the man versus the state-第25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！


and　it　survives　still；　though　the　belief　that　the　law…giver　has　God's　warrant　has　died　out。　〃Oh；　an　Act　of　Parliament　can　do　anything；〃　is　the　reply　made　to　a　citizen　who　questions　the　legitimacy　of　some　arbitrary　State…interference；　and　the　citizen　stands　paralysed。　It　does　not　occur　to　him　to　ask　the　how；　and　the　when；　and　the　whence；　of　this　asserted　omnipotence　bounded　only　by　physical　impossibilities。　　　　　　Here　we　will　take　leave　to　question　it。　In　default　of　the　justification；　once　logically　valid；　that　the　ruler　on　Earth　being　a　deputy　of　the　ruler　in　Heaven；　submission　to　him　in　all　things　is　a　duty；　let　us　ask　what　reason　there　is　for　asserting　the　duty　of　submission　in　all　things　to　a　ruling　power；　constitutional　or　republican；　which　has　no　Heaven…derived　supremacy。　Evidently　this　inquiry　commits　us　to　a　criticism　of　past　and　present　theories　concerning　political　authority。　To　revive　questions　supposed　to　be　long　since　settled；　may　be　thought　to　need　some　apology。　but　there　is　a　sufficient　apology　in　the　implication　above　made　clear；　that　the　theory　commonly　accepted　is　ill…based　or　unbased。　

The　notion　of　sovereignty　is　that　which　first　presents　itself；　and　a　critical　examination　of　this　notion；　as　entertained　by　those　who　do　not　postulate　the　supernatural　origin　of　sovereignty；　carries　us　back　to　the　arguments　of　Hobbes。　　　　　　Let　us　grant　Hobbes's　postulate　that；　〃during　the　time　men　live　without　a　common　power　to　keep　them　all　in　awe；　they　are　in　that　condition　which　is　called　war。。。　of　every　man　against　every　man；〃（1*）　though　this　is　not　true；　since　there　are　some　small　uncivilized　societies　in　which；　without　any　〃common　power　to　keep　them　all　in　awe；〃　men　maintain　peace　and　harmony　better　than　it　is　maintained　in　societies　where　such　a　power　exists。　Let　us　suppose　him　to　be　right；　too；　in　assuming　that　the　rise　of　a　ruling　power　over　associated　men；　results　from　their　desires　to　preserve　order　among　themselves；　though；　in　fact；　it　habitually　arises　from　the　need　for　subordination　to　a　leader　in　war；　defensive　or　offensive；　and　has　originally　no　necessary；　and　often　no　actual；　relation　to　the　preservation　of　order　among　the　combined　individuals。　Once　more；　let　us　admit　the　indefensible　assumption　that　to　escape　the　evils　of　chronic　conflicts；　which　must　otherwise　continue　among　them；　the　members　of　a　community　enter　into　a　〃pact　or　covenant；〃　by　which　they　all　bind　themselves　to　surrender　their　primitive　freedom　of　action；　and　subordinate　themselves　to　the　will　of　a　ruling　power　agreed　upon：（2*）　accepting；　also；　the　implication　that　their　descendants　for　ever　are　bound　by　the　covenant　which　remote　ancestors　made　for　them。　Let　us；　I　say；　not　object　to　these　data；　but　pass　to　the　conclusions　Hobbes　draws。　He　says：　　

〃For　where　no　covenant　hath　preceded；　there　hath　no　right　been　transferred；　and　every　man　has　right　to　every　thing；　and　consequently；　no　action　can　be　unjust。　But　when　a　covenant　is　made；　then　to　break　it　is　unjust：　and　the　definition　of　INJUSTICE；　is　no　other　than　the　not　performance　of　covenant。。。　Therefore　before　the　names　of　just　and　unjust　can　have　place；　there　must　be　some　coercive　power；　to　compel　men　equally　to　the　performance　of　their　covenants；　by　the　terror　of　some　punishment；　greater　than　the　benefit　they　expect　by　the　breach　of　their　covenant。〃（3*）

　　　　Were　people's　characters　in　Hobbes's　day　really　so　bad　as　to　war　rant　his　assumption　that　none　would　perform　their　covenants　in　the　absence　of　a　coercive　power　and　threatened　penalties？　In　our　day　〃the　names　of　just　and　unjust　can　have　place〃　quite　apart　from　recognition　of　any　coercive　power。　Among　my　friends　I　could　name　half　a　dozen　whom　I　would　implicitly　trust　to　perform　their　covenants　without　any　〃terror　of　some　punishment〃　and　over　whom　the　requirements　of　justice　would　be　as　imperative　in　the　absence　of　a　coercive　power　as　in　its　presence。　Merely　noting；　however；　that　this　unwarranted　assumption　vitiates　Hobbes's　argument　for　State…authority；　and　accepting　both　his　premises　and　conclusion；　we　have　to　observe　two　significant　implications。　One　is　that　State…authority　as　thus　derived；　is　a　means　to　an　end；　and　has　no　validity　save　as　subserving　that　end：　if　the　end　is　not　subserved；　the　authority；　by　the　hypothesis；　does　not　exist。　The　other　is　that　the　end　for　which　the　authority　exists；　as　thus　specified；　is　the　enforcement　of　justice　　the　maintenance　of　equitable　relations。　The　reasoning　yields　no　warrant　for　other　coercion　over　citizens　than　that　which　is　required　for　preventing　direct　aggressions；　and　those　indirect　aggressions　constituted　by　breaches　of　contract；　to　which；　if　we　add　protection　against　eternal　enemies；　the　entire　function　implied　by　Hobbes's　derivation　of　sovereign　authority　is　comprehended。　　　　　　Hobbes　argued　in　the　interests　of　absolute　monarchy。　His　modern　admirer；　Austin；　had　for　his　aim　to　derive　the　authority　of　law　from　the　unlimited　sovereignty　of　one　man；　or　of　a　number　of　men；　small　or　large　compared　with　the　whole　community。　Austin　was　originally　in　the　army；　and　it　has　been　truly　remarked　that　〃the　permanent　traces　left〃　may　be　seen　in　his　Province　of　Jurisprudence。　When；　undeterred　by　the　exasperating　pedantries　　the　endless　distinctions　and　definitions　and　repetitions　　which　serve　but　to　hide　his　essential　doctrines；　we　ascertain　what　these　are；　it　becomes　manifest　that　he　assimilates　civil　authority　to　military　authority：　taking　for　granted　that　the　one；　as　the　other；　is　above　question　in　respect　of　both　origin　and　range。　To　get　justification　for　positive　law；　he　takes　us　back　to　the　absolute　sovereignty　of　the　power　imposing　it　　a　monarch；　an　aristocracy；　or　that　larger　body　of　men　who　have　votes　in　a　democracy；　for　such　a　body　also；　he　styles　the　sovereign；　in　contrast　with　the　remaining　portion　of　the　community　which；　from　incapacity　or　other　cause；　remains　subject。　And　having　affirmed；　or；　rather；　taken　for　granted；　the　unlimited　authority　of　the　body；　simple　or　compound；　small　or　large；　which　he　styles　sovereign；　he；　of　course；　has　no　difficulty　in　deducing　the　legal　validity　of　its　edicts；　which　he　calls　positive　law。　But　the　problem　is　simply　moved　a　step　further　back　and　there　left　unsolved。　The　true　question　is　　Whence　the　sovereignty？　What　is　the　assignable　warrant　for　this　unqualified　supremacy　assumed　by　one；　or　by　a　small　number；　or　by　a　large　number；　over　the　rest？　A　critic　might　fitly　say　　〃We　will　dispense　with　your　process　of　deriving　positive　law　from　unlimited　sovereignty：　the　sequence　is　obvious　enough。　But　first　prove　your　unlimited　sovereignty。〃　　　　　To　this　demand　there　is　no　response。　Analyse　his　assumption；　and　the　doctrine　of　Austin　proves　to　have　no　better　basis　than　that　of　Hobbes。　In　the　absence　of　admitted　divine　descent　or　appointment；　neither　single…headed　ruler　nor　many…headed　ruler　can　produce　such　credentials　as　the　claim　to　unlimited　sovereignty　implies。　

〃But　surely；〃　will　come　in　deafening　chorus　the　reply；　〃there　is　the　unquestionable　right　of　the　majority；　which　gives　unquestionable　rights　to　the　parliament　it　elects。〃　　　　　Yes；　now　we　are　coming　down　to　the　root　of　the　matter。　The　divine　right　of　parliaments　means　the　divine　right　of　majorities。　The　fundamental　assumption　made　by　legislators　and　people　alike；　is　that　a　majority　has　powers　to　which　no　limits　can　be　put。　This　is　the　current　theory　which　all　accept　without　proof　as　a　self…evident　truth。　Nevertheless；　criticism　will；　I　think；　show　that　this　current　theory　requires　a　radical　modification。　　　　　　In　an　essay　on　〃Railway　Morals　and　Railway　Policy；〃　published　in　the　Edinburgh　Review　for　October；　1854；　I　had　occasion　to　deal　with　the　question　of　a　majority's　powers　as　exemplified　in　the　conduct　of　public　companies；　and　I　cannot　better　prepare　the　way　for　conclusions　presently　to　be　drawn；　than　by　quoting　a　passage　from　it：　　

　〃Under　whatever　circumstances；　or　for　whatever　ends；　a　number　of　men　co…operate；　it　is　held　that　if　difference　of　opinion　arises　among　them；　justice　requires　that　the　will　of　the　seater　number　shall　be　executed　rather　than　that　of　the　smaller　number；　and　this　rule　is　supposed　to　be　uniformly　applicable；　be　the　question　at　issue　what　it　may。　So　confirmed　is　this　conviction　and　s