Chapter 16 Chapter Three Concerning the Old and New Systems of the Old Government

Nothing is more contradictory than the principles upon which the old government was founded, and the conditions which society, civilization, and commerce have brought to mankind.Governments in the old system stole power to enhance their status; governments in the new system exercise power on behalf of the common good of society.The former is supported by maintaining a system of war; the latter promotes peace as a means of enriching the country and its people.One kind of government incites national prejudice, and the other promotes a society of great harmony for universal commerce.One measures its prosperity by the amount of tax it receives; the other proves its superiority by the small amount of tax it requires.

Mr. Burke spoke of Whigs old and new.If he can entertain himself with childish names and titles, I don't intend to disappoint him.I am not talking to him in this chapter but to Elder Sieyès.I have engaged Monsieur Sieyès to discuss the question of monarchical government; and as this subject naturally arises when comparing the old and the new, I would like to take this opportunity of presenting my views to him.I have occasionally referred to Mr. Burke in my essays.Although it may be shown that the form of government which is now called "new" is in principle the oldest of all that ever existed, since it was founded on natural rights of These rights have been suspended for so many centuries that it is better to call it "new" for the sake of distinction than to call it old because of the claim of recognition.

The main difference between the two systems is that what is now called the old system is hereditary, whether wholly or partly hereditary, while the new system is purely representative.It excludes all hereditary government: First, because hereditary government is imposed on mankind; and second, because it is unfit for the purpose for which it must be established. As far as the first of these two articles is concerned--it cannot be shown by what power a hereditary government can be instituted; nor is there a right within the sphere of human power to establish it.As regards individual rights, no man has the right to determine the fate of his posterity, and therefore no single person or group of men has or can have the right to establish hereditary government.We have no right now to deprive ourselves of those rights which will be ours in the future, even if we ourselves rise from the dead and are not inherited by posterity.So, why can we deprive others of these rights?

All hereditary government is by its very nature tyranny.A hereditary crown, a hereditary throne, and such fanciful titles mean nothing more than the idea that man is hereditary property.To inherit a government is to inherit the people like herds of cattle and sheep. ①As to the second article, namely, that it is not fit for the purpose for which government must be established, we need only consider what government is in nature, and compare it with the situation of hereditary succession. Governments should always be in a state of full maturity.Its structure should rise above all accidents to which individuals are subject; and hereditary succession, being subject to all accidents, is the most irregular and imperfect of all systems of government.

We hear the rights of man called equalization; but the only institution to which the term is really applied is hereditary monarchy.It's an intellectually leveled system.It puts all kinds of people in power without distinction.No matter good or bad, wise or stupid, in a word, no matter good or bad, they are all treated equally.Kings succeed to the throne not as rational beings, but as beasts.This does not indicate that they have any intellectual or moral qualities.If the government itself is founded upon such a base system of leveling, what wonder should we wonder at the base state of mind of men in monarchies?No Such Government ① This paragraph was the first of eight quoted by the Attorney General in his indictment against Thomas Paine; therefore, it was omitted for the cheap edition of Simmons, which was published in the same year. ——Original Editor

There is fixity.One way today, another way tomorrow.It varies with, and is entirely subject to, the vagaries of each heir's temperament.It is ruled by impulse and accident.It appears in front of people with characteristics of childishness, oldness, and stupor; it is a thing that needs to be suckled, led, or walked with a cane.It turns the living order of nature upside down.It often asks young children to replace adults, and regards the whims of infantile children as wisdom and experience.In a word, we can never imagine a more absurd image of government than that which hereditary succession in every respect presents.

Objections to hereditary succession would be removed if there were a proclamation from nature, or a decree from heaven, that virtue and wisdom belonged only to hereditary inheritance, and this decree or decree could be made known to mortals; but when we To see the negative and mocking attitude of nature to hereditary appearance; to see that in all countries the heirs are below average intellect; , and some have all three, it is impossible to place trust in this system, if people's reason is still functioning. I need not teach this opinion to the Elder Sieyès; for he has already expressed his opinion on it, and saves me the trouble.He said, "If I were asked what opinion I have on hereditary rights, I would at once answer that, on the right theory, the devolution of any power or office by heredity is absolutely incompatible with the laws of true representation. In this sense, Hereditary system is nothing more than an anvil to principle and a ravage to society."

He went on, "But let us look at the history of all the monarchies and duchies elected by election: is there not one of them in which the method of election is not worse than hereditary succession?" In debating whether hereditary or elective monarchy is worse, it must be admitted that both are bad: on this we both agree.The elder favors exactly what he condemns.It is impermissible to use such a method of reasoning on such a matter, for to do so would be to blame Heaven, as if, as far as the government were concerned, God only allowed people to choose between two evils, and to face the worst of the two. It is also admitted to be "an anvil to principle and a ravage to society".

Leaving aside for a moment all the evils and mischiefs which monarchy has wrought in the world, nothing can prove its uselessness so much as that of civil government which has been reduced to a hereditary form.Can a position requiring wisdom and talent be hereditary?And any position, whatever it may be, which does not require intelligence and talent, is superfluous or insignificant. Hereditary succession is a satire on monarchy.It makes monarchy into a position that any child or idiot can hold, and makes monarchy nothing more ludicrous.To be an ordinary craftsman also needs to have some skills; but to be a king, you only need to have the appearance of a person, a wooden man who can breathe.This superstition may persist for a few more years, but it cannot long resist the reason and interests of the awakened people.

As for Mr. Burke, he is a staunch monarchist, not quite a pensioner (if he were, and I believe he is), but a politician.He looked down on the people, and the people looked down on him in turn.He sees the people as a bunch of ignorants, who must be ruled by liars, puppets, and clowns; and the image of an idol as a prince is no different to him from the image of a man as a prince.I will, however, do justice to Mr. Burke, who has always been very appreciative of America. He has often argued (at least I have heard it with my own ears) that the Americans are more enlightened than the British, or any other country in Europe, and that deception is unnecessary in their government.

Though the presbytery's comparison between hereditary and elective monarchy is unnecessary, since ceremonial rites exclude both; but if I were to make the comparison, I should draw the opposite conclusion. Civil wars arising out of contests for hereditary thrones have been far more frequent, more terrible, and of longer duration than those arising out of elections.The successive civil wars in France were caused by hereditary system; these wars were caused either by competing for the hereditary right of the throne, or because of the imperfect hereditary method, that is, the recognition of regency or sonship.Take England, whose history is full of similar disasters.The war between the Houses of York and House Lancaster for the throne lasted a full century; other wars of the same nature have been repeated since then. The wars of 1715 and 1745 fall into this category.The war for the succession to the Spanish throne swept almost half of Europe.The previous riots in the Netherlands were also caused by the hereditary system of governors.A government that professes liberty and adopts hereditary offices is like a thorn in the flesh, which cannot rest until the pus is squeezed out. But I could go a step further and attribute all foreign wars, whatever they may be, to the same source.Permanent royal interests were established by imposing evil hereditary succession upon evil monarchy, always aimed at dominion and taxation.Although Poland is a monarchy with an elected king, it has seen fewer wars than those with hereditary crowns; and its government is the only one that has voluntarily tried, albeit to a limited extent, to improve the state of the country. Having briefly touched on the few defects of the old or hereditary government, let us compare it with the new or representative government. Representation is based on society and civilization; it is guided by nature, reason and experience. The experience of all ages and nations has proved the impossibility of controlling nature's distribution of intelligence.Nature endows man with intelligence at will.The law by which she spreads wisdom to the human world is still a secret to human beings. It is also absurd to try to fix the beauty and wisdom of human beings with hereditary techniques.However constituted wisdom is, it is like a bunch of plants without seed; if it grows, it can be cultivated, but it cannot be produced at will.In the general mass of society there has always been enough wisdom for all purposes; but in every part of society wisdom is constantly changing places.It manifests itself in one person today, in another tomorrow, and is likely to come to every family on earth in turn, and then fade away again. Since nature has arranged it in this way, the government must also proceed in this way, otherwise, the government will degenerate into ignorance, as we have seen.Hereditary system is, therefore, as contradictory to human wisdom as it is to human rights; both absurd and unjust. Just as the literary world must give talented writers fair and universal opportunities if it wants to produce the best literary and artistic works, so the representative system of government must try its best to recruit talents if it wants to make the most sensible laws.I cannot help laughing when I think of the absurdity and insignificance with which literature and all sciences would become if they were also hereditary; and I think the same of governments.A hereditary governor is as incompetent as a hereditary writer.I do not know whether Homer and Euclid had sons: but I venture to say that, supposing they had sons, and left unfinished works, their sons would not have been able to complete them. Need a stronger instance of the absurdity of hereditary government, when we see the descendants of men who have been famous in all walks of life?Are there too few examples of descendants with diametrically opposite virtues and talents?It was as if the tide of intelligence had flowed as far as it could into some channels, and then abandoned its original course to flood others.How unreasonable is the hereditary system to build channels of power, but the water of wisdom is unwilling to flow there!Let this absurdity go on, and man will forever be contradicting himself; he can regard a man as a king, a head of state, or a judge, and in fact he would not even choose him as a policeman. According to general observation, it seems that revolution can create all kinds of talents; but in fact it only promotes talents.A great deal of consciousness in man's head lies dormant, and in this state goes with him to his grave unless something sets him into motion.Since it is good for society to bring out all the talents of society, the government should calmly and regularly employ those talents which are sure to emerge in the revolution. This is impossible in the dead state of hereditary government, not only because hereditary government does not want talents, but also tries to make them insensitive.When the mind of a nation is overwhelmed by political superstitions about its government, such as hereditary succession, it loses a considerable portion of its power over all other subjects and objects.Hereditary inheritance demands obedience to ignorance as to wisdom, and as soon as the mind makes itself manifest this indiscriminate respect, it sinks below the level of adult intelligence.It's only great in the little things.It betrays itself and kills the feeling of encouragement to know the truth. While the governments of antiquity present before us a sad picture of the human condition, there is one government that stands out.I mean the Athenian democracy.In that great and great nation, there are many places worthy of praise and few places that should be condemned. This is unprecedented in history throughout the ages. Mr. Burke knows so little of the constitutional principles of government that he confounds democracy with representation.The ancient democracies had no idea what representation was.In this type of democracy, the majority gathers to make laws (grammatically speaking) in the first person.Simple democracies are but the public halls of the ancients.It not only embodies the principle of public ownership of the government, but also reflects the form of the government. When these democracies increased in population and territory, this simple form of democracy became inoperable; and, ignorant of representation, they either suddenly degenerated into monarchies, or were annexed by such monarchies as existed at the time.Had representation been as well known then as it is today, there is no reason to think that what is now called monarchy or aristocracy would have broken through.It is only the fact that society has become too populous and too large for a simple form of democracy, and lack of means of uniting its parts, combined with the fact that herders in other parts of the world are scattered and solitary, have made those unnatural The government system has an opportunity to take advantage of. As it is necessary to clear up all kinds of false statements on the subject of government, I will comment further on some of the other arguments. It was the usual policy of courtiers and court governments to insult what they called a republic; but what a republic was they never bothered to say.Now, let us examine this a little bit. Democracy, aristocracy, monarchy, and what is now called representation, are the only systems of government. The so-called republic is not some special system of government.It fully embodies the aims, reasons and aims by which government should be established and exercised: res-publica means public affairs or public interest; or can be literally translated as public affairs.The original sense of the word is good, referring to the proper nature and duties of government; and in this sense it is naturally opposed to the word monarchy.The original meaning of monarchy is very bad, referring to the power of a person who, when exercising this power, targets himself and not the public. No government is good if it does not operate on the principles of the republic, or, in other words, does not have the public good as its sole end.A republican government is a government established and working for the public good of individuals and collectives.It need not be associated with any particular form, but it is naturally associated with that of representation, since it is best suited to the ends for which the nation pays a price to support. Various forms of government have always called themselves republics.Poland calls itself a republic, but is actually a hereditary aristocracy, with an elected king.The Netherlands, which also calls itself a republic, is actually mostly aristocratic, with hereditary governors.The only true republic in existence, in character and practice, is the American government, wholly based on representation.Its government is for the sole purpose of conducting the public affairs of the country, and therefore it is a true republic; and the Americans, having noticed that their government should always be one purpose and not another, have resisted everything hereditary, and have made government merely based on representation. Those who say that the republic is not a form of government suitable for large states, first of all mistook the functions of government for the form of government;Secondly, if they refer to the system, they refer to a system of government like the ancient democracy, that is, a simple form of democracy, which is not representative.The problem, therefore, is not that the republic cannot be extended in scope, but that it cannot be extended on the basis of simple democratic forms; After that, what is the management of this res-publlca.Or the best system of government for public affairs of the country? This form of government cannot be a monarchy, for monarchy is as much opposed as simple democracy is. It may be possible, perhaps, for an individual to lay down a set of principles by which any nation, however large, may form its government.This is nothing more than the result of using one's brains according to one's ability.But the putting into practice of those principles to the multitude of conditions in a country, as agriculture, manufactures, handicrafts, commerce, etc., requires another kind of knowledge which can only be obtained from the various parts of society. obtain. This is a synthesis of factual knowledge, not the sole possession of the individual; and therefore, in practice, monarchy is as much limited by want of knowledge as democracy is by the increase of population.The one was brought to confusion by its dominions; the other to ignorance, as is evident from all great monarchies.Therefore, monarchy is not a substitute for democracy as it is equally inappropriate. Even less so once the monarchy becomes hereditary.Because hereditary system is the most effective form of eliminating knowledge.A highly democratic mind will not submit to the domination of children and idiots and all kinds of base characters, who take part in such a utterly brutish system, which is a shame to reason and humanity. As for the aristocracy, it has the same evils and disadvantages as the monarchy, except that in terms of employing talents, there are more opportunities in terms of the proportion of the number of people, but there is still no guarantee for the rational use of talents. ① The comparison of monarchy and aristocracy with primitive simple democracies furnishes a real argument for the large-scale origination of government.Simple democracy cannot be enlarged, not because of its principles, but because of its unfavorable form: and monarchy and aristocracy because of impotence.Retaining, then, the basis of democracy, while rejecting the corrupt monarchy and aristocracy, a representative system arises, and at once compensates for the formal defects of simple democracy and the intellectual incapacity of the other two systems. A simple democracy is one in which society governs itself without aid.By combining representation with democracy, one obtains a system of government capable of accommodating and uniting all different interests, and of territories of different sizes and populations; Like hereditary literature. The U.S. government is built on this system.It combines representation with democracy. It fixes the form by a measure which is in all cases proportionate to the weight of the principle.What the Athenians did on a small scale, America will do on a large scale.One is the miracle of ancient society; the other is becoming the goal and model of everyone's admiration in modern society.It is the most intelligible and most suitable of all forms of government, and immediately sweeps away the ignorance and instability of hereditary system, and the disadvantages of simple democracy. It is impossible to devise a system of government like the representative system which, once introduced, is immediately effective over such a vast territory and circle of interests.France, in spite of its size and population, is but a mere speck in this vast system.Even in countries with limited territory ① Regarding the characteristics of aristocracy, readers can refer to page 62 of the first part (that is, page 169 of this Chinese version. - Translator ). --author In the home, a representative system is also preferable to a simple democracy.If Athens adopts a representative system, it will be better than the original democracy. That which is called government, or rather that which ought to be government, is but a center by which all the parts of society are united.This can be accomplished in no other way than by a system of representation which advances the interests of society.Representation centralizes the knowledge necessary for the good of all parts of society and of the whole. It keeps the government in a state of maturity.As has been seen, it is never young and never old.It is neither ignorant nor senile.It was never in a cradle and never on crutches.It does not separate knowledge and power, and, as government should be, frees itself from all personal contingencies, and is therefore superior to so-called monarchies. A state is not a subject whose image can be represented by a human body, but like a subject contained in a circle, having a common center where all the radii meet; this center is formed by representation.Combine representation with what is called a monarchy, and you get nondescript government. Representativeism itself is the delegated monarchy of a country, which cannot demean itself by sharing power with others. Two or three times, in his Parliamentary speeches and writings, Mr. Burke has used some melodious and meaningless words.Speaking of government, he says: "It is better to have a monarchy as its foundation and a republic as its remedy than a republic as its foundation and a monarchy as its remedy." It is better to correct ignorance than ignorance to correct wisdom, and instead of arguing with him, I just wanted to say to him that it would be much better to sweep away all ignorance. But what exactly is this monarchy which Mr. Burke calls?Can he come and explain? All men can understand what representation is, and that it must incorporate organizations and talents; but what guarantee of these virtues does monarchy have?Or where is wisdom when the prince is a child?What does he know about government?Who is the monarch at this time, or where is there any monarchy?It would be ridiculous for the monarch to rely on the regent to do it for him.The regency is a false republic, and the whole monarchy is not worth mentioning.It is a strange and unimaginable thing. It doesn't have the kind of stability that government should have at all.Every succession is a revolution, every regency a counter-revolution.The whole monarchy is a picture of constant court intrigue, Mr. Burke himself being an example.For the monarchy to be fit for government, the next heir should not be born a child, but immediately a man, and a Solomon moreover.It is absurd to ask the country to wait until the children are grown up, and to interrupt the government. Whether I have seen too little or know too much to be easily deceived; whether I am too proud or too humble, or for any other reason, does not matter; but it is certain that the so-called monarchy seems to me After all, it is despicable and stupid.I liken it to something that hides behind a curtain, with all the noise and bustle around it, but which is solemn on the outside, but if the curtain is opened by chance and everyone sees it for what it is, they will laugh out loud. In representative government such a thing is impossible.Representation, like the nation itself, is as inexhaustible in power, both in body and mind, and presents itself on the world stage with integrity and majesty.No matter what the advantages and disadvantages are, they are all clear at a glance.It does not live by deceit and mystery, nor by rhetoric and sophistry; but it imbues an open and honest language which is intelligible and deeply moving. We must close our eyes and ignore reason, we must despicably lower our understanding in order not to see the folly of the so-called monarchy.Everything in nature is in order, but the monarchy, a form of government, is against nature.It turns the development of human intelligence upside down.It puts the elders under the rule of the young, and the wise under the fools. On the contrary, the representative system is always in harmony with the order and laws of nature, and is in every way compatible with human reason.For example: In the United States federal government, more powers are vested in the President of the United States than in any other member of Congress.Therefore, no one under the age of thirty-five can be elected president.A man has reached this age when his judgment has matured, he has a full understanding of people and things, and the state has learned something about him.But under the monarchy (except for all the flukes in which each person is born in a lottery for human intelligence), the next heir, whoever he is, can become head of state or government as soon as he turns eighteen. . Is this a wise move?Is this compatible with the natural dignity and manliness of the nation's citizens?Is such a child worthy to be called the father of the nation?In any case, a person does not come of age until the age of twenty-one.Before that, he couldn't be asked to manage an acre of land, or a herd of sheep or a litter of pigs left by his ancestors; No matter how you look at it, the monarchy is obviously (at least to me personally) a total hoax, nothing more than a court trick to get money.On the basis of sound representative government it is impossible to bill such enormous sums as the fraud of the monarchy allows.Government itself is not an expensive institution.As I have already said, the federal government of the United States, based on a representative system, has a land area nearly ten times larger than that of Great Britain, and its total expenditure does not exceed $600,000, which is equal to 135,000 pounds. I do not think any sane person would compare the virtues of the kings of Europe with those of General Washington.In France, however, as in England, royal expenses alone are eight times greater than the entire federal government of the United States to support a single person.It is almost impossible to find a reason for this situation.Most Americans, especially the poor, can afford to pay taxes more than most French or British. The reality, however, is that the representative system sweeps away ignorance and deceit by disseminating a great deal of knowledge about the problems of government throughout the country.On this basis, the palace's ghost domain tricks cannot be used.There are no secrets here; no secrets can arise.Those who are not represented know the nature of the matter as well as those who are represented.Deliberately showing off mysteries will be ridiculed.The state can have no secrets, and court secrets, like personal secrets, are always their disadvantage. Under the representative system, no matter what you do, you must explain the truth to the public.Everyone is a manager of the government and regards it as his job to know the situation of the government.It's in his interest because what the government does affects his property.He examines the government's expenses, compares their pros and cons; and above all, he never adopts the servile style of blindly following what other governments call "leaders." Only by blocking people's understanding and making them believe that the government is great and incredible can they grab excess taxes.The monarchy has calculated in every possible way to reach this day.It's the papacy of government, a way of teasing fools into paying their taxes. Strictly speaking, the government of a free country consists not in men, but in laws.Laws need not be enacted at great expense; when they are enforced, the whole civil government is accomplished—everything else is the artifice of the court.