the man versus the state-第26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！


be　uniformly　applicable；　be　the　question　at　issue　what　it　may。　So　confirmed　is　this　conviction　and　so　little　have　the　ethics　of　the　matter　been　considered；　that　to　most　this　mere　suggestion　of　a　doubt　will　cause　some　astonishment。　Yet　it　needs　but　a　brief　analysis　to　show　that　the　opinion　is　little　better　than　a　political　superstition。　Instances　may　readily　be　selected　which　prove；　by　reductio　ad　absurdum；　that　the　right　of　a　majority　is　a　purely　conditional　right；　valid　only　within　specific　limits。　Let　us　take　a　few。　Suppose　that　at　the　general　meeting　of　some　philanthropic　association；　it　was　resolved　that　in　addition　to　relieving　distress　the　association　should　employ　home…missionaries　to　preach　down　popery。　Might　the　subscriptions　of　Catholics；　who　had　joined　the　body　with　charitable　views；　be　rightfully　used　for　this　end？　Suppose　that　of　the　members　of　a　bookclub；　the　seater　number；　thinking　that　under　existing　circumstances　rifle…practice　was　more　important　than　reading；　should　decide　to　change　the　purpose　of　their　union；　and　to　apply　the　funds　in　hand　for　the　purchase　of　powder；　ball；　and　targets。　Would　the　rest　be　bound　by　this　decision？　Suppose　that　under　the　excitement　of　news　from　Australia；　the　majority　of　a　Freehold　Land　Society　should　determine；　not　simply　to　start　in　a　body　for　the　gold…diggings；　but　to　use　their　accumulated　capital　to　provide　outfits。　Would　this　appropriation　of　property　be　just　to　the　minority？　and　must　these　join　the　expedition？　Scarcely　anyone　would　venture　an　affirmative　answer　even　to　the　first　of　these　questions；　much　less　to　the　others。　And　why？　Because　everyone　must　perceive　that　by　uniting　himself　with　others；　no　man　can　equitably　be　betrayed　into　acts　utterly　foreign　to　the　purpose　for　which　he　joined　them。　Each　of　these　supposed　minorities　would　properly　reply　to　those　seeking　to　coerce　them：　　'We　combined　with　you　for　a　defined　object；　we　gave　money　and　time　for　the　furtherance　of　that　object；　on　all　questions　thence　arising　we　tacitly　agreed　to　conform　to　the　will　of　the　greater　number；　but　we　did　not　agree　to　conform　on　any　other　questions。　If　you　induce　us　to　join　you　by　professing　a　certain　end；　and　then　undertake　some　other　end　of　which　we　were　not　apprised；　you　obtain　our　support　under　false　pretences；　you　exceed　the　expressed　or　understood　compact　to　which　we　committed　ourselves；　and　we　are　no　longer　bound　by　your　decisions。'　Clearly　this　is　the　only　rational　interpretation　of　the　matter。　The　general　principle　underlying　the　right　government　of　every　incorporated　body；　is；　that　its　members　contact　with　each　other　severally　to　submit　to　the　will　of　the　majority　in　all　matters　concerning　the　fulfilment　of　the　objects　for　which　they　are　incorporated；　but　in　no　others。　To　this　extent　only　can　the　contact　hold。　For　as　it　is　implied　in　the　very　nature　of　a　contact；　that　those　entering　into　it　must　know　what　they　contact　to　do；　and　as　those　who　unite　with　others　for　a　specified　object；　cannot　contemplate　all　the　unspecified　objects　which　it　is　hypothetically　possible　for　the　union　to　undertake；　it　follows　that　the　contact　entered　into　cannot　extend　to　such　unspecified　objects。　And　if　there　exists　no　expressed　or　understood　contact　between　the　union　and　its　members　respecting　unspecified　objects；　then　for　the　majority　to　coerce　the　minority　into　undertaking　them；　is　nothing　less　than　gross　tyranny。〃　

　　　　Naturally；　if　such　a　confusion　of　ideas　exists　in　respect　of　the　powers　of　a　majority　where　the　deed　of　incorporation　tacitly　limits　these　powers；　still　more　must　there　exist　such　a　confusion　where　there　has　been　no　deed　of　incorporation。　Nevertheless　the　same　principle　holds。　I　again　emphasize　the　proposition　that　the　members　of　an　incorporated　body　are　bound　〃severally　to　submit　to　the　will　of　the　majority　in　all　matters　concerning　the　fulfilment　of　the　objects　for　which　they　are　incorporated；　but　in　no　others。〃　And　I　contend　that　this　holds　of　an　incorporated　nation　as　much　as　of　an　incorporated　company。　　　　　　〃Yes；　but；〃　comes　the　obvious　rejoinder；　〃as　there　is　no　deed　by　which　the　members　of　a　nation　are　incorporated　　as　there　neither　is；　nor　ever　was；　a　specification　of　purposes　for　which　the　union　was　formed；　there　exist　no　limits；　and；　consequently；　the　power　of　the　majority　is　unlimited。〃　　　　　Evidently　it　must　be　admitted　that　the　hypothesis　of　a　social　contract；　either　under　the　shape　assumed　by　Hobbes　or　under　the　shape　assumed　by　Rousseau；　is　baseless。　Nay　more；　it　must　be　admitted　that　even　had　such　a　contract　once　been　formed；　it　could　not　be　binding　on　the　posterity　of　those　who　formed　it。　Moreover；　if　any　say　that　in　the　absence　of　those　Stations　to　its　powers　which　a　deed　of　incorporation　might　imply；　there　is　nothing　to　prevent　a　majority　from　imposing　its　will　on　a　minority　by　force；　assent　must　be　given　an　assent；　however；　joined　with　the　comment　that　if　the　superior　force　of　the　majority　is　its　justification；　then　the　superior　force　of　a　despot　backed　by　an　adequate　army；　is　also　justified：　the　problem　lapses。　What　we　here　seek　is　some　higher　warrant　for　the　subordination　of　minority　to　majority　than　that　arising　from　inability　to　resist　physical　coercion。　Even　Austin；　anxious　as　he　is　to　establish　the　unquestionable　authority　of　positive　law；　and　assuming；　as　he　does；　an　absolute　sovereignty　of　some　kind；　monarchic；　aristocratic；　constitutional；　or　popular；　as　the　source　of　its　unquestionable　authority；　is　obliged；　in　the　last　resort；　to　admit　a　moral　limit　to　its　action　over　the　community。　While　insisting；　in　pursuance　of　his　rigid　theory　of　sovereignty；　that　a　sovereign　body　originating　from　the　people　〃is　legally　free　to　abridge　their　political　liberty；　at　its　own　pleasure　or　discretion；〃　he　allows　that　〃a　government　may　be　hindered　by　positive　morality　from　abridging　the　political　liberty　which　it　leaves　or　grants　to　its　subjects。〃（4*）　Hence；　we　have　to　find；　not　a　physical　justification；　but　a　moral　justification；　for　the　supposed　absolute　power　of　the　majority。　　　　　　This　will　at　once　draw　forth　the　rejoinder　　〃Of　course；　in　the　absence　of　any　agreement；　with　its　implied　limitations；　the　rule　of　the　majority　is　unlimited；　because　it　is　more　just　that　the　majority　should　have　its　way　than　that　the　minority　should　have　its　way。〃　A　very　reasonable　rejoinder　this　seems　until　there　comes　the　re…rejoinder。　We　may　oppose　to　it　the　equally　tenable　proposition　that；　in　the　absence　of　an　agreement；　the　supremacy　of　a　majority　over　a　minority　does　not　exist　at　all。　It　is　co…operation　of　some　kind；　from　which　there　arise　these　powers　and　obligations　of　majority　and　minority；　and　in　the　absence　of　any　agreement　to　co…operate；　such　powers　and　obligations　are　also　absent。　　　　　　Here　the　argument　apparently　ends　in　a　dead　lock。　Under　the　existing　condition　of　things；　no　moral　origin　seems　assignable　either　for　the　sovereignty　of　the　majority　or　for　the　limitation　of　its　sovereignty。　But　further　consideration　reveals　a　solution　of　the　difficulty。　For　if；　dismissing　all　thought　of　any　hypothetical　agreement　to　cooperate　heretofore　made；　we　ask　what　would　be　the　agreement　into　which　citizens　would　now　enter　with　practical　unanimity；　we　get　a　sufficiently　clear　answer；　and　with　it　a　sufficiently　clear　justification　for　the　rule　of　the　majority　inside　a　certain　sphere；　but　not　outside　that　sphere。　Let　us　first　observe　a　few　of　the　limitations　which　at　once　become　apparent。　　　　　　Were　all　Englishmen　now　asked　if　they　would　agree　to　co…operate　for　the　teaching　of　religion；　and　would　give　the　majority　power　to　fix　the　creed　and　the　forms　of　worship；　there　would　come　a　very　emphatic　〃No〃　from　a　large　part　of　them。　If；　in　pursuance　of　a　proposal　to　revive　sumptuary　laws；　the　inquiry　were　made　whether　they　would　bind　themselves　to　abide　by　the　will　of　the　majority　in　respect　of　the　fashions　and　qualities　of　their　clothes；　nearly　all　of　them　would　refuse。　In　like　manner　if　（to　take　an　actual　question　of　the　day）　people　were　polled　to　ascertain　whether；　in　respect　of　the　beverages　they　drank；　they　would　accept　the　decision　of　the　greater　number；　certainly　half；　and　probably　more　than　half；　would　be　unwilling。　Similarly　with　respect　to　many　other　actions　which　most　men　now…a…days　regard　as　of