the man versus the state-第28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！
effected even by omnipotence； and probably none will assert that the production of something out of nothing is within the competence of a human government。 The alternative conception is that a human government creates only in the sense that it shapes something pre…existing。 In that case； the question arises 〃What is the something pre…existing which it shapes？〃 Clearly the word 〃creating〃 begs the whole question passes off an illusion on the unwary reader。 Bentham was a stickler for definiteness of expression； and in his Book of Fallacies has a chapter on 〃Impostor…terms。〃 It is curious that he should have furnished so striking an illustration of the perverted belief which an impostor…term may generate。 But now let us overlook these various impossibilities of thought； and seek the most defensible interpretation of Bentham's view。 It may be said that the totality of all powers and rights； originally existed as an undivided whole in the sovereign people； and that this undivided whole is given in trust （as Austin would say） to a ruling power； appointed by the sovereign people； for the purpose of distribution。 If； as we have seen； the proposition that rights are created is simply a figure of speech； then the only intelligible construction of Bentham's view is that a multitude of individuals； who severally wish to satisfy their desires； and have； as an aggregate； possession of all the sources of satisfaction； as well as power over all individual actions； appoint a government； which declares the ways in which； and the conditions under which； individual actions may be carried on and the satisfactions obtained。 Let us observe the implications。 Each man exists in two capacities。 In his private capacity he is subject to the government。 In his public capacity he is one of the sovereign people who appoint the government。 That is to say； in his private capacity he is one of those to whom rights are given； and in his public capacity he is one of those who； through the government they appoint； give the rights。 Turn this abstract statement into a concrete statement； and see what it means。 Let the community consist of a million men； who； by the hypothesis； are not only joint possessors of the inhabited region； but joint possessors of all liberties of action and appropriation： the only right recognized being that of the aggregate to everything。 What follows？ Each person； while not owning any product of his own labour； has； as a unit in the sovereign body； a millionth part of the ownership of the products of all others' labour。 This is an unavoidable implication。 As the government； in Bentham's view； is but an agent； the rights it confers are rights given to it in trust by the sovereign people。 If so； such rights must be possessed en bloc by the sovereign people before the government； in fulfilment of its trust； confers them on individuals； and； if so； each individual has a millionth portion of these rights in his public capacity； while he has no rights in his private capacity。 These he gets only when all the rest of the million join to endow him with them； while he joins to endow with them every other member of the million！ Thus； in whatever way we interpret it； Bentham's proposition leaves us in a plexus of absurdities。
Even though ignoring the opposite opinion of German writers on jurisprudence； and even without an analysis which proves their own opinion to be untenable； Bentham's disciples might have been led to treat less cavalierly the doctrine of natural rights。 For sundry groups of social phenomena unite to prove that this doctrine is well warranted； and the doctrine they set against it unwarranted。 Tribes in various parts of the world show us that before definite government arises； conduct is regulated by customs。 The Bechuanas are controlled by 〃long…acknowledged customs。〃（11*） Among the Koranna Hottentots； who only 〃tolerate their chiefs rather than obey them；〃（12*） 〃when ancient usages are not in the way； every man seems to act as is right in his own eyes。〃（13*） The Araucanians are guided by 〃nothing more than primordial usages or tacit conventions。〃（14*） Among the Kirghizes the judgments of the elders are based on 〃universally recognized customs。〃（15*） So； too； of the Dyaks； Rajah Brooke tells us that 〃custom seems simply to have become the law； and breaking custom leads to a fine。〃（16*） So sacred are memorial customs with the primitive man； that he never dreams of questioning their authority； and when government arises； its power is limited by them。 In Madagascar the king's word suffices only 〃where there is no law； custom； or precedent。〃（17*） Raffles tells us that in Java 〃the customs of the country〃（18*） restrain the will of the ruler。 In Sumatra； too； the people do not allow their chiefs to 〃alter their ancient usages。〃（19*） Nay； occasionally； as in Ashantee； 〃the attempt to change some customs〃 has caused a king's dethronement。〃（20*） Now； among the customs which we thus find to be pre…governmental； and which subordinate governmental power when it is established； are those which recognize certain individual rights rights to act in certain ways and possess certain things。 Even where the recognition of property is least developed； there is proprietorship of weapons； tools； and personal ornaments； and； generally； the recognition goes far beyond this。 Among such North…American Indians as the Snakes； who are without government； there is private ownership of horses。 By the Chippewayans； 〃who have no regular government；〃 game taken in private traps 〃is considered as private property。〃（21*） Kindred facts concerning huts； utensils； and other personal belongings； might be brought in evidence from accounts of the Ahts； the Comanches； the Esquimaux； and the Brazilian Indians。 Among various uncivilized peoples； custom has established the claim to the crop grown on a cleared plot of ground； though not to the ground itself； and the Todas； who are wholly without political organization； make a like distinction between ownership of cattle and of land。 Kolff's statement respecting 〃the peaceful Arafuras〃 well sums up the evidence。 They 〃recognize the right of property； in the fullest sense of the word； without there being any ＇other＇ authority among them than the decisions of their elders； according to the customs of their forefathers。〃（22*） But even without seeking proofs among the uncivilized； sufficient proofs are furnished by early stages of the civilized。 Bentham and his followers seem to have forgotten that our own common law is mainly an embodiment of 〃the customs of the realm。〃 It did but give definite shape to that which it found existing。 Thus； the fact and the fiction are exactly opposite to what they allege。 The fact is that property was well recognized before law existed； the fiction is that 〃property is the creation of law。〃 Considerations of another class might alone have led them to pause had they duly considered their meanings。 Were it true； as alleged by Bentham； that Government fulfils its office 〃by creating rights which it confers on individuals；〃 then； the implication would be； that there should be nothing approaching to uniformity in the rights conferred by different governments。 In the absence of a determining cause over…ruling their decisions； the probabilities would be many to one against considerable correspondence among their decisions。 But there is very great correspondence。 Look where we may； we find that governments interdict the same kinds of aggressions； and； by implication； recognize the same kinds of claims。 They habitually forbid homicide； theft； adultery： thus asserting that citizens may not be trespassed against in certain ways。 And as society advances； minor individual claims are protected by giving remedies for breach of contract； libel； false witness； etc。 In a word； comparisons show that though codes of law differ in their details as they become elaborated； they agree in their fundamentals。 What does this prove？ It cannot be by chance that they thus agree。 They agree because the alleged creating of rights was nothing else than giving formal sanction and better definition to those assertions of claims and recognitions of claims which naturally originate from the individual desires of
