Chapter 2 A general discussion of the origin and purpose of the regime, with a brief comment on the British constitution

Some authors have confounded society and government, so that they differ little, if not at all, from each other; when in fact they are not only different, but have different origins.Society is produced by our desires, and government by our vices; the one unites us and thus positively enhances our happiness, the latter restrains our vices and thereby passively enhances our happiness.One is to encourage association, the other is to create differences.The front one is the rewarder and the back one is the punisher. Society is welcome in all circumstances, but government is, at its best, an inevitable evil; at its worst, an intolerable evil ; for when we suffer from the past, when we suffer from a government those misfortunes which only a governmentless state can suffer, we are all the more distressed by the thought that our own hands have provided the source of the suffering.Government is like clothing, a sign of the ruined innocence; the palaces of kings are built on the ruins of the pavilions of Paradise.If the stirrings of conscience were regular, consistent, and faithful, a man would need no other legislator; but it is not so, and he feels it necessary to give up a part of his property, and pay for the rest and the principle of prudence which on every other occasion advised him to choose the lesser of two evils, now urged him to do the same.Since, therefore, security is the real intent and end of government, it follows without doubt that whatever form seems most likely to secure our security, which produces the greatest benefit at the least cost, is preferred by all others. accepted.

In order to get a clear and correct understanding of the intentions and purposes of governments, let us assume that a few persons settle in some solitary part of the globe, cut off from the rest; and they will represent the first migrant.In this natural state of freedom they will think first of society.A thousand motives will encourage them towards this end.His needs could not be met by any one human strength, and his frame of mind could not bear to be permanently alone, so that he was soon compelled to seek help and consolation from another who wanted the same.Four or five working together can build a decent dwelling in the middle of the wilderness, but a single man can toil all his life for nothing.When he has cut the wood he cannot move it, nor erect it; while hunger will drive him from work, and every different need will call upon him in a different way.Sickness, even if it is a misfortune, means death; for even if they do not kill a man, they render him incapable of sustaining life, and render him moribund.

In this way, objective needs will act like a kind of attraction, and at once we, the immigrants who have just arrived, will form a society, and the mutual happiness from social life will be established, and as long as people always treat each other with sincerity Laws and governments need not be bound; yet, as God alone is invulnerable to evil, it must follow that they have just overcome those initial difficulties which united them in the common cause. After experiencing all kinds of difficulties, they immediately began to ignore each other's due responsibilities and due friendship.This laxity indicated the need for some form of government to compensate for the lack of virtue.

A large tree in a good location would furnish them with a great hall, where the whole colony could meet under its shade to discuss public issues.It is probable that their first laws were called ordinances, and were enforced with public contempt at best as punishment for their violation.In this first meeting, everyone was naturally entitled to a seat. However, with the development of the immigration area, the public's concerns have also increased. At the same time, the members may be far away from each other, and it is not convenient for everyone to gather together every time as before. These days, the concerns of the public are few and far between.This circumstance shows that it is convenient for them to agree to elect from among the whole body some good men to be specially directed at the legislative business; Same as taken when attending in person.If the immigration area continues to develop, it is necessary to expand the number of representatives so that the interests of all parts of the immigration area can be taken care of. , the elected will never be alone concerned with an interest alien to the elector, and it is prudent to hold elections from time to time: in this way it is possible for the elected to go back a few months later to rejoin the masses. Mixed together, they dare not suffer themselves, and their public loyalty will be guaranteed.

For this exchange from time to time will establish a common interest with every part of the society, and the parts will naturally support each other, and it is from this (not from the meaningless names of emperors) that the power and power of government arise. happiness of the ruled. Such is the origin and rise of government; that is to say, the manner in which the world is governed as necessary by the impotence of men's virtues; and from this is seen the end and end of government, liberty and security.However much our eyes may be dazzled by the multitude of things, or our ears deceived by sounds, however partial opinions may lead our will astray, or personal interests may confuse our The heart, nature and the frank voice of reason will say it is right after all.This idea of ​​government I deduce from an irrefutable principle of nature, namely, that the simpler anything is, the less prone it is to disorder, and the easier it is to correct disorder if it occurs; With this principle in mind, I would now like to say a few words about the much vaunted British regime.

I do not deny that it was glorious in the dark days of slavery, when the English constitution was enacted.When the tyranny is rampant in the word, try not to leave this regime, that is also a glorious way out.It is easy, however, to argue that the present constitution is incomplete, unstable, and unable to produce the effects it should.Despotisms (though that is a disgrace to human nature) have this advantage that they come simply, that if the people suffer, they know from whose mind their misery springs; They were at a loss as to why and how to relieve their suffering.But the English constitution is so complicated that the people of the country may suffer for years without ever discovering which side of the fault it is;I know that it is difficult to overcome regional or long-standing prejudices, but if we patiently examine the constituent parts of the British constitution, we shall see that they are two ancient tyranny mixed with some new republican elements. dirty remnants.

First, the remnants of the tyranny of the monarchy embodied by the king. Second, the remnants of the aristocratic tyranny embodied by the House of Lords. Thirdly, the elements of the new republic embodied by the House of Commons; and the English Liberty is based on the efficiency of the House of Commons. The first two are hereditary and have nothing to do with the people; therefore, legally speaking, they contribute nothing to the liberty of the state. It would be absurd to say that the British political system is a combination of three forces, which check each other; this statement is either meaningless or outright contradictory.

The so-called House of Commons is a check on the king, which contains two meanings. First, that a king cannot be trusted without supervision; or, in other words, that the desire to maintain an absolute power is an inherent vice of monarchy. Secondly, the members of the House of Commons appointed for this purpose are either wiser or more trustworthy than the King. The same constitution, however, first empowers the House of Commons to check the King by disapproving the state budget, and then checks the House of Commons by empowering him to veto other bills of the House of Commons; It also implies that the king is wiser than those whom it already considers wiser than the king.What absurdity!

There is something terribly ridiculous in the monarchical system; which first deprives a man of extensive knowledge, and yet empowers him to solve problems which require very wise judgment.The status of the king made him ignorant of the world, but the office of the king required him to know everything; and thus these two different aspects, in their unreasonable mutual hostility and destruction, proved the whole figure to be absurd and useless. Some writers have interpreted the English constitution in this way: They say that the king is on the one hand, and the people on the other; that, even if the articles are beautifully done, they appear groundless and ambiguous on close inspection; An impossible thing, or a kind of thing so incomprehensible that it cannot be described, is only a bunch of loud words, which are beautiful but lack the content of thought.The reason for this is that this explanation involves a preliminary question, that is, since the king relies on power that the people dare not trust and often has to be checked, how can this king come into being?Such a power can never be given by wise people, nor can any power to be checked be derived from God; yet the terms of the Constitution require such a power to exist.

The text of the Constitution does not do what it ought to do; the means cannot and will not achieve the end, and the whole thing amounts to a kind of "suicide": for, since heavier weights will always weigh smaller things, since All the wheels of a machine are moved by a wheel, and what we still need to know is which power is most important in the constitution, because that power will predominate: although other powers, or parts of them, The speed of its movement may be hindered, or so-called, checked, but as long as they cannot stop it, their efforts are always in vain: the first motive power will eventually have its own way, and what it lacks in speed, it can make up for in time. .

It is needless to say that the King is this overwhelming part of the English constitution, and that he acquires all his power only by virtue of the rank and allowances bestowed upon him; and therefore, though we So clever that we locked the door of an absolute monarchy, but we were also so stupid that we let the king hold the key. The British support their own government, ruled by the King, the House of Lords, and the House of Commons, with a prejudice half reason, half national pride, or even more of the latter.Individuals are undoubtedly safer in England than in other countries: but the will of the king is as much the law of the state in England as in France, with the difference that the will of the king of England is not expressed directly from his mouth, but It is handed over to the people in the terrible form of an Act of Parliament.For the fate of Charles I made kings more cunning, not more righteous. Hence, leaving aside all national pride and prejudice in favor of form and structure, the plain truth is that it is the quality of the people, not the constitution of the government, that makes the king of England less tyrannical than the king of Turkey. A discussion of the institutional errors of the English form of government is at present very necessary; and we can never do justice while we are still under the influence of a prominent partiality, just as when So long as we are bound by any stubborn prejudice, we cannot judge fairly of ourselves.Just as a man in love with a whore is unworthy of choosing or judging his wife, so any prejudice in favor of a rotten regime will keep us from recognizing a good one.