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！
hich are not possible without civilization itself。 Some philosophers suppose men have invented language； forgetting that it requires language to give the ability to invent language。
Men are little moved by mere reasoning； however clear and convincing it may be。 They are moved by their affections； passions； instincts； and habits。 Routine is more powerful with them than logic。 A few are greedy of novelties； and are always for trying experiments； 55 but the great body of the people of all nations have an invincible repugnance to abandon what they know for what they know not。 They are； to a great extent； the slaves of their own vis inertiae； and will not make the necessary exertion to change their existing mode of life； even for a better。 Interest itself is powerless before their indolence； prejudice； habits； and usages。 Never were philosophers more ignorant of human nature than they； so numerous in the last century； who imagined that men can be always moved by a sense of interest； and that enlightened self…interest； L'interet bien entendu； suffices to found and sustain the state。 No reform； no change in the constitution of government or of society； whatever the advantages it may promise； can be successful； if introduced； unless it has its root or germ in the past。 Man is never a creator； he can only develop and continue； because he is himself a creature； and only a second cause。 The children of Israel； when they encountered the privations of the wilderness that lay between them and the promised land flowing with milk and honey； fainted in spirit； and begged Moses to lead them back to Egypt； and permit them to return to slavery。
In the alleged state of nature； as the philosophers describe it； there is no germ of civ… 56 ilization； and the transition to civil society would not be a development； but a complete rupture with the past； and an entire new creation。 When it is with the greatest difficulty that necessary reforms are introduced in old and highly civilized nations and when it can seldom be done at all without terrible political and social convulsions； how can we suppose men without society； and knowing nothing of it； can deliberately； and； as it were； with 〃malice aforethought；〃 found society？ Without government； and destitute alike of habits of obedience and habits of command； how can they initiate； establish； and sustain government？ To suppose it； would be to suppose that men in a state of nature； without culture； without science； without any of the arts； even the most simple and necessary； are infinitely superior to the men formed under the most advanced civilization。 Was Rousseau right in asserting civilization as a fall； as a deterioration of the race？
But suppose the state of nature； even suppose that men； by some miracle or other； can get out of it and found civil society； the origin of government as authority in compact is not yet established。 According to the theory； the rights of civil society are derived from the rights of the individuals who form or enter into 57 the compact。 But individuals cannot give what they have not； and no individual has in himself the right to govern another。 By the law of nature all men have equal rights； are equals； and equals have no authority one over another。 Nor has an individual the sovereign right even to himself； or the right to dispose of himself as he pleases。 Man is not God； independent； self…existing and self…sufficing。 He is dependent； and dependent not only on his Maker； but on his fellow…men； on society； and even on nature； or the material world。 That on which he depends in the measure in which be depends on it； contributes to his existence； to his life； and to his well…being； and has； by virtue of its contribution； a right in him and to him； and hence it is that nothing is more painful to the proud spirit than to receive a favor that lays him under an obligation to another。 The right of that on which man depends； and by communion with which he lives； limits his own right over himself。
Man does not depend exclusively on society； for it is not his only medium of communion with God； and therefore its right to him is neither absolute nor unlimited； but still be depends on it； lives in it； and cannot live without it。 It has； then； certain lights over him； and 58 he cannot enter into any compact； league； or alliance that society does not authorize； or at least permit。 These rights of society override his rights to himself； and he can neither surrender them nor delegate them。 Other rights； as the rights of religion and property； which are held directly from God and nature； and which are independent of society； are included in what are called the natural rights of man； and these rights cannot be surrendered in forming civil society； for they are rights of man only before civil society； and therefore not his to cede； and because they are precisely the rights that government is bound to respect and protect。 The compact； then； cannot be formed as pretended； for the only rights individuals could delegate or surrender to society to constitute the sum of the rights of government are hers already； and those which are not hers are those which cannot be delegated or surrendered； and in the free and full enjoyment of which； it is the duty； the chief end of government to protect each and every individual。
The convention not only is not a fact； but individuals have no authority without society； to meet in convention； and enter into the alleged compact； because they are not independent； sovereign individuals。 But pass over this： sup… 59 pose the convention； suppose the compact； it must still be conceded that it binds and can bind only those who voluntarily and deliberately enter into it。 This is conceded by Mr。 Jefferson and the American Congress of l776； in the assertion that government derives its 〃just powers from the consent of the governed。〃 This consent； as the matter is one of life and death； must be free； deliberate； formal； explicit； not simply an assumed； implied； or constructive consent。 It must be given personally； and not by one for another without his express authority。
It is usual to infer the consent or the acceptance of the terms of the compact from the silence of the individual； and also from his continued residence in the country and submission to its government。 But residence is no evidence of consent； because it may be a matter of necessity。 The individual may be unable to emigrate； if he would； and by what right can individuals form an agreement to which I must consent or else migrate to some strange land？
Can my consent； under such circumstances； even if given； be any thing but a forced consent； a consent given under duress； and therefore invalid？ Nothing can be inferred from one's silence； for he may have many reasons for being 60 silent besides approval of the government。 He may be silent because speech would avail nothing； because to protest might be dangerouscost him his liberty； if not his life； because he sees and knows nothing better； and is ignorant that he has any choice in the case； or because； as very likely is the fact with the majority； he has never for moment thought of the matter； or ever had his attention called to it； and has no mind on the subject。
But however this may be； there certainly must be excluded from the compact or obligation to obey the government created by it all the women of a nation； all the children too young to be capable of giving their consent； and all who are too ignorant； too weak of mind to be able to understand the terms of the contract。 These several classes cannot be less than three…fourths of the population of any country。 What is to be done with them？ Leave them without government？ Extend the power of the government over them？ By what right？ Government derives its just powers from the consent of the governed； and that consent they have not given。 Whence does one…fourth of the population get its right to govern the other three…fourths？
But what is to be done with the rights of 61 minorities？ Is the rule of unanimity to be insisted on in the convention and in the government； when it goes into operation？ Unanimity is impracticable； for where there are many men there will be differences of opinion。 The rule of unanimity gives to each individual a veto on the whole proceeding； which was the grand defect of the Polish constitution。 Each member of the Polish Diet； which included the whole body of the nobility； had an absolute veto； and could； alone； arrest the whole action of the government。 Will you substitute the rule of the majority； and say the majority must govern？ By what right？ It is agreed to in the convention。 Unanimously； or only by a majority？ The right of the majority to have their will is； on the social compact theory； a conventional right； and therefore cannot come into play before the convention is completed； or the social