　become　the

sole　agriculturist；　manufacturer　and　merchant；　the　unique　proprietor

and　administrator　of　all　France？　…　Precisely　because　this　would　be

opposed　to　the　common　weal　（l'intérêt　de　tous；　the　interest　of

everyone）＇15＇。　　　Here　the　second　principle；　that　advanced　against

individual　independence；　operates　inversely；　and；　instead　of　being　an

adversary；　it　becomes　a　champion。　　Far　from　setting　the　State　free；　it

puts　another　chain　around　its　neck；　and　thus　strengthens　the　fence

within　which　modern　conscience　and　modern　honor　have　confined　the

public　guardian。



V。



Direct　common　interest。　　…　This　consists　in　the　absence　of　constraint。

…　Two　reasons　in　favor　of　freedom　of　action。　　…　Character；　in　general；

of　the　individual　man。　　…　Modern　complication。



In　what；　indeed；　does　the　common　weal　（l'intérêt　de　tous；　the　interest

of　everyone）　consist？　…　In　the　interest　of　each　person；　while　that

which　interests　each　person　is　the　things　of　which　the　possession　is

agreeable　and　deprivation　painful。　　The　whole　world　would　in　vain

gainsay　this　point；　every　sensation　is　personal。　　My　suffering　and　my

enjoyments　are　not　to　be　contested　any　more　than　my　inclination　for

objects　which　procure　me　the　one；　and　my　dislike　of　objects　which

procure　me　the　other。　　There　is；　therefore；　no　arbitrary　definition　of

each　one's　particular　interest；　this　exists　as　a　fact　independently　of

the　legislator；　all　that　remains　is　to　show　what　this　interest　is；　and

what　each　individual　prefers。　　Preferences　vary　according　to　race；

time；　place　and　circumstance。　　Among　the　possessions　which　are　ever

desirable　and　the　privation　of　which　is　ever　dreaded；　there　is　one；

however；　which；　directly　desired；　and　for　itself；　becomes；　through　the

progress　of　civilization；　more　and　more　cherished；　and　of　which　the

privation　becomes；　through　the　progress　of　civilization；　more　and　more

grievous。　　That　is　the　disposition　of　one's　self；　the　full　ownership

of　one's　body　and　property；　the　faculty　of　thinking；　believing　and

worshipping　as　one　pleases；　of　associating　with　others；　of　acting

separately　or　along　with　others；　in　all　senses　and　without　hindrance；

in　short；　one's　liberty。　　That　this　liberty　may　as　extensive　as

possible　is；　in　all　times；　one　of　man's　great　needs；　and；　in　our　days；

it　is　his　greatest　need。　　There　are　two　reasons　for　this；　one　natural

and　the　other　historical。　　…



By　nature　Man　is　an　individual；　that　is　to　say　a　small　distinct　world

in　himself；　a　center　apart　in　an　enclosed　circle；　a　detached　organism

complete　in　itself　and　which　suffers　when　his　spontaneous　inclinations

are　frustrated　by　the　intervention　of　an　outside　force。



The　passage　of　time　has　made　him　a　complicated　organism；　upon　which

three　or　four　religions；　five　or　six　civilizations；　thirty　centuries

of　rich　culture　have　left　their　imprint；　in　which　its　acquisitions　are

combined　together；　wherein　inherited　qualities　are　crossbred；　wherein

special　traits　have　accumulated　in　such　a　way　as　to　produce　the　most

original　and　the　most　sensitive　of　beings。　　As　civilization　increases；

so　does　his　complexity：　with　the　result　that　man's　originality

strengthens　and　his　sensitivity　become　keener；　from　which　it　follows

that　the　more　civilized　he　becomes；　the　greater　his　repugnance　to

constraint　and　uniformity。



　At　the　present　day；　（1880）；　each　of　us　is　the　terminal　and　peculiar

product　of　a　vast　elaboration　of　which　the　diverse　stages　occur　in

this　order　but　once；　a　plant　unique　of　its　species；　a　solitary

individual　of　superior　and　finer　essence　which；　with　its　own　inward

structure　and　its　own　inalienable　type；　can　bear　no　other　than　its　own

characteristic　fruit。　　Nothing　could　be　more　adverse　to　the　interest

of　the　oak　than　to　be　tortured　into　bearing　the　apples　of　the　apple

tree；　nothing　could　be　more　adverse　to　the　interests　of　the　apple　tree

than　to　be　tortured　into　bearing　acorns；　nothing　could　be　more　opposed

to　the　interests　of　both　oak　and　apple　tree；　also　of　other　trees；　than

to　be　pruned；　shaped　and　twisted　so　as　all　to　grow　after　a　forced

model；　delineated　on　paper　according　to　the　rigid　and　limited

imagination　of　a　surveyor。　　The　least　possible　constraint　is；

therefore；　everybody's　chief　interest；　if　one　particular　restrictive

agency　is　established；　it　is　that　every　one　may　be　preserved　by　if

from　other　more　powerful　constraints；　especially　those　which　the

foreigner　and　evil…doer　would　impose。　　Up　to　that　point；　and　not

further；　its　intervention　is　beneficial；　beyond　that　point；　it　becomes

one　of　the　evils　it　is　intended　to　forestall。　　Such　then；　if　the

common　weal　is　to　be　looked　after；　the　sole　office　of　the　State　is；



1。　　to　prevent　constraint　and；　therefore；　never　to　use　it　except　to

prevent　worse　constraints；

2。　　to　secure　respect　for　each　individual　in　his　own　physical　and

moral　domain；　never　to　encroach　on　this　except　for　that　purpose　and

then　to　withdraw　immediately；

3。　　to　abstain　from　all　indiscreet　meddling；　and　yet　more；　as　far　as

is　practicable；　without　any　sacrifice　of　public　security；

4。　　to　reduce　old　assessments；　to　exact　only　a　minimum　of　subsidies

and　services；

5。　　to　gradually　limit　even　useful　action；

6。　　to　set　itself　as　few　tasks　as　possible；