An

Introduction
to
Political
Philosophy
Hubert Lerch
An
Introduction
to
Political
Philosophy
Copyright Hubert Lerch 2011
www.HubertLerch.com
All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyrights
reserved above no part o! this publication may be reproduced stored
in or introduced into a retrieval system or transmitted in any !orm or by
any means "electronic mechanical photocopying recording or
otherwise# without the prior written permission o! the copyright owner.
$irst published 200%
$ormatted using Libre&!!ice
'rinted and bound by createspace.com
()*+,1-. /0%,112%03202%
()*+,10. 112%03202/
$or Lina
Table of Contents
Chapter Topic Page
're!ace 1
(ntroduction 'olitics. what it is and what it is not -
4lements o! a 5heory o! 'olitics 3
1 What is 6ustice7 0
2 What is Law +atural and Civil7 12
- What is 'roperty7 23
1 What is (nterest7 --
3 What is &bedience7 -/
2 What is )ecurity7 30
0 What is Collective *elie!7 3%
% What is Happiness7 23
/ What is Contract 'rivate and )ocial7 00
10 What is &rder7 0/
Appendix: Source Texts
Source Text Page
1 A 'lato. 5he 8epublic *oo9 (( -3%e,-20e /-
1 * :avid Hume. A 5reatise o! Human +ature. *oo9
(((. &! ;orals. 'art ((. &! 6ustice and (n<ustice. ((. &!
the &rigin o! 6ustice and 'roperty
102
1 C Anthony de 6asay. )ocial 6ustice 4=amined With
A Little Help $rom Adam )mith
112
2 A Cicero. &n the )tate "(((# 122
2 * +iccolo ;achiavelli. 5he 'rince. Chapter >>?(.
How 'rinces )hould Honour 5heir Word
120
2 C 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter >>?(. &!
Civil Laws
1-0
2 : *aron de ;ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (.
&! Laws in Aeneral
110
- A Aristotle. 8hetoric. *oo9 (. Chapter ? 13-
- * Aristotle. 5he 'olitics. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?. 5he
&wnership o! 'roperty
131
- C 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment.
Chapter ?. &! 'roperty
13/
- : Hans,Hermann Hoppe. 5he 4thics and 4conomics
o! 'rivate 'roperty. ( 5he 'roblem o! )ocial &rder.
(( 5he )olution. 'rivate 'roperty and &riginal
Appropriation
102
1 A 6ean,*aptiste )ay. 5reatise on 'olitical 4conomy.
*oo9 ((( Chapter ?(. &n 'ublic Consumption
10%
1 * $rBdBric *astiat. 5hat Which is )een and 5hat
Which is +ot )een. (. 5he *ro9en Window
1%2
1 C Carl ;ar=. 5he Aerman (deology. 'art (.
$euerbach. &pposition o! the ;aterialist and
(dealist &utloo9. :. 'roletarians and Communism
1%/
Source Text Page
1 : $riedrich +ietDsche. Human. All 5oo Human. A
*oo9 !or $ree )pirits. ?(((. A Alance at the
)tate. 10- 101
20-
3 A 'lato. Crito 203
3 * Etienne de la *oBtie. :iscourse on ?oluntary
)lavery
213
3 C 6ohn Loc9e. )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment.
Chapter >(>. &! the :issolution o! Aovernment
21%
3 : Herbert )pencer. 5he 8ight to (gnore the )tate 23%
3 4 Lysander )pooner. +o 5reason. 5he
Constitution o! +o Authority
200
2 A 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. &! ;an. 'art (.
Chapter >(((. &! the +aturall Condition o!
;an9ind as concerning their $elicity and
;isery
2%-
2 * Austave de ;olinari. 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity 2%%
2 C Hans,Hermann Hoppe. Aovernment and the
'rivate 'roduction o! :e!ense (,(((. $rom. 5he
;yth o! +ational :e!ense
-02
0 A 5hucydides. 'ericlesF $uneral &ration -13
0 * 6ohann Aottlieb $ichte. Addresses to the
Aerman +ation. 1-th Address
-21
0 C Aiuseppe ;aDDini. An 4ssay on the :uties o!
;an Addressed to Wor9ingmen Chapter ? ,
:uties 5owards Gour Country
-11
0 : 5heodor HerDl. 5he 6ewish )tate (ntroduction -12
Source Text Page
% A Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art >((( -33
% * Adam $erguson. An 4ssay on the History o!
Civil )ociety. )ections (> >. &! +ational $elicity
-3%
% C 6eremy *entham. (ntroduction to the 'rinciples
o! ;orals and Legislation. Chapter 1. &! the
'rinciple o! Htility
-0-
/ A 5homas Hobbes. :e Cive. Chapters ( "&! the
)tate o! ;en without Civill )ociety# and ? "&!
the Causes and $irst *egining o! Civill
Aovernment#
-02
/ * 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Civil
Aovernment. Chapter ?(((. &! the *eginning o!
'olitical )ocieties
-/0
/ C 6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau. )ocial Contract. 2.
5he )ocial Compact
101
/ : :avid Hume. &! the &riginal Contract 102
10 A Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art ?((( 12-
10 * (mmanuel Cant. 5he +atural 'rinciple o! the
'olitical &rder
123
10 C Aeorg Wilhelm $riedrich Hegel 'hilosophy o!
8ight. 5he )tate. II 230 23%
110
10 : ;urray 8othbard. 5he Anatomy o! the )tate 11%
Preface
If you wish to converse with me define your terms. (! we ma9e ?oltaireFs
motto ours we must !irst !ind answers to the !ollowing three 9ey
@uestions.
What is political7
What is the ob<ective o! political philosophy7
Where are the limits o! political philosophy7
5o initiate the debate ( de!ine my terms as !ollows.
'olitical philosophy delimitates the public sphere in contrast to
the private sphere.
'olitical philosophy discusses the unique !eatures o! the
political sphere.
'olitical philosophy shows the implications of choices made
whether these choices are desirable or not.
5his boo9 is a reader admittedly an anachronism at a time when brains
are conditioned to visually rein!orced images rather than trained to
!reely play with ideas. (t demonstrates however that intellectual
training can be en<oyable and insight!ul. $or that reason its threshold
has been 9ept as low as possible without sacri!icing depth by 9eeping
te=ts and e=planations short.
Although the source te=ts are ta9en !rom a timespan o! almost three
millenniums their content is remar9ably !resh. 5hey show that the
intellectual cul,de,sac in which we !ind ourselves today has more to do
with the nature o! the modern state than with the diversity o! available
ideas. (t goes without saying that in an age o! mediation the study o!
source te=ts is more important than ever.
'olitical science has become apologetic J and there!ore shallow and
boring. +ow the time seems ripe to revitaliDe political science and ma9e
it again what it once was. analytical and critical. As such it should be
open in both directions. vertically in the sense that it discusses stages
o! political control on a scale !rom Dero "no state# to one hundred "all
state#K horiDontally in the sense that it de!ines identi!ies analyDes and
compares various political systems. 5he criteria chosen !or this
purpose have been in the political debate !rom the beginningK criteria
li9e <ustice happiness or order. &thers have been addressed indirectly
1
or simply ta9en !or granted li9e property and contract.
5his boo9 addresses itsel! to undergraduate students and students o!
politics o! all ages who still have chaos in themselves to give birth to a
dancing star.
1
(t does not even try to say something new. However it is
strongly anti,collectivist. (t !ights all attempts at dehumaniDation
noticeable in the growing loss o! individual sel!,determination and the
!reedom to choose. (t also goes against the omnipresent tendency o!
deciviliDation characteriDed by an accelerated loss o! 9nowledge in
!avor o! Lcheap laughs and syrupy papM
2
.
Last but not least this boo9 prepares the reader !or a li!e o! individual
!reedom a li!e determined by a coordinate system with the three
vectors o! property <ustice and contract.
ALL sources are !reely available on the (nternet including Libre&!!ice
!or word processing and &) Cubuntu. (gnorance is no e=cuse these
days ...
( dedicate this boo9 to my daughter Lina. ;ay she learn !rom this boo9
and grow up as a responsible individual and be well prepared !or the
coming times.
5o9yo :ecember 2011
Hubert Lerch
Associate 'ro!essor
'olitical )cience
I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the
former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest
qualities of man can flourish only in free air that progress made under
the shadow of the policeman's club is false progress, and of no
permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of
another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man
who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to
become a slave. H. L. ;enc9en
1 $riedrich +ietDsche. 5hus )pa9e Narathustra
2 )teve ;oore. ? !or ?endetta p. 31
2
Politics: What It Is and What It Is Not
The efinition of Politics
'olitics comes !rom OpolisO the Aree9 word !or city state. And as
AristotleFs understanding o! man as Ozoon politikonO or political animal
seems to suggest man can only e=ist as a member o! a collective
which necessarily is political i.e. public.
8egardless o! the sel!,understanding o! the Ancients a de!inition o!
politics must set the political sphere apart !rom social action where
individual pre!erences are respected. )ocial interaction results !rom
overlapping personal pre!erences. Where personal pre!erences di!!er
social interaction does not ta9e place. Human action "OpraxisO is the
Aree9 word !or action# results !rom the free interplay o! personal
pre!erences.
Politics is decision !a"ing on behalf of a collecti#e which is
characteriDed by
Po$er
'ower is the ability o! a monopolistic agency o! coercion J
government J to impose its decisions on the governed i.e. to
change their personal pre!erences by compulsion.
%oundaries
We can distinguish between horiDontal and vertical boundaries.
Hori&ontal boundaries
$our types o! horiDontal boundaries J boundaries
between collectives J have evolved in history.
+atural boundaries li9e waterways and
mountain ridges
;an,made boundaries li9e city walls and
!orti!ications
Customary boundaries li9e language customs
traditions religion dress codes etc.
"'seudo# )cienti!ic boundaries li9e race se=
and class
-
'ertical boundaries
?ertical boundaries mar9 the gul! between government
and the governed.
istribution and (edistribution
:istribution occurs within political collectives and always !rom
the productive bottom to the unproductive top. *ecause it
cannot be but un<ust i! done involuntarily it always re@uires
legitimiDation. (n minimal states symbolism and the threatened
use o! violence su!!ice whereas in ma=imal states real or
e=pected redistribution are widely used. 4=amples are. 5a9e
money !rom the rich and give it to the poor in the name o!
e@uality solidarity national glory or what not. 5a= higher
incomes more heavily and lower incomes more lightly in the
name o! !airness e@ual opportunity or what not.
All redistributive schemes would collapse @uic9ly i! we could not
read a Obasic truthO into distribution and redistribution. Hardly
anybody though accepts redistribution to all. $or instance
members o! collective A hardly complain about redistribution
within their country J e.g. higher and higher ta=es growing
e=penditure on the unproductive elderly J but would rebel i!
their government gave the money ta=ed away !rom them to
collective * although the monies given to productive elements
o! * most li9ely are better used then money spent on
unproductive elements in A.
:istribution and redistribution rein!orce boundaries because
they ma9e the insider special.
Sy!bolis!
+ational symbols li9e !lag and anthem party symbols li9e
hammer and sic9le crescent cross or colors "e.g. red !or
socialists and communists green !or (slamists or
environmentalists# carry speci!ic messages to both insider and
outsider. 5hey allow the insider to identi!y with the collective
and signal the outsider that the cryptic message is not !or him.
)ymbols create or rein!orce boundaries without which the spell
o! power would be bro9en.
1
)le!ents of a Theory of Politics
'lato is the !ather o! political science. His integral theory o! politics was
born !rom the crisis o! Hellenic society.
)o !ar there have been !our such crises.
5he Hellenic Crisis which produced 'lato and Aristotle
5he Crisis o! 8ome and Christianity which produced )t.
Augustine
5he 12
th
Century Crisis which produced *odin
5he Western Crisis which produced Hegel
Conse@uently Oa theory o! politics ... must at the same time be a theory
o! historyO.
-
Classical efinition of Political Science
Aristotle in 5he 'olitics *oo9 (? i de!ines the purpose o! political
science as !ollows.
The Theoretical *odel
5he study o! Othe best in the abstractO "'latoFs 8epublic studies
the ideal constitution
1
#
The Practical *odel
5he study o! Othe best relatively to circumstancesO "'latoFs 5he
Laws#
The Historical *odel
5he study o! Ohow it is originally !ormed when !ormed how it
may be longest preservedO ">enophon. Constitution o! )partaK
Constitution o! Athens#
The *ini!alist *odel
5he study o! Othe !orm o! government which is best suited to
states in generalO "AristotleFs 5he 'olitics#
(ange of Political Science
(n addition to this classical de!inition o! political science we also !ind
Handboo"s !or 'oliticiansP)tatesmen "e.g. Cicero. &n :uties
or ;achiavelli. 5he 'rince#
- 4ric ?oegelin. 5he +ew )cience o! 'olitics. An (ntroduction. p. 1
1 5he Latin word OconstituereO means Lto de!ineM the Aree9 word !or constitution is OpoliteiaO
3
Apologies "e.g. HegelFs de!ense o! the 'russian state in the
'hilosophy o! Law#
Historical studies o! the rise and decline o! political collectives
"e.g. Augustine. 5he City o! Aod or ;achiavelli. 5he
:iscourses#
Nor!ati#e studies to preserve and stabiliDe political
collectives "e.g. Hobbes. Leviathan or ;ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit
o! Laws#
Analytical studies o! speci!ic political phenomena "e.g. de
5oc@ueville. :emocracy in America or von ;ises. )ocialism#
2
Chapter +: What is ,ustice-
A# 'lato. 5he 8epublic *oo9 (( -3%e,-20e
*# :avid Hume. A 5reatise o! Human +ature. *oo9 (((. &!
;orals. 'art ((. &! 6ustice and (n<ustice. ((. &! the &rigin o!
6ustice and 'roperty
C# Anthony de 6asay. )ocial 6ustice 4=amined With A Little
Help $rom Adam )mith
(n Aree9 mythology the Horae were three goddesses controlling
orderly li!e. 5hey were daughters o! Neus and 5hemis hal!,
sisters to the ;oirae. 5here were two generations o! Horae.
5he !irst generation consisted o! 5hallo Au=o and Carpo who
were the goddesses o! the seasons "the Aree9s only recogniDed
spring summer and autumn#. (n art the !irst generation were
usually portrayed as young attractive women surrounded by
colour!ul !lowers and abundant vegetation or other symbols o!
!ertility. 5hey were worshipped primarily amongst rural !armers
throughout Areece.
5he second generation comprised 4unomia :i9e and 4irene
who were law and order goddesses that maintained the stability
o! society. 5hey were worshipped primarily in the cities o!
Athens Argos and &lympia.
i"e "!"# , Aree9 !or $ustice# was the goddess o! moral <ustice.
)he ruled over human <usticeK her mother "5hemis# ruled over
divine <ustice. :i9e was born a mortal and Neus placed her on
earth to 9eep man9ind <ust. He @uic9ly learned this was
impossible and placed her ne=t to him on &lympus.
"@uoted !rom Wi9ipedia#
Augustine tells us the !ollowing anecdote in 5he City o! Aod. Ale=ander
the Areat once as9ed a captured pirate. OWhat is your idea in in!esting
the sea7O And the pirate answered. O5he same as yours in in!esting
the earthQ *ut because ( do it with a tiny cra!t (Fm called a pirate.
because you have a mighty navy youFre called an emperor.O
"Augustine. 5he City o! Aod *oo9 (? Chapter 1#
0
And Augustine concludes as !ollows.
O8emove <ustice and what are 9ingdoms but gangs o! criminals on a
large scale7 What are criminal gangs but petty 9ingdoms7 A gang is a
group o! men under the command o! a leader bound by compact o!
association in which the plunder is divided according to an agreed
convention.
(! this villainy wins so many recruits !rom the ran9s o! the demoraliDed
that it ac@uires territory establishes a base captures cities and
subdues peoples it then openly arrogates to itsel! the title o! 9ingdom
which is con!erred on it in the eyes o! the world not by the renouncing
o! aggression but by the attainment o! impunity.O "Augustine. 5he City
o! Aod *oo9 (? Chapter 1#
*ut what i! <ustice and government do not go together what i! we !ind
that all government @ua government is and must be un<ust7 5hen
AugustineFs statement that governments are Ogangs o! criminals on a
large scaleO would hold water.
5he @uestion o! <ustice has been identi!ied as crucial !rom the
beginnings o! political science "'lato dedicated his entire 8epublic to
this theme !or good reasonQ# and only a!ter the $rench 8evolution little
by little the de!inition o! <ustice has changed into its opposite "a good
e=ample is distributive L<usticeM#.
We will address L<usticeM !rom three di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent
eras.
'lato "c. 120, c. -10 *C# !ollower o! )ocrates and !ather o!
political science
:avid Hume "1011,1002# philosopher economist and
historian and prominent !igure o! the )cottish 4nlightenment
Anthony de 6asay "1/23,# philosopher and economist
Plato: The (epublic. %oo" II. /01e2/34e
'lato in this section o! 5he 8epublic discusses Othe nature and origin o!
<usticeO "-3%e#. Alaucon states the )ophistsF position that Oit is
according to nature a good thing to in!lict wrong or in<ury and a bad
thing to su!!er itO "-3%e#. *ut Othe disadvantages o! su!!ering it e=ceed
the advantages o! in!licting itO "-3%e# which calls !or a OcompactO or
convention Oto ma9e laws and mutual agreementsO"-3/a#. O5his is the
%
origin and nature o! <ustice. (t lies between what is most desirable to
su!!er wrong without being able to get redressK <ustice lies between
these two and is accepted not as being good in itsel! but as having a
relative value due to our inability to do wrongO "-3/aPb#
According to this view men practice <ustice against their will. *oth <ust
and un<ust men i! !ree would in pursuit o! their sel!,interest act
un<ustly. (t is the law which restrains them and ma9es them Orespect
each otherFs claimsO "-3/c#. He illustrates this point by telling the
legend o! Ayges "-3/c,-20bK @uoted here !rom Wi9ipedia#.
According to the legend Ayges o! Lydia was a shepherd in the
service o! Cing Candaules o! Lydia. A!ter an earth@ua9e a cave
was revealed in a mountainside where Ayges was !eeding his
!loc9. 4ntering the cave Ayges discovered that it was in !act
the tomb o! an enthroned corpse who wore a golden ring which
Ayges poc9eted.
Ayges then returned to his !ellow shepherds and began
!umbling with the ring that he now wore. Ayges discovered that
when he turned the collet o! the ring to the inside o! his hand
he became invisible to the other shepherds and they began to
marvel as i! he had vanished. He turned the ring the other way
and he reappearedK a!ter several trials he determined that the
ring was indeed very magical and gave him the power to turn
invisible at will.
Ayges then arranged to be chosen one o! the messengers who
reported to the 9ing as to the status o! the !loc9s. Arriving at the
palace Ayges used his new power o! invisibility to seduce the
@ueen and with her help he murdered the 9ing and became
9ing o! Lydia himsel!. Cing Croesus !amous !or his wealth was
AygesF descendant.
Alaucon now gives one such ring to the un<ust man and a second to
the <ust man. *ecause o! the ring J absence o! sanction J the
distinction between <ust and un<ust disappears. OAnd in all this the <ust
man would di!!er in no way !rom the un<ust but both would !ollow the
same course.O "-20c#
(n the ne=t step o! the argument Alaucon produces two ideal types the
absolutely un<ust man who Omust operate li9e a s9illed pro!essionalO
"-20e# and is Oable to avoid detection in his wrongdoingO "-21a# and
the absolutely <ust man who Omust have the worst o! reputations !or
/
wrongdoing even though he has done no wrong so that we can test his
<ustice ...O "-21c# (! we compare Owhich o! the two is the happierO
"-21d# the )ophists Oconclude ... that a better li!e is provided !or the
un<ust man than !or the <ust by both gods and menO "-22c#.
Adeimantus AlauconFs brother ne=t emphasiDes that <ustice is valued
because it brings good reputation "-2-a#. Aree9 history and legends
report o! the !ul!illed lives o! good men and the unhappy lives o! bad
men and concludes. O'eople are unanimous in hymning the worth o!
sel!,control or <ustice but thin9 they are di!!icult to practise and call !or
hard wor9 while sel!,indulgence and in<ustice are easy enough to
ac@uire and regarded as disgrace!ul only by convention.O "-21a# As
the poet Hesiod said. O4vil can men attain easily and in companies. the
road is smooth and her dwelling near. *ut the gods have decreed much
sweat be!ore a man reaches virtueO "-21d#. Without a reputation !or
<ustice to be <ust brings no advantage while to be un<ust does. "-23bPc#
5he problem o! <ustice thus only sur!aces in the presence o! the gods
or the idea o! <ustice. 5hree arguments can be brought up "-23dPe#.
What i! there are no gods7
What i! there are gods but they do not mingle into human
a!!airs7
What i! there are gods and they do care7 CanFt we in!luence
them by sacri!ice and prayer to !orgive us !or our sins7
$rom all three cases it becomes clear that we would lose Othe pro!its o!
wrongdoingO "-22a# i! we were <ust. And i! all men were <ust we would
not need a protector. "-20a#. (n conclusion O<ustice is what is good !or
someone else the interest o! the stronger party while in<ustice is what
is to oneFs own interest and advantage and pursued at the e=pense o!
the wea9er party.O "-20c# )ocrates re!utes this position o! the )ophists
in the argument that ensues.
a#id Hu!e: A Treatise of Hu!an Nature5 %oo" III: 6f
*orals5 Section II: 6f the 6rigin of ,ustice and Property
Hume in this section o! A 5reatise o! Human +ature discusses Othe
origin o! <ustice and propertyO. :i!!erent !rom all the other animals man
is characteriDed by in!irmity on the one hand and considerable needs
on the other. His in!irmities can be compensated by society. O)ociety
provides a remedy !or these three inconveniences.
10
*y the con<unction o! !orces our power is augmented.
*y the partition o! employments our ability encreases.
And by mutual succour we are less e=posFd to !ortune and
accidents.
F5is by this additional force ability and security that society becomes
advantageous.O "Hume 3-0K punctuation changed and bullets added# (n
more modern terminology. society ensures productivity division o!
labor and cooperation. 5he !irst and principal necessity !or society lies
in the Onatural appetite betwi=t the se=esO "Hume 3-%#. 5he problem o!
<ustice arises at this point. O!or the notion o! in<ury or in<ustice implies an
immorality or vice committed against some other personO "Hume 310#.
)ince every immorality is a de!ect in<ustice Omust be <udgFd o! R !rom
the ordinary course o! natureO "Hume 310#. Hume observes that Oour
strongest attention is con!inFd to ourselvesK our ne=t is e=tended to our
relations and ac@uaintanceK and Ftis only the wea9est which reaches to
strangers and indi!!erent persons.O "Hume 310# He reasons that Othis
partiality ... must not only have an in!luence on our behaviour and
conduct in society but even on our ideas o! vice and virtueO "Hume
310#. (n other words Oany remar9able transgressionO "Hume 310# by
interest is <udged immoral which shows Othat our natural uncultivated
ideas o! morality instead o! providing a remedy !or the partiality o! our
a!!ections do rather con!orm themselves to that partiality and give it an
additional !orce and in!luence.O "Hume 310#. &r in simple words. what
is good !or us cannot be wrong at least not in nature. In artifice i.e. in
society our sel!ish interest would wor9 against us. Hence society
developed a remedy in the !orm o! Oa convention enterFd into by all the
members o! the society to bestow stability on the possession o! those
e=ternal goods and leave every one in the peaceable en<oyment o!
what he may ac@uire by his !ortune and industry.O "Hume 311# Hume
assumes that all the members o! the society have the same common
interest i.e. Oto regulate their conduct by certain rulesO "Hume 311#.
6ustice and in<ustice but also property right and obligation arise !rom
this convention. OA manFs property is some ob<ect related to him. 5his
relation is not natural but moral and !ounded on <ustice. ... 5he origin
o! <ustice e=plains that o! property.O "Hume 312# 5he Oavidity ... o!
ac@uiring goods and possessions !or ourselves and our nearest !riends
is insatiable perpetual universal and directly destructive o! societyO
"Hume 31-# and Hume does not see a Opassion ... capable o!
controlling the interested a!!ection but the very a!!ection itsel! by an
11
alteration o! its directionO "Hume 311#. Hume identi!ies two principal
parts in human nature Owhich are re@uisite in all its actions the
a!!ections and understandingO "Hume 311#. 5hey cooperate to produce
the social te=ture beyond the !ictitious state o! nature OdescribFd as !ull
o! war violence and in<usticeO "Hume 313 in re!erence to Hobbes#.
)ociety depends on the interest to gain and on the insight that this
interest reaches its limits when it inter!eres with the interest o! another
man.
6ustice is there!ore born in human conventions which serve as a
remedy to some inconveniences li9e sel!ishness and limited generosity
in respect to scarce but easily e=changeable resources. O4ncrease to a
su!!icient degree the benevolence o! men or the bounty o! nature and
you render <ustice uselessO "Hume 312#. And !urther. O5he sel!ishness
o! men is animated by the !ew possessions we have in proportion to
our wantsK and Ftis to restrain this sel!ishness that men have been
obligFd to separate themselves !rom the community and to distinguish
betwi=t their own goods and those o! others.O "Hume 312#
6ustice and in<ustice would there!ore be un9nown among man9ind in
the !ollowing three cases.
Cordial a!!ection which removes the distinction between mine
and thine
A!!luence o! ob<ects so that no con!lict over limited goods arises
Humans remove the boundary between others and themselves
)ince these cases are illusory it is clear Othat 'tis only from the
selfishness and confin'd generosity of men, along with the scanty
provision nature has made for his wants, that $ustice derives its origin.O
"Hume 310# (t can also be deduced that
Opublic interest ... is not our !irst and original motive !or the
observation o! the rules o! <usticeO "Hume 310#
Othe sense o! <ustice is not !ounded on reason or on the
discovery o! certain conne=ions and relations o! ideas which
are eternal immutable and universally obligatoryO "Hume 310#
the Oimpressions, which give rise to this sense of $ustice, are
not natural to the mind of man, but arise from artifice and
human conventions.O "Hume 31%#
+o civiliDation without <ustice without its concomitants property and
contract. OWithout <ustice society must immediately dissolve and every
one must !all into that savage and solitary condition which is in!initely
12
worse than the worst situation that can possibly be supposFd in
society.O "Hume 31/# :isrespect !or <ustice mar9s the road to slavery
and barbarism. Hume in the tradition o! the 4nlightenment assigns a
central role to education. OAs public9 praise and blame encrease our
esteem !or <usticeK so private education and instruction contribute to the
same e!!ect.O "Hume 331# (n the same vein our reputation consolidates
society.
Anthony de ,asay: Social ,ustice )xa!ined. With A Little
Help 7ro! Ada! S!ith
Conventionally we distinguish between
co!!utati#e "!rom Latin commutare meaning to e=change#
legal "!rom Latin legalis meaning law!ul# and
distributi#e 8ustice "!rom Latin distribuere meaning to
distribute# "see the !ollowing @uotation !rom Wi9ipedia.#
6ustice between two individuals is 9nown as individual
particular or commutative <ustice J OcommutativeO because it is
particularly concerned with contracts and e=change. )ome
philosophers regard this as the only 9ind o! <ustice in the
strictest interpretation o! the word O<usticeO but two more !orms
are commonly included because an individual has claims on
the society to which he belongs and it has claims upon him.
6ustice in which an individual renders its due to the society he
belongs to is 9nown as legal <ustice. 5his may include payment
o! ta=es or military service when the society is in danger.
6ustice in which a society renders its individual members their
due is 9nown as distributive <ustice such as protection !rom
invasion or a legal system whereby a member can pursue a
claim against another.
:e 6asayFs main ob<ective in )ocial 6ustice 4=amined and in more
detail in 6ustice and (ts )urroundings is to prove that distributive <ustice
is not what it claims to be but its opposite. Any !orm o! distributive
<ustice should there!ore be classi!ied as in<ustice or not discussed as
political theory any longer. O(t is one o! the most pervasive !allacies o!
contemporary political theory that one way or another normatively i!
not positively every un!illed need every blow o! ill luc9 every disparity
1-
o! endowments every case o! conspicuous success or !ailure and
every curtailment o! liberties is a @uestion o! <ustice.O "Anthony de
6asay. 6ustice and its )urroundings p. viii#
*e!ore we can turn to the @uestion o! <ustice we must identi!y the
principles which constitute it. With de 6asay we !ind the !ollowing three.
3
(esponsibility 9or causality:
O5he principle o! responsibility results !rom the relation between
a state o! a!!airs and its putative cause.O "de 6asay 11%#
O(t may be worth ma9ing it e=plicit that i! an act o! +ature say a
calamitous !lood is held to be an in<ustice to the !lood victims
then the actor committing the in<ustice cannot be made
responsible !or repairing it. (! the in<ustice is to be repaired <ust
the same the repair must be e=acted !rom those who had the
prudence or blind luc9 not to build their homes on the !lood,
plainK but ma9ing them repair the in<ustice they have not
committed is an in<ustice suggesting that a concept o! <ustice
that demands this is incoherent a product o! disorderly minds.
(! the non,victims are to be made to help the victims o! the
!lood some other ground than <ustice e.g. some notion o! an
interpersonal sum o! wel!are must be invo9ed to de!end the
in<ustice involved.O "de 6asay 11/#
Presu!ption 9or logical exclusion:
A statement and its negation constitute each other in the sense
that i! one is true the other must be !alse. 4ither one has
property titles or notK either one is innocent or guilty. (! there is
proo! !or the one a presumption is established !or the other.
)ince we cannot 9now what is <ust be!ore evidence is given the
asymmetrical nature o! presumptions protects us against errors.
Con#ention 9or stable social patterns:
O5his principle is simply that where social conventions guide
behavior @uestions o! <ustice should be resolved according to
such guidance.O "de 6asay 132# )uch conventions are !or
instance O!irst come !irst servedO or Opriority !or the aged and
in!irmO. O5hese conventions are largely sel!,e=planatory. 5hey
are ancient ... and also cross,culturally stable.O "de 6asay 13-#
3 Anthony de 6asay. 6ustice and its )urroundings. p. 11% !!
11
(n the !inal step o! the argument de 6asay points out that any !orm o!
distributive <ustice must depart !rom the concept o! commutative <ustice.
)ince distributive <ustice in contrast to commutative <ustice can only
be compulsory in nature and thus violate the very !oundation o! <ustice
property or the right to discrimination it must be termed un<ust. 5he
contradiction between Lprotecting a distribution with one hand and
redistributing with the otherM cannot be e=plained away it can only go
unmentioned.
5hemes to e=plore.
5he nature o! <ustice
6ustness and <ustice
5he Wel!are )tate
13
Chapter ;: What is La$. Natural and Ci#il-
A# Cicero. &n the )tate "(((#
*# +iccolo ;achiavelli. 5he 'rince. Chapter >>?(. How 'rinces
)hould Honour 5heir Word
C# 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. Chapter >>?(. &! Civil Laws
:# *aron de ;ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. &! Laws
in Aeneral
5here is no state without positive right because positive right is man,
made law. *ut the statement that right is right because states
proclaimed it is obviously tautological. (n addition it opens the door to
<usti!y all acts done by and in the name o! the state. Conveniently
arguments against crime o! all sorts !rom e=propriation to genocide
become nil and void under this condition.
)ince hardly anybody supports such a radical but in its own way
conse@uential position we must loo9 !or something behind rights. 5wo
conventional answers have been given.
divine right
natural right "in contrast to both man,made law and
supernatural law or divine revelation#
While divine right had been @uestioned and destroyed by )ocratic
philosophy natural right had !ound many supporters up until the 12th
century although we !ind repeated attempts in the 13th century to
rede!ine the classical law theory and give it a new content "hence the
distinction between classical and modern natural law theories#.
*ecause the @uestion o! legality implies @uestions o! legitimacy we will
address LlawM !rom !our di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent eras and
close with an e=curse.
;arcus 5ullius Cicero "102,1- *C# orator statesman political
theorist and )toic philosopher o! the late 8oman republic
+iccolo ;achiavelli "112/,1320# $lorentine political
philosopher musician poet and romantic comedic playwright
5homas Hobbes "13%%,120/# philosopher and together with
6ustus Lipsius "1310,1202# the !ather o! the modern )tate
Charles,Louis de )econdat *aron de la *rSde et de
;ontes@uieu "12%/,1033# $rench political thin9er and
prominent !igure o! the $rench 4nlightenment
12
4=curse. 'olycentric or +on,;onopolistic versus ;onocentric
Law
Cicero: 6n the State 9III:
Cicero li9e )eneca and ;arcus Aurelius a!ter him stood in the
tradition o! the Hellenistic )toa. 5he )toa "meaning in Aree9 OporchO
a!ter the place where its philosophers taught# was !ounded by Neno o!
Citium "--- *C J 221 *C#. (n!luenced by cynic teaching )toicism
emphasiDes a simple virtuous li!e o! moderation and !rugality in accord
with +ature personal happiness through the control o! passions and
the unity o! all in a universal city.
5he classical !ormulation o! +atural Law goes bac9 to Cicero. (n &n the
)tate "(((# we !ind the sentence. O5rue Law is in 9eeping with the
dictates both o! reason and o! nature. (t applies universally to everyone.
(t is unchanging and eternal.O And again. O5here will not be one law in
8ome and another in Athens. 5here will not be di!!erent laws now and
in the !uture. (nstead there will be one single everlasting immutable
law which applies to all nations and all times. 5he ma9er and umpire
and proposer o! this law will be Aod the single master and ruler o! us
all.O +atural Law claims to be antecedent and superior to any political
order. (n the )ocratic tradition +ature "in Aree9. physis# is to reality
what idea is to !act. (n other words +ature is not the empirical world
but the systematic or logical order o! statements thereo!.
Niccolo *achia#elli: The Prince5 Chapter <'III5
Concerning The Way In Which Princes Should =eep 7aith
(n Chapter >?((( o! 5he 'rince ;achiavelli e=plains that !or a prince
Othere are two ways o! !ighting. by law or by !orce.O "+iccolo
;achiavelli 5he 'rince. Chapter >?(((. 'enguin. London 1///. p. 32#
And he !urther elaborates. O5he !irst way is natural to men and the
second to beasts. *ut as the !irst way o!ten proves inade@uate one
must needs have recourse to the second.O "ibid# A success!ul prince
understands Ohow to ma9e a nice use o! the beast and the manO "ibid#.
+ot !ollowing up on the human sphere o! law ;achiavelli plunges into
the animal sphere o! !orce. &ne more parameter goes into the
e@uation. Omen are wretched creaturesO "ibid#. 'olitical goals can
10
there!ore not be achieved by honesty and appeal to reason but by
means o! ruse and intimidation. O)o as a prince is !orced to 9now how
to act li9e a beast he must learn !rom the !o= and the lionK because the
lion is de!enceless against traps and a !o= is de!enceless against
wolves.O "ibid# 5he two complement each other. the !o=Fs cunning
evens out the lionFs stupidity as the lionFs impressive strength ma9es
up !or the !o=Fs wea9ness. ;achiavelli emphasiDes on several
occasions that his sympathies lie with the !o=. His admiration
culminates in the statement. O&ne must 9now how to colour oneFs
actions and to be a great liar and deceiver.O "ibid. p. 30# Had Cicero still
insisted on virtues li9e honesty <ustice respect ;achiavelli is satis!ied
with appearances. )ays he. OA prince ... need not necessarily have all
the good @ualities ( mentioned above but he should certainly appear
"italics added# to have them.O "ibid.# &! course a prince needs to 9now
the di!!erence between good and evil and ;achiavelli is @uite aware o!
the implication. 5he prince Oshould not deviate !rom what is good i! that
is possible but he should 9now how to do evil i! that is necessary.O
"ibid.# 'olitics we can de!ine accordingly is the sphere between the
possible and the necessary where the prince weighing the various
choices decides on what is best !or him to stay in power. (n order to
appear
compassionate
!aith!ul to his words
9ind
guileless
devout
the prince clearly must have a 9nowledge o! what these moral @ualities
are. His decision to deviate !rom them is determined by necessity
rather than evil intention. Aovernment ;achiavelli 9nows always
re@uires the support o! the many. O5he common people are always
impressed by appearances and results.O "ibid. p. 3%# +ecessity is
merely another name !or popular support. +o government can e=ist !or
long without acceptance. ;achiavelli was maybe the !irst to discover
this !undamental truth that all political systems are and must be
OdemocraticO irrespective o! the name they choose !or themselves.
(t is important to see that ;achiavelli was not in any way e=ceptional in
his reasoning. Late (talian 8enaissance thin9ers introduced the new
concept o! 8eason o! )tate "%agion di &tato# to dis@uali!y the use o!
brute !orce as a means to preserve power. Aiovanni *oteroFs "c. 1311,
1210# 'ella %agion di &tato "5he 8eason o! )tate# "13%/# and
1%
Apollinare CalderiniFs 'iscorsi sopra la %agione di &tato di (iovanni
)otero "13/0# echo the Counter,8e!ormation and gave the absolutist
state its theoretical !oundation. )cipione Ammirato "13-1,1201#
summariDed the new concept with the !ollowing words. O(! a state is
nothing more than dominion or rule or reign or empire or any other
name one might li9e to give itK reason o! state will be nothing more
than reason o! dominion o! rule o! empire or reign or o! anything
else.O
A second concept thrown into the debate in the 12th century is the
)tate o! +ature. (nteresting is the !act that this new concept became
!ashionable right at the time when the older +atural Law tradition began
to erode "itFs last de!ender being 8ichard Hoo9er 1331,1200# and the
)cienti!ic 8evolution was about to begin.

Tho!as Hobbes: Le#iathan5 Chapter <<'I5 6f Ci#il La$s
Hobbes was searching !or an answer to the !irst gnostic representation
in history the 'uritan promise to bring Heaven to 4arth. ;ore serious
J and much more bloody J attempts were made !rom the late 1%th
century but the 'uritans can claim credit to the !act that they pioneered
in the re,diviniDation o! representation. HobbesF answer was the )tate
erected on the two pillars o! State of Nature and Social Contract.
5he )tate o! +ature Hobbes describes as !ollows. OWhatsoever
there!ore is conse@uent to a time o! Warre where every man is 4nemy
to every manK the same is conse@uent to the time wherein men live
without other security than what their own strength and their own
invention shall !urnish them withall. (n such condition there is no place
!or (ndustryK because the !ruit thereo! is uncertain. and conse@uently no
Culture o! the earthK no +avigation no use o! the commodities that may
be imported by )eaK no commodious *uildingK no (nstruments o!
moving and removing such things as re@uire much !orceK no
Cnowledge o! the !ace o! the 4arthK no account o! 5imeK no ArtsK no
LettersK no )ocietyK and which is worst o! all continuall !eare and
danger o! violent deathK And the li!e o! man solitary poore nasty
brutish and short.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >(((# And at the end o!
the same chapter he turns the classical <usti!ication o! civil law on its
head. O5o this warre o! every man against every man this also is
conse@uentK that nothing can be Hn<ust. 5he notions o! 8ight and
Wrong 6ustice and (n<ustice have there no place. Where there is no
common 'ower there is no Law. where no Law no (n<ustice.O "ibid.#
&nce the state negatively de!ined Hobbes needs to legitimiDe his
1/
invention. 5his he does by usurping the concept o! contract which he
completely robs o! its meaning "Hobbes !or instance ignores that
contracts are voluntary mutually bene!icial limited and binding#. 5o
accomplish this he !irst applies the tric9 o! ma9ing peace and
acceptance o! an in!ringement on oneFs !reedom the two principal laws
o! nature.
5he !irst and !undamental Law o! +ature is *to seek +eace, and
follow itO "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >(?#
5he second Law o! +ature derived !rom the !irst is that a man
Obe contented with so much liberty against other men, as he
would allow other men against himselfeO "ibid.#
And second he ma9es the !ree beasts voluntarily give up their !reedom
to a sovereign in return !or peace. O*ut as men !or the atteyning o!
peace and conservation o! themselves thereby have made an Arti!icial
;an which we call a Common,wealthK so also have they made
Arti!iciall Chains called ,ivill -awes.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter
>>(#
Hobbes also needs to distinguish between 8ight o! +ature ".us
/aturale# and Law o! +ature "-ex /aturalis#. 5he !ormer he de!ines as
Othe Liberty each man hath to use his own power as he will himsel!e
!or the preservation o! his own +atureO and the latter as a Ogeneral
8ule !ound out by 8eason by which a man is !orbidden to do that
which is destructive o! his li!eO. (n conclusion he says. O8(AH5
consisteth in liberty to do or to !orbeareK Whereas LAW determineth
and bindeth to one o! them. so that Law and 8ight di!!er as much as
&bligation and Liberty.O "Hobbes. Leviathan Chapter >(?#
HobbesF distinction between law and right is an interesting borrowing
!rom classical physics. right e@uals actio while law e@uals reactio. An
ob<ect travels until its motion is arrested by another ob<ect. &nly in a
8obinson Crusoe world there e=ists right li9e in space populated by
one single ob<ect this ob<ect would travel !reely. Hobbes has hereby
eliminated right as a special and unrealistic case o! law. (n the ne=t
step o! his argument he disembowels +atural Law by separating it
!rom the political sphere where now only positive law J orders issued
by the sovereign J e=ists. O/atural are those which have been Lawes
!rom all 4ternityK and are called not onely /aturall but also 0orall
LawesK ... 'ositive are those which have not been !rom 4ternityK but
have been made Lawes by the Will o! those that have had the
)overaign 'ower over othersK and are either written or made 9nown to
20
men by some other argument o! the Will o! their Legislator.O "Hobbes.
Leviathan Chapter >>?(#
5hen Hobbes ma9es the unnecessary distinction between distributive
and penal positive law. OAgain o! 'ositive Lawes some are 1umane
some 'ivine. And o! Humane positive lawes some are 'istributive
some +enal. 'istributive are those that determine the 8ights o! the
)ub<ects declaring to every man what it is by which he ac@uireth and
holdeth a propriety in lands or goods and a right or liberty o! action.
and these spea9 to all the )ub<ects. +enal are those which declare
what 'enalty shall be in!licted on those that violate the LawK and spea9
to the ;inisters and &!!icers ordained !or e=ecution.O "ibid.# :istributive
and penal positive law are as this @uotation shows merely the two
sides o! the same coin. $inally all human e=istence is derived !rom
Leviathan the *iblical monster who stands as a *aconian symbol !or
the death o! Aristotelianism and )cholasticism and who only Aod can
destroy at the end o! time.
Charles de *ontes>uieu: The Spirit of La$s5 %oo" I5 6f
La$s in ?eneral
5he )pirit o! Laws opens with the !ollowing statement. OLaws in their
most general signi!ication are the necessary relations arising !rom the
nature o! things.O ";ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. 1.# $rom
this !ollows that man has his laws li9e Aod his laws or the material
world its laws. 5he absence o! laws governing man would be Oblind
!atalityO "ibid#.
5o understand the Laws o! +ature man must be studied Obe!ore the
establishment o! societyO "ibid.# or in other words in a )tate o! +ature.
Here ;ontes@uieu identi!ies four La$s of Nature ";ontes@uieu. 5he
)pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (. 2.#.
Peace. contrary to Hobbes ;ontes@uieu assumes that
wea9ness and in!eriority o! man in a )tate o! +ature would
prevent him !rom attac9ing others. 5his world would be a world
at peace.
Wants. man is hungry man needs shelter. Human action
begins with needs.
Association. !ear se= and attraction ma9es man a social
being.
Sociability. man processes 9nowledge and it is this advantage
21
that creates the desire in man to live in society.
OAs soon as man enters into a state o! society he loses the sense o! his
wea9nessK e@uality ceases and then commences the state o! war.O
";ontes@uieu. 5he )pirit o! Laws. *oo9 (.-.# 5his war occurs on two
levels. between di!!erent nations and between di!!erent individuals. War
between di!!erent nations is regulated by the Olaw o! nationsO while war
between governors and the governed is regulated by Opolitic lawO and
the relation between the governed by Ocivil lawO.
La$ of Nations. (t e=ists to minimiDe the damage done by war
without inter!ering with the interests o! the nations concerned.
Politic La$. Hnder the premise that Ono society can subsist
without a !orm o! governmentO "ibid.# the laws o! a state must
con!orm with the speci!ic history o! a people whatever the !orm
o! government.
Ci#il La$
)xcurse: Polycentric. or Non2*onopolistic. #ersus
*onocentric La$
5he debate on right and law neglects alternatives to monocentric law
and thus !alls into the trap o! 8oman statism. Little wonder that even in
Anglo,)a=on countries with their long tradition o! customary law the
e=ploration o! alternatives is essentially the a!!air o! some academics
many with a bac9ground in economics. 5he interest in economics
compensates !or the remar9able thin coverage o! this central aspect o!
human action in the conventional debate o! politics. Although private
property was usually ta9en !or granted !rom the days o! Aristotle
sometimes even particularly emphasiDed li9e by Cicero and Loc9e
political theorists spea9 o! needs rather than demand o!
commonwealth rather than wealth and habitually con!ound society and
state.
;onocentric law developed out o! polycentric law. Hal! a doDen
di!!erent law systems openly competed with each other a!ter the legal
revolution between 1030 and 1200 "5om W. *ell. 'olycentric Law
Humane )tudies 8eview ?ol. 0 +umber 1 Winter 1//1P/2#.
Canon Law
8oman Law in the !orm o! 6ustinian codes "a compilation o!
legal decisions in ancient 8ome#
22
Hrban Law with the rise o! the cities
;anorial law in respect to the relations between peasants and
lords
$eudal law regulating relations between vassals and lords
5he law merchant with the increase o! trade and commerce
8oyal law in many states advanced rapidly on the heels o! military
con@uest. (n the case o! 4ngland two !actors operated in combination
"ibid.#.
5he constant threat o! !oreign invasion "particularly by the
:anes#
5he in!luence o! Christianity which imbued the throne with godly
@uality and gave the 9ing a divine mandate
8oyal law promised two advantages over competitive <urisdictions
"ibid.#.
5a=ation allowed the state to subsidiDe its legal services "under
Henry (( o! 4ngland 1131,11%/ itinerant <ustices also served
as ta= collectors#
5he state wielded greater coercive power "in contrast the
operation o! competing legal systems depended on reciprocity
and trust#
Customary legal system has si= basic !eatures "ibid.#.
A predominant concern !or individual rights and private property
Laws en!orced by victims bac9ed by reciprocal agreements
)tandard ad<udicative procedures established to avoid violence
&!!enses treated as torts punishable by economic restitution
)trong incentives !or the guilty to yield to prescribed
punishment due to the threat o! social ostracism
Legal change via an evolutionary process o! developing
customs and norms
'rior to royal law Anglo,)a=on law 9new no crime against the state.
Crime was always seen as damage to individuals or their property.
Conse@uently the compensation o! the victim had highest priority.
5oday the victim o! a crime is punished several times. !irst because he
su!!ers damageK secondly because as ta=payer he pays !or policing
prosecution and punishmentK and thirdly he is denied any
compensation but moral satis!action "which does not cost the state any
money#. (mprisonment and capital punishment prevent the victim !rom
2-
ever getting a compensation. 5he royal law allowed the 9ing to charge
!ines to e=pand his control over the people and to usurp security.
Austave de ;olinari in 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity had already
remar9ed. under the stateFs monopoly o! law O6ustice becomes slow
and costly the police ve=atious individual liberty is no longer
respected "and# the price o! security is abusively in!lated and
ine@uitably apportionedO "Austave de ;olinari 5he 'roduction o!
)ecurity#.
5he polycentric legal systems share the !ollowing !eatures "*ell
'olycentric Law# which correspond with the above,mentioned !eatures
o! the customary law system.
'rotection o! individual rights and private property
?oluntary agreements !or the provision o! security
+on,violent dispute resolution
8estitution
Compliance en!orced primarily through the threat o! ostracism
4volution o! legal norms through entrepreneurial activity
5hemes to e=plore.
6ustice and Law versus 6ustice or Law
5he )tate o! +ature and the +ature o! the )tate
)ocial Contract theories
Comparison o! law theories
21
Chapter /: What is Property-
A# Aristotle. 8hetoric. *oo9 (. Chapter ?
*# Aristotle. 5he 'olitics. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?. 5he &wnership o!
'roperty
C# 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter
?. &! 'roperty
:# Hans,Hermann Hoppe. 5he 4thics and 4conomics o! 'rivate
'roperty. ( 5he 'roblem o! )ocial &rder. (( 5he )olution. 'rivate
'roperty and &riginal Appropriation
O5he !irst man who having enclosed a piece o! land thought o! saying
F5his is mineF and !ound people simple enough to believe him was the
true !ounder o! civil society. How many crimes wars murdersK how
much misery and horror the human race would have been spared i!
someone had pulled up the sta9es and !illed in the ditch and cried out
to his !ellow men. F*eware o! listening to this impostor. Gou are lost i!
you !orget that the !ruits o! the earth belong to everyone and that the
earth itsel! belongs to no oneQFO "6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau. A :iscourse
on (ne@uality. 'art ((# :espite this childish remar9 the Lnoble advocate
o! innocence "in his private li!e homo perversissimus#M
2
and Ldog o!
:iogenes gone madM
0
at least saw the ne=us between private property
and civiliDation which !or his contemporaries was sel!,evident.
5he enemies o! private property are as numerous and old as its
de!enders. 4ven in the absence o! a mar9et the enemies alone have to
e=plain economic 9ey concepts such as division o! labor good price
productivity their psychological concomitants li9e initiative ris9,ta9ing
or responsibility and socio,political phenomena li9e an omnipotent
state its obscure bureaucracy and a supposedly enlightened
centraliDed planning agency.
(! we in an e=periment o! thought ta9e private property out o! the
e@uation the mystery o! private property catches our attention
immediately. 5he di!!erence between a propertyless society and
universal private property "Carl ;ar=. 'rivate 'roperty and
Communism# or collectivePpublic property can be declared irrelevant
because in both cases in contrast to private property decision,ma9ing
2 )te!an Nweig. ;arie Antoinette $ran9!urt 2002 p. 1-%
0 ?oltaire
23
is delegated to collectives which di!!erent !rom corporations serve a
political rather than economical purpose.
5o begin with any !orm o! collective or public property must and can
only be a misnomer since property "!rom Latin proprius T individual
belonging e=clusively to one# is synonymous with e=clusiveness which
we e=press in 4nglish by possessive pronouns. O;yO boo9
characteriDes a boo9 to which ( and only ( have special rights. 4ven in
the plural !orm J OourO boo9 J the individual use is e=clusive though
limited in time.
Conse@uently a statement li9e Othe !ruits o! the earth belong to us all
and the earth itsel! to nobodyO "8ousseau ibid.# is as nonsensical as
the statement that our bodies belong to us in the sense that they would
be shared. +ot even the Communists went that !ar although some o!
them suggested <ust this !or the !emale body. (n both instances we
cannot identi!y a superior agency that would promulgate rights and
titles according to which our claims would be <usti!iable. What then is
the mystery o! private property in the absence o! such an agency7 5he
answer in a world o! scarcity is convenience. )ociety regulates the use
o! scarce resources by convention such as O!irst come !irst serveO or
Opriority !or the elderlyO etc. 5hey are nurtured by reciprocity. O+e=t time
( will hurry and be !irstO or O( mysel! will bene!it when ( am oldO etc. 5he
use value o! scarce items however has its limitations. What !or
instance happens when a scarce item disappears by its use7 ( cannot
eat the ca9e and have it too. ( cannot drive a car and share it with
another driver. 5he second man gets less J i! anything at all J o! what
the !irst man en<oys. Without private property a con!lict J most li9ely a
violent con!lict J arises immediately over the scarce item. (! it is only
Ohim or meO the con!lict must be resolved before it invo9es violence "the
rule o! the stronger#. 5his e=actly does property.
We will address the topic o! LpropertyM !rom three di!!erent thin9ers o!
three di!!erent eras.
Aristotle "-%1,-22 *C# student o! 'lato and !ounder o! the
Lyceum
6ohn Loc9e "12-2,1001# lawyer and philosopher
Hans,Hermann Hoppe "1/1/,# economist and philosopher
22
Aristotle: (hetoric5 %oo" I5 Chapter ' and The Politics5
%oo" II5 Chapter '5 The 6$nership of Property
5he 'olitics is AristotleFs riposte to 'latoFs 5he 8epublic as much as
8hetoric is a retort to 'latoFs disrespect o! this art. &ne crucial aspect
o! 5he 8epublic lies in its negative presentation o! property "!or the
guardians who are not treated as one o! the !ive economic classes
which are 1# agricultural or industrial producersK 2# merchantsK -#
sailors and shipownersK 1# retail tradersK 3# wage earners or manual
laborers#. +ot only that Othe pursuit o! unlimited material possessionsO
"'lato. 5he 8epublic -0- d# Owill lead to warO "ibid. -0- e# the
guardians share a number o! characteristics.
Othey shall have no private property beyond the barest
essentialsO "ibid. 112 d#
Onone o! them shall possess a dwelling,house or storehouse to
which all have not the right o! entryO "ibid. 112 d#
O5hey shall eat together in messes and live together li9e
soldiers in campO "ibid. 112 e#
Oall the women should be common to all the menO "ibid. 130 d#
Ochildren should be held in common and no parent should
9now its child or child its parentO "ibid. 130 d#
Owe must arrange !or marriageO "ibid. 13% e#
Othe children o! the in!erior Auardians and any de!ective
o!!spring o! the others will be @uietly and secretly disposed o!O
"ibid. 120 c#
4ven though 5he 8epublic smac9s o! the 20th c. "national or
international# socialist paradise with its special breed o! sel!,appointed
rulers special housing districts and euthanasia it should be said in
'latoFs de!ense that he constructed dichotomies between democratic
Athens "!arther !rom aristocracy# and timocratic )parta "nearer to
aristocracy# and between property owners with interest and
propertyless rulers with no other interest than wisdom "which prevents
aristocracy !rom slipping away to oligarchy#.
'lato rebuts the Odebating techni@ueO o! the )ophists because there is
a Odi!!erence between scoring points in debate and arguing seriouslyO
"ibid. 131 a#. 5hat alone ma9es AristotleFs 8hetoric a heretical
enterprise. (n this wor9 Aristotle when listing the elements o!
happiness emphasiDes the importance o! wealth and de!ines. O5he
elements o! wealth are abundance o! money and land the possession
20
o! estates outstanding !or number e=tent and beauty and also that o!
!urniture slaves and cattle o! outstanding numbers and @uality all
these being owned secure liberal and use!ul "Aristotle. 8hetoric. *oo9
(. Chapter ?#. +ote the di!!erence between liberality "consumption# and
utility "e=change#. 5he owner can determine what to do with his
property J Ohas the use o! the goodsO "ibid.# J and can !reely dispose o!
his property J Oownership is the right o! alienationO "ibid.#.
*y ma9ing re!erence to 'latoFs 5he 8epublic Aristotle in 5he 'olitics
more directly addresses Othe @uestion o! propertyO "Aristotle. 5he
'olitics. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?#. Aristotle separates the issue o! property
!rom the legislation o! the !amily and as9s whether property should Obe
held in common or notO "ibid.#. (n his discussion Aristotle notices the
Odi!!iculties inherent in the common ownership o! propertyO "ibid.# and
anticipates Adam )mith when he observes. Owith every man busy with
his own there will be increased e!!ort all roundO "ibid.#. 4ventually he
settles with the solution that Oit is better !or property to remain in private
handsK but we should ma9e the use o! it communalO "ibid.#. ;aintaining
that Oevery piece o! property has a double useO "ibid. *oo9 (. Chapter
(># Aristotle was the !irst to distinguish between use value and
e=change value. 'aralleling this distinction to Ohousehold,
managementO and OtradeO he de!ines Ocommunal useO in contrast to
private consumption. )everal reasons are credited why property should
be private.
Oan immense amount o! pleasure to be derived !rom the sense
o! private ownershipO as an e=tension o! manFs natural
Oa!!ection !or himsel!O "ibid. *oo9 ((. Chapter ?#
the Overy great pleasure in helping and doing !avours to !riends
and strangers and associatesO "ibid.#
the loss o! OliberalityO "ibid.# by which he means disinterest
Othe immense period o! time during which this !orm o!
organiDation "T propertyless association# has remained
undiscoveredO "ibid.#
Aristotle however sees as clearly as 'lato that Othere must be some
unity in a stateO but he disapproves o! the Oabsolutely total unityO
!avored by his teacher. 5o save the state both in the end resort to
OeducationO in the e=pectation that it will constitute a sense o! unity
"ibid.#.
2%
,ohn Loc"e: The Second Treatise of ?o#ern!ent5 Chapter
'5 6f Property
(n the )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter ?. &! 'roperty Loc9e
endeavors Oto shew how men might come to have a property in
several parts o! that which Aod gave to man9ind in commonO. His
starting point is the observation that Oevery man has a property in his
own personO. Labor is an e=tension o! his body. Loc9eFs theorem o!
original appropriation states. OWhatsoever then he removes out o! the
state that nature hath provided and le!t it in he hath mi=ed his labour
with and <oined to it something that is his own and thereby ma9es it
his property.O *ut he adds the !ollowing proviso. Owhere there is
enough and as good le!t in common !or othersO because i! there were
not enough the actor would inter!ere with the liberty o! other actors and
hence cannot turn a resource into a good. *y pic9ing up acorns under
an oa9 or gathering apples !rom a tree the actor has mi=ed labor to the
resource and by appropriating them has turned the resource into a
good. 'roperty begins where man removes an ob<ect out o! a state
where it is natural or common. Labor changes the @uality o! a mere
ob<ect into something usable. OHis labour hath ta9en it out o! the hands
o! nature where it was common and belonged e@ually to all her
children and hath thereby appropriated it to himsel!.O Could Columbus
have claimed the whole o! the American continent !or himsel!7
8egardless o! the !act that America was populated Loc9e denies this
because Columbus did not change the @uality o! the land he !ound in
the way the settlers did who !ollowed him.
5he act o! appropriation re@uires rationality and industry. Labor thus is
not only the physical activity which trans!orms common into property or
resource into good but also ingenuity perspective time choice and
e!!ort all o! them entrepreneurial abilities which cannot be ta9en !or
granted. 5he !irst to OseeO the use value o! a resource is obviously
smarter than all the others who only saw the ob<ect or nothing. He who
OseesO the iron in a OstoneO is more 9nowledgeable than those who only
saw the stone. *y producing iron !rom ore he does not cheat or e=ploit
the others. &n the contrary he bene!its them because he ma9es their
lives easier. 5his Loc9e also understood when he said. Ohe who
appropriates land to himsel! by his labour does not lessen but
increase the common stoc9 o! man9indO "OincreaseO here means
Obene!itO#.
2/
5he process o! appropriation Loc9e claims is also reversible. Land
enclosed but unused !ruits rotten venison putre!ied so his e=amples
mean that the appropriator Oo!!ended against the common law o!
nature and was liable to be punished.O 'unishment in this conte=t can
only consist in the loss o! property. Loc9e insists that property
ac@uisition implies only use. Where resources remain unused they
Omight be the possession o! any otherO or in other words can be
appropriated i.e. used by someone else. However this holds only !or
original appropriation. &nce land has some value i.e. it becomes
scarce capital and contract come into play because they prevent
property !rom slipping bac9 into waste or common or mere resource.
O5he great art o! governmentO !or Loc9e lies in Othe increase o! lands
and the right employing o! themO. 5he sovereign who Oestablished laws
o! liberty to secure protection and encouragement to the honest
industry o! man9ind against the oppression o! power and narrowness
o! party will @uic9ly be too hard !or his neighbors.O Without a doubt
Loc9e is here re!erring to the rise o! 4ngland !rom the late 12
th
to the
late 10
th
centuries.
Hans2Her!ann Hoppe: The )thics and )cono!ics of
Pri#ate Property5 I The Proble! of Social 6rder5 II The
Solution: Pri#ate Property and 6riginal Appropriation
(n 5he 4thics and 4conomics o! 'rivate 'roperty Hoppe argues in !avor
o! private property as !ollows. Cooperation and con!lict can only arise in
a social te=ture where scarcity e=ists. +either in a 8obinson Crusoe
world nor in the Aarden o! 4den con!licts other than the one over Othe
physical body o! a person and its standing roomO come up. )ays
Hoppe. OA con!lict is only possible i! goods are scarce. &nly then will
there arise the need to !ormulate rules that ma9e orderly J con!lict,!ree
J social cooperation possible.O 5hat e=actly is the problem o! social
order.
5he solution to this problem Hoppe asserts is simple. O4veryone is the
proper owner o! his own physical body as well as o! all places and
nature,given goods that he occupies and puts to use by means o! his
body provided that no one else has already occupied or used the
same places and goods before him. 5his ownership o! Ooriginally
-0
appropriatedO places and goods by a person implies his right to use
and trans!orm these places and goods in any way he sees !it provided
that he does not thereby forcibly change the physical integrity of places
and goods originally appropriated by another person.O &nce
appropriation has ta9en place Oownership in such places and goods
can be ac@uired only be means o! voluntary J contractual J trans!er o!
its property title !rom a previous to a later owner.O 5hese are the only
two ways to create wealth without recourse to aggression.
Hoppe now o!!ers two <usti!ications !or the above solution.
;oral intuition "Othe overwhelming ma<ority o! people J
including children and primitives J in !act act according to these
rulesO#
'roo!
5o prove that private property is the only solution to the problem o!
social order Hoppe develops two separate lines o! thought.
(n a world o! two A and * without private property
A would be the owner o! * "or vice versa# so that one would by
necessity be in!erior to the other
A and * Omust be considered e@ual co,owners o! all bodies
places and goodsO
5he !irst case can easily be discarded as unethical because it is not
Oe@ually applicable to everyone qua human being "rational animal#O.
Although this re@uirement would be !ul!illed in the second case we
!ace even more severe conse@uences here. Othis alternative would
su!!er !rom an even more severe de!iciency because i! it were applied
all o! man9ind would instantly perishO. +eedless to say that the
e=tinction o! the human race is unethical in itsel! and must thus be
discarded. *ut why would co,ownership necessarily lead to sel!,
destruction7 HoppeFs answer is. Oi! all goods were co,owned by
everyone then no one at no time and no place would be allowed to do
anything unless he had previously secured every other co,ownerFs
consent to do so. Get how could anyone grant such consent were he
not the e=clusive owner o! his own body ... by which means his consent
must be e=pressed7O $rom this reasoning it becomes clear that
Ouniversal communismO is pra=eologically impossible. 'ut positively.
Othe idea o! original appropriation and private propertyO is Othe only
correct solution to the problem o! social orderO. All other solutions are
either unethical or contradictory or both.
-1
5hemes to e=plore.
Capitalism
)ocialism
5he 5hird Way
'roperty and 6ustice
-2
Chapter @: What is Interest-
A# 6ean,*aptiste )ay. 5reatise on 'olitical 4conomy. *oo9 (((
Chapter ?(. &n 'ublic Consumption
*# $rBdBric *astiat. 5hat Which is )een and 5hat Which is +ot
)een. (. 5he *ro9en Window
C# Carl ;ar=. 5he Aerman (deology. 'art (. $euerbach.
&pposition o! the ;aterialist and (dealist &utloo9. :.
'roletarians and Communism
:# $riedrich +ietDsche. Human. All 5oo Human. A *oo9 !or
$ree )pirits. ?(((. A Alance at the )tate. 10- 101
*e!ore the late 1/th century political theory does not deal with OinterestO
in any other !orm but Osel!,loveO and OcommonwealthO. (nterest "!rom
Latin inter T between and esse T to be# as a topic o! its own right
appears with industrial capitalism and the parallel growth o! the state
"!rom a mere military agent to a central planning agency in charge o!
educationPperception managementPsurveillance in!rastructure internal
and e=ternal security administration and wel!are#.

We will address OinterestO !rom !our di!!erent thin9ers o! the 1/th
century.
6ean,*aptiste )ay "1020,1%-2# economist and entrepreneur
$rBdBric *astiat "1%01,1%30# classical liberal theorist and
political economist
Carl ;ar= "1%1%,1%%-# philosopher political economist and
socialist revolutionary
$riedrich +ietDsche "1%11,1/00# philologist and philosopher
,ean2%aptiste Say: Treatise on Political )cono!y5 %oo"
III. Chapter 'I5 6n Public Consu!ption
5reatise on 'olitical 4conomy !irst published in 1%0- was 6ean,
*aptiste )ayFs most important wor9. A tract in economic theory it also
criticiDed the mercantile economy o! +apoleon (. 5he 5reatise is divided
into three boo9s. *oo9 (. &! the 'roduction o! WealthK *oo9 ((. &! the
:istribution o! WealthK *oo9 (((. &! the Consumption o! Wealth. As
trivial as it may appear wealth has to be produced !irst be!ore it can be
distributed and consumed a lesson all too o!ten lost on us who
--
distribute lavishly what has not yet been created J with predictably
catastrophic conse@uences.
)ayFs second merit is to present public consumption as a subclass o!
consumption. Othe collection o! many individuals into a community gives
rise to a new class o! wants the wants o! the society in its aggregate
capacity the satis!action o! which is the ob<ect o! public consumption.O
")ay ((.?(.1# 5he satis!action o! wants J consumption J is a destruction
o! wealth and Othe general utility o! the whole community ... is precisely
analogous to that consumption ... which goes to satis!y the wants o!
individuals or !amilies.O "ibid. (((.?(.-# 5reatises on the essential
distinction between public and private wealth only Oswell the monstrous
heap o! printed absurdityO "ibid. (((.?(.12# but do not contribute to an
understanding o! the phenomenon.
)ay insists on the distinction between Otrans!er o! valueO and Ovalue
consumedO whereby only the latter amounts to destruction. 5ranslated
into the conte=t o! man and the state he reasons. O5he sole di!!erence
is that the individual in the one case and the state in the other en<oys
the satis!action resulting !rom that consumption.O "ibid. (((. ?(. 2# ;ost
important is the observation that in both the private and public spheres
one and the same economy applies. O(! then public and private
e=penditure a!!ect social wealth in the same manner the principles o!
economy by which it should be regulated must be the same in both
cases. 5here are not two 9inds o! economy. ... (! a government or an
individual consume in such a way as to give birth to a product larger
than that consumed a success!ul e!!ort o! productive industry will be
made. (! no product result !rom the act o! consumption there is a loss
o! value whether to the state or to the individual.O "ibid. (((.?(.10#
Consumption in the private sector is consumption o! values created in
the same sector whereas consumption in the public sector is
consumption o! values created in the private sector. Othe government
has nothing o! its own to s@uander being in !act a mere trustee o! the
public treasure.O "ibid. (((. ?(. 10#
5hat statists have seen things di!!erently should not surprise us. When
$rederic9 (( o! 'russia prides himsel!. O;y numerous armies promote
the circulation o! money and disburse impartially amongst the
provinces the ta=es paid by the people to the stateO "@uoted in ibid.
(((.?(.11# the enlightened despot only showed his ignorance o! basic
economics. Areater e=penditure over income inevitably leads to ruin in
the private domain. Why so )ay should we e=pect something di!!erent
-1
in a public conte=t only o! a larger scale7
7rAdAric %astiat: That Which is Seen. and That Which is
Not Seen5 I5 The %ro"en Windo$
5he *ro9en Window retold in Henry HaDlittFs 4conomics in &ne
Lesson made *astiat !amous. (n 5he *ro9en Window we have the
!ollowing cast.
5he consumer "the good shop9eeper 6ames *.#
His careless son who smashed the shop window
5he producer "the glaDier#
)ome thirty spectators
And invisible the shoema9er "or some other tradesman#
5he story is @uic9ly told. the shop9eeperFs boy bro9e the window o! his
!atherFs shop. His !ather has the glaDier replace it which cost him si=
!rancs. O5he glaDier comes per!orms his tas9 receives his si= !rancs
rubs his hands and in his heart blesses the careless child.O 5he
village !ol9s gather and discuss the incident. &ne is particularly smart
and soothes the shop9eeper by reasoning. O4verybody must live and
what would become o! the glaDiers i! panes o! glass were never
bro9en7O )uddenly the bad boy becomes a hero and everybody is
happy. As cheap as happiness can be *astiat cautions the happy
!ools. O)top hereQ your theory is con!ined to that which is seenK it ta9es
no account o! that which is not seen.O
What is not seen7
5he shop9eeper spent the si= !rancs on the window. He cannot
spend the money on anything else.
5he shop9eeper would have spent the money on goods that
satis!y his wants.
5he shoema9er does not receive the si= !rancs earmar9ed by
the shop9eeper !or the purchase o! shoes.
+either industry in general nor the sum total o! national labor is
a!!ected whether windows are bro9en or not.
5he shop9eeper rather than having both window and a pair o!
shoes ends up with having nothing "the window he had already
had be!ore the accident#.
)ociety as a whole has lost the value o! the bro9en window.
-3
=arl *arx: The ?er!an Ideology5 Part I: 7euerbach5
6pposition of the *aterialist and Idealist 6utloo"5 5
Proletarians and Co!!unis!
5he Aerman (deology was written by Carl ;ar= only three years be!ore
the publication o! the Communist ;ani!esto which appeared in 1%1%. (t
anticipates the ;ani!esto without its appeal !or political action.
5he 20,year,old ;ar= !ormulates a train o! thought that he did not
revise any more in his later years when he claims that man does not
act according to his own pre!erences but necessarily in line with class
interest "O... conditions which were common to them all and
independent o! each individualO#. Class interest developed historically
out o! antagonism "Ocommon conditions developed into class
conditions. 5he same conditions the same contradiction the same
interests ...O# 5he alienation o! acting man and his mysterious
metamorphosis into an instrument o! class interest has ;ar= asserts
economic roots so that only a change o! the relations o! production can
set man !ree and restore him in his ancient rights and responsibilities
";ar=. O... their personality is conditioned and determined by @uite
de!inite class relationshipsO#. 5he relations o! production develop
dialectically according to ;ar=. A historical stage J comparable to
HegelFs thesis on the original level or synthesis at all higher levels J
implies its negation "philosophically spea9ing# or sel!,destruction
"economically spea9ing# condensed in the Aerman word 2ufhebung
"abolishment conservation synthesis#. A revolution is nothing but such
an 2ufhebung and ;ar= who studied the (ndustrial 8evolution and the
$rench 8evolution in depth and put both in the same bas9et insists
that the relations o! production can only be changed by !orce and
violence because the ruling class does not give up its advantages
voluntarily "O... this revolution is necessary there!ore not only because
the ruling class cannot be overthrown in any other way but also
because the class overthrowing it can only in a revolution succeed in
ridding itsel! o! all the muc9 o! ages and become !itted to !ound society
anewO#. 5hese advantages result !rom pro!it or surplus which the
capitalist denies to the laborer. He instrumentaliDes religion culture the
state !or his purposes domination. Conse@uently politics re!lects the
class interest o! the capitalists in capitalism as it would re!lect the class
interest o! the wor9ers in socialism "O... the individuals o! which society
consists have given themselves collective e=pression that is the
)tateO#. Again individuals o! each o! the two classes do not act in the
-2
proper sense o! the word but merely behave as i! they were puppets o!
their respective class "O... was always a community to which these
individuals belonged only as average individuals only inso!ar as they
lived within the conditions o! e=istence o! their class J a relationship in
which they participated not as individuals but as members o! a class.O#.
;ar= we could say used the model o! *astiat who he did not 9now.
5he glassma9er OhiresO the bad boy "the state# to do the
windowbrea9ing systematically and thus prevents him !rom being
marginaliDed.
7riedrich Niet&sche: Hu!an5 All Too Hu!an5 A %oo" for
7ree Spirits5 'III5 A ?lance at the State5 @4/. @4@
;ar= and +ietDsche were contemporaries. &ther than this and the
Aerman language which both brilliantly mastered the two great men
have nothing in common. *oth were children o! the 4nlightenment but
each drew di!!erent conclusions. !or ;ar= !reedom can only be
accomplished with the help o! the state which always serves the ruling
economic classK !or +ietDsche !reedom can only be achieved without
or even against the state.
+ietDsche was not primarily interested in the state though and A
Alance at the )tate is only one chapter out o! ten !rom A *oo9 !or $ree
)pirits. Get i! the science o! politics has anything to do with morality J
i.e. pertaining to matters o! good and evil or systems o! principles and
<udgments J and not only with instincts and impulses we must come to
the same conclusion as +ietDsche. OWhoever guesses something o!
the conse@uences o! any deep suspicion something o! the chills and
!ears stemming !rom isolation to which every man burdened with an
unconditional difference of viewpoint is condemned this person will
understand how o!ten ( tried to ta9e shelter somewhere to recover
!rom mysel! as i! to !orget mysel! entirely !or a time "in some sort o!
reverence or enmity or scholarliness or !rivolity or stupidity#K and he
will also understand why when ( could not !ind what ( needed ( had to
gain it by !orce arti!icially to counter!eit it or create it poetically.O
"'re!ace#
While tal9ing bac9 to Othe typical old socialist 'latoO the most ardent
de!ender o! the polis "see especially 'latoFs Crito in the !ollowing
chapter# +ietDsche !ires his salvos against all the dream dancers and
illusionists who want to see in the state nothing but a haven o! !reedom.
-0
*e!ore the marginalists proved ;ar=Fs labor theory o! value J the
central pillar o! his edi!ice J wrong be!ore the J international and
national J socialist reality o! su!!ering crime and destruction
synthesiDed with our universal heritage +ietDsche had already seen its
real nature. O)ocialism is the visionary younger brother o! an almost
decrepit despotism whose heir it wants to be. ... it desires a wealth o!
e=ecutive power as only despotism had itK indeed it outdoes
everything in the past by striving !or the downright destruction o! the
individual ...O. )ocialism +ietDsche describes as OCaesarian power
stateO which Oneeds the most submissive sub<ugation o! all citiDens to
the absolute stateOK it can only e=ist Oby means o! the most e=treme
terrorismO Oit secretly prepares !or reigns o! terror and drives the word
F<usticeF li9e a nail into the heads o! the semieducated masses to rob
them completely o! their reasonO. 5he historical lesson. O)ocialism can
serve as a rather brutal and !orce!ul way to teach the danger o! all
accumulations o! state power and to that e=tent instill one with distrust
o! the state itsel!.O
A!ter modern science and the rationality on which it is grounded had
dealt a deadly blow to our 6udeo,Christian ethic and as a conse@uence
also undermined our understanding o! the state +ietDsche sensed the
danger that a @uasi,religious secular morality could !ill the void. 5he
connoisseur o! Aree9 philosophy identi!ied in the Aree9 polis the origin
o! worship o! the state. (n opposition to the usual claptrap o! the
democratic age which put the Aree9 polis as an alleged de!ender o!
!reedom on a pedestal +ietDsche insists that Othe Aree9 polis spurned
and distrusted the increase o! culture among its citiDensK its power!ul
natural impulse was to do almost nothing but cripple and obstruct it.O
5hemes to e=plore.
:e!icit spending and crisis management
'lanned versus !ree economy
'ublic versus private interest
+ational (nterest
-%
Chapter 0: What is 6bedience-
A# 'lato. Crito
*# 4tienne de la *oBtie. :iscourse on ?oluntary )lavery
C# 6ohn Loc9e. )econd 5reatise o! Aovernment. Chapter >(>.
&! the :issolution o! Aovernment
:# Herbert )pencer. 5he 8ight to (gnore the )tate
4# Lysander )pooner. +o 5reason. 5he Constitution o! +o
Authority
5hree months a!ter the trial o! Adol! 4ichmann had begun in 6erusalem
in 1/21 Gale psychologist )tanley ;ilgram carried out e=periments
involving a OteacherO "the accomplice and e=ecutioner# a OlearnerO "the
victim# and an Oe=perimenterO "the commander#. ;ilgram devised the
e=periment to answer the @uestion OCould it be that 4ichmann and his
million accomplices in the Holocaust were <ust !ollowing orders7 Could
we call them all accomplices7O 5he results o! this e=periment were eye,
opening. regardless o! the e=perimental setup a stable ma<ority
"appro=imately two thirds o! the participants# administered deadly 130,
volt shoc9s to their victims.

8udol! HUss Commandant o! AuschwitD at the +uremberg War Crime
trials.
5he F$inal )olutionF o! the 6ewish @uestion meant the complete
e=termination o! all 6ews in 4urope. ( was ordered to establish
e=termination !acilities at AuschwitD in 2P1/11. At that time there
were already in the Aeneral Aovernment three other
e=termination camps. *elDe9 5reblin9a and WolDe9. 5hese
camps were under the 4insatD9ommando o! the )ecurity 'olice
and ):. ( visited 5reblin9a to !ind out how they carried out their
e=terminations. 5he camp commandant at 5reblin9a told me that
he had li@uidated %0000 in the course o! one,hal! year. He was
principally concerned with li@uidating all the 6ews !rom the
Warsaw Ahetto. He used mono=ide gas and ( did not thin9 that
his methods were very e!!icient. )o when ( set up the
e=termination building at AuschwitD ( used Ny9lon * which was
a crystalliDed prussic acid which we dropped into the death
chamber !rom a small opening. (t too9 !rom -,13 minutes to 9ill
the people in the death chamber depending upon climatic
conditions. We 9new when the people were dead because their
-/
screaming stopped. We usually waited about one,hal! hour
be!ore we opened the doors and removed the bodies. A!ter the
bodies were removed our special Commandos too9 o!! the rings
and e=tracted the gold !rom the teeth o! the corpses.
Another improvement we made over 5reblin9a was that we built
our gas chamber to accommodate 2000 people at one time
whereas at 5reblin9a their 10 gas chambers only accommodated
200 people each. 5he way we selected our victims was as
!ollows. We had two )) doctors on duty at AuschwitD to e=amine
the incoming transports o! prisoners. 5he prisoners would be
marched by one o! the doctors who would ma9e spot decisions
as they wal9ed by. 5hose who were !it !or wor9 were sent into
the camp. &thers were sent immediately to the e=termination
plants. Children o! tender years were invariably e=terminated
since by reason o! their youth they were unable to wor9. )till
another improvement we made over 5reblin9a was that at
5reblin9a the victims almost always 9new that they were to be
e=terminated and at AuschwitD we endeavored to !ool the victims
into thin9ing that they were to go through a delousing process.
&! course !re@uently they realiDed our true intentions and we
sometimes had riots and di!!iculties due to that !act. ?ery
!re@uently women would hide their children under the clothes
but o! course when we !ound them we would send the children in
to be e=terminated. We were re@uired to carry out these
e=terminations in secrecy but o! course the !oul and nauseating
stench !rom the continuous burning o! bodies permeated the
entire area and all o! the people living in the surrounding
communities 9new that e=terminations were going on at
AuschwitD.
Without a doubt 4ichmann HUss and thousands o! other henchmen
acted in the name o! the Aerman state. ;ost o! these e=ecutioners
were not sadists but bureaucrats. 5hey !unctioned li9e little wheels in a
gigantic machinery which gave them purpose. 'urposes do change but
obedience J receiver compliance to source authority J remains the
li!eblood o! states simply because all states cyclically reproduce and
continuously rely on vertical transactions between government and the
governed.
We will address the topic o! LobedienceM !rom !ive di!!erent thin9ers o!
three di!!erent eras.
10
'lato "c. 120, c. -10 *C# !ollower o! )ocrates and !ather o!
political science
4tienne de la *oBtie "13-0,132-# parlementaire writer political
philosopher and !riend o! ;ontaigne
6ohn Loc9e "12-2,1001# lawyer and philosopher
Herbert )pencer "1%20,1/0-# philosopher and classical liberal
political theorist
Lysander )pooner "1%0%,1%%0# individualist anarchist political
philosopher abolitionist legal theorist
Plato: Crito
(t has been said that not 'lato but his nephew )peusippus wrote Crito.
5here certainly are a number o! oddities about the te=t "see
(ntroduction to the 'enguin edition by Harold 5arrant#.
Lac9 o! )ocratic irony
Hnusual religious elements
Absence o! the )ocratic elenchus "syllogistic re!utation#
Lac9 o! any obviously O'latonicO metaphysical or psychological
in!rastructure
Whatever the truth in respect to authorship the !act remains that the
boo9 was written in the 1
th
c. *C and has ever since been associated
with 'lato.
5he structure o! 5he Crito is !airly simple.
)ocrates is in prison and two days be!ore his death Crito tries
to arrange his escape
Crito tries to persuade )ocrates to escape
:iscussion between Crito and )ocrates
)ocrates replies to CritoFs arguments !or escaping
)ocrates states in the discussion with Crito that he never accepts
anything but the best argument "12b# and that the @uality o! an
argument has nothing to do with the number o! people who support it
"10cPd#. )oon )ocrates introduces his standard argument Othat the
really important thing is not to live but to live wellO "1%b# which
Oamounts to the same thing as to live honourably and <ustlyO "ibid.#.
*e!ore he replies to Crito )ocrates ma9es it clear that Oin no
circumstances must one do wrongO "1/b# and there!ore without proving
the state wrong it would be un<ust to escape !rom prison "O(! we leave
11
this place without !irst persuading the state to let us go are we or are
we not doing an in<ury ...7O#.
)o !ar we have heard !amiliar arguments e=cept !or the personi!ication
o! the state. What comes ne=t however appears rather weird although
the argument has gained much power with nationalism. )ocrates
begins his riposte by portraying the polis as the personi!ication o!
reason in comparison to which the individual must be in!erior. O:o you
imagine that a city can continue to e=ist and not be turned upside
down i! the legal <udgements which are pronounced in it have no !orce
but are nulli!ied and destroyed by private persons7O "30b# 8ather than
!ollowing up on the usual argument culminating in the superiority o! the
philosopher to everyone else in the polis in terms o! sound <udgment
)ocrates soon gives the discussion a special twist. the polis is the
place which made us what we are. Writes 'lato. OWhat charge do you
bring against us and the )tate that you are trying to destroy us7 :id
we not give you li!e in the !irst place7 Was is not through us that your
!ather married your mother and brought you into this world7O "30d#
)ocrates however insists that man is not <ust in!luenced by the polis
but that the two are slave and master to each other. O5hen since you
have been born and brought up and educated can you deny in the
!irst place that you were our child and slave both you and your
ancestors7O "30e# Little wonder that )ocrates ne=t turns the polis into
something absolute. OAre you so wise as to have !orgotten that
compared with your mother and !ather and all the rest o! your
ancestors your country is something !ar more precious more
venerable more sacred and held in greater honour both among gods
and among all reasonable men7 "31aPb#
$rom all this !ollows O5hat you must either persuade your country or do
whatever it orders and patiently submit to any punishment that it
imposes whether it be !logging or imprisonment7 And i! it leads you out
to war to be wounded or 9illed you must comply and it is <ust that this
should be so ... . *oth in war and in the lawcourts and everywhere else
you must do whatever your city and your country commands or else
persuade it that <ustice is on your sideK but violence against mother or
!ather is an unholy act and it is a !ar greater sin against your country.O
"31bPc#
'lato also introduces a social contract theory according to which
anyone in the polis ma9es a choice. *y staying one opts !or it and
voluntarily submits to it. Othat any Athenian on attaining to manhood
12
and seeing !or himsel! the political organiDation o! the )tate and us its
Laws is permitted i! he is not satis!ied with us to ta9e his property and
go away wherever he li9es.O "31d# And again. Oyou had seventy years
in which you could have le!t the country i! you were not satis!ied with
us or !elt that the agreements were un<ust.O "32e# )ocrates spea9s o!
OcovenantsO "32e 31c# between him and them which tie any citiDen to
the laws o! the polis !or better or worse.
)tienne de la %oAtie: iscourse on 'oluntary Sla#ery
;urray +. 8othbard in 5he 'olitical 5hought o! 4tienne de la *oBtie
describes 5he :iscourse o! ?oluntary )ervitude as Olucidly and
coherently structured around a single a=iom a single percipient insight
into the nature not only o! tyranny but implicitly o! the )tate apparatus
itsel!.O And !urther down. OLa *oBtie cuts to the heart o! what is or
rather should be the central problem o! political philosophy. the
mystery o! civil obedience.O
Although de la *oBtie O!ollowed the method o! 8enaissance writers
notably +iccolo ;achiavelliO in view o! Oabstract universal reasoningO
and O!re@uent re!erences to classical anti@uityO "8othbard# he is the
!irst thin9er who openly pronounced himsel! clearly against any !orm o!
government rather than a speci!ic !orm o! it. :i!!erent !rom a long line o!
thin9ers !rom the )toa to 5homas ;ore de la *oBtie did not !lee into
escapism o! the introverted or Htopian !orm. :e la *oBtie an early
anarchist or a libertarian7
:e la *oBtie was a lawyer at a time when the legal trade J a stronghold
o! noble opposition to the absolute state J was still Oan e=iting
enterprise a philosophical search !or truth and !undamental principlesO
"8othbard#. He had been educated at the Hniversity o! &rlBans where
he was e=posed to the in!luence o! Huguenot "$rench Calvinist#
teachers. 'leading !or tolerance and reason he must also be ran9ed
among the philosophes o! the early 4nlightenment. Aiven these
circumstances de la *oBtie was politically spea9ing an anti,
monopolist more than anything else. What are his arguments against
political monopoly7
(n the 12
th
century the tyrant was not yet the Hydra that it was to
become a!ter the $rench 8evolution. 5he resistance o! Church and
nobility to royal power had not yet been removed. +ew in 8enaissance
was however the discovery o! Othe peopleO. )oon personal rulers
1-
should begin to destroy Church and nobility as political !actors J and
on the way change themselves into impersonal sovereigns. :e la
*oBtie observed that Ogeneral public support is in the very nature o! all
governments that endure including the most oppressive o! tyranniesO
"8othbard#. Conse@uently by mass withdrawal o! consent tyranny
would collapse. )o at least the 1%,year,old somewhat naively hoped
although his own analysis o! power gives us an idea o! the comple=ity
o! its reproduction.
Without any 9nowledge o! economic theory the young man saw clearly
that the unrestricted rule o! one agent o! coercion Obecomes abusive
and unreasonableO "de la *oBtie# as well as unpredictable Osince it is
always in his power to be cruel whenever he pleasesO "ibid.#. What are
possible e=planations !or this7
&bedience is based on personal violence or cruelty and !ear.
*ut a ruler does not have to be physically strong. O5oo
!re@uently this same little man is the most cowardly and
e!!eminate in the nation a stranger to the powder o! battle and
hesitant on the sands o! the tournamentK not only without
energy to direct men by !orce but with hardly enough virility to
bed with a common womanQO "de la *oBtie#
&bedience is based on indi!!erence. 5he multitude does not
rise because it does not see the advantage o! !reedom. OLiberty
is the only <oy upon which men do not seem to insistK !or surely
i! they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they
re!use this wonder!ul privilege because it is so easily ac@uired.O
"de la *oBtie#
Liberty presupposes will the will to !reedom. 5his Osimple act o! the
willO "de la *oBtie# turns out to be the cru= because it ta9es as given
that we understand nature and act accordingly. O... i! we led our lives
according to the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by
her we should be intuitively obedient to our parentsK later we should
adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody.O "de la
*oBtie# (! O!reedom is our natural stateO why then has Oevil chance ... so
denatured man that he the only creature really born to be !ree lac9s
the memory o! his original conditions and the desire to return to it7O "de
la *oBtie#
5here are three !orms o! dictatorship whereby Othe method o! ruling is
practically the sameO "de la *oBtie#.
11
*y popular election
*y !orce or deception
*y inheritance
(n all three cases it appears that habituation and custom play a central
role. 'eople tend to !orget how sweet !reedom once was and en<oy the
heavy yo9e o! sub<ection. 5here are always a !ew Owho !eel the weight
o! the yo9e and cannot restrain themselves !rom attempting to sha9e it
o!!. ... 5hese are the ones who having good minds o! their own have
!urther trained them by study and learning. 4ven i! liberty had entirely
perished !rom the earth such men would invent it. $or them slavery
has no satis!actions no matter how well disguised.O "de la *oBtie#
5hese men are !ew and they lac9 organiDation. OHnder the tyrant they
have lost !reedom o! action o! speech and almost o! thoughtK they are
alone in their aspiration.O "de la *oBtie# *ut they do e=ist and give
e=ample and hold up the banner o! liberty.
As much as submission results !rom custom the submissive spirit
which ma9es it lasting comes !rom training. Humans are trained to
obey li9e dogs and when eventually their behavior becomes @uasi
instinctive the tyrant triumphs in victory. :oggish education and
distractive entertainment serve the same purpose. they both lull the
slaves into sweet dreams. 5al9ing about Othe poor !ools ... tric9ed into
servitudeO so easily de la *oBtie observes. O5ruly it is a marvellous
thing that they let themselves be caught so @uic9ly at the slightest
tic9ling o! their !ancy. 'lays !arces spectacles gladiators strange
beasts medals pictures and other such opiates these were !or
ancient peoples the bait toward slavery the price o! their liberty the
instruments o! tyranny.O "de la *oBtie# And he marvels at the
simpletons who do not even OrealiDe that they were merely recovering a
portion o! their own property and that their ruler could not have given
them what they were receiving without having !irst ta9en it !rom them.O
"de la *oBtie# While custom indoctrination entertainment ma9e people
dull and subservient adoration cements their in!eriority. (n this conte=t
religion and symbolism come into play.
5he true secret o! domination however lies in the bureaucratic
hierarchy. 5he tyrant creates o!!ices !or his supporters and
e=ecutioners. O)uch men must not only obey ordersK they must
anticipate his wishesK to satis!y him they must !oresee his desiresK they
must wear themselves out torment themselves 9ill themselves with
wor9 in his interest and accept his pleasure as their own neglecting
13
their pre!erences !or his distorting their character and corrupting their
natureK they must pay heed to his words to his intonation to his
gestures and to his glance.O "de la *oBtie# What holds the state
together is not love or !riendship between the bureaucrats but
outerdirectedness and a sense o! purpose. Othey are not !riends they
are merely accomplicesO "de la *oBtie#.
:e la *oBtie clearly sees that Othe possession o! wealth is the worst o!
crimes against him "the tyrant#O "de la *oBtie#. 5he state destroys
wealth and the more tyrannical a state is the more wealth it destroys.
4ventually it impoverishes and destroys its very !oundation.
Hn!ortunately de la *oBtie !ails to show the road out o! ser!dom without
a massive destruction o! wealth.
,ohn Loc"e: Second Treatise of ?o#ern!ent5 Chapter
<I<5 6f the issolution of ?o#ern!ent
Aovernment Loc9e claims can be dissolved
!rom without by con@uest
!rom within under the !ollowing two circumstances
When the legislation is altered. OWhen any one or more
shall ta9e upon them to ma9e laws whom the people have
not appointed so to do they ma9e laws without authority
which the people are not there!ore bound to obey.O "I 212#
Whenever the will o! society is disregarded by the legislator
legislation is altered.
When the legislative Oact contrary to their trustO "I 221#.
5his happens when they Oinvade the property o! the
sub<ectO "ibid.# which e@uals Oa state o! war with the peopleO
"ibid.#
Loc9eFs treatise despite !re@uent logical inconsistencies and a
dogmatic tenor ta9es up HobbesF concept o! social contract and gives
it a new twist. individuals he maintains enter society voluntarily by
giving up their individuality. As long as the society lasts power remains
in the community. 5he same holds !or the legislative empowered by
society. 'ower only reverts to the society Owhen by the miscarriages o!
those in authority it is !or!eitedO "I 21-#.
12
Herbert Spencer: The (ight to Ignore the State
5he problem o! obedience seemingly solved by Loc9e in a social
contract that lapses when bro9en was ta9en up again by )pencer.
What Loc9e had le!t patched over by his misuse o! the term contract
i.e. the contradiction between property right and legislation )pencer
reintroduced into the debate. Aone are the devices O )tate o! +atureO
and O)ocial ContractO and the concomitant con!usion o! OindividualO
OsocietyO and OstateO.
)pencer begins with individual !reedom and contrasts it with
government which is Osimply an agent employed in common by a
number o! individuals to secure to them certain advantagesO "1.#. (!
!reedom deserves its name the individual is !ree to connect himsel!
with the state or Oto relin@uish its protection and to re!use paying
toward its supportO "1.#. +ot only is !reedom irreconcilable with
government !reedom is also morally de!endable where government is
not. Omagisterial power ... e=ists by evilO and Oviolence is employed to
maintain itO "2.#.
With Loc9e )pencer agrees that government is made !or men and not
men !or government i! Olegislative authority is deputedO "-.# i.e. comes
!rom individuals. (! they are masters Othey con!er the said authority
voluntarily. and this implies that they may give or withhold it as they
pleaseO "-.#. Without calling it by its name )pencer is the !irst to insist
on the right to e=it as we 9now it !rom civil contracts.
+ow the ne=t !ocus is on the people. )pencer departs !rom the
8ousseauan doctrine o! Ovolont3 g3n3ralO "general will or ma<ority vote#
as the only legitimate source o! decision,ma9ing. O... !rom the will o! the
people that is o! the ma<ority there can be no appeal. Get is this belie!
entirely erroneous.O "1.# What i! a ma<ority claims the right Oto murder
to enslave or to robO "1.#7 :oes a ma<ority change immorality into its
opposite simply because it is a ma<ority7 5he answer is clearly no. A
vote //P1 is as immoral as a vote 1P// because both imply coercion.
And )pencer concludes. O5he !reest !orm o! government is only the
least ob<ectional !orm.O "1.# $rom here it is only logical to argue. O5he
very e=istence o! ma<orities and minorities is indicative o! an immoral
state.O "1.# 5he absurdity becomes complete when in elections any o!
the three possible outcomes J yes no or abstained J is mechanically
interpreted as recognition o! the ma<ority vote.
)pencer 9nows o! Othe incongruity between a per!ect law and an
10
imper!ect stateO "0.#. He also sees that government will eventually be
rendered impossible when we ac9nowledge that the ma<ority has no
right to coerce the minority. 5hat the state must decay he addresses in
the last chapter where he says that Oit is a mista9e to assume that
government must necessarily last !oreverO "%.#. (t Omar9s a certain stage
o! civiliDation. ... (t is not essential but incidental.O "%.#
Lysander Spooner: No Treason5 The Constitution of No
Authority
5he Constitution o! +o Authority !urther develops )pencerFs criti@ue o!
ma<ority decisions. (n chapter (( o! his treatise )pooner loo9s into the
mechanism o! voting J 9ey !or democratic government J and comes to
the !ollowing conclusions.
O5he act o! voting could bind nobody but the actual votersO. As
)pencer had already observed be!ore him voters who voted
with no or non,voters cannot be @uoted as supporters o!
ma<ority decisions.
+on,voters cannot be counted in. *ut even voters pledge
themselves only !or a limited time.
5he act o! voting can only be Oper!ectly voluntaryO on the part o!
the voter. 5his however is not the case where government
e=ists since here the voter is Oenvironed by a gang o! tyrants
robbers and murderers ...K terrocrats ... who !orce him to pay
money render service and !orego the e=ercise o! many o! his
natural rightsO.
?oting can be seen as an attempt o! the voter to prevent the
government !rom using his ta= money against him.
5he votes !or nonelected candidates cannot be ta9en as
support o! the constitution but must rather be held against it.
5he votes !or outsider candidates cannot be ta9en as support o!
the constitution.
)ince voting is secret it cannot be said who supported what. (t
all becomes a @uestion o! arithmetics.
?oting is no proo! o! the voterFs intentions.
)ecret ballot !rees the voter o! any responsibility !or the
outcome o! the election.
?oting is secret and Oall secret FgovernmentsF ... are necessarily
only secret bands of tyrants. robbers. and !urderersO so
that the constitution is not supported by anyone.
1%
)pooner insists that the supporters o! the constitution and government
consist o! three classes.
5he 9naves "the government#
5he dupes "the governed who support the government#
5he desperate and passive "the governed who see the evil but
donFt act#
&nly those who do not !all in any o! the three categories are !ree. !ree
!rom servitude slavery and oppression.
5hemes to e=plore.
Legitimacy
8ise and decline o! the state
:ynamics o! ma<ority decisions
5he rational voter
1/
Chapter 3: What is Security-
A# 5homas Hobbes. Leviathan. &! ;an. 'art (. Chapter >(((. &!
the +aturall Condition o! ;an9ind as concerning their $elicity
and ;isery
*# Austave de ;olinari. 5he 'roduction o! )ecurity
C# Hans,Hermann Hoppe. Aovernment and the 'rivate
'roduction o! :e!ense (,(((. $rom. 5he ;yth o! +ational
:e!ense
Anyone who de!ends the state J minimalists and ma=imalists ali9e J
must name OsecurityO !irst. *ut even anti,statists concede security a
very high priority. We all want to live in peace and security. (! these are
goods one might as9 why do the ma<ority e=pect a monopolistic
agency to be best suited to deliver them7 &r do we have to loo9 !or
arguments beyond the scope o! economic theory to answer the
@uestion o! security7 &r is security simply the illusion a sel!,imposing
state needs to trade !or its un<usti!iable e=istence7
8egardless o! claims no state has ever succeeded in 9eeping its
promise. to produce security. +o state will ever succeed in stopping
murder and war. With some <usti!ication one could even argue that this
would be a contradiction in itsel!. A!ter all isnFt the state the number
one murderer o! all times i! we rely on statistics "i.e. state numbers#7 (!
in<ustice is in the nature o! man why should the state succeed where
even the gods had turned away in despair7
(! security is the lie o! Othe coldest o! all cold monstersO "$riedrich
+ietDsche. 5hus )pa9e Narathustra. &! the +ew (dol# we may thin9 o!
a new terminology. 8is9,minimiDation instead o! securityK ris9,
ma=imiDation instead o! insecurity. Let us brie!ly consider two cases
one internal and the other e=ternal.
:avid $riedman in Hidden &rder. 5he 4conomics o! 4veryday
Li!e in Chapter 20 8ational Criminals and (ntentional
Accidents. 5he 4conomics o! Law and Lawbrea9ing argues that
O5he economic approach to crime starts !rom one simple
assumption. Criminals are rational. A burglar burgles !or the
same reason ( teach economics J because he !inds it a more
attractive pro!ession than any other. 5he obvious conclusion is
that the way to reduce burglary J whether as a legislator or a
30
homeowner J is by raising the costs o! the burglarFs pro!ession
or reducing its bene!its.O Wisdom could simply be li9e in the
!ollowing <o9e told by $riedman. 5wo men encountered a
hungry bear. &ne turned to run. O(tFs hopelessO the other told
him Oyou canFt outrun a bear.O O+oO he replied. O*ut ( might be
able to outrun you.O
What is true !or individuals could also be true !or collectives.
Con!licts between warring nations are rarely all,out battles o!
victory or de!eat. Conse@uently Othe problem !aced by the
potential victim is not how to de!eat the aggressor but only how
to ma9e aggression unpro!itableO "ibid.#. 5hat would e=plain
why small nations do not only survive J strangely enough their
number has been increasing steadily J but survive without
shi!ting as much wealth !rom the productive to the unproductive
sectors li9e the ObulliesO and there!ore are more peace!ul and
prosperous.
We will address OsecurityO !rom three di!!erent thin9ers o! three di!!erent
eras.
5homas Hobbes "13%%,120/# philosopher and together with
6ustus Lipsius "1310,1202# the !ather o! the modern )tate
Austave de ;olinari "1%1/,1/12# economist
Hans,Hermann Hoppe "1/1/,# economist and philosopher
Tho!as Hobbes: Le#iathan5 6f *an5 Part I5 Chapter <III5
6f the Naturall Condition of *an"ind. as concerning their
7elicity. and *isery
5wo things must be remembered when we call on 5homas Hobbes in
de!ense o! the state.
Hobbes lived through a period o! religiously in!luenced turmoil
and wars. the three 4nglish Civil Wars "1212,13 121%,1/
121/,31# and the 5hirty Gears War in Continental 4urope
"121%,1%#
Hobbes was 13 years old when the Aolden Age o! 4liDabeth (
"133%,120-# ended. :uring her reign the arts !lourished
")ha9espeare ;arlowe 6onson# the economy prospered
"coloniDation o! AmericaK 8oyal Charters !or trading companies
such as the *ritish 4ast (ndia Company !ounded in 1200# and
31
4ngland within decades became the dominant sea power a!ter
the repulsion o! the )panish L(nvincible ArmadaM in 13%%.
However 4ngland was not yet industrialiDed and !ully
capitalistic.
A century a!ter Hobbes ?oltaire wrote in 5he 'hilosophical :ictionary
under the header $anaticism. O$anaticism is to superstition what
delirium is to !ever and what !ury is to anger. 5he man who has
ecstasies and visions who ta9es dream !or realities and his imaginings
!or prophecies is an enthusiast. 5he man who bac9s his madness with
murder is a !anatic.O ?oltaire accentuated that !anaticism is li9e an
incurable disease. O5here is no other remedy !or this epidemic illness
than the spirit o! !ree thought which spreading little by little !inally
so!tens menFs customs and prevents the renewal o! the disease. $or
as soon as this evil ma9es any progress we must !lee and wait !or the
air to become pure again.O 5he !reedom o! thought advocated by
?oltaire without a doubt echoes the optimism o! the 4nlightenment to
whose denouement Hobbes considerably contributed. :i!!erent !rom
?oltaire Hobbes cured the disease by as some may say ma9ing it
chronic. he erected the state as a di9e against !anaticism assuming
that it would prevent the epidemic !rom spreading and in!ecting the
whole society. He !ailed to account !or that singular case where the
epidemic rages on the hither side o! the di9e.
Chapter >((( is the 9ey passage o! the Leviathan. (t contains
the allegory o! social e@uality
the allegory o! a O)tate o! +atureO with OWarre o! every one
against every oneO "bellum omnia contra omnes#
and points to the allegory o! a )ocial Contract "in Chapter >(?#
which erects the )tate on the ruins o! chaos
Hobbes begins his discourse by stating that no one is naturally in such
a position o! strength that he need not !ear others. O$or as to the
strength o! body the wea9est has strength enough to 9ill the strongest
either by secret machination or by con!ederacy with others that are in
the same danger with himsel!e.O What applies to the human body is
also true !or the human mind. 5he !act that people emphasiDe the
di!!erence points to a high degree o! e@uality Hobbes thought. +o one
can be certain o! the !ruits o! his labor. A peasant can be dispossessed
by a warrior but the warrior cannot be sure o! his spoils because there
could be others more power!ul than himsel! who deprive him o! his
ac@uisitions. 5he vicious circle o! violence and aggression is set in
32
motion by Othree principall causes o! @uarrellO.
Competition which ma9es men invade !or gain by imposing
themselves as masters over slaves
:i!!idence which ma9es men invade !or sa!ety to de!end
wea9er men
Alory which ma9es men invade !or reputation
War is the time in which men live Owithout a common 'ower to 9eep
them all in aweO. (n a state o! war Othere is no place !or (ndustryK
because the !ruit thereo! is uncertainO. (n such a )tate o! +ature Othe
li!e o! manO is Osolitary poore nasty brutish and shortO. (! war is with
society peace must be with Leviathan. And what i! the premise is
wrong7
?usta#e de *olinari: The Production of Security
;olinariFs answer to HobbesF @uestion is the most logical and at the
same time the most ignored. ;olinari watched politics through
economic glasses and saw not miracles but lies.
(n -es &oir3es de la %ue &aint4-azare ;olinari says. O5he monopoly o!
government is no better than any other. &ne does not govern well and
especially not cheaply when one has no competition to !ear when the
ruled are deprived o! the right o! !reely choosing their rulers. Arant a
grocer the e=clusive right to supply a neighborhood prevent the
inhabitants o! this neighborhood !rom buying any goods !rom other
grocers in the vicinity or even !rom supplying their own groceries and
you will see what detestable rubbish the privileged grocer will end up
selling and at what pricesQ Gou will see how he will grow rich at the
e=pense o! the un!ortunate consumers what royal pomp he will display
!or the greater glory o! the neighborhood. WellQ What is true !or the
lowliest services is no less true !or the lo!tiest. 5he monopoly o!
government is worth no more than that o! a grocerFs shop. 5he
production o! security inevitably becomes costly and bad when it is
organiDed as a monopoly. (t is in the monopoly o! security that lies the
principal cause o! wars which have laid waste humanity.O
Contrary to Hobbes ;olinari develops the state !rom the individual.
)ociety is not chaos and war but the mar9etplace !or individuals. O5he
human race is essentially sociable.O )ince human beings have needs
which they individually cannot satis!y society naturally comes into play
3-
with its division o! labor and e=changes. O(n brie! we see an
organization emerge by means o! which man can more completely
satis!y his needs than he could living in isolation. 5his natural
organiDation is called society.O &r in other words. O5he ob<ect o! society
is there!ore the most complete satis!action o! manFs needs. 5he division
o! labor and e=change are the means by which this is accomplished.O
;olinari spots a particular type o! need among the needs o! man. Othe
need !or securityO. (! security e=isted Onaturally on earth R no arti!icial
institution would be necessary to establish itO. )ince this is not the
case there arises the need !or Oestablishments whose ob<ect is to
guarantee to everyone the peace!ul possession o! his person and his
goods. 5hese establishments were called governments.O
As much as there is a need !or security humans also pre!er to delegate
protection rather than procuring it themselves. 5his allows them to
pursue activities !or which they are better suited. 5hey choose between
two goods and opt !or the one that o!!ers more and buy the other J
security J at the lowest price.
(n the ne=t step o! the argument ;olinari identi!ies two principles in
political economy.
5he !ree mar9et achieves the best results !or the consumer
"highest @uality lowest price @uic9est delivery minimal waste
etc.#
5he interest o! the consumer should always prevail over the
interest o! the producer
$rom these two premises !ollows the conclusion.
)ecurity being a good should be produced in !ree competition
)ecurity most would say is not li9e any other goodK it has to be
organiDed by a monopoly. ;olinari counters. O*ut why should there be
an e=ception relative to security7 What special reason is there that the
production o! security cannot be relegated to !ree competition7 Why
should it be sub<ected to a di!!erent principle and organiDed according
to a di!!erent system7O As long as there is no proo! !or the hypothesis
that security cannot be classi!ied according to economic criteria all
reservations must be discarded as un!ounded.
(n the !inal step ;olinari turns to the @uestion why we have come to
accept the logical contradiction as normal. He !inds two principles.
31
;onopoly. O4very monopoly necessarily rests on !orceO
because consumers would not !reely pay Othe abusive
monopoly surta=O.
Communism. an e=tension o! monopoly is the common
organiDation o! production
5he monopoly on security is special in a number o! ways.
(t is a monopoly o! the stronger over the wea9er
(t is the most pro!itable monopoly o! all monopolies
(t engenders war as Onecessary and inevitable conse@uenceO
(t engenders all other monopolies
(n a historical conte=t the transition !rom absolutism to democracy is
the change !rom monopoly to communism in the production o! security.
O;onopolistic governments claim to have obtained !rom Aod himsel!
this authority which gives them the right to modi!y or rema9e society
according to their !ancy and to dispose o! persons and property
however they please. Communistic governments appeal to human
reason as mani!ested in the ma<ority o! the sovereign people.O
5he @uestion arises where the state receives its Oimmutable sacred
authorityO !rom. OHnless those in power are believed to have a mandate
!rom a superior entity the in<ured interests will resist.O 5he answer
;olinari sees in divine right. OA government based on divine right is
imperishable.O At least as long as people believe in it. Little does it
matter whether the state is legitimiDed !rom above or li9e in communist
doctrine !rom below. OHere is what the communists the partisans o!
popular sovereignty assume. 5hey assume that human reason has the
power to discover the best laws and the organiDation which most
per!ectly suits societyK and that in practice these laws reveal
themselves at the conclusion o! a !ree debate between con!licting
opinions. (! there is no unanimity i! there is still dissension a!ter the
debate the ma<ority is in the right since it comprises the larger number
o! reasonable individuals. ... Conse@uently they insist that the
decisions o! the ma<ority must become law and that the minority is
obliged to submit to it even i! it is contrary to its most deeply rooted
convictions and in<ures its most precious interests.O
(! security was a service rather than a disservice consumers would
chec9 i! the producer o! security is strong enough to protect
them
chec9 whether the producer o! security could pose a danger to
33
their interest
chec9 i! a competitive service could o!!er them better terms
A bargain between producer and consumer would only result !rom
voluntary agreement. And li9e !or any other good or service @uality
and price must become better and better !or the consumer. O(! on the
contrary the consumer is not !ree to buy security wherever he pleases
you !orthwith see open up a large pro!ession dedicated to arbitrariness
and bad management <ustice becomes slow and costly the police
ve=atious individual liberty is no longer respected the price o! security
is abusively in!lated and ine@uitably apportioned according to the
power and in!luence o! this or that class o! consumers. 5he protectors
engage in bitter struggles to wrest customers !rom one another. (n a
word all the abuses inherent in monopoly or in communism crop up.O
Hans2Her!ann Hoppe: ?o#ern!ent and the Pri#ate
Production of efense. I2III5 7ro!: The *yth of National
efense
(n this essay Hoppe targets the OHobbesian mythO i.e. the belie! that
the solution to Oa permanent FunderproductionF o! securityO in the )tate
o! +ature is and can only be the state.
5he third party in a con!lict between two parties is Hoppe emphasiDes
Onot <ust another individualO but Oa sovereignO. As such he has Otwo
uni@ue powersO.
His main !eatures are coercion aggression and monopoly. He
Ois a compulsory territorial monopolist o! protectionO.
He destroys the mar9et and thus changes a good to a bad a
service to a disservice. He threatens and terroriDes anyone who
does not want to pay !or this bad or disservice. He Ohas the
power to impose ta=es in order to provide security FcollectivelyFO.
However the problem with HobbesF Leviathan goes deeper.
Leviathan is not above and beyond manFs nature. 5here!ore
Leviathan ma9es only peace between the two con!licting parties
Oso that he himsel! can rob both o! them more pro!itablyO.
'eace is achieved through Othe economic disarmamentO o! the
con!licting parties.
5he better Leviathan is protected J the more power!ul the state
32
becomes J the less the con!licting parties are protected against
him.
+o one would !reely and voluntarily Oagree to a contract that
allowed oneFs protector to determine unilaterally J and
irrevocably J the sum that the protected must pay !or his
protectionO.
Hoppe summariDes. OAiven the principle o! government J <udicial
monopoly and the power to ta= J any notion o! limiting its power and
sa!eguarding individual li!e and property is illusory. Hnder monopolistic
auspices the price o! <ustice and protection must rise and its @uality
must !all. A ta=,!unded protection agency is a contradiction in terms
and will lead to ever more ta=es and less protection.O And in re!erring
to 8othbard he concludes. O... <ust as socialism cannot be re!ormed but
must be abolished in order to achieve prosperity so the institution o! a
state cannot be re!ormed but must be abolished in order to achieve
<ustice and protection.O
5hemes to e=plore.
Hobbes and his time
)ecurity and ris9 management
;odels o! privately produced security
30
Chapter 4: What is Collecti#e %elief-
A# 5hucydides. 'ericlesF $uneral &ration
*# 6ohann Aottlieb $ichte. Addresses to the Aerman +ation.
1-th Address
C# Aiuseppe ;aDDini. An 4ssay on the :uties o! ;an
Addressed to Wor9ingmen Chapter ? , :uties 5owards Gour
Country
:# 5heodor HerDl. 5he 6ewish )tate (ntroduction
5he de!inition o! a state necessarily includes the concept o! boundary
since the minimalist de!inition o! a state re!ers to a territory to rob "ta=#
and to de!end against other robbers "states#. 5he tas9 o! the state
there!ore lies in morphing apolitical into political collectives. 5he OwallO
the state erects around itsel! grows in height with the !unctions the
state monopoliDes. 5he OwallO o! a minimal state is low since the
collective pie !or redistribution does not e=ist. 5he modern Wel!are
)tate needs a very high OwallO since the collective pie is big.
(! we draw concentric circles around the political center we can e=pect
political support to diminish the !urther away a circle is !rom the center
in a minimal state. 5he opposite occurs when we study a ma=imal
state. 5he periphery becomes more privileged than it should be
according to its contribution to the pie. *ut Oone man one voteO ma9es
the last circle as good as any other. We there!ore observe an
overproportional interest o! the political center in the periphery where
the mass is in a Wel!are )tate.
A third parameter is the desired e=clusiveness o! a state. 5o treat it
only as a !unction o! arrogated responsibilities would not e=plain a
number o! cases where religion or ideology play an eminent role.

+ow we combine the three parameters in one e@uation and get the
!ollowing result.
+o state without boundaries i.e. degrees o! e=clusiveness.
5he boundaries are less transparent the more numerous the
!unctions o! the state.
5he more comprehensive the state the more there is a need to
legitimiDe the massive redistribution that ta9es place inside.
(! we had to divide a group small or large into two groups we obviously
3%
would need to <usti!y our division in one way or another. &! no help
would be arguments li9e. all humans are rational beings. )omething
divisive is needed regardless o! what it is. A state could <usti!y the
division by pointing to s9in color shape o! the nose bowel length or
circum!erence o! the s9ull or by re!erring to language culture or
religion. All these <usti!ications are e@ually pseudo,scienti!ic. ;ost
acceptable however appear to be divisions by geography language
ethnicity or customs which do not need to be unambiguously de!inedK
they only need to appear sel!,e=planatory or plausible. Less acceptable
are random patterns which 9eep boundaries transparent "a!ter all what
is a boundary good !or i! it can be changed very easily li9e shoes7#.
&! course real J and sometimes @uite unbridgeable J divisions do
e=ist and it would be naive to ignore or deny them. And yet they are
both more LnaturalM and less absolute than political division. )ome are
more spontaneous and merely temporary li9e the crowds o! sports
events. 8eligious division can be overcome by conversion. Cultural
division can at least be reduced by assimilation. 4ven ethnic division
can be overcome over time by interbreeding. 'olitical division on the
other hand is in essence absolute even i! it is o!ten handled more
!le=ibly. (ts sole purpose is to support the state which depends on it.
We will address Ocollective belie!O !rom the greatest representative o!
Athenian democracy and three nationalists o! the long 1/th century.
'ericles "c. 1/3,12/ *C# Athenian statesman orator and
general
6ohann Aottlieb $ichte "1022,1%11# philosopher
Aiuseppe ;aDDini "1%03,1%02# (talian nationalist
5heodor HerDl "1%20,1/01# ?iennese <ournalist !ounder o!
modern Nionism
Thucydides: PericlesB 7uneral 6ration
'ericlesF $uneral &ration is a classical piece o! propaganda re!erence
o! all demagogues "!rom Aree9 demos T people and agagos T leading#
or leaders o! their chosen peoples until the present day. 5he speech
'ericles delivered a!ter the !irst battles o! the 'eloponnesian War "1-1
*C , 101 *C# targeted the Athenian citiDens in the e=pectation to
e=tract !rom them more ta= "money and service#.
'ericles in his speech draws a sharp boundary between Athenian
3/
citiDens J a minority since women slaves and !oreigners were no
citiDens J and the other "the )partans and their allies#. He portrays
Athens as a haven o! happiness prosperity culture. As can be
e=pected !rom a demagogue he does not give a very accurate picture
o! the Athenian polis. LetFs !orgive him !or this a!ter all he had to
mobiliDe patriotic sentiment and <ust enough consent as was needed to
!inance his darling !leet and man it with unwilling ta=payers.
+o appeal to unity would bear !ruit without re!erence to history. History
ma9es the present meaning!ul and gives it purpose. collective destiny
gains depth i! seen as a logical se@uence o! past snapshots. (t
produces a biological lin9age which de!ines oneFs present role and
responsibilities !or !uture generations. &ne bro9en lin9 destroys
collective e=istence and shoulders the culprit with all the guilt !or
collective !ailure. )acri!ice and death taste sweet in the !ace o! a
glorious and uni@ue history.
5he phylogenetical uni@ueness must receive a third dimension "in
addition to the time and space vectors# to become plastic. $or this
purpose 'ericles lists up a number o! points which testi!y to the claim
that Athens was Orather a pattern to others than imitators ourselvesO.
Among them are.
A model state with democratic representation
4@ual <ustice to all
'romotion according to talent
$reedom and tolerance
4ntertainment and pleasure
Hospitality and openness
8e!inement in culture
Wel!are
'atriotism
'ericlesF speech ends with an appeal to the sons and brothers o! the
dead soldiers to <oin the Oarduous struggleO. And the widows are
consoled with glory. How cheap great demagogy can beQ
,ohann ?ottlieb 7ichte: Addresses to the ?er!an Nation5
+/th Address
(n !ourteen Addresses to the Aerman +ation $ichte responded to
+apoleonFs reorganiDation o! central 4urope in general and the moral
20
collapse o! 'russia a!ter the de!eat in the *attle o! 6ena and AuerstVdt
in 1%02 in particular. (t should be emphasiDed that the Aerman nation
in the post,revolutionary sense did not yet e=istK +apoleon had <ust
dissolved the Holy 8oman 4mpire with the peace treaty o! 'ressburg
which !ollowed the *attle o! AusterlitD "1%03#.
(n the 5hirteenth Address o! 1%02 $ichte distinguishes between internal
and e=ternal boundaries. the !ormer are Othe !irst original and truly
natural boundaries o! statesO where Othose who spea9 the same
language are <oined to each other by a multitude o! invisible bonds by
nature itsel!O while the latter mar9 the Odwelling placeO. 5he novelty o!
$ichteFs appeal to national unity o! all Aermans J @uite unrealistic at the
time J consists in the priority. the OnaturalO union o! a people in
language customs and sentiment towers the geographical location in
which this people lives.
Applying the mechanical and deterministic view o! the 4nlightenment
$ichte develops a vision o! a people as an organic holistic entity. O&nly
when each people le!t to itsel! develops and !orms itsel! in accordance
with that common @uality as well as in accordance with his own
peculiar @uality J then and then only does the mani!estation o! divinity
appear in its true mirror as it ought to beK and only a man who either
entirely lac9s the notion o! the rule o! law and divine order or else is an
obdurate enemy thereto could ta9e upon himsel! to want to inter!ere
with that law which is the highest law in the spiritual worldQO
And to top the enlightened obscurantism by pseudo,scienti!ic verbiage
$ichte concludes his appeal. O&nly in the invisible @ualities o! nations
which are hidden !rom their own eyes J @ualities as the means
whereby these nations remain in touch with the source o! original li!e J
only therein is to be !ound the guarantee o! their present and !uture
worth virtue and merit. (! these @ualities are dulled by admi=ture and
worn away by !riction the !latness that results will bring about a
separation !rom spiritual nature and this in its turn will cause all men to
be !used together in their uni!orm and collective destruction.O
?iuseppe *a&&ini: An )ssay on the uties of *an
Addressed to Wor"ing!en. Chapter ' 2 uties To$ards
Cour Country
'ericles had won support among the poor with building pro<ects on the
Acropolis "comparable to the rebuilding o! 'aris at the time o! +apoleon
21
((( in the 1%30s and 1%20s#. 5hat all nationalism is in !act national
socialism we can study in ;aDDiniFs &n the :uties o! ;an. ;aDDini calls
Aod Humanity $atherland and the $amily Othe holiest things we
9nowO. )ince he spea9s o! duties he !inds it more convenient to appeal
to the heart rather than to the mind.
;aDDini reminds his audience that Oman was born !or happinessO.
Happiness was the promise o! the $rench 8evolution. 5his promise
was not 9ept. Othe condition o! the people is not improvedO. Happiness
only leads to egoism and corruption. What is really needed ;aDDini
asserts is education by which he understands
Auidance to sel!,improvement
5eaching o! constancy and sel!,sacri!ice
Hnion o! men with their !ellow,men sub<ecting them to
a leader or
a ma<ority vote
4ducation means to learn oneFs duty. OWe must convince men that they
are all sons o! one sole Aod and bound to !ul!ill and e=ecute one sole
law here on earthK that each o! them is bound to live not !or himsel!
but !or others.O 4ducation together with labor and the !ranchise Oare
the three pillars o! the +ationO. Li9e Christ who did not spea9 o! rights
but o! duty o! love sacri!ice and !aith ;aDDini re<ects material
happiness whose pursuit Ocan but result in that worst o! crimes a civil
war between class and classO. Aod gave man a country and Oit is only
through our country that we can have a recogniDed collective
e=istenceO.
(n the Conclusion ;aDDini who be!ore had condemned class struggle
openly advocates socialism.
4=propriation o! Church property by the )tate
8ailways and other public enterprises should be in the hands o!
the )tate
Wealth and resources should Obe consecrated to the intellectual
and economic progress o! the whole countryO
Theodor Her&l: The ,e$ish State. Introduction
While 'ericles praised the cultured and civiliDed Athenian and $ichte
and ;aDDini searched !or the spiritual bond holding their nations
together 5heodor HerDl <usti!ies the 6ewish )tate in a negative
dialectic.
22
HerDl was a cosmopolitan. *orn in *udapest he moved to ?ienna in
his boyhood graduated in law and became a <ournalist. A
correspondent !or the /eue 5reie +resse in 'aris he also wrote
comedies and dramas !or his ?iennese audience. ;ost li9ely
in!luenced by the 2ffaire 'reyfus in $rance "1%/1# which he covered in
newspaper articles HerDl published 'er .udenstaat "5he 6ewish )tate#
soon a!ter.
5he 6ewish )tate is partly a historical account partly an action
program. 5he historical account centers on Othe 6ewish @uestionO. O5he
6ewish @uestion e=ists wherever 6ews live in perceptible numbers.
Where it does not e=ist it is carried by 6ews in the course o! their
migrations. We naturally move to those places where we are not
persecuted and then our presence produces persecution. 5his is the
case in every country and will remain so even in those highly civiliDed
J !or instance $rance J until the 6ewish @uestion !inds a solution on a
political basis.O He sees in Othe 6ewish @uestionO nothing else but Oa
national @uestionO to be settled by the civiliDed world.
5he 6ews Ohave honestly endeavored everywhere to merge ourselves
in the social li!e o! surrounding communities and to preserve the !aith o!
our !athersO. 4verywhere however Oold pre<udices against us still lie
deep in the hearts o! the peopleO HerDl complains. Assimilation has
!ailed and Oour enemies have made us one "people# without our
consentO. 5he !uture !or the 6ews in their own nation state will be bright.
OWe shall not revert to a lower stage we shall rise to a higher one. We
shall not dwell in mud hutsK we shall build new more beauti!ul and more
modern houses and possess them in sa!ety. We shall not lose our
ac@uired possessions we shall realiDe them. We shall surrender our
well earned rights only !or better ones. We shall not sacri!ice our
beloved customsK we shall !ind them again. We shall not leave our old
home be!ore the new one is prepared !or us.O 5hat such heaven on
earth appealed more to the poor 6ews o! 4astern 4urope is
understandable. 5he 6ews o! Western and Central 4urope who had
already reached the highest positions in their societies saw HerDl with
bewilderment.
Less than hal! a century a!ter HerDlFs premature death in 1/01 Othe
6ewish @uestionO that had not e=isted was OsolvedO in the most
barbaric way. (t is ironic that HerDl had armed the henchmen with both
a terminology and a perspective which clearly contradicted his good
2-
intentions. (! there has ever been a O6ewish @uestionO it can be said
with much historical evidence that it will never be solved by the nation
state.
5hemes to e=plore.
+ationalism
)ociety J )tate J Country J +ation
:emocracy and +ationalism
21
Chapter 1: What is Happiness-
A# Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art >(((
*# Adam $erguson. An 4ssay on the History o! Civil )ociety.
)ections (> >. &! +ational $elicity
C# 6eremy *entham. (ntroduction to the 'rinciples o! ;orals
and Legislation. Chapter 1. &! the 'rinciple o! Htility
Happiness has been discussed as the absence o! negatives "hunger
su!!ering poverty loneliness unhappiness etc.# or the presence o!
positives "a!!luence love harmony e@uilibrium etc.#. $rom ancient
times thin9ers have tried to !ind general criteria !or which they loo9ed
into a rationally conceived o! state o! per!ection "Aod +ature ;ind#.
5he most promising strategy o! the utilitarian argument !or redistribution
J ta9e it !rom the rich and give it to the poor J is to detach it !rom the
concept o! <ustice and replace it by a nebulous rhetorical ne=us. Here
however social <ustice can be con!ronted with economic arguments.
And there are three such arguments.
%
5he orthodo= socialist theory
L5his doctrine rests on a theory o! value that has at best only
an anti@uarian interest and does not warrant being discussed.M
5wo variants o! the neo,socialist doctrine
)ociety gives society ta9es
5his variant re<ects the simple truth that even the most
comple= o! social interactions can be reduced to a chain o!
e=changes measured by prices voluntarily agreed upon. (t
insists that all contributed somehow to civiliDation e@ually
and there!ore deserve to be compensated !or their
indeterminable contribution.
)ociety or civiliDation as La single indivisible e=ternalityM
+o individual can claim anything o! this e=ternality their
own so this doctrine claims. :e 6asay counters. LAn
e=ternality produces no output. (ndividual action !acilitated
by the e=ternality does.M
+ow we understand why the idea o! e@uality is and must be central to
all redistributive schemes. &r negatively e=pressed. no idea o! e@uality
no argument !or redistribution. Why is Le@ualityM generally not de!ined7
% Anthony de 6asay. )ocial 6ustice 4=amined With A Little Help $rom Adam )mith pp. 0,/
23
*ecause i! we do we !ind ourselves in devilFs 9itchen. :e 6asay
e=amines three possible arguments in !avor o! redistribution and
re!utes them one by one.
/
4@uality or Oto each the sameO
5he classi!ication o! !eatures into cases implies both li9eness in
some points and unli9eness in others. A statement beginning
li9e OAll Americans ...O obviously produces a class o! cases J
Lthe AmericanM J which completely neglects other !eatures J
gender age income education etc. etc. 5o treat a class o!
cases e@ually conse@uently violates the principle o! e@uality in
respect to other cases and would o!ten yield biDarre results.
4@uiproportionality or OAristotelian e@ualityO
Absolute e@uality can be treated as a special case o!
e@uiproportionality. *ut while Oto each the sameO can be solved
by purely mathematical means e@uiproportionality re@uires
Omoral intuitions value <udgments and perhaps also ...
partisanship ideological !ashion or sheer opportunism to
decide what shall be deemed the <ust distributionO "de 6asay
120#
+o Osuum cuiqueO or all is out !or distribution
5his approach Ois assimilated to the basic !iction o! the ca9e
that nobody ba9ed and that needs cutting into <ust slicesO "de
6asay 12/#.
5he phantom o! collective happiness has haunted us almost !rom the
beginning o! the modern nation state. (t appears to be insensitive to
arguments. *ut as long as it contributes to the growth o! the state J and
wel!are has long ago replaced security as the central !unction o! the
state J it will remain with us.
We will address LCollective HappinessM mainly !rom the angle o!
utilitarianism because it cast a long shadow over modern societies.
Aristotle "-%1,-22 *C# student o! 'lato and !ounder o! the
Lyceum
Adam $erguson "102-,1%12# philosopher and historian o! the
)cottish 4nlightenment
6eremy *entham "101%,1%-2# <urist philosopher and re!ormer
/ Anthony de 6asay. 6ustice And (ts )urroundings
22
Aristotle: Politics. %oo" 'II. Part <III
LHappiness is the realiDation and per!ect e=ercise o! virtueM. :oesnFt
AristotleFs de!inition shi!t the !ocus away !rom happiness to something
di!!erent7 Li9e virtue7 &r state7 5his becomes obvious when he says
L... the city is best governed which has the greatest opportunity o!
obtaining happinessM. *ut in *oo9 ?(( he also says that Ldi!!erent men
see9 a!ter happiness in di!!erent ways and by di!!erent means and so
ma9e !or themselves di!!erent modes o! li!e and !orms o! governmentM.
And since virtue goodness and happiness are essentially
interchangeable the @uestion now is what ma9es men good and
virtuous. Aristotle identi!ies three.
nature
habit
rational principle
Happiness results !rom the three principles being Lin harmony with one
anotherM.
Ada! 7erguson: An )ssay on the History of Ci#il Society5
Sections I<. <5 6f National 7elicity
$erguson a contemporary o! Adam )mith sees happiness more
pro!anely as he already 9nows that Lwe estimate the value o! every
sub<ect by its utilityM ")ection ?((. &! Happiness#. He then goes on to
@uanti!y or generaliDe this !inding when he says. L5hose men are
commonly esteemed the happiest whose desires are most !re@uently
grati!ied.M "ibid.# $erguson @uic9ly notices that Lhappiness is not a state
o! repose or that imaginary !reedom !rom care ...M "ibid.# nor does it
depend Lon the materials which are placed in our handsM "ibid.# but
Lmore on the degree in which our minds are properly employedM "ibid.#.
He !inds mar9ed di!!erences between historical epochs J Lto the
ancient Aree9 or the 8oman the individual was nothing and the public
every thing. 5o the modern in too many nations o! 4urope the
individual is every thing and the public nothing.M "ibid.# J but also
between personal constitutions. the benevolent the egocentric the
wea9 or the malicious are driven by di!!erent motives.
5he point that really matters is where individual happiness cumulates in
national !elicity "collective happiness#. 5he !ormula should be. the
happier the individuals the happier the collective. We could also as9
with $erguson. what ma9es a state great and power!ul7 :ivision o!
labor commerce openmindedness activity describe a prosperous
20
society and Lthe !oundations o! powerM. (n their absence Lthe race
would perishM. Against the dogma o! the 1/
th
and 20
th
centuries
$erguson insists that rather than centraliDation Lthe emulation o!
nations proceeds !rom their divisionM and speci!ies that transactions
Lupon a !oot o! e@uality and o! separate interestM produce wealth and
diversity.
&n the other hand $erguson !ails to realiDe that Lthe rivalship o!
separate communities and the agitations o! a !ree peopleM are not
opposite to Lpeace and unanimityM but preconditions !or them. $or
$erguson the @uestion o! happiness is a political @uestion. LHow is it
possible there!ore to !ind any single !orm o! government that would
suit man9ind in every condition7M And a political @uestion begs !or a
political answer.
L;an9ind were originally e@ualM goes the general assumption o! the
4nlightenment. *ut rather than constituting the state in the rational act
o! a social contract $erguson maintains that Lprior to any political
institution whatever men are @uali!ied by a great diversity o! talents by
a di!!erent tone o! the soul and ardour o! the passions to act a variety
o! parts. *ring them together each will !ind his place.M $erguson as9s
the 9ey @uestion LWhat title one man or any number o! men have to
controul his actions7M And a possible answer should be L+one at allM.
5hen he plagues himsel! with the concern o! arbitration detecting two
instances which necessitate the state.
de!ense
<ustice
5he argument put !orth in !avor o! a political control o! de!ense and
<ustice is interesting and based on the distinction between !orce "the
usurped LrightM to do wrong# and voluntary consent "the right to do
good#. $orce and in<ustice being a prerogative o! bandits and despots
obligation goes only to those who do good i.e. those who rule in the
interest o! the ruled. And provided that their natural rights to their
preservation and to the use o! their talents is respected their
classi!ication "i.e. political order# cannot become in<ustice. 4ven !or a
pre,industrial society $erguson must admit that in the end we get a
Lmultiplicity o! !ormsM which i! particulars and singularities be
overloo9ed can be limited to only a !ew governments. Could he only
prove that each o! these governments correspond with the natural
classi!icationQ
2%
,ere!y %entha!: Introduction to the Principles of *orals
and Legislation5 Chapter +: 6f the Principle of Dtility
*entham borrowed $ergusonFs !ormula o! Lthe greatest happiness o!
the greatest numberM and called it somewhat scienti!ically L!elici!ic
calculusM. 'ain and pleasure Lthe two sovereign mastersM govern
man9ind so *entham. 8ight and wrong as well as cause and e!!ect are
derived !rom our response to the two stimuli which Lgovern us in all we
do in all we say in all we thin9M. Human action i! we want to call it
such would conse@uently be a reaction driven by the ma=imiDation o!
happiness "i.e. the avoidance o! pain#. An individual is <udged happier i!
he realiDes an advantage. 4ven i! we !ollow *entham and change our
terminology !rom happiness to bene!it or advantage measurable as
utility we soon run into di!!iculties. how can we classi!y a masochist7
And can we soundly assume that even a masochist always and entirely
en<oys pain7
(t gets even more precarious when we try to add utilities. What is your
pleasure plus mine7 *entham ma9es us believe that Lthe interest o! the
community ... is ... the sum o! the interests o! the several members who
compose it.M And in the same vein he reasons. Lan action then may be
said to be con!ormable to the principle o! utility ... when the tendency it
has to augment the happiness o! the community is greater than any it
has to diminish it.M 5hat !inally allows him to ran9 governments
according to the principle o! utility. better government augments rather
than diminishes the sum total o! the happiness o! the community. *est
government would be a place where all members o! a community are
happy all the time. Welcome to the Aarden o! 4den ...
5hemes to e=plore.
(ndividual and collective happiness
:ogmas o! the 4nlightenment
Htilitarianism
2/
Chapter E: What is Contract. Pri#ate and Social-
A# 5homas Hobbes. :e Cive. Chapters ( "&! the )tate o! ;en
without Civill )ociety# and ? "&! the Causes and $irst *egining
o! Civill Aovernment#
*# 6ohn Loc9e. 5he )econd 5reatise o! Civil Aovernment.
Chapter ?(((. &! the *eginning o! 'olitical )ocieties
C# 6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau. )ocial Contract. 2. 5he )ocial
Compact
:# :avid Hume. &! the &riginal Contract
Contract "!rom Latin LconM meaning LtogetherM and LtrahereM meaning
Lto pullM# is a mutually binding agreement between two or more parties.
A contract can be !ormal or in!ormal but it re@uires.
the names o! the parties
the terms they voluntarily agree upon
!inite validity
an e=it clause in the case o! breach
!reedom "absence o! coercion#
(t is obvious !rom this list that the use o! contract in a public conte=t is
oversimpli!ication at best and tric9ery at worst. simpli!ication because
the user does Las i!M and tric9ery because he presents that illusion as
the real thing. Let us con!ine ourselves to the !irst. LetFs do !or the sa9e
o! simplicity assume that in order to leave the hypothetical state o!
nature the wolves o! prehistoric time J why should they as brutes be
unaware o! their miserable e=istence7 J decide to elevate themselves
over other brutes and !orm a permanent political collective the state. At
the beginning o! state building comes a rational decision. All
intellectuals li9e the idea o! rational design. Williamson ;. 4vers in his
)ocial Contract. A Criti@ue
10
concludes. L)ocial contract doctrine is no
longer ta9en seriously as an accurate historical account o! the origins
o! the state. *ut social contract doctrine still survives as an account o!
political obligation.M Cut o!! !rom the original discussion during the short
age o! 4nlightenment the social contract doctrine survived as a myth
and became an integrated element o! the modern political religion. :ue
to this metamorphosis the debate has to be reopened again.
We will address LContractM by tracing the development o! the social
10 http.PPmises.orgP<ournalsP<lsP1W-P1W-W-.pd!
00
contract debate.
5homas Hobbes "13%%,120/# philosopher and together with
6ustus Lipsius "1310,1202# the !ather o! the modern )tate
6ohn Loc9e "12-2,1001# lawyer and philosopher
6ean,6ac@ues 8ousseau "1012,100%# philosopher educator
and composer
:avid Hume "1011,1002# philosopher economist historian
and prominent !igure o! the )cottish 4nlightenment
Tho!as Hobbes: e Ci#e5 Chapters I and '
5homas Hobbes apparently is the man who created the myth o! a
social contract today o!ten re!erred to as the Hobbesian ;yth. *ut was
he really serious about a contract which in his own words would ma9e
people give up their LlibertyM !or LdominionM7 &r was his !undamental
@uestion an essentially moral one7
Hobbes must be seen and understood against the bac9drop o! a
number o! developments.
5he decline o! )cholasticism and Aristotelianism
5he rise o! science "Hobbes personally met with $rancis *acon
the herald o! modern science and Aalileo the !ather o! modern
science#. 4uclidFs geometry and AalileoFs physics where all
ob<ects naturally are in motion rather than at rest "as Aristotle
had pro!essed# le!t a pro!ound impact on Hobbes who built his
entire social philosophy around AalileoFs paradigm.
5he 8e!ormation which Lstrengthened the element o! individual
choice in moral thin9ing while downplaying the role o! moral
authorityM "'atric9 8iley @uoted in Williamson ;. 4vers. )ocial
Contract. A Criti@ue#
5he 5hirty Gears War in which religion soon !aded into the
bac9ground to be replaced by politics
5he 4nglish Civil War between 'arliament and Cing in the
years !rom 1212 to 1231
5he in!luence o! the sarcastic Lscienti!icM historian 5hucydides
who described the world in terms o! causes and e!!ect
A student o! the classics Hobbes was trained in deductive reasoning.
$rom emerging modern science he borrowed the model o! matter and
motion and applied it also to politics whose units are men driven by
their !aculties which are Lbodily strength e=perience reason passionM.
5he !irst @uestion in politics there!ore is. Why do men the !loating
01
bodies o! the social universe associate in the !irst place7 Hobbes
in@uires into the LCauses !or which ;en come togetherM and identi!ies
only one. Accident. And he concludes. LWe doe not there!ore by nature
see9 )ociety !or its own sa9e but that we may receive some Honour or
'ro!it !rom it.M +ot L5rue loveM brings men together but L*usinesseM
"Hobbes spea9s o! a L;ar9et,!riendshipM in this conte=t J obviously a
metaphor ade@uate to a !lourishing proto,capitalist 4ngland#. 5his
business,li9e calculating interest o! man is !or Hobbes the opposite o!
LAoodM. (n this )ha9espearean world J )ha9espeare a!ter all was
HobbesF older contemporaryQ J o! L6ealousieM L'leasureM L:e!ects and
in!irmitiesM L?ain gloryM and LAppetiteM "all words ta9en !rom Chapter (
o! :e Cive# there can be no LAoodM "L$actions sometimes may arise
but Aood will neverM#.
&! the driving !orces o! Lall !ree congressM there are two. Lmutual
povertyM and Lvain gloryM. Hobbes says. LAll )ociety there!ore is either
!or Aain or !or AloryK "i.e.# not so much !or love o! our $ellowes as !or
love o! our )elvesM. *ut what ma9es society lasting7 ?ain glory7 +o.
HobbesF answer. L( hope no body will doubt but that men would much
more greedily be carryed by +ature i! all !ear were removed to obtain
:ominion than to gaine )ociety. We must there!ore resolve that the
&riginall o! all great and lasting )ocieties consisted not in the mutuall
good will men had towards each other but in the mutuall !ear they had
o! each other.M )uch an answer is no surprise !or a man who once
remar9ed. L$ear and ( were born twinsM. *ut why was Hobbes literally
obsessed with !ear the constituting element o! his mechanical world7
5he answer is e@uality as Hobbes understands it. Lthey who can do the
greatest things "namely 9ill# can doe e@uall things. All men there!ore
among themselves are by nature e@uallK the ine@uality we now discern
hath its spring !rom the Civill Law.M 5he ability to 9ill Hobbes
immediately turns into La desire and will to hurtM and ascertains that
scarcity prompts men to show such a desire. &ur LAppetite to the same
thingM gives the strongest J understood as the physically strongest J a
decisive advantage.
(! Hobbes had introduced the concept o! property at this point he would
have understood the wor9ing o! voluntary interpersonal e=change J
society J much better since property is an ingenious social device
allowing the smooth and nonviolent settlement o! con!licts over scarce
resources. *ut Hobbes is a moralist not an economist. Can there be
tran@uility and peace in a world o! motion and war7 We 9now HobbesF
02
answer. Leviathan the *iblical sea monster mentioned in the &ld
5estament and the 5almud as AodFs plaything. His eventual death
symboliDes the end o! con!lict.
(n the original state Hobbes speculates Lnature hath given all to allM
so that Lin the state o! nature 'ro!it is the measure o! 8ightM. 5he
Lnaturall proclivity o! men to hurt each otherM originates as we have
seen in their L'assionsM. Hobbes importunes that Lthe naturall state o!
men be!ore they entrFd into )ociety was a meer War and that not
simply but a War o! all men against all menM. (n the state o! nature
be!ore li!e became LCivill and $lourishingM L+ations ... were then !ew
!ierce short,lived poor nasty and destroyFd o! all that 'leasure and
*eauty o! li!e which 'eace and )ociety are wont to bring with themM.
+ow Hobbes contrasts the state o! nature with the Laws o! +ature
which he de!ines as Lthe :ictate o! right 8easonM. 5hese laws are
Limmutable, and eternallM and Lthe same with the ;orallM or L'ivineM. He
determines that it be reasonable 6that +eace is to be sought after
where it may be found7 and deems it Lre@uisite that in those necessary
matters which concern 'eace and sel!e,de!ence there be but one will
o! all menM. 5he state is !ormed by contract when all men submit to Lthe
will o! one man or one CounsellM which Lis nothing else than to have
parted with his 8ight o! resistingM. $rom these statements it becomes
clear that Hobbes used the )ocial Contract as a mere metaphor. men
Lthrough desire o! preserving themselves and by mutuall !eare have
growne together into civill 'ersonM the state or civil society or LCityM.
,ohn Loc"e: The Second Treatise of Ci#il ?o#ern!ent5
Chapter 'III
Loc9e the son o! 'uritan parents sided with the 'arliamentarians
during the 4nglish Civil War. 5hat alone would be enough to put him in
opposition with Hobbes his older contemporary.
)ince Loc9e saw in the )tate o! +ature a state in which men are L!ree
e@ual and independentM he had to !igure out the causes that ma9e
men associate without coercion to !ound a political compound.
Hn!ortunately he is not very speci!ic in this point mentioning only La
secure en<oyment o! their properties and a greater security against any
that are not o! itM. )ince Loc9eFs understanding as will be e=plained
later on o! a !ree citiDen implies Len<oyment o! propertyM the emphasis
0-
must lie on the comparative !orm. *ut wherein does this LgreaterM
security consist7 (s it measurable7 5here is however no answer to
these @uestions.
Loc9e is a lot more e=plicit in respect to representation than he is to
legitimiDation. A political community based on consent rather than
coercion can act as Lone body politic under one governmentM. )ince it
is voluntarily supported by every one e=it rights are granted and every
man Lputs himsel! under an obligation to every one o! that societyM
ma<ority decisions are valid in theory. (n practice however it is
impossible to ma9e individual pre!erences !ully congruent with
collective decision in any case where the state e=ceeds its basic
!unction o! Lgreater securityM !or all. A revolving,door state where
people enter and leave as they please would not result in continuity
and is thus re<ected by Loc9e. L$or where the ma<ority cannot conclude
the rest there they cannot act as one body and conse@uently will be
immediately dissolved again.M
What constitutes a body politic is in one word LconsentM "repeatedly
used# so that politics appears to be some sort o! trusteeship. A child is
La sub<ect o! no country nor governmentM but stands Lunder his !atherFs
tuition and authorityM. With maturity "the Lage o! discretionM# Lhe is a !ree
man at liberty what government he will put himsel! under what body
politic he will unite himsel! toM. Loc9e o! course 9nows J and
discusses this point at length J Lthat there are no instances to be !ound
in "hi#storyM where men set up a government by volition and that in
reality men Lare not at liberty to begin a new oneM "i.e. government#. He
!inds himsel! compelled to distinguish between active and Ltacit
consentM. 5he criterion !or the latter is Lany possession or en<oyment o!
any part o! the dominions o! any governmentM. Where then is the line
between citiDens and non,citiDens7 Loc9e admits that Lsubmitting to the
laws o! any country living @uietly and en<oying privileges and protection
under them ma9es not a man a member o! that societyM. 5hat brings
him bac9 to his original statement Lconcerning the beginning o! political
societiesM namely that it is Lconsent which ma9es any one a member o!
any commonwealthM.
,ean2,ac>ues (ousseau: The Social Contract5 35 The
Social Co!pact
8ousseau !ormulates his problem as !ollows. L5he problem is to !ind a
01
!orm o! association which will de!end and protect with the whole
common !orce the person and goods o! each associate and in which
each while uniting himsel! with all may still obey himsel! alone and
remain as !ree as be!ore.M Whether Lthe &ocial ,ontract provides the
solutionM to this L!undamental problemM we will see soon but whether
there is such a problem at all can already be answered in the negative.
society is e=actly the place where in association individual needs and
demands are met optimally.
8ousseau admits that Lthe clauses o! this contract ... have perhaps
never been !ormally set !orthM and yet maintains that Lthey are
everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and recognisedM.
*reach o! contract results !rom its LviolationM which is not speci!ied.
(nstead we learn that Lthese clauses ... may be reduced to one J the
total alienation o! each associate together with all his rights to the
whole communityM. 5his LsolutionM to the problem as stated by
8ousseau surprises because instead o! the promised optimal
compromise between individual and collective the individual is simply
eliminated out o! the e@uation. 4ven i! we accept !or a second that Lthe
total alienationM is voluntary J an assumption !or which we donFt even
!ind any clue in the most primitive society J the conse@uences would
not only be rapid deciviliDation but inevitable e=tinction o! the human
race.
5he rest is cheap rhetoric as might be e=pected !rom a mentally
disordered egalitarian dreamer. that Leach man in giving himsel! to all
gives himsel! to nobodyM is as true in its absurdity as the necessary
omnipresence o! ma<ority decisions e=pressed in Lthe general willM o!
the collective.
a#id Hu!e: 6f the 6riginal Contract
As we have seen in Chapter 3 &n &bedience )ocrates turns down
the o!!er to escape !rom prison out o! obedience to the laws. Hume
cites 'latoFs ,rito as the only source in Anti@uity Lwhere the obligation
o! obedience to government is ascribed to a promiseM. (t should be
enough there!ore to limit ourselves to the ma<or social contract
proponents. Hobbes Loc9e and 8ousseau. Hume wrote in 1032. L+ew
discoveries are not to be e=pected in these matters. (! scarce any man
till very lately ever imagined that government was !ounded on
compact it is certain that it cannot in general have any such
!oundation.M
03
*e!ore we discuss HumeFs criticism o! the social contract theory we
should brie!ly summariDe what it is. (t is based on the !ollowing
assumptions.
&riginally all men are e@ual and !ree
+o one in such a state o! nature would sub<ect himsel! to the
will o! another without advantage
(n the e=change !reedom !or security men ma9e the promise to
sub<ect themselves to the sovereign
(n return !or their allegiance they can count on <ustice and
protection
(! the sovereign brea9s the contract he releases the sub<ects
again in the state o! nature
(t doesnFt need much imagination and even less 9nowledge to see how
illusive the entire concept is. (n !act despite the 4nglish ;agna Charta
and the )wiss 8uetli &ath we have no single incident in human history
where government would have been !ounded on mutual consent. L*ut
would these reasoners loo9 abroad into the world they would meet
with nothing that in the least corresponds to their ideas or can
warrant so re!ined and philosophical a system. &n the contrary we
!ind every where princes who claim their sub<ects as their property
and assert their independent right o! sovereignty !rom con@uest or
succession.M
5hat the idea o! social contract J Lcompact or agreementM J Lwas
e=pressly !ormed !or general submissionM Hume believes is Lan idea
!ar beyond the comprehension o! savagesM. :espite this general
concern he sums up the core o! Loc9eFs social contract theory as
!ollows.
;an is born !ree. Lno man without some e@uivalent would
!orego the advantages o! his native liberty and sub<ect himsel!
to the will o! anotherM.
;an and sovereign e=change loyalty !or security. Lthis promise
is always understood to be conditional and imposes on him no
obligation unless he meet with <ustice and protection !rom his
sovereign.M
*reach o! contract on the side o! the sovereign sets the sub<ect
!ree again "right o! resistance#. L5hese advantages the
sovereign promises him in returnK and i! he !ail in the e=ecution
he has bro9en on his part the articles o! engagement and has
thereby !reed his sub<ect !rom all obligations to allegianceM.
02
And a tri!le more cynical. LWere you to preach in most parts o! the
world that political connections are !ounded altogether on voluntary
consent or a mutual promise the magistrate would soon imprison you
as seditious !or loosening the ties o! obedienceK i! your !riends did not
be!ore shut you up as delirious !or advancing such absurdities.M 5he
social contract theory such ridiculed the @uestion is where does
government originate !rom7
Aovernment does not result !rom contract but !rom other sources li9e
con@uest usurpation habit or lethargy. )ays Hume. L&bedience or
sub<ection becomes so !amiliar that most men never ma9e any in@uiry
about its origin or causeM. $or him the main point is a substantial
di!!erence in organiDation between sovereign and sub<ects. Ltheir
ignorance o! each otherFs intention 9eeps them in awe and is the sole
cause o! his securityM. 5his appears plausible in the case o! !orce but
what about cases Lwhere no !orce interposes and election ta9es
placeM7 Hume e=presses his surprise about the !act that election is Lso
highly vauntedM because Lit is either the combination o! a !ew great
men who decide !or the whole and will allow o! no opposition. or it is
the !ury o! a multitude that !ollow a seditious ringleader who is not
9nown perhaps to a doDen among them and who owes his
advancement merely to his own impudence or to the momentary
caprice o! his !ellows.M
Hume li9e 'lato and )aint Augustine be!ore him saw in <ustice or
rather the in<ustice o! men the stateFs reason !or being. LWere all men
possessed o! so in!le=ible a regard to <ustice that o! themselves they
would totally abstain !rom the properties o! othersK they had !or ever
remained in a state o! absolute liberty without sub<ection to any
magistrate o! political societyK but this is a state o! per!ection o! which
human nature is <ustly deemed incapable.M (n addition to that Hume
claims man does not 9now his interests. LAgain were all men
possessed o! so per!ect an understanding as always to 9now their own
interests no !orm o! government had ever been submitted to but what
was established on consent and was !ully canvassed by every
member o! the society. but this state o! per!ection is li9ewise much
superior to human nature.M And as $ranD &ppenheimer would argue
later Hume states. L5he original establishment "o! the state# was
!ormed by violence and submitted to !rom necessity. 5he subse@uent
administration is also supported by power and ac@uiesced in by the
people not as a matter o! choice but o! obligation.M
00
5hemes to e=plore.
5he origin o! the state
Contract and )ocial Contract
5he lesson in )ha9espeareFs 5he ;erchant o! ?enice
0%
Chapter +F: What is 6rder-
A# Aristotle. 'olitics *oo9 ?(( 'art ?(((
*# (mmanuel Cant. 5he +atural 'rinciple o! the 'olitical &rder
C# Aeorg Wilhelm $riedrich Hegel 'hilosophy o! 8ight. 5he
)tate.
:# ;urray 8othbard. 5he Anatomy o! the )tate
&rder J usually cited in opposition to chaos "originally meaning
LspaceM# and o!ten anarchy "originally meaning Lno ruleM# J is a highly
charged term in politics. Who would dare to @uestion the sel!,e=plaining
positive value o! order7 And yet we even use the word in opposite
conte=ts li9e social versus political order. 5he rationale behind the
political concept o! order is incredibly simple. no state no order no li!e.
And translated into an a!!irmative statement. the state is the !oundation
o! li!e and civiliDation. Hn!ortunately this is a historical !allacy and a lie
as persistent as it may be.
)tudents o! politics !rom 'lato to the present J o!ten li9e in AristotleFs
case clearly against all evidence J have ignored non,political !orces in
the building o! stable orders. (t is sound to say that AristotleFs in!luence
in political science has been as crippling as it was in physics until the
days o! Aalileo. (n addition political thin9ers in their overwhelming
ma<ority have pre!erred static and mechanistic models o! human action
over dynamic and evolutionary ones.
We will address the problem o! rational versus spontaneous LorderM by
re!erence mainly to the 4nlightenment.
Aristotle "-%1,-22 *C# student o! 'lato and !ounder o! the
Lyceum
(mmanuel Cant "1021,1%01# one o! the most prominent
thin9ers o! the 4nlightenment
Aeorg Wilhelm $riedrich Hegel "1000,1%-1# philosopher
;urray 8othbard "1/22,1//3# economist historian natural law
theorist

Aristotle: Politics. %oo" 'II. Part 'III
We inherited !rom the ancient Aree9 philosophers the erroneous and
!atal idea that li!e without the state would be utterly impossible. Aristotle
de!ines. L... a state is not a community o! living beings only but a
community o! e@uals aiming at the best li!e possibleM. He does not
0/
address the parado= o! e@uality and high @uality o! li!e nor does he
cover the issue o! how wealth is created although he should have
witnessed that trade and civiliDation were tightly intertwined. A
Lcommunity o! e@ualsM J the radical democratic or communist ideal J
massively in!ringes on the !reedom and property o! the members o! the
community. (t can only be realiDed as 8obespierre later was to prove
by terror and war destruction o! property and deciviliDation. Aristotle
however did not waste his time on subtleties li9e these was he honest
enough to say that Lstates re@uire property but property ... is no part o!
a state.M (n a state so Aristotle the !ollowing things are indispensable.
$ood
Arts or 9now how
Arms "against both internal and e=ternal enemies#
8evenue
Worship "religion#
L'ower o! deciding what is !or the public interest and what is
<ustM
(n conclusion La state then should be !ramed with a view to the
!ul!illment o! these !unctions.M And what i! the state is unnecessary or
even a hindrance to the !ul!illment o! these !unctions7 Hnthin9able !or
the !ather o! biology who had no clue o! evolution and spontaneous
order and no other e=planation !or the miraculous rise o! Aree9
civiliDation than reason and planning.
I!!anuel =ant: The Natural Principle of the Political
6rder
+o one testi!ies to the greatness and misery o! the 4nlightenment more
heroically than the philosopher o! CUnigsberg. What others be!ore him
had !elt instinctively or chosen polemically Cant thought through and
through. What came a!ter him in his tradition is a long list o! epigones.
(s political order natural7 Cant said yes. L... the manifestations of the
will in human actions are determined li9e all other e=ternal events by
universal natural laws.M Here Cant care!ully distinguishes between
individual and species de!ines individual action as Ltangled and
unregulatedM but collective action as LregularM and Lcontinually
advancingM. 5he superiority o! the collective over the individual J with
the e=ception o! +ietDsche and the Austrian )chool o! 4conomics J
should become the staple !ood !or the intellectuals o! the modern age.
%0
L(ndividual men and even whole nations little thin9 while they are
pursuing their own purposes J each in his own way and o!ten one in
direct opposition to another J that they are advancing unconsciously
under the guidance o! a 'urpose o! +ature which is un9nown to them
and that they are toiling !or the realisation o! an 4nd which even i! it
were 9nown to them might be regarded as o! little importance.M (n this
conte=t Cant also spea9s o! La universal purpose of /atureM "sicQ# a!ter
deploring the !act that man is not as rational as !ollowing a
preconcerted plan and not as instinctive as being regular and
systematic as animals. His arguments are the !ollowing.
All the capacities i!planted in a Creature by nature are
destined to unfold the!sel#es. co!pletely and
confor!ably to their )nd. in the course of ti!e5
5his teleological statement undoubtedly originates in Aristotle.
*ut Cant by insisting on Lthe teleological science o! +atureM
integrates it in the mechanistic doctrine o! the 4nlightenment
according to which La +ature moving without a purpose and not
con!ormable to lawM can only mean Lthe cheerless gloom o!
chance ta9es the place o! the guiding light o! 8easonM.
In *an. as the only rational creature on earth. those natural
capacities $hich are directed to$ards the use of his
(eason. could be co!pletely de#eloped only in the species
and not in the indi#idual5
Cant 9nows that reason in the individual is only a potential
whose development Lre@uires e=periments e=ercise and
instructionM. Conse@uently he anchors it in the human species
because here and here alone it is !irstly in line with his !irst
proposition and secondly it becomes immune to a!!irmation or
negation.
Nature has $illed that *an shall produce $holly out of
hi!self all that goes beyond the !echanical structure and
arrange!ent of his ani!al existence. and that he shall
participate in no other happiness or perfection but $hat he
has produced for hi!self. apart fro! Instinct. by his o$n
(eason5
CantFs third argument is o! particular curiosity does it assume
that +ature Ldoes nothing that is super!luousM and there!ore
un!olds itsel! in reasonable !ashion according to a master plan.
;an by applying reason progresses !rom generation to
generation until eventually he collectively reveals the master
plan and reaches per!ectionPhappiness.
%1
The !eans $hich Nature e!ploys to bring about the
de#elop!ent of all the capacities i!planted in !an. is their
!utual Antagonis! in society. but only so far as this
antagonis! beco!es at length the cause of an 6rder
a!ong the! that is regulated by La$5
Anticipating ;ar=F view o! dialectic as the engine o! historical
development but missing the epigoneFs scientistic rhetoric "e.g.
class struggle# Cant identi!ies antagonism J Lthe unsocial
sociability o! menM J as necessary evil. Lan Arcadian shepherd
li!e in complete harmony contentment and mutual loveM versus
Lunsocial dispositionM Lthe desire o! honour or power or wealthM.
Although his main argument put !orth in the !irst proposition
compels him to read a positive trait into con!lict "in the same
way ;ar= does a !ew decades later# it does not occur to him
that antagonism in the !orm o! competition and division o! labor
has a socially highly productive value. Cant admits without
antagonism Lall their talents would have !or ever remained
hidden in their germM but !ails to understand the productive role
o! individual interest property and !reedom !or both individual
and society.
The greatest practical Proble! for the hu!an race to the
solution of $hich it is co!pelled by Nature is the
establish!ent of a Ci#il Society. uni#ersally ad!inistering
(ight according to La$5
Cant now repeats a myth going bac9 in more recent time to
Hobbes which can be !ound in Aristotle namely that order can
only result !rom design. (n civil society or more pro!anely the
state Cant sees the mirror and !ul!illment o! +atureFs will. )el!,
restraint and discipline are the price to pay !or human progress
and happiness. $reedom and individualism stand in the way. L(t
is with them as with the trees in the !orestK !or <ust because
everyone strives to deprive the other o! air and sun they
compel each other to see9 them both above and thus they
grow beauti!ul and straight whereas those that in !reedom and
apart !rom one another shoot out their branches at will grow
stunted and croo9ed and awry.M
This Proble! is li"e$ise the !ost difficult of its "ind. and it
is the latest to be sol#ed by the Hu!an (ace5
Cant establishes here the need !or a master since Lman is an
animalM and Lmisuses his !reedom in relation to his !ellow,menM.
He !ran9ly admits that the master himsel! since a sample o! the
%2
Human 8ace Lis an animal tooM. 5he dilemma there!ore is. L5he
highest authority has to be $ust in itself and yet to be a man7.
$or this dilemma La per!ect solution is impossibleM. 5he
appro=imate solution o! this dilemma depends on three !actors.
Correct conceptions o! the nature o! a possible
Constitutional
Areat e=perience
Aood will
5he solution ta9es time to mature and thus rings in the !inal
round o! human history.
The proble! of the establish!ent of a perfect Ci#il
Constitution is dependent on the proble! of the regulation
of the external relations bet$een the States confor!ably to
La$G and $ithout the solution of this latter proble! it
cannot be sol#ed5
As Civil )ociety addresses the problem o! antagonism within
society a $ederation o! +ations supposedly solves the very
same problem between societies. Cant not logically
conse@uential because the !ormer constitutes the latter e=pects
the solution o! the latter to solve the dilemma o! the !ormer. +ot
only that !actual evidence contradicts Cant J the atrocities o! the
20
th
century war mass murder genocide were all caused by
the state J the dreamer o! this LvisionaryM idea naively believes
that the solution to interstate con!licts lies in the power o! states.
The history of the hu!an race. #ie$ed as a $hole. !ay be
regarded as the realisation of a hidden plan of Nature to
bring about a political Constitution. internally. and for this
purpose. also externally perfect. as the only state in $hich
all the capacities i!planted by her in *an"ind can be fully
de#eloped5
5he chiliastic message in this proposition is !ran9ly admitted by
Cant. 5he 9ey point however consists in the !act that Cant
does not envisage a happier !uture as a normative principle but
derives it logically by means o! his scientistic or constructivist
method. Little wonder that he concludes. L... the highest
purpose o! +ature will be at last realised in the establishment o!
a universal ,osmopolitical Institution in the bosom o! which all
the original capacities and endowments o! the human species
will be un!olded and developed.M
A philosophical atte!pt to $or" out the Dni#ersal History
of the $orld according to the plan of Nature in its ai!ing at
%-
a perfect Ci#il Dnion !ust be regarded as possible and as
e#en capable of helping for$ard the purpose of Nature5
(! the Laggregate o! human actions as a wholeM can be
represented Las constituting a &ystemM it should be possible to
Ldiscover a regular movement o! progressM. 5his development
advances in revolutionary increments to La subse@uent higher
stage o! progress and improvementM. Hndoubtedly ;ar=
inherited this scheme !rom Cant.
?eorg Wilhel! 7riedrich Hegel. Philosophy of (ight5 The
State5
(n the 'russian )tate 'hilosopher Hegel we !ind the most perverse
adulation o! the state ever written by a scholar o! reputation. +eedless
to say that HegelFs state stands in the tradition o! the 4nlightenment
and is there!ore a rational construct. &ne does not need to approach
Hegel !rom the hyperdemocratic perspective o! the 20
th
century to
e=perience its absurdity. it becomes evident even !rom HegelFs own
reasoning. When he develops in II -31,-20 his world history !rom the
&riental Aree9 8oman and !inally Aermanic realms he leaves the
reader speechless and wondering what utter nonsense a bright mind is
able to produce.
*ut let us con!ine ourselves to the more substantial aspects o! his
argumentation. L5he stateM Hegel claims Lis the actuality o! the ethical
(deaM "I 230#. 5he state is given a LwillM it possesses LconsciousnessM
and it is an LendM in itsel!. (ts rationality consists in the Lunity o! the
universal and the singleM "I 23%#. (! not in terminology in !act the
parallel between Aod and )tate is stri9ing. cosmical regularity and
order !ind their correspondence in state law. Hegel emphasiDes that
state and civil society are di!!erent. L(! the state is con!used with civil
society and i! its speci!ic end is laid down as the security and
protection o! property and personal !reedom then the interest o! the
individuals as such becomes the ultimate end o! their association and
it !ollows that membership o! the state is something optional. *ut the
stateFs relation to the individual is @uite di!!erent !rom this. )ince the
state is mind ob<ecti!ied it is only as one o! its members that the
individual himsel! has ob<ectivity genuine individuality and an ethical
li!e. Hni!ication pure and simple is the true content and aim o! the
individual and the individualFs destiny is the living o! a universal li!e.M "I
23%# 5hese words made it clear that vis4a4vis the state the individual is
%1
nothing. (t echoes 'russia where everyone up to the 9ing is merely a
servant o! the state.
;ore di!!icult than the rationalist,constructivist conception o! the
Hegelian state is to identi!y where !reedom and ethics as Lthe
actualisation o! !reedomM "I 23%# come into play. 5he answer is
surprisingly simple and even conse@uential. in a deterministic order
L!reedomM can only consist in !ollowing this order whereby human
action @ua LactionM becomes inevitably an ethical category in a purely
!ormalistic sense.
Hegel 9nows that actual states are bad and de!ective and hence
pre!ers to spea9 o! the idea o! the state. Here he believes he is on
sa!e ground. L5he march o! Aod in the world that is what the state is.
5he basis o! the state is the power o! reason actualising itsel! as will.M
"I 23%#
HegelFs in!luential contemporary Carl Ludwig von Haller whose
L8estauration der )taatswissenscha!tenM gave a whole era its name
denied the e=istence o! anything but private J i.e. commutative J law.
He observes that Lneither the 9ing himsel! ... nor the 'russian citiDens
can call anything their own neither their person nor their propertyK and
all sub<ects are bondslaves to the law since they may not withdraw
themselves !rom the service o! the state.M "@uoted by Hegel in I 23%#
Hegel ridiculed him and his patrimonial state as anti@uated and passB
a!ter +apoleon had ta9en hal! o! 4urope in a storm. 5he revolutionary
reorganiDation o! the state had surely le!t its mar9 on Hegel.
Li9e practically all thin9ers o! the 4nlightenment Hegel contrasts the
individual with the universal. 5he universal J comparable to the law!ul
wor9ing o! the universe in +ewtonian physics J is made the benchmar9
o! all things. And only where the individual case matches the universal
law order can e=ist. Hegel however goes a step !urther. in order to
blur the line between the human invention by the name o! )tate and the
e=tra,human entity called +ature he assigns the universal an interest.
+ow the state can be represented as the natural sphere in which the
individual spheres are contained. L5he essence o! the modern state is
that the universal be bound up with the complete !reedom o! its
particular members and with private well,being that thus the interests
o! !amily and civil society must concentrate themselves on the state
although the universal end cannot be advanced without the personal
%3
9nowledge and will o! its particular members whose own rights must
be maintained. 5hus the universal must be !urthered but sub<ectivity on
the other hand must attain its !ull and living development. (t is only
when both these moments subsist in their strength that the state can be
regarded as articulated and genuinely organised.M "I 220# Having
thrown out the baby with the bathtub water Hegel now tries to save the
baby. L(ndividualsM he maintains Lhave duties to the state in proportion
as they have rights against it.M "I 221# And !urther. L5he state is actual
only when its members have a !eeling o! their own sel!,hood and it is
stable only when public and private ends are identical.M "I 223# And
more cautiously. LWe are con!ident that the state must subsist and that
in it alone can particular interests be secured.M "I 22%# *ut also. L5he
state this whole whose limbs they "men# areM "I 200#. And then Hegel
repeats a myth which was as !alse in his time as it is !alse today.
MWhen we wal9 the streets at night in sa!ety it does not stri9e us that
this might be otherwise. 5his habit o! !eeling sa!e has become second
nature and we do not re!lect on <ust how this is due solely to the
wor9ing o! special institutions. Commonplace thin9ing o!ten has the
impression that !orce holds the state together but in !act its only bond
is the !undamental sense o! order which everybody possesses.M "I 22%#
Hn!ortunately Hegel does not !urther sound out Lthe wor9ing o! special
institutionsM and tacitly assumes that they must be the state. He surely
would have discovered society.
8eturning to his original doctrine Hegel strongly criticiDes the view Lthat
the stateFs speci!ic !unction consists in protecting and securing
everyoneFs li!e property and caprice in so !ar as these do not
encroach upon the li!e property and caprice o! others. 5he state !rom
this point o! view is treated simply as an organisation to satis!y menFs
necessities.M "I 200# He more clearly than most o! his contemporaries
sees that then Lthe element o! absolute truth ... is placed ... beyond the
reach o! the stateM. "I 200# HegelFs point is necessity. LAenuine
actuality is necessityM "I 200# 5he di!!erence between a good and a
bad state boils down to the di!!erence between in!inite and !inite. M&!
course a bad state is worldly and !inite and nothing else but the
rational state is inherently in!inite.M "I 200# Without a doubt still under
the spell o! +apoleon *onaparte Hegel concludes that it is Lthe right o!
heroes to !ound statesM "I -30# and that it is the right o! Lcivilised
nations in regarding and treating as barbarians those who lag behind
them in institutionsM "I -31#. Arguing un!airly with the 9nowledge o! 20
th
c. history it is not a bad idea to stop here rather than !ollowing HegelFs
%2
LinsightsM into world history and the !uture o! it by what he calls the
Aermanic realm. A !urther pursuit o! this in!luential manFs strange
concoctions would only be embarrassing.
*urray (othbard: The Anato!y of the State
8othbard begins his elementary course in anatomy with the basic but
!orgotten observation that the state is not society but an organiDation in
society. 5his !allacy he attributes to the rise o! democracy which blurred
the line between us and them. What then is the state7 8othbard
de!ines it as !ollows. M*rie!ly the )tate is that organiDation in society
which attempts to maintain a monopoly o! the use o! !orce and violence
in a given territorial areaK in particular it is the only organiDation in
society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or
payment !or services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals
or institutions obtain their income by production o! goods and services
and by the peace!ul and voluntary sale o! these goods and services to
others the )tate obtains its revenue by the use o! compulsionK that is
by the use and the threat o! the <ailhouse and the bayonet.M
5o !urther elucidate his point 8othbard cites $ranD &ppenheimerFs
distinction between economic and political means the Ltwo mutually
e=clusive ways o! ac@uiring wealthM. 5he !irst is the ac@uisition o!
wealth by production and e=change the second Mis the way o! seiDure
o! anotherFs goods or services by the use o! !orce and violenceM. While
the !irst corresponds with natural law the second is contrary to it. (n
8othbardFs words political means Lsiphons production o!! to a parasitic
and destructive individual or groupM and this with three conse@uences.
(t subtracts !rom the number producing
(t lowers the producerFs incentive to produce beyond his own
subsistence
(t compels the predator to act contrary to his own true nature as
a man
At any rate the result is !atal !or both. the destruction o! the host
inevitably leads to the death o! the parasite. History shows a long
account o! instances o! deciviliDation the necessary conse@uence o!
destruction. (n contrast to non,monopolistically organiDed crime Lthe
)tate provides a legal orderly systematic channel !or the predation o!
private propertyM. And Lit renders certain secure and relatively
Fpeace!ulF the li!eline o! the parasitic caste in societyM. As we have seen
in Chapter / we can conclude with 8othbard. L5he )tate has never
%0
been created by a Fsocial contractFK it has always been born in con@uest
and e=ploitation.M
&nce the @uestion o! how the state was established settled the ne=t
@uestion is how the ruling caste maintain their rule. 8othbard insists.
LWhile !orce is their modus operandi their basic and long,run problem
is ideological.M 5his ideological problem is acceptance. L2ny
government ... must have the support o! the ma<ority o! its sub<ects.M
Acceptance can be active J less o!ten J or passive J more o!ten J but
Lthe chie! tas9 o! the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned
acceptance o! the ma<ority o! the citiDensM. 'rivileges !or a selected
group o! !ollowers J bureaucracy partisans etc. J do not su!!ice to
secure a ma<ority. 5here is nothing else but ideology to !ool the victims
in believing that Ltheir government is good wise and at least
inevitable and certainly better than other conceivable alternativesM.
5his vital tas9 o! LcommunicationM is le!t to the LintellectualsM the
Lopinion,moldersM or Lsecond,hand dealers o! ideasM "Haye9. 5he $atal
Conceit. 5he 4rrors o! )ocialism# LcourtM historians Lscienti!ic e=pertsM
and o! course media !ol9s "what else could the word LmediaM mean but
the mediation o! !alse ideasQ#.
(deology being the li!eblood o! politics the huge ideological arsenal o!
the state can hardly surprise.
Perception and its pro!essional management is one cheap
and e!!icient way o! ma<ority control.
7ear o! any alternative system o! rule has always been a
ma<or trump card o! the state. the specter o! sporadic crime
!rightening in comparison to systematic e=tortion and
+ationalism as the seemingly LnaturalM union o! state society
people and territory.
Tradition gives a state the weight o! time and the aura o!
e=cellence.
Worship of collecti#ity J deprecation o! the individual J
suggests the importance o! ad<ustment subordination or
simply acceptance o! ma<ority opinion while ridiculing their
opposites.
Apparent ine#itability of state rule ma9es !or passivity and
resignation.
The state as the only authority of truth discredits deviant or
critical opinion as Lconspiracy theoryM.
A feeling of guilt J individual or collective J produces
%%
compliance and insecurity. 4=amples are many in an age o!
&rwellian +ewspea9. pro!it as e=ploitation e=change as
parasitism property as the!t contract as !raud etc. etc.
(n a secular age li9e ours science. the ne$ god. reigns
supre!e. Hegel is possibly the best e=ample !or the
pseudoscienti!ic veil o! the state. )ays 8othbard. L)tate rule is
now proclaimed as being ultrascienti!ic as constituting
planning by e=perts.M +o newspaper article no te=tboo9 !or
schools no 5? program omits Lto weave obscurantist apologia
!or )tate ruleM in scienti!ic <argon.
L5hus ideological support being vital to the )tate it must unceasingly
try to impress the public with its FlegitimacyF to distinguish its activities
!rom those o! mere brigands.M ;enc9en observed that common
reasoning where not yet completely undermined by state propaganda
distinguishes sharply between private and public spheres. LWhen a
private citiDen is robbed a worthy man is deprived o! the !ruits o! his
industry and thri!tK when the government is robbed the worst what
happens is that certain rogues and loa!ers have less money to play
with than they had be!ore.M ";enc9en. Chrestomathy pp. 112P0#
8othbard sees in war and revolution the two !undamental threats to the
state. Although he states that Lin war )tate power is pushed to its
ultimateM he !ails to identi!y in war and revolution the capital o! the
modern state. War allows the state to polariDe its state people to label
the ones LgoodM and the others LbadM to mobiliDe the psychic and
material resources o! its state people to the ma=imum. 8evolution or
more precisely the tal9 thereo! plays a growing role to more easily sell
the illusion o! continuity stability and security. Whatever the nature o!
the LrevolutionM be it the electronic LrevolutionM or the moslemic
LrevolutionM the state assures us static order in a !lood o! changes. (!
there is nothing else le!t !or the state to shine international and national
war J the war on poverty the war on drugs the war on terrorism the
war on you name it J are predestined to thrill and entertain the masses.
8est assured that the ne=t wild goose chase is already under
preparation ...
%/
5hemes to e=plore.
&rder in history
(nternal and e=ternal order
5he Wheel o! $ortune
/0
/1
/2
Source Texts:
Source + A
Plato
The (epublic
%oo" II5 /01e2/34e
(ndeed ( doK nor can ( imagine any theme about which a man o! sense
would o!tener wish to converse.
( am delighted he replied to hear you say so and shall begin by
spea9ing as ( proposed o! the nature and origin o! <ustice.
Alaucon
5hey say that to do in<ustice is by nature goodK to su!!er in<ustice evilK
but that the evil is greater than the good. And so when men have both
done and su!!ered in<ustice and have had e=perience o! both not being
able to avoid the one and obtain the other they thin9 that they had
better agree among themselves to have neitherK hence there arise laws
and mutual covenantsK and that which is ordained by law is termed by
them law!ul and <ust. 5his they a!!irm to be the origin and nature o!
<usticeK J it is a mean or compromise between the best o! all which is
to do in<ustice and not be punished and the worst o! all which is to
su!!er in<ustice without the power o! retaliationK and <ustice being at a
middle point between the two is tolerated not as a good but as the
lesser evil and honoured by reason o! the inability o! men to do
in<ustice. $or no man who is worthy to be called a man would ever
submit to such an agreement i! he were able to resistK he would be mad
i! he did. )uch is the received account )ocrates o! the nature and
origin o! <ustice.
+ow that those who practise <ustice do so involuntarily and because
they have not the power to be un<ust will best appear i! we imagine
something o! this 9ind. having given both to the <ust and the un<ust
power to do what they will let us watch and see whither desire will lead
themK then we shall discover in the very act the <ust and un<ust man to
be proceeding along the same road !ollowing their interest which all
natures deem to be their good and are only diverted into the path o!
/-
<ustice by the !orce o! law. 5he liberty which we are supposing may be
most completely given to them in the !orm o! such a power as is said to
have been possessed by Ayges the ancestor o! Croesus the Lydian.
According to the tradition Ayges was a shepherd in the service o! the
9ing o! LydiaK there was a great storm and an earth@ua9e made an
opening in the earth at the place where he was !eeding his !loc9.
AmaDed at the sight he descended into the opening where among
other marvels he beheld a hollow braDen horse having doors at which
he stooping and loo9ing in saw a dead body o! stature as appeared to
him more than human and having nothing on but a gold ringK this he
too9 !rom the !inger o! the dead and reascended. +ow the shepherds
met together according to custom that they might send their monthly
report about the !loc9s to the 9ingK into their assembly he came having
the ring on his !inger and as he was sitting among them he chanced to
turn the collet o! the ring inside his hand when instantly he became
invisible to the rest o! the company and they began to spea9 o! him as
i! he were no longer present. He was astonished at this and again
touching the ring he turned the collet outwards and reappearedK he
made several trials o! the ring and always with the same result J when
he turned the collet inwards he became invisible when outwards he
reappeared. Whereupon he contrived to be chosen one o! the
messengers who were sent to the courtK where as soon as he arrived
he seduced the @ueen and with her help conspired against the 9ing
and slew him and too9 the 9ingdom. )uppose now that there were two
such magic rings and the <ust put on one o! them and the un<ust the
other. +o man can be imagined to be o! such an iron nature that he
would stand !ast in <ustice. +o man would 9eep his hands o!! what was
not his own when he could sa!ely ta9e what he li9ed out o! the mar9et
or go into houses and lie with any one at his pleasure or 9ill or release
!rom prison whom he would and in all respects be li9e a Aod among
men. 5hen the actions o! the <ust would be as the actions o! the un<ustK
they would both come at last to the same point. And this we may truly
a!!irm to be a great proo! that a man is <ust not willingly or because he
thin9s that <ustice is any good to him individually but o! necessity !or
wherever any one thin9s that he can sa!ely be un<ust there he is
un<ust. $or all men believe in their hearts that in<ustice is !ar more
pro!itable to the individual than <ustice and he who argues as ( have
been supposing will say that they are right. (! you could imagine any
one obtaining this power o! becoming invisible and never doing any
wrong or touching what was anotherFs he would be thought by the
loo9ers,on to be a most wretched idiot although they would praise him
/1
to one anotherFs !aces and 9eep up appearances with one another
!rom a !ear that they too might su!!er in<ustice. 4nough o! this.
+ow i! we are to !orm a real <udgment o! the li!e o! the <ust and un<ust
we must isolate themK there is no other wayK and how is the isolation to
be e!!ected7 ( answer. Let the un<ust man be entirely un<ust and the
<ust man entirely <ustK nothing is to be ta9en away !rom either o! them
and both are to be per!ectly !urnished !or the wor9 o! their respective
lives. $irst let the un<ust be li9e other distinguished masters o! cra!tK
li9e the s9ill!ul pilot or physician who 9nows intuitively his own powers
and 9eeps within their limits and who i! he !ails at any point is able to
recover himsel!. )o let the un<ust ma9e his un<ust attempts in the right
way and lie hidden i! he means to be great in his in<ustice "he who is
!ound out is nobody#K !or the highest reach o! in<ustice is to be deemed
<ust when you are not. 5here!ore ( say that in the per!ectly un<ust man
we must assume the most per!ect in<usticeK there is to be no deduction
but we must allow him while doing the most un<ust acts to have
ac@uired the greatest reputation !or <ustice. (! he has ta9en a !alse step
he must be able to recover himsel!K he must be one who can spea9
with e!!ect i! any o! his deeds come to light and who can !orce his way
where !orce is re@uired his courage and strength and command o!
money and !riends. And at his side let us place the <ust man in his
nobleness and simplicity wishing as Aeschylus says to be and not to
seem good. 5here must be no seeming !or i! he seems to be <ust he
will be honoured and rewarded and then we shall not 9now whether he
is <ust !or the sa9e o! <ustice or !or the sa9e o! honours and rewardsK
there!ore let him be clothed in <ustice only and have no other coveringK
and he must be imagined in a state o! li!e the opposite o! the !ormer.
Let him be the best o! men and let him be thought the worstK then he
will have been put to the proo!K and we shall see whether he will be
a!!ected by the !ear o! in!amy and its conse@uences. And let him
continue thus to the hour o! deathK being <ust and seeming to be un<ust.
When both have reached the uttermost e=treme the one o! <ustice and
the other o! in<ustice let <udgment be given which o! them is the
happier o! the two.
)ocrates J ALAHC&+
HeavensQ my dear Alaucon ( said how energetically you polish them
up !or the decision !irst one and then the other as i! they were two
statues.
/3
( do my best he said. And now that we 9now what they are li9e there is
no di!!iculty in tracing out the sort o! li!e which awaits either o! them.
5his ( will proceed to describeK but as you may thin9 the description a
little too coarse ( as9 you to suppose )ocrates that the words which
!ollow are not mine. J Let me put them into the mouths o! the eulogists
o! in<ustice. 5hey will tell you that the <ust man who is thought un<ust will
be scourged rac9ed bound J will have his eyes burnt outK and at last
a!ter su!!ering every 9ind o! evil he will be impaled. 5hen he will
understand that he ought to seem only and not to be <ustK the words o!
Aeschylus may be more truly spo9en o! the un<ust than o! the <ust. $or
the un<ust is pursuing a realityK he does not live with a view to
appearances J he wants to be really un<ust and not to seem only.
1is mind has a soil deep and fertile,
8ut of which spring his prudent counsels.
(n the !irst place he is thought <ust and there!ore bears rule in the cityK
he can marry whom he will and give in marriage to whom he willK also
he can trade and deal where he li9es and always to his own
advantage because he has no misgivings about in<ustice and at every
contest whether in public or private he gets the better o! his
antagonists and gains at their e=pense and is rich and out o! his
gains he can bene!it his !riends and harm his enemiesK moreover he
can o!!er sacri!ices and dedicate gi!ts to the gods abundantly and
magni!icently and can honour the gods or any man whom he wants to
honour in a !ar better style than the <ust and there!ore he is li9ely to be
dearer than they are to the gods. And thus )ocrates gods and men
are said to unite in ma9ing the li!e o! the un<ust better than the li!e o!
the <ust.
Adeimantus J )&C8A54)
( was going to say something in answer to Alaucon when Adeimantus
his brother interposed. )ocrates he said you do not suppose that
there is nothing more to be urged7
Why what else is there7 ( answered.
5he strongest point o! all has not been even mentioned he replied.
Well then according to the proverb FLet brother help brotherF J i! he
!ails in any part do you assist himK although ( must con!ess that
/2
Alaucon has already said @uite enough to lay me in the dust and ta9e
!rom me the power o! helping <ustice.
Adeimantus
+onsense he replied. *ut let me add something more. 5here is
another side to AlauconFs argument about the praise and censure o!
<ustice and in<ustice which is e@ually re@uired in order to bring out what
( believe to be his meaning. 'arents and tutors are always telling their
sons and their wards that they are to be <ustK but why7 not !or the sa9e
o! <ustice but !or the sa9e o! character and reputationK in the hope o!
obtaining !or him who is reputed <ust some o! those o!!ices marriages
and the li9e which Alaucon has enumerated among the advantages
accruing to the un<ust !rom the reputation o! <ustice. ;ore however is
made o! appearances by this class o! persons than by the othersK !or
they throw in the good opinion o! the gods and will tell you o! a shower
o! bene!its which the heavens as they say rain upon the piousK and
this accords with the testimony o! the noble Hesiod and Homer the !irst
o! whom says that the gods ma9e the oa9s o! the <ust J
9o hear acorns at their summit, and bees in the middle:
2nd the sheep are bowed down with the weight of their fleeces.
and many other blessings o! a li9e 9ind are provided !or them. And
Homer has a very similar strainK !or he spea9s o! one whose !ame is J
2s the fame of some blameless king who, like a god,
0aintains $ustice to whom the black earth brings forth
;heat and barley, whose trees are bowed with fruit,
2nd his sheep never fail to bear, and the sea gives him fish.
)till grander are the gi!ts o! heaven which ;usaeus and his son
vouchsa!e to the <ustK they ta9e them down into the world below where
they have the saints lying on couches at a !east everlastingly drun9
crowned with garlandsK their idea seems to be that an immortality o!
drun9enness is the highest meed o! virtue. )ome e=tend their rewards
yet !urtherK the posterity as they say o! the !aith!ul and <ust shall
survive to the third and !ourth generation. 5his is the style in which they
praise <ustice. *ut about the wic9ed there is another strainK they bury
them in a slough in Hades and ma9e them carry water in a sieveK also
while they are yet living they bring them to in!amy and in!lict upon them
/0
the punishments which Alaucon described as the portion o! the <ust
who are reputed to be un<ustK nothing else does their invention supply.
)uch is their manner o! praising the one and censuring the other.
&nce more )ocrates ( will as9 you to consider another way o!
spea9ing about <ustice and in<ustice which is not con!ined to the poets
but is !ound in prose writers. 5he universal voice o! man9ind is always
declaring that <ustice and virtue are honourable but grievous and
toilsomeK and that the pleasures o! vice and in<ustice are easy o!
attainment and are only censured by law and opinion. 5hey say also
that honesty is !or the most part less pro!itable than dishonestyK and
they are @uite ready to call wic9ed men happy and to honour them
both in public and private when they are rich or in any other way
in!luential while they despise and overloo9 those who may be wea9
and poor even though ac9nowledging them to be better than the
others. *ut most e=traordinary o! all is their mode o! spea9ing about
virtue and the gods. they say that the gods apportion calamity and
misery to many good men and good and happiness to the wic9ed. And
mendicant prophets go to rich menFs doors and persuade them that
they have a power committed to them by the gods o! ma9ing an
atonement !or a manFs own or his ancestorFs sins by sacri!ices or
charms with re<oicings and !eastsK and they promise to harm an
enemy whether <ust or un<ust at a small costK with magic arts and
incantations binding heaven as they say to e=ecute their will. And the
poets are the authorities to whom they appeal now smoothing the path
o! vice with the words o! HesiodK J
<ice may be had in abundance without trouble: the way is
smooth and her dwelling4place is near. )ut before virtue the
gods have set toil, and a tedious and uphill road.
5hen citing Homer as a witness that the gods may be in!luenced by
menK !or he also says.
9he gods, too, may he turned from their purpose: and men pray
to them and avert their wrath by sacrifices and soothing
entreaties, and by libations and the odour of fat, when they
have sinned and transgressed.
And they produce a host o! boo9s written by ;usaeus and &rpheus
who were children o! the ;oon and the ;uses J that is what they say
/%
J according to which they per!orm their ritual and persuade not only
individuals but whole cities that e=piations and atonements !or sin
may be made by sacri!ices and amusements which !ill a vacant hour
and are e@ually at the service o! the living and the deadK the latter sort
they call mysteries and they redeem us !rom the pains o! hell but i! we
neglect them no one 9nows what awaits us.
He proceeded. And now when the young hear all this said about virtue
and vice and the way in which gods and men regard them how are
their minds li9ely to be a!!ected my dear )ocrates J those o! them (
mean who are @uic9witted and li9e bees on the wing light on every
!lower and !rom all that they hear are prone to draw conclusions as to
what manner o! persons they should be and in what way they should
wal9 i! they would ma9e the best o! li!e7 'robably the youth will say to
himsel! in the words o! 'indar J
,an I by $ustice or by crooked ways of deceit ascend a loftier
tower which may be a fortress to me all my days=
$or what men say is that i! ( am really <ust and am not also thought <ust
pro!it there is none but the pain and loss on the other hand are
unmista9able. *ut i! though un<ust ( ac@uire the reputation o! <ustice a
heavenly li!e is promised to me. )ince then as philosophers prove
appearance tyranniDes over truth and is lord o! happiness to
appearance ( must devote mysel!. ( will describe around me a picture
and shadow o! virtue to be the vestibule and e=terior o! my houseK
behind ( will trail the subtle and cra!ty !o= as Archilochus greatest o!
sages recommends. *ut ( hear some one e=claiming that the
concealment o! wic9edness is o!ten di!!icultK to which ( answer. +othing
great is easy. +evertheless the argument indicates this i! we would be
happy to be the path along which we should proceed. With a view to
concealment we will establish secret brotherhoods and political clubs.
And there are pro!essors o! rhetoric who teach the art o! persuading
courts and assembliesK and so partly by persuasion and partly by
!orce ( shall ma9e unlaw!ul gains and not be punished. )till ( hear a
voice saying that the gods cannot be deceived neither can they be
compelled. *ut what i! there are no gods7 or suppose them to have no
care o! human things J why in either case should we mind about
concealment7 And even i! there are gods and they do care about us
yet we 9now o! them only !rom tradition and the genealogies o! the
poetsK and these are the very persons who say that they may be
//
in!luenced and turned by Fsacri!ices and soothing entreaties and by
o!!erings.F Let us be consistent then and believe both or neither. (! the
poets spea9 truly why then we had better be un<ust and o!!er o! the
!ruits o! in<usticeK !or i! we are <ust although we may escape the
vengeance o! heaven we shall lose the gains o! in<usticeK but i! we are
un<ust we shall 9eep the gains and by our sinning and praying and
praying and sinning the gods will be propitiated and we shall not be
punished. F*ut there is a world below in which either we or our posterity
will su!!er !or our un<ust deeds.F Ges my !riend will be the re!lection
but there are mysteries and atoning deities and these have great
power. 5hat is what mighty cities declareK and the children o! the gods
who were their poets and prophets bear a li9e testimony.
&n what principle then shall we any longer choose <ustice rather than
the worst in<ustice7 When i! we only unite the latter with a deceit!ul
regard to appearances we shall !are to our mind both with gods and
men in li!e and a!ter death as the most numerous and the highest
authorities tell us. Cnowing all this )ocrates how can a man who has
any superiority o! mind or person or ran9 or wealth be willing to honour
<usticeK or indeed to re!rain !rom laughing when he hears <ustice
praised7 And even i! there should be some one who is able to disprove
the truth o! my words and who is satis!ied that <ustice is best still he is
not angry with the un<ust but is very ready to !orgive them because he
also 9nows that men are not <ust o! their own !ree willK unless per
adventure there be some one whom the divinity within him may have
inspired with a hatred o! in<ustice or who has attained 9nowledge o! the
truth J but no other man. He only blames in<ustice who owing to
cowardice or age or some wea9ness has not the power o! being
un<ust. And this is proved by the !act that when he obtains the power
he immediately becomes un<ust as !ar as he can be.
5he cause o! all this )ocrates was indicated by us at the beginning o!
the argument when my brother and ( told you how astonished we were
to !ind that o! all the pro!essing panegyrists o! <ustice J beginning with
the ancient heroes o! whom any memorial has been preserved to us
and ending with the men o! our own time J no one has ever blamed
in<ustice or praised <ustice e=cept with a view to the glories honours
and bene!its which !low !rom them. +o one has ever ade@uately
described either in verse or prose the true essential nature o! either o!
them abiding in the soul and invisible to any human or divine eyeK or
shown that o! all the things o! a manFs soul which he has within him
100
<ustice is the greatest good and in<ustice the greatest evil. Had this
been the universal strain had you sought to persuade us o! this !rom
our youth upwards we should not have been on the watch to 9eep one
another !rom doing wrong but every one would have been his own
watchman because a!raid i! he did wrong o! harbouring in himsel! the
greatest o! evils. ( dare say that 5hrasymachus and others would
seriously hold the language which ( have been merely repeating and
words even stronger than these about <ustice and in<ustice grossly as (
conceive perverting their true nature. *ut ( spea9 in this vehement
manner as ( must !ran9ly con!ess to you because ( want to hear !rom
you the opposite sideK and ( would as9 you to show not only the
superiority which <ustice has over in<ustice but what e!!ect they have on
the possessor o! them which ma9es the one to be a good and the other
an evil to him. And please as Alaucon re@uested o! you to e=clude
reputationsK !or unless you ta9e away !rom each o! them his true
reputation and add on the !alse we shall say that you do not praise
<ustice but the appearance o! itK we shall thin9 that you are only
e=horting us to 9eep in<ustice dar9 and that you really agree with
5hrasymachus in thin9ing that <ustice is anotherFs good and the interest
o! the stronger and that in<ustice is a manFs own pro!it and interest
though in<urious to the wea9er. +ow as you have admitted that <ustice
is one o! that highest class o! goods which are desired indeed !or their
results but in a !ar greater degree !or their own sa9es J li9e sight or
hearing or 9nowledge or health or any other real and natural and not
merely conventional good J ( would as9 you in your praise o! <ustice to
regard one point only. ( mean the essential good and evil which <ustice
and in<ustice wor9 in the possessors o! them. Let others praise <ustice
and censure in<ustice magni!ying the rewards and honours o! the one
and abusing the otherK that is a manner o! arguing which coming !rom
them ( am ready to tolerate but !rom you who have spent your whole
li!e in the consideration o! this @uestion unless ( hear the contrary !rom
your own lips ( e=pect something better. And there!ore ( say not only
prove to us that <ustice is better than in<ustice but show what they
either o! them do to the possessor o! them which ma9es the one to be
a good and the other an evil whether seen or unseen by gods and
men.
101
Source + %
a#id Hu!e
A Treatise of Hu!an Nature5
%oo" III: 6f *orals5
Section II: 6f the 6rigin of ,ustice and Property
We now proceed to e=amine two @uestions viD. concerning the
manner, in which the rules of $ustice are establish'd by the artifice of
menK and concerning the reasons, which determine us to attribute to
the observance or neglect of these rules a moral beauty and deformity.
5hese @uestions will appear a!terwards to be distinct. We shall begin
with the !ormer.
&! all the animals with which this globe is peopled there is none
towards whom nature seems at !irst sight to have e=ercisFd more
cruelty than towards man in the numberless wants and necessities
with which she has loaded him and in the slender means which she
a!!ords to the relieving these necessities. (n other creatures these two
particulars generally compensate each other. (! we consider the lion as
a voracious and carnivorous animal we shall easily discover him to be
very necessitousK but i! we turn our eye to his ma9e and temper his
agility his courage his arms and his !orce we shall !ind that his
advantages hold proportion with his wants. 5he sheep and o= are
deprivFd o! all these advantagesK but their appetites are moderate and
their !ood is o! easy purchase. (n man alone this unnatural con<unction
o! in!irmity and o! necessity may be observFd in its greatest per!ection.
+ot only the !ood which is re@uirFd !or his sustenance !lies his search
and approach or at least re@uires his labour to be producFd but he
must be possessFd o! cloaths and lodging to de!end him against the
in<uries o! the weatherK thoF to consider him only in himsel! he is
provided neither with arms nor !orce nor other natural abilities which
are in any degree answerable to so many necessities.
F5is by society alone he is able to supply his de!ects and raise himsel!
up to an e@uality with his !ellow,creatures and even ac@uire a
superiority above them. *y society all his in!irmities are compensatedK
and thoF in that situation his wants multiply every moment upon him yet
his abilities are still more augmented and leave him in every respect
102
more satis!ied and happy than Ftis possible !or him in his savage and
solitary condition ever to become. When every individual person
labours a,part and only !or himsel! his !orce is too small to e=ecute
any considerable wor9K his labour being employFd in supplying all his
di!!erent necessities he never attains a per!ection in any particular artK
and as his !orce and success are not at all times e@ual the least !ailure
in either o! these particulars must be attended with inevitable ruin and
misery. )ociety provides a remedy !or these three inconveniences. *y
the con<unction o! !orces our power is augmented. *y the partition o!
employments our ability encreases. And by mutual succour we are
less e=posFd to !ortune and accidents. F5is by this additional force
ability and security that society becomes advantageous.
*ut in order to !orm society Ftis re@uisite not only that it be
advantageous but also that men be sensible o! these advantagesK and
Ftis impossible in their wild uncultivated state that by study and
re!lection alone they should ever be able to attain this 9nowledge.
;ost !ortunately there!ore there is con<oinFd to those necessities
whose remedies are remote and obscure another necessity which
having a present and more obvious remedy may <ustly be regarded as
the !irst and original principle o! human society. 5his necessity is no
other than that natural appetite betwi=t the se=es which unites them
together and preserves their union till a new tye ta9es place in their
concern !or their common o!!spring. 5his new concern becomes also a
principle o! union betwi=t the parents and o!!spring and !orms a more
numerous societyK where the parents govern by the advantage o! their
superior strength and wisdom and at the same time are restrainFd in
the e=ercise o! their authority by that natural a!!ection which they bear
their children. (n a little time custom and habit operating on the tender
minds o! the children ma9es them sensible o! the advantages which
they may reap !rom society as well as !ashions them by degrees !or it
by rubbing o!! those rough corners and untoward a!!ections which
prevent their coalition.
$or it must be con!est that however the circumstances o! human
nature may render an union necessary and however those passions o!
lust and natural a!!ection may seem to render it unavoidableK yet there
are other particulars in our natural temper and in our outward
circumstances which are very incommodious and are even contrary to
the re@uisite con<unction. Among the !ormer we may <ustly esteem our
selfishness to be the most considerable. ( am sensible that generally
spea9ing the representations o! this @uality have been carried much
10-
too !arK and that the descriptions which certain philosophers delight so
much to !orm o! man9ind in this particular are as wide o! nature as any
accounts o! monsters which we meet with in !ables and romances. )o
!ar !rom thin9ing that men have no a!!ection !or any thing beyond
themselves ( am o! opinion that thoF it be rare to meet with one who
loves any single person better than himsel!K yet Ftis as rare to meet with
one in whom all the 9ind a!!ections ta9en together do not overbalance
all the sel!ish. Consult common e=perience. :o you not see that thoF
the whole e=pence o! the !amily be generally under the direction o! the
master o! it yet there are !ew that do not bestow the largest part o!
their !ortunes on the pleasures o! their wives and the education o! their
children reserving the smallest portion !or their own proper use and
entertainment. 5his is what we may observe concerning such as have
those endearing tiesK and may presume that the case would be the
same with others were they placFd in a li9e situation.
*ut thoF this generosity must be ac9nowledgFd to the honour o! human
nature we may at the same time remar9 that so noble an a!!ection
instead o! !itting men !or large societies is almost as contrary to them
as the most narrow sel!ishness. $or while each person loves himsel!
better than any other single person and in his love to others bears the
greatest a!!ection to his relations and ac@uaintance this must
necessarily produce an opposition o! passions and a conse@uent
opposition o! actionsK which cannot but be dangerous to the new,
establishFd union.
F5is however worth while to remar9 that this contrariety o! passions
wouFd be attended with but small danger did it not concur with a
peculiarity in our outward circumstances which a!!ords it an opportunity
o! e=erting itsel!. 5here are di!!erent species o! goods which we are
possessFd o!K the internal satis!action o! our minds the e=ternal
advantages o! our body and the en<oyment o! such possessions as we
have ac@uirFd by our industry and good !ortune. We are per!ectly
secure in the en<oyment o! the !irst. 5he second may be ravishFd !rom
us but can be o! no advantage to him who deprives us o! them. 5he
last only are both e=posFd to the violence o! others and may be
trans!errFd without su!!ering any loss or alterationK while at the same
time there is not a su!!icient @uantity o! them to supply every oneFs
desires and necessities. As the improvement there!ore o! these goods
is the chie! advantage o! society so the instability o! their possession
along with their scarcity is the chie! impediment.
101
(n vain shouFd we e=pect to !ind in uncultivated nature a remedy to this
inconvenienceK or hope !or any inarti!icial principle o! the human mind
which might controul those partial a!!ections and ma9e us overcome
the temptations arising !rom our circumstances. 5he idea o! <ustice can
never serve to this purpose or be ta9en !or a natural principle capable
o! inspiring men with an e@uitable conduct towards each other. 5hat
virtue as it is now understood wouFd never have been dreamFd o!
among rude and savage men. $or the notion o! in<ury or in<ustice
implies an immorality or vice committed against some other person.
And as every immorality is derivFd !rom some de!ect or unsoundness o!
the passions and as this de!ect must be <udgFd o! in a great measure
!rom the ordinary course o! nature in the constitution o! the mindK Ftwill
be easy to 9now whether we be guilty o! any immorality with regard to
others by considering the natural and usual !orce o! those several
a!!ections which are directed towards them. +ow it appears that in the
original !rame o! our mind our strongest attention is con!inFd to
ourselvesK our ne=t is e=tended to our relations and ac@uaintanceK and
Ftis only the wea9est which reaches to strangers and indi!!erent
persons. 5his partiality then and une@ual a!!ection must not only have
an in!luence on our behaviour and conduct in society but even on our
ideas o! vice and virtueK so as to ma9e us regard any remar9able
transgression o! such a degree o! partiality either by too great an
enlargement or contraction o! the a!!ections as vicious and immoral.
5his we may observe in our common <udgments concerning actions
where we blame a person who either centers all his a!!ections in his
!amily or is so regardless o! them as in any opposition o! interest to
give the pre!erence to a stranger or mere chance ac@uaintance. $rom
all which it !ollows that our natural uncultivated ideas o! morality
instead o! providing a remedy !or the partiality o! our a!!ections do
rather con!orm themselves to that partiality and give it an additional
!orce and in!luence.
5he remedy then is not derivFd !rom nature but !rom artificeK or more
properly spea9ing nature provides a remedy in the <udgment and
understanding !or what is irregular and incommodious in the a!!ections.
$or when men !rom their early education in society have become
sensible o! the in!inite advantages that result !rom it and have besides
ac@uirFd a new a!!ection to company and conversationK and when they
have observFd that the principal disturbance in society arises !rom
those goods which we call e=ternal and !rom their looseness and easy
transition !rom one person to anotherK they must see9 !or a remedy by
103
putting these goods as !ar as possible on the same !ooting with the
!i=Fd and constant advantages o! the mind and body. 5his can be done
a!ter no other manner than by a convention enterFd into by all the
members o! the society to bestow stability on the possession o! those
e=ternal goods and leave every one in the peaceable en<oyment o!
what he may ac@uire by his !ortune and industry. *y this means every
one 9nows what he may sa!ely possessK and the passions are
restrainFd in their partial and contradictory motions. +or is such a
restraint contrary to these passionsK !or i! so it couFd never be enterFd
into nor maintainFdK but it is only contrary to their heedless and
impetuous movement. (nstead o! departing !rom our own interest or
!rom that o! our nearest !riends by abstaining !rom the possessions o!
others we cannot better consult both these interests than by such a
conventionK because it is by that means we maintain society which is
so necessary to their well,being and subsistence as well as to our
own.
5his convention is not o! the nature o! a promise. $or even promises
themselves as we shall see a!terwards arise !rom human conventions.
(t is only a general sense o! common interestK which sense all the
members o! the society e=press to one another and which induces
them to regulate their conduct by certain rules. ( observe that it will be
!or my interest to leave another in the possession o! his goods
provided he will act in the same manner with regard to me. He is
sensible o! a li9e interest in the regulation o! his conduct. When this
common sense o! interest is mutually e=pressFd and is 9nown to both
it produces a suitable resolution and behaviour. And this may properly
enough be callFd a convention or agreement betwi=t us thoF without the
interposition o! a promiseK since the actions o! each o! us have a
re!erence to those o! the other and are per!ormFd upon the supposition
that something is to be per!ormFd on the other part. 5wo men who pull
the oars o! a boat do it by an agreement or convention thoF they have
never given promises to each other. +or is the rule concerning the
stability o! possession the less derivFd !rom human conventions that it
arises gradually and ac@uires !orce by a slow progression and by our
repeated e=perience o! the inconveniences o! transgressing it. &n the
contrary this e=perience assures us still more that the sense o!
interest has become common to all our !ellows and gives us a
con!idence o! the !uture regularity o! their conduct. And Ftis only on the
e=pectation o! this that our moderation and abstinence are !ounded. (n
li9e manner are languages gradually establishFd by human conventions
102
without any promise. (n li9e manner do gold and silver become the
common measures o! e=change and are esteemFd su!!icient payment
!or what is o! a hundred times their value.
A!ter this convention concerning abstinence !rom the possessions o!
others is enterFd into and every one has ac@uirFd a stability in his
possessions there immediately arise the ideas o! <ustice and in<usticeK
as also those o! property right and obligation. 5he latter are altogether
unintelligible without !irst understanding the !ormer. &ur property is
nothing but those goods whose constant possession is establishFd by
the laws o! societyK that is by the laws o! <ustice. 5hose there!ore who
ma9e use o! the words property or right or obligation be!ore they
have e=plainFd the origin o! <ustice or even ma9e use o! them in that
e=plication are guilty o! a very gross !allacy and can never reason
upon any solid !oundation. A manFs property is some ob<ect related to
him. 5his relation is not natural but moral and !ounded on <ustice. F5is
very preposterous there!ore to imagine that we can have any idea o!
property without !ully comprehending the nature o! <ustice and
shewing its origin in the arti!ice and contrivance o! man. 5he origin o!
<ustice e=plains that o! property. 5he same arti!ice gives rise to both. As
our !irst and most natural sentiment o! morals is !ounded on the nature
o! our passions and gives the pre!erence to ourselves and !riends
above strangersK Ftis impossible there can be naturally any such thing
as a !i=Fd right or property while the opposite passions o! men impel
them in contrary directions and are not restrainFd by any convention or
agreement.
+o one can doubt that the convention !or the distinction o! property
and !or the stability o! possession is o! all circumstances the most
necessary to the establishment o! human society and that a!ter the
agreement !or the !i=ing and observing o! this rule there remains little
or nothing to be done towards settling a per!ect harmony and concord.
All the other passions besides this o! interest are either easily
restrainFd or are not o! such pernicious conse@uence when indulgFd.
<anity is rather to be esteemFd a social passion and a bond o! union
among men. +ity and love are to be considerFd in the same light. And
as to envy and revenge, thoF pernicious they operate only by intervals
and are directed against particular persons whom we consider as our
superiors or enemies. 5his avidity alone o! ac@uiring goods and
possessions !or ourselves and our nearest !riends is insatiable
perpetual universal and directly destructive o! society. 5here scarce is
any one who is not actuated by itK and there is no one who has not
100
reason to !ear !rom it when it acts without any restraint and gives way
to its !irst and most natural movements. )o that upon the whole we are
to esteem the di!!iculties in the establishment o! society to be greater
or less according to those we encounter in regulating and restraining
this passion.
F5is certain that no a!!ection o! the human mind has both a su!!icient
!orce and a proper direction to counterbalance the love o! gain and
render men !it members o! society by ma9ing them abstain !rom the
possessions o! others. *enevolence to strangers is too wea9 !or this
purposeK and as to the other passions they rather in!lame this avidity
when we observe that the larger our possessions are the more ability
we have o! grati!ying all our appetites. 5here is no passion there!ore
capable o! controlling the interested a!!ection but the very a!!ection
itsel! by an alteration o! its direction. +ow this alteration must
necessarily ta9e place upon the least re!lectionK since Ftis evident that
the passion is much better satis!yFd by its restraint than by its liberty
and that in preserving society we ma9e much greater advances in the
ac@uiring possessions than in the solitary and !orlorn condition which
must !ollow upon violence and an universal licence. 5he @uestion
there!ore concerning the wic9edness or goodness o! human nature
enters not in the least into that other @uestion concerning the origin o!
societyK nor is there any thing to be considerFd but the degrees o! menFs
sagacity or !olly. $or whether the passion o! sel!,interest be esteemed
vicious or virtuous Ftis all a caseK since itsel! alone restrains it. )o that i!
it be virtuous men become social by their virtueK i! vicious their vice
has the same e!!ect.
+ow as Ftis by establishing the rule !or the stability o! possession that
this passion restrains itsel!K i! that rule be very abstruse and o! di!!icult
inventionK society must be esteemFd in a manner accidental and the
e!!ect o! many ages. *ut i! it be !ound that nothing can be more simple
and obvious than that ruleK that every parent in order to preserve
peace among his children must establish itK and that these !irst
rudiments o! <ustice must every day be improvFd as the society
enlarges. (! all this appear evident as it certainly must we may
conclude that Ftis utterly impossible !or men to remain any considerable
time in that savage condition which precedes societyK but that his very
!irst state and situation may <ustly be esteemFd social. 5his however
hinders not but that philosophers may i! they please e=tend their
reasoning to the supposFd state of natureK provided they allow it to be a
mere philosophical !iction which never had and never couFd have any
10%
reality. Human nature being composFd o! two principal parts which are
re@uisite in all its actions the a!!ections and understandingK Ftis certain
that the blind motions o! the !ormer without the direction o! the latter
incapacitate men !or society. And it may be allowFd us to consider
separately the e!!ects that result !rom the separate operations o! these
two component parts o! the mind. 5he same liberty may be permitted to
moral which is allowFd to natural philosophersK and Ftis very usual with
the latter to consider any motion as compounded and consisting o! two
parts separate !rom each other thoF at the same time they
ac9nowledge it to be in itsel! uncompounded and inseparable.
5his state of nature there!ore is to be regarded as a mere !iction not
unli9e that o! the golden age which poets have inventedK only with this
di!!erence that the !ormer is describFd as !ull o! war violence and
in<usticeK whereas the latter is pointed out to us as the most charming
and most peaceable condition that can possibly be imaginFd. 5he
seasons in that !irst age o! nature were so temperate i! we may
believe the poets that there was no necessity !or men to provide
themselves with cloaths and houses as a security against the violence
o! heat and cold. 5he rivers !lowFd with wine and mil9. 5he oa9s yielded
honeyK and nature spontaneously producFd her greatest delicacies. +or
were these the chie! advantages o! that happy age. 5he storms and
tempests were not alone removFd !rom natureK but those more !urious
tempests were un9nown to human breasts which now cause such
uproar and engender such con!usion. Avarice ambition cruelty
sel!ishness were never heard o!. Cordial a!!ection compassion
sympathy were the only movements with which the human mind was
yet ac@uainted. 4ven the distinction o! mine and thine was banishFd
!rom that happy race o! mortals and carryFd with them the very notions
o! property and obligation <ustice and in<ustice.
5his no doubt is to be regarded as an idle !ictionK but yet deserves our
attention because nothing can more evidently shew the origin o! those
virtues which are the sub<ects o! our present en@uiry. ( have already
observFd that <ustice ta9es its rise !rom human conventionsK and that
these are intended as a remedy to some inconveniences which
proceed !rom the concurrence o! certain qualities o! the human mind
with the situation o! e=ternal ob<ects. 5he @ualities o! the mind are
selfishness and limited generosity. And the situation o! e=ternal ob<ects
is their easy change <oinFd to their scarcity in comparison o! the wants
and desires o! men. *ut however philosophers may have been
bewilderFd in those speculations poets have been guided more
10/
in!allibly by a certain taste or common instinct which in most 9inds o!
reasoning goes !arther than any o! that art and philosophy with which
we have been yet ac@uainted. 5hey easily perceivFd i! every man had a
tender regard !or another or i! nature supplied abundantly all our wants
and desires that the <ealousy o! interest which <ustice supposes could
no longer have placeK nor would there be any occasion !or those
distinctions and limits o! property and possession which at present are
in use among man9ind. 4ncrease to a su!!icient degree the
benevolence o! men or the bounty o! nature and you render <ustice
useless by supplying its place with much nobler virtues and more
valuable blessings. 5he sel!ishness o! men is animated by the !ew
possessions we have in proportion to our wantsK and Ftis to restrain this
sel!ishness that men have been obligFd to separate themselves !rom
the community and to distinguish betwi=t their own goods and those o!
others.
+or need we have recourse to the !ictions o! poets to learn thisK but
beside the reason o! the thing may discover the same truth by
common e=perience and observation. F5is easy to remar9 that a cordial
a!!ection renders all things common among !riendsK and that married
people in particular mutually lose their property and are unac@uainted
with the mine and thine which are so necessary and yet cause such
disturbance in human society. 5he same e!!ect arises !rom any
alteration in the circumstances o! man9indK as when there is such a
plenty o! any thing as satis!ies all the desires o! men. (n which case the
distinction o! property is entirely lost and every thing remains in
common. 5his we may observe with regard to air and water thoF the
most valuable o! all e=ternal ob<ectsK and may easily conclude that i!
men were supplied with every thing in the same abundance or i! every
one had the same a!!ection and tender regard !or every one as !or
himsel!K <ustice and in<ustice would be e@ually un9nown among
man9ind.
Here then is a proposition which ( thin9 may be regarded as certain
that 'tis only from the selfishness and confin'd generosity of men, along
with the scanty provision nature has made for his wants, that $ustice
derives its origin. (! we loo9 bac9ward we shall !ind that this proposition
bestows an additional !orce on some o! those observations which we
have already made on this sub<ect.
5irst we may conclude !rom it that a regard to public interest or a
strong e=tensive benevolence is not our !irst and original motive !or the
110
observation o! the rules o! <usticeK since Ftis allowFd that i! men were
endowFd with such a benevolence these rules would never have been
dreamt o!.
&econdly we may conclude !rom the same principle that the sense o!
<ustice is not !ounded on reason or on the discovery o! certain
conne=ions and relations o! ideas which are eternal immutable and
universally obligatory. $or since it is con!est that such an alteration as
that above,mentionFd in the temper and circumstances o! man9ind
wouFd entirely alter our duties and obligations Ftis necessary upon the
common system that the sense of virtue is deriv'd from reason to
shew the change which this must produce in the relations and ideas.
*ut Ftis evident that the only cause why the e=tensive generosity o!
man and the per!ect abundance o! every thing wouFd destroy the very
idea o! <ustice is because they render it uselessK and that on the other
hand his con!inFd benevolence and his necessitous condition give rise
to that virtue only by ma9ing it re@uisite to the public9 interest and to
that o! every individual. F5was there!ore a concern !or our own and the
public9 interest which made us establish the laws o! <usticeK and
nothing can be more certain than that it is not any relation o! ideas
which gives us this concern but our impressions and sentiments
without which every thing in nature is per!ectly indi!!erent to us and can
never in the least a!!ect us. 5he sense o! <ustice there!ore is not
!ounded on our ideas but on our impressions.
9hirdly we may !arther con!irm the !oregoing proposition that those
impressions, which give rise to this sense of $ustice, are not natural to
the mind of man, but arise from artifice and human conventions. $or
since any considerable alteration o! temper and circumstances
destroys e@ually <ustice and in<usticeK and since such an alteration has
an e!!ect only by changing our own and the public9 interestK it !ollows
that the !irst establishment o! the rules o! <ustice depends on these
di!!erent interests. *ut i! men pursuFd the public9 interest naturally and
with a hearty a!!ection they wouFd never have dreamFd o! restraining
each other by these rulesK and i! they pursuFd their own interest without
any precaution they wouFd run head,long into every 9ind o! in<ustice
and violence. 5hese rules there!ore are arti!icial and see9 their end in
an obli@ue and indirect mannerK nor is the interest which gives rise to
them o! a 9ind that couFd be pursuFd by the natural and inarti!icial
passions o! men.
5o ma9e this more evident consider that thoF the rules o! <ustice are
111
establishFd merely by interest their conne=ion with interest is somewhat
singular and is di!!erent !rom what may be observFd on other
occasions. A single act o! <ustice is !re@uently contrary to public
interestK and were it to stand alone without being !ollowFd by other acts
may in itsel! be very pre<udicial to society. When a man o! merit o! a
bene!icent disposition restores a great !ortune to a miser or a
seditious bigot he has acted <ustly and laudably but the public is a real
su!!erer. +or is every single act o! <ustice considerFd apart more
conducive to private interest than to publicK and Ftis easily conceivFd
how a man may impoverish himsel! by a signal instance o! integrity
and have reason to wish that with regard to that single act the laws o!
<ustice were !or a moment suspended in the universe. *ut however
single acts o! <ustice may be contrary either to public or private
interest Ftis certain that the whole plan or scheme is highly conducive
or indeed absolutely re@uisite both to the support o! society and the
well,being o! every individual. F5is impossible to separate the good !rom
the ill. 'roperty must be stable and must be !i=Fd by general rules. 5hoF
in one instance the public be a su!!erer this momentary ill is amply
compensated by the steady prosecution o! the rule and by the peace
and order which it establishes in society. And even every individual
person must !ind himsel! a gainer on ballancing the accountK since
without <ustice society must immediately dissolve and every one must
!all into that savage and solitary condition which is in!initely worse than
the worst situation that can possibly be supposFd in society. When
there!ore men have had e=perience enough to observe that whatever
may be the conse@uence o! any single act o! <ustice per!ormFd by a
single person yet the whole system o! actions concurrFd in by the
whole society is in!initely advantageous to the whole and to every
partK it is not long be!ore <ustice and property ta9e place. 4very member
o! society is sensible o! this interest. 4very one e=presses this sense to
his !ellows along with the resolution he has ta9en o! s@uaring his
actions by it on condition that others will do the same. +o more is
re@uisite to induce any one o! them to per!orm an act o! <ustice who
has the !irst opportunity. 5his becomes an e=ample to others. And thus
<ustice establishes itsel! by a 9ind o! convention or agreementK that is
by a sense o! interest supposFd to be common to all and where every
single act is per!ormFd in e=pectation that others are to per!orm the li9e.
Without such a convention no one wouFd ever have dreamFd that there
was such a virtue as <ustice or have been inducFd to con!orm his
actions to it. 5a9ing any single act my <ustice may be pernicious in
every respectK and Ftis only upon the supposition that others are to
112
imitate my e=ample that ( can be inducFd to embrace that virtueK since
nothing but this combination can render <ustice advantageous or a!!ord
me any motives to con!orm my sel! to its rules.
We come now to the second @uestion we proposFd viz. ;hy we annex
the idea of virtue to $ustice, and of vice to in$ustice. 5his @uestion will
not detain us long a!ter the principles which we have already
establishFd. All we can say o! it at present will be dispatchFd in a !ew
words. And !or !arther satis!action the reader must wait till we come to
the third part o! this boo9. 5he natural obligation to <ustice viz. interest
has been !ully e=plainFdK but as to the moral obligation or the sentiment
o! right and wrong Ftwill !irst be re@uisite to e=amine the natural virtues
be!ore we can give a !ull and satis!actory account o! it.
A!ter men have !ound by e=perience that their sel!ishness and con!inFd
generosity acting at their liberty totally incapacitate them !or societyK
and at the same time have observFd that society is necessary to the
satis!action o! those very passions they are naturally inducFd to lay
themselves under the restraint o! such rules as may render their
commerce more sa!e and commodious. 5o the imposition then and
observance o! these rules both in general and in every particular
instance they are at !irst inducFd only by a regard to interestK and this
motive on the !irst !ormation o! society is su!!iciently strong and
!orcible. *ut when society has become numerous and has encreasFd to
a tribe or nation this interest is more remoteK nor do men so readily
perceive that disorder and con!usion !ollow upon every breach o! these
rules as in a more narrow and contracted society. *ut thoF in our own
actions we may !re@uently lose sight o! that interest which we have in
maintaining order and may !ollow a lesser and more present interest
we never !ail to observe the pre<udice we receive either mediately or
immediately !rom the in<ustice o! othersK as not being in that case
either blinded by passion or byassFd by any contrary temptation. +ay
when the in<ustice is so distant !rom us as no way to a!!ect our interest
it still displeases usK because we consider it as pre<udicial to human
society and pernicious to every one that approaches the person guilty
o! it. We parta9e o! their uneasiness by sympathyK and as every thing
which gives uneasiness in human actions upon the general survey is
callFd ?ice and whatever produces satis!action in the same manner is
denominated ?irtueK this is the reason why the sense o! moral good
and evil !ollows upon <ustice and in<ustice. And thoF this sense in the
present case be derivFd only !rom contemplating the actions o! others
yet we !ail not to e=tend it even to our own actions. 5he general rule
11-
reaches beyond those instances !rom which it aroseK while at the same
time we naturally sympathize with others in the sentiments they
entertain o! us. 9hus self4interest is the original motive to the
establishment of $ustice> but a sympathy with public interest is the
source of the moral approbation which attends that virtue.
5hoF this progress o! the sentiments be natural and even necessary
Ftis certain that it is here !orwarded by the arti!ice o! politicians who in
order to govern men more easily and preserve peace in human
society have endeavourFd to produce an esteem !or <ustice and an
abhorrence o! in<ustice. 5his no doubt must have its e!!ectK but nothing
can be more evident than that the matter has been carryFd too !ar by
certain writers on morals who seem to have employFd their utmost
e!!orts to e=tirpate all sense o! virtue !rom among man9ind. Any arti!ice
o! politicians may assist nature in the producing o! those sentiments
which she suggests to us and may even on some occasions produce
alone an approbation or esteem !or any particular actionK but Ftis
impossible it should be the sole cause o! the distinction we ma9e
betwi=t vice and virtue. $or i! nature did not aid us in this particular
FtwouFd be in vain !or politicians to tal9 o! honourable or dishonourable
praiseworthy or blameable. 5hese words wouFd be per!ectly
unintelligible and wouFd no more have any idea anne=Fd to them than
i! they were o! a tongue per!ectly un9nown to us. 5he utmost politicians
can per!orm is to e=tend the natural sentiments beyond their original
boundsK but still nature must !urnish the materials and give us some
notion o! moral distinctions.
As public9 praise and blame encrease our esteem !or <usticeK so private
education and instruction contribute to the same e!!ect. $or as parents
easily observe that a man is the more use!ul both to himsel! and
others the greater degree o! probity and honour he is endowFd withK
and that those principles have greater !orce when custom and
education assist interest and re!lection. $or these reasons they are
inducFd to inculcate on their children !rom their earliest in!ancy the
principles o! probity and teach them to regard the observance o! those
rules by which society is maintainFd as worthy and honourable and
their violation as base and in!amous. *y this means the sentiments o!
honour may ta9e root in their tender minds and ac@uire such !irmness
and solidity that they may !all little short o! those principles which are
the most essential to our natures and the most deeply radicated in our
internal constitution.
111
What !arther contributes to encrease their solidity is the interest o! our
reputation a!ter the opinion that a merit or demerit attends $ustice or
in$ustice is once !irmly establishFd among man9ind. 5here is nothing
which touches us more nearly than our reputation and nothing on
which our reputation more depends than our conduct with relation to
the property o! others. $or this reason every one who has any regard
to his character or who intends to live on good terms with man9ind
must !i= an inviolable law to himsel! never by any temptation to be
inducFd to violate those principles which are essential to a man o!
probity and honour.
( shall ma9e only one observation be!ore ( leave this sub<ect viz. that
thoF ( assert that in the state of nature or that imaginary state which
preceded society there be neither <ustice nor in<ustice yet ( assert not
that it was allowable in such a state to violate the property o! others. (
only maintain that there was no such thing as propertyK and
conse@uently couFd be no such thing as <ustice or in<ustice. ( shall have
occasion to ma9e a similar re!lection with regard to promises when (
come to treat o! themK and ( hope this re!lection when duly weighFd will
su!!ice to remove all odium !rom the !oregoing opinions with regard to
<ustice and in<ustice.
113
Source + C
Anthony de ,asay
Social ,ustice )xa!ined.
With A Little Help 7ro! Ada! S!ith

5he !irst tas9 o! a spea9er when he steps up on the pulpit is the
captatio benevolentiae the capturing o! his audienceXs good will. ;y
sub<ect leads me to do the e=act opposite. ( will start by ris9ing to
irritate and embarrass my 9ind listeners by suggesting that i! ( as9ed
LWhat is meant by social <ustice7M !ew o! them could give a coherent
answer. $or my own part ( have spent much time trying to !ormulate
one and have largely !ailedK the only real result o! searching !or a
de!inition was to re<ect several alternatives !or one reason or another.
Herein lies the immense strength o! the term. +obody @uite 9nows what
it means there!ore it is di!!icult to oppose it. (t may mean a great variety
o! things there!ore it is easy to be seduced by one or another o! these
things. Last but not least the very words LsocialM and L<usticeM are both
heavily value,laden incorporating goodness. 6oined together they are
an invincible combination o! which it is almost a perversity to
disapprove. 5he demands o! social <ustice are moral commands.
5he ob<ect o! my tal9 is to de,mysti!y the notion o! social <ustice to strip
it o! emotional content to the e=tent that it is possible to do so and to
try and see whether its claim to be $ust to represent some branch o!
<ustice is able to stand up to logical criticism.
Adam )mith in his 9heory of 0oral &entiments praised Lgenerosity
humanity 9indness compassion mutual !riendship and R all the social
and benevolent a!!ections R "that# please the indi!!erent spectatorM.
1
(n
modern language we could translate this to mean that public opinion
when it does not consciously realise that its interests may be a!!ected
by it is !avourably disposed toward mani!estations o! Lsocial <usticeO. (t
has to put it crudely a Lgood pressM Lit plays wellM. &ther things being
e@ual this ma9es it obviously easier to e=pand the scope o! social
<ustice than to restrict it J as long as it is overloo9ed that generosity
humanity 9indness and compassion involve bene!its to some but costs
to others and the balance between the bene!its and the costs is not
112
sel!,evident. )ome including the present writer doubt that the idea o!
such a balance ma9es any real sense at all.
About the prima facie goodness o! social <ustice "as distinct !rom its
appeal to neutral public opinion# )mith had his doubts. (n the 0oral
&entiments he @uite bluntly declares.
L4very man as the )toics used to say is !irst and principally
recommended to his own care and every man is certainly in
every respect !itter and abler to ta9e care o! himsel! than o! any
other person.M
2
However )mithXs <udgment leaves open the possibility that while the
needy man is best able to ta9e care o! himsel! he would ta9e even
better care i! he were less needy. 5rans!er o! resources !rom the well,
to,do to the needy might still be a good thing though we may not be
able to say that it would be demanded by <ustice. 5his ( believe would
sum up in a nutshell the utilitarian position that held sway !or over a
century !rom *entham to 'igou. $or these utilitarians "who mista9enly
are still regarded as classical liberals# any rich,to,poor trans!er must
increase total utility in society and hence it must by definition be
approved. 5hough the underlying wel!are economic argument is no
longer accepted the memory o! utilitarianism still lingers on in
educated public opinion and lends instinctive almost 9nee,<er9 support
to programmes o! social <ustice.
,harity vs. 8bligation
$rom the !all o! the 8oman 4mpire to the early part o! the 20th century
generosity was not a public !unction. 8ich,to poor trans!ers mainly o!
goods but also o! money were made voluntarily though sometimes
under some moral pressure !rom priest pastor or rabbi. :onors gave
locally to LtheirM poor !avouring the LdeservingM and motivating the
undeserving idle and !ec9less to become deserving. Administration
was easy J indeed non,e=istent J aid e!!icient though coverage was
no doubt uneven partly a matter o! luc9 and some deserving poor
were certainly overloo9ed. +evertheless the system had all the
advantages o! the decentralised over the centralised arrangement.
Above all it had the great moral merit o! not putting donors under
compulsion.
Charity was and remains a moral duty that is not en!orced e=cept
110
possibly by social disapproval o! the uncharitable. 5he recipient has no
claim on the donor and must depend on his good will.
When governments started to install the system o! compulsory
trans!ers !rom rich to poor that led to the wel!are state public opinion
welcomed the innovation. (t was understood to be doing social <ustice.
5he needy no longer had to rely on charity a reliance that progressive
opinion probably including Adam )mithXs Lindi!!erent spectatorM came
to !ind humiliating. :onors were now under an en!orceable obligation to
pay enough ta=es to enable the needy to e=ercise their newly con!erred
right to be helped. (nvoluntary trans!ers amounted to doing social
$ustice.
( believe and will now argue that what began as compulsory giving to
the needy and ended as the !ull,!ledged wel!are state owes little or
nothing to the publicXs sense o! social <ustice though it is approved as i!
it were done in deliberate pursuit o! that <ustice. (ts motive !orce
however comes !rom a very di!!erent source.
2. A :()58(*H5(&+ AA;4
Adam )mith wrote near the middle o! a remar9able nearly uni@ue
period in 4nglish history J between the Alorious 8evolution and World
War ( J when property was considered sacrosanct secure !rom the
power o! the Crown and income ta=ation was only <ust beginning on a
negligibly small scale. 5his period was brought to an end by the
succession o! electoral re!orms leading to universal su!!rage and the
secret ballot.
(n the modern age collective choices can to a large e=tent override
individual ones and appropriate !or public use a share o! the property
and income o! individuals that in earlier times used to be regarded as
their own by law. 5hese collective decisions are ta9en by the counting
o! anonymous votes !or alternatives nobody having more votes than
anybody else. 5he conse@uence o! this type o! decision rule is that
ma<orities can e=ploit minorities and the prospective gain to be made
in this manner serves as a magnet inducing voters to enter into a
voting coalition <ust large enough to be decisive. 8ival coalitions will
each aspire to reach the re@uired siDe and become the decisive
winning coalition. +rima facie a coalition that would distribute to itsel!
some o! the income o! the rich can o!!er a bigger gain to its members
than a coalition that would distribute to itsel! some o! the income o! the
11%
poor. Conse@uently the winning coalition will be the one that promises
to ma9e rich,to,poor trans!ers. "(n !act to have a chance o! winning all
rival coalitions must promise to distribute income !rom the rich to the
poor including any coalition whose membership is rich#.
5he well,9nown median voter theorem states that the electorate will
divide into two halves with the median voter <oining the hal! and giving
it the ma<ority that o!!ers him the higher reward. Hnder rather restrictive
assumptions redistribution will ta9e place as long as the mean income
e=ceeds the median and continues until e@uality is reached.

A more general and ( thin9 stronger representation o! democratic
redistribution is the three,person distribution game. (t wor9s by the
simple rule that the total property or income o! three players shall be
distributed among them as any two players <ointly decide. 5he rational
solution is that the two poorer players <ointly e=ploit the richer one.
(nstead o! three persons the game can be played by three groups that
together ma9e up a society namely the rich the middle and the poor. (!
ma<ority voting is decisive the three groups must be !ormed in such a
way that any two is always larger than the third a grouping that rational
voters would evidently adopt. 5he resulting solution is again that poor
and middle e=ploit rich. (n a repeated game the role o! rich rotates
because it is always a di!!erent player who comes out rich !rom the
previous round o! the game. (! however production ta9es place and
one player "or group# continues to be more productive than the other
two he will be the e=ploited rich in each round.

-. :()AH()(+A 5H4 (+6H)5(C4
5wo persons robbing a third is un<ust. (! it is the rule o! the game that
two persons may rob a third the rule is un<ust.

)tripped o! its rhetorical embellishments and allowing !or the rule o!
law and the restraint which must be e=ercised i! the en!orcement o!
rules is to remain peace!ul the practice o! democracy at its inner core
is no di!!erent !rom the distribution game where two <oin !orces to rob a
third. (t is easy to overloo9 that this is so !or the two are not acting out
o! any wic9edness and the third does not really loo9 li9e a helpless
victim. (t is nevertheless the case that !orcible redistribution o! wealth or
income by applying an un<ust rule is an in<ustice. (t would be no less so
i! it could be established beyond dispute that the initial distribution itsel!
was not <ust and ought to be redressed.
11/
However establishing that the initial distribution was un<ust to start
with is problematical to put it no higher. 6ustice is a property o! actsK
in<ustice is not sel!,generating but must be traceable to un<ust acts. $or
the situation o! the poor to be un<ust the rich must be !ound guilty o!
un<ust acts. 5his can be done in particular cases but not as a generally
valid !inding. 'ossession is nine parts o! the law. 5he owners o!
property and the earners o! income en<oy a presumption in !avour o!
their title to their property and their income. 5he very political authority
which is redistributing them accepts this presumption and promises to
protect the security o! property and contract. (t cannot very easily argue
that protecting a distribution with one hand and redistributing with the
other are both <usti!ied.
&ne way out o! this conundrum is to say with the legendary )cottish
parson OHere is a great di!!iculty. Let us loo9 it !irmly in the !ace and
pass onO. ;any democratic governments in !act do this. 5hey do not
see9 to e=plain away the contradiction i! only because doing so would
be to draw attention to its e=istence. (nstead they rely on the principle
o! Lleast said soonest mendedM.

5he other way out is to dress up the in<ustice o! redistribution as an act
o! social <ustice by constructing a doctrine that i! plausible enough will
persuade the Lindi!!erent spectatorM o! Adam )mith that the rule o! the
democratic distribution game is in !act a rule o! <ustice.

(n what !ollows ( will brie!ly survey two types o! this doctrine. &ne is
contractarian and its central thesis is that redistribution is agreed by
all including those who are made to bear its cost and there!ore <ust.
5he other might be called neo,socialist in that it has nothing to do with
the old socialist labour theory o! value. (ts central contention is that
wealth and income cannot be imputed to the individuals who hold title
to them under the initial distribution and this !or two alternative reasons.
either because we do not 9now how much is imputable to particular
individuals or because nothing is imputable to them.

,ontractarian &ocial .ustice
5he essence o! contractarianism is a claim that there are certain
contract terms to which every rational individual would agree under
suitable assumptions about rationality e=pectations and moral
sentiments. 5wo general ob<ections to such theories should be borne in
mind be!ore considering the detail o! particular versions. &ne is that a
120
hypothetical agreement to given contract terms can never have the
same moral weight and binding !orce than a real one. 5he other is that
every rational individual would e=pect every other to de!ault rather than
!ul!il the contract hence he would not want to !ul!il it all by himsel! J in
other words the contract would be a classic single,round prisonersX
dilemma whose solution is that the contract is simply not concluded.
5he only way out o! this dilemma is to assume that the contracting
parties are not rational but moral individuals. 5hough ( regard them as
valid and even decisive ( propose to leave these criticisms on one side
and loo9 at the detail o! two representative contractarian theories. *oth
employ the device o! the LveilM.

&ne o! these associated with the names o! *uchanan and 5ulloc9
assumes that persons loo9 at their own !uture through a Lveil o!
uncertaintyM which is thic9 enough to stop them !rom ma9ing educated
guesses about how !ortune is li9ely to treat them. 5he well,to,do who
now stand above the average !ear that in the !uture they may !all
below the average. 5here!ore they agree to a redistributive scheme
that penaliDes the above,average and bene!its the below,average.
5hey act as i! they were willing to pay !or insurance now in order to be
able to claim insurance when they will need it. 5he result is that social
<ustice is being done with the agreement o! the rich who voluntarily
bear its cost spurred on by the e=pectation that in the !uture they will
be its bene!iciaries.

$or the theory to be plausible a very implausible condition must be
met. 5he above,average people must value the marginal dollar o! a
possible but less,than,certain !uture loss !ar more highly than the
marginal dollar o! a present and certain one !or otherwise they would
not participate in an insurance scheme that merely o!!ered them their
money bac9 i! the !uture loss did in !act materialise and nothing i! it did
not "i.e. i! their above,average position remained intact#. 5his loo9s li9e
a case o! wildly e=travagant over,insurance and seems to me di!!icult
to accept as a rational option.
5he other representative theory is 8awlsFs L<ustice as !airnessM. Here
the contracting parties act as i! they were behind a Lveil o! ignoranceM
that hides !rom their own eyes all their inherited or ac@uired personal
@ualities or other advantages that ma9e them di!!erent !rom one
another. (n this situation o! mutual L!airnessM where they are supposed
to ignore what their real earning power and real position in li!e might in
121
!act be they agree on an income distribution where all get e@ual shares
e=cept i! and to the e=tent that an ine@uality wor9s to the advantage o!
the worst,o!!. 5his 9ind o! @uali!ied egalitarianism would be the rational
choice o! individuals who Lplayed ma=iminM i.e. who in !acing uncertain
!uture outcomes were only interested in ma9ing the worst outcome as
good as possibleK the devil ta9e the better ones and never mind how
much better they may be.

L;a=iminM a 9ey building bloc9 o! the much invo9ed Ldi!!erence
principleM proclaimed by this theory presupposes a strange mentality
in that those who adopt it as a guide to their ris9y choices are simply
not interested in any potential outcome e=cept the worst and in order
to ma=imise the worst they are @uite willing to give up the most
tempting odds o! even very good outcomes. )uch behaviour described
by 8awls as rational would re!lect an almost morbid !ear o! any ris9.
$or this and a large number o! other reasons that space does not
permit me to discuss it is di!!icult to accept that a hypothetical contract
establishing @uali!ied e@uality o! material wel!are could be willingly
agreed by all i! they were placed in a position o! L!airnessM.

&ocialist &ocial .ustice
(n orthodo= socialist theory only labour creates value hence any initial
distribution in which capital earns a return is ipso facto an in<ustice to
be redressed. 8edistributions in !avour o! the wor9ing class @uali!y as
acts o! social <ustice. 5his doctrine rests on a theory o! value that has
at best only an anti@uarian interest and does not warrant being
discussed.

5wo versions o! what might be termed Lneo,socialistM doctrine
however seem to me worth being brie!ly considered. &ne o! them
starts !rom the indisputable !act that any valuable product say a pair o!
shoes is not produced by a single individual say the shoema9er.
)tarting with the !armer who grew the !ood that !ed the shoema9er the
mason who built the house where he lives the tanner who prepared
the leather he uses the master who taught him to ma9e shoes and the
teacher who taught him the three 8s and ending only with more
remote persons on the edge o! our horiDon all these countless people
past and present have contributed something to the shoe. (t would ta9e
a Leontiev matri= with many thousands o! rows and columns to start
giving some idea o! how comple= a product a simple shoe was e=cept
that we would not have the 9nowledge to put actual numbers into the
122
matri=.
)ince individual contributions cannot be assessed and remain
un9nown the distribution o! the social product cannot be based on who
contributed how much to it. 5he only solution is !or society as a whole
spea9ing with the voice o! its government to decide what would be a
socially <ust distribution and proceed to put it into e!!ect.

5he common sense re!utation o! this argument is simply to point out
that while it is obviously true that the !armer the mason the tanner and
the teacher and everybody else one can thin9 o! had to ma9e
contributions to the ma9ing o! the shoe all their contributions have
been paid !or at the time they were made. 5here is no need !or any
mind,boggling input,output matri=. 4verybodyFs contribution to every
product is duly measured by the prices at which each contribution is
sold on to the ne=t one in the endless chain that is the production
process. All value is contributed by individuals in proportion to !actor
ownership and marginal !actor productivity and they are rewarded !or it
in the same proportions. (nter!erence with these e@ualities in the name
o! social <ustice is prima facie un<ust.
Another neo,socialist apology !or social <ustice dismisses the very idea
o! !actor productivity and o! individuals as owners o! !actors being
responsible !or producing total output. +obody is responsible and
nobody can ta9e the credit !or it. At best individuals can be assumed to
have contributed a tiny !raction o! the social product J a !raction no
larger than what primitive 'olynesian tribesmen or other pre,civilisation
people are capable o! producing. "5his point was made by Herbert
)imon but it was not this that earned him his +obel priDe#. All the rest
must be ascribed to civilisation.

Civilisation is a single indivisible e=ternality. (ndividuals owe to it all or
nearly all their wellbeing. (t is manna a gi!t !alling !rom heaven and
individuals cannot claim it as their own as i! they had deserved it. As
be!ore it is society acting through its government that must determine
how much each individual should in !act get and it will ma9e this
determination according to its <udgment o! what is socially <ust.

5o say that civilisation is a giant e=ternality responsible !or the
production o! all material wealth is to !orge a metaphor not to
construct a theory.
12-
However i! !or argumentXs sa9e one too9 the metaphor as a true
re!lection o! some reality it would still remain the case that an
e=ternality produces no output. (ndividual action !acilitated by the
e=ternality does. 5he individualXs marginal product will no doubt be
higher than it would be without the e=ternality but to ta9e some o! it
away !rom him and give it to others is no more a matter o! <ustice than it
would be to ta= us !or the blessings o! a temperate climate and give the
money to the inhabitants o! the +orth 'ole and the tropical <ungle.

1. WH484 :&4) 5H4 (;'A85(AL )'4C5A5&8 )5A+: 7
5he promise o! redistribution !rom the better,o!! to the worse,o!! as we
have seen gathers the votes needed in a vote,counting polity to obtain
and hold the power to redistribute. 5he rule that authoriDes this to be
done is to put it crudely that two can decide !or three. Get a rule that
delivers one to the other two very clearly and blatantly violates the
precepts o! <ustice. 5he idea o! social <ustice is a truly audacious device
meant to disguise this plain !act by declaring that blac9 is white.

;any intellectual cases can be constructed to support the argument
that distributive in<ustice is in !act an act o! doing social <ustice. 4ach
and every such case is as easy to 9noc9 down as it was to put up. (n
the nature o! the case a conclusive Lvalue,!reeM argument to establish
social <ustice as a branch o! <ustice is an impossible underta9ing.

$ailing the support o! logic the case !or social <ustice must !all bac9 on
<udgment. 6udgment is intrinsically sub<ective and to overcome this
intrinsic !law as !ar as it can be done recourse is had to the Limpartial
observerM who has no interest o! his own in the matter he must <udge.
+ineteenth century utilitarians had great con!idence in the impartial
observer and cited his putative testimony to bolster their cause when
the utility gains o! some and the losses o! others had to be compared.
He was supposed to rule that a dollar ta9en !rom the well,to,do and
given to the needy increased total utility because the latter had a
greater use !or it. His <udgment may have been a @uite reasonable
account o! how he would !eel in the place o! the well,to,do and the
needy. Whatever that !eeling signi!ied it had said strictly nothing about
<ustice.

;ore than a century earlier Adam )mith called his Limpartial spectatorM
to bear witness to <ustice in sharp distinction !rom utility.
121
LR to ta9e !rom him what is o! real use to him merely because it
may be o! e@ual or of more use to us R is what no impartial
spectator can go along withM.
-

(! there were a truly impartial spectator hidden inside each o! us where
would he ta9e his stand on this matter7 (t may well be that he would be
less stern than his )mithian counterpart and li9e most contemporary
opinion he too would li9e to ta9e !rom the better,o!! and give it to the
needy. *ut intellectual honesty could not and would not let him Lgo
along withM the pretence that to ta9e !rom one and give to the other is
doing <ustice.
1
Adam )mith 5he 5heory o! ;oral )entiments 103/ 'art ( )ection ((
Chapter (?.
2
)mith op.cit. 'art ?( )ection (( Chapter (.
-
)mith op.cit. 'art (( )ection (( Chapter ((. my italics.
123
Source ; A
Cicero
6n the State 9III:
"4=cerpt#
5rue Law is in 9eeping with the dictates both o! reason and o! nature. (t
applies universally to everyone. (t is unchanging and eternal. (ts
commands are summons to duty and its prohibitions declare that
nothing wrong!ul must be done. As !ar as good men are concerned
both its commands and its prohibitions are e!!ectiveK though neither
have any e!!ect on men who are bad. 5o attempt to invalidate this law
is sin!ul. +or is it possible to repeal any part o! it much less to abolish it
altogether. $rom its obligations neither )enate nor people can release
us. And to e=plain or interpret it we need no one outside our own
selves.
5here will not be one law in 8ome and another in Athens. 5here will
not be di!!erent laws now and in the !uture. (nstead there will be one
single everlasting immutable law which applies to all nations and all
times. 5he ma9er and umpire and proposer o! this law will be Aod the
single master and ruler o! us all. (! a man !ails to obey Aod then he will
be in !light !rom his own sel! repudiating his own human nature. As a
conse@uence even i! he escapes the normal punishment !or
wrongdoing he will su!!er the penalties o! the gravest possible sort.
122
Source ;%
Niccolo *achia#elli
The Prince
CHAPT)( <'III
Concerning The Way In Which Princes Should =eep 7aith
4?48G one admits how praiseworthy it is in a prince to 9eep !aith and
to live with integrity and not with cra!t. +evertheless our e=perience has
been that those princes who have done great things have held good
!aith o! little account and have 9nown how to circumvent the intellect o!
men by cra!t and in the end have overcome those who have relied on
their word. Gou must 9now there are two ways o! contesting the one by
the law the other by !orceK the !irst method is proper to men the
second to beastsK but because the !irst is !re@uently not su!!icient it is
necessary to have recourse to the second. 5here!ore it is necessary !or
a prince to understand how to avail himsel! o! the beast and the man.
5his has been !iguratively taught to princes by ancient writers who
describe how Achilles and many other princes o! old were given to the
Centaur Chiron to nurse who brought them up in his disciplineK which
means solely that as they had !or a teacher one who was hal! beast
and hal! man so it is necessary !or a prince to 9now how to ma9e use
o! both natures and that one without the other is not durable. A prince
there!ore being compelled 9nowingly to adopt the beast ought to
choose the !o= and the lionK because the lion cannot de!end himsel!
against snares and the !o= cannot de!end himsel! against wolves.
5here!ore it is necessary to be a !o= to discover the snares and a lion
to terri!y the wolves. 5hose who rely simply on the lion do not
understand what they are about. 5here!ore a wise lord cannot nor
ought he to 9eep !aith when such observance may be turned against
him and when the reasons that caused him to pledge it e=ist no longer.
(! men were entirely good this precept would not hold but because they
are bad and will not 9eep !aith with you you too are not bound to
observe it with them. +or will there ever be wanting to a prince
legitimate reasons to e=cuse this nonobservance. &! this endless
modern e=amples could be given showing how many treaties and
engagements have been made void and o! no e!!ect through the
!aithlessness o! princesK and he who has 9nown best how to employ
120
the !o= has succeeded best.
*ut it is necessary to 9now well how to disguise this characteristic and
to be a great pretender and dissemblerK and men are so simple and so
sub<ect to present necessities that he who see9s to deceive will always
!ind someone who will allow himsel! to be deceived. &ne recent
e=ample ( cannot pass over in silence. Ale=ander ?( did nothing else
but deceive men nor ever thought o! doing otherwise and he always
!ound victimsK !or there never was a man who had greater power in
asserting or who with greater oaths would a!!irm a thing yet would
observe it lessK nevertheless his deceits always succeeded according
to his wishes because he well understood this side o! man9ind.
5here!ore it is unnecessary !or a prince to have all the good @ualities (
have enumerated but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And
( shall dare to say this also that to have them and always to observe
them is in<urious and that to appear to have them is use!ulK to appear
merci!ul !aith!ul humane religious upright and to be so but with a
mind so !ramed that should you re@uire not to be so you may be able
and 9now how to change to the opposite.
And you have to understand this that a prince especially a new one
cannot observe all those things !or which men are esteemed being
o!ten !orced in order to maintain the state to act contrary to !aith
!riendship humanity and religion. 5here!ore it is necessary !or him to
have a mind ready to turn itsel! accordingly as the winds and variations
o! !ortune !orce it yet as ( have said above not to diverge !rom the
good i! he can avoid doing so but i! compelled then to 9now how to
set about it.
$or this reason a prince ought to ta9e care that he never lets anything
slip !rom his lips that is not replete with the above,named !ive @ualities
that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merci!ul
!aith!ul humane upright and religious. 5here is nothing more
necessary to appear to have than this last @uality inasmuch as men
<udge generally more by the eye than by the hand because it belongs
to everybody to see you to !ew to come in touch with you. 4very one
sees what you appear to be !ew really 9now what you are and those
!ew dare not oppose themselves to the opinion o! the many who have
the ma<esty o! the state to de!end themK and in the actions o! all men
and especially o! princes which it is not prudent to challenge one
<udges by the result.
12%
$or that reason let a prince have the credit o! con@uering and holding
his state the means will always be considered honest and he will be
praised by everybody because the vulgar are always ta9en by what a
thing seems to be and by what comes o! itK and in the world there are
only the vulgar !or the !ew !ind a place there only when the many have
no ground to rest on.
&ne prince
1
o! the present time whom it is not well to name never
preaches anything else but peace and good !aith and to both he is
most hostile and either i! he had 9ept it would have deprived him o!
reputation and 9ingdom many a time.
1
;a=imilian ( Holy 8oman 4mperor.
12/
Source ;C
Tho!as Hobbes
Le#iathan
CHAPT)( <<'I
6f Ci#il La$s
*G civil laws ( understand the laws that men are there!ore bound to
observe because they are members not o! this or that Commonwealth
in particular but o! a Commonwealth. $or the 9nowledge o! particular
laws belongeth to them that pro!ess the study o! the laws o! their
several countriesK but the 9nowledge o! civil law in general to any man.
5he ancient law o! 8ome was called their civil law !rom the word
civitas which signi!ies a Commonwealth. and those countries which
having been under the 8oman 4mpire and governed by that law retain
still such part thereo! as they thin9 !it call that part the civil law to
distinguish it !rom the rest o! their own civil laws. *ut that is not it (
intend to spea9 o! hereK my design being not to show what is law here
and there but what is lawK as 'lato Aristotle Cicero and diverse
others have done without ta9ing upon them the pro!ession o! the study
o! the law.
And !irst it is mani!est that law in general is not counsel but commandK
nor a command o! any man to any man but only o! him whose
command is addressed to one !ormerly obliged to obey him. And as !or
civil law it addeth only the name o! the person commanding which is
persona civitatis the person o! the Commonwealth.
Which considered ( de!ine civil law in this manner. Civil law is to every
sub<ect those rules which the Commonwealth hath commanded him by
word writing or other su!!icient sign o! the will to ma9e use o! !or the
distinction o! right and wrongK that is to say o! that is contrary and what
is not contrary to the rule.
(n which de!inition there is nothing that is not at !irst sight evident. $or
every man seeth that some laws are addressed to all the sub<ects in
generalK some to particular provincesK some to particular vocationsK and
some to particular menK and are there!ore laws to every o! those to
whom the command is directed and to none else. As also that laws
are the rules o! <ust and un<ust nothing being reputed un<ust that is not
1-0
contrary to some law. Li9ewise that none can ma9e laws but the
Commonwealth because our sub<ection is to the Commonwealth onlyK
and that commands are to be signi!ied by su!!icient signs because a
man 9nows not otherwise how to obey them. And there!ore
whatsoever can !rom this de!inition by necessary conse@uence be
deduced ought to be ac9nowledged !or truth. +ow ( deduce !rom it this
that !olloweth.
1. 5he legislator in all Commonwealths is only the sovereign be he one
man as in a monarchy or one assembly o! men as in a democracy or
aristocracy. $or the legislator is he that ma9eth the law. And the
Commonwealth only prescribes and commandeth the observation o!
those rules which we call law. there!ore the Commonwealth is the
legislator. *ut the Commonwealth is no person nor has capacity to do
anything but by the representative that is the sovereignK and there!ore
the sovereign is the sole legislator. $or the same reason none can
abrogate a law made but the sovereign because a law is not
abrogated but by another law that !orbiddeth it to be put in e=ecution.
2. 5he sovereign o! a Commonwealth be it an assembly or one man is
not sub<ect to the civil laws. $or having power to ma9e and repeal laws
he may when he pleaseth !ree himsel! !rom that sub<ection by
repealing those laws that trouble him and ma9ing o! newK and
conse@uently he was !ree be!ore. $or he is !ree that can be !ree when
he will. nor is it possible !or any person to be bound to himsel! because
he that can bind can releaseK and there!ore he that is bound to himsel!
only is not bound.
-. When long use obtaineth the authority o! a law it is not the length o!
time that ma9eth the authority but the will o! the sovereign signi!ied by
his silence "!or silence is sometimes an argument o! consent#K and it is
no longer law than the sovereign shall be silent therein. And there!ore
i! the sovereign shall have a @uestion o! right grounded not upon his
present will but upon the laws !ormerly made the length o! time shall
bring no pre<udice to his right. but the @uestion shall be <udged by
e@uity. $or many un<ust actions and un<ust sentences go uncontrolled a
longer time than any man can remember. And our lawyers account no
customs law but such as reasonable and that evil customs are to be
abolished. but the <udgement o! what is reasonable and o! what is to
be abolished belonged to him that ma9eth the law which is the
sovereign assembly or monarch.
1. 5he law o! nature and the civil law contain each other and are o!
1-1
e@ual e=tent. $or the laws o! nature which consist in e@uity <ustice
gratitude and other moral virtues on these depending in the condition
o! mere nature "as ( have said be!ore in the end o! the !i!teenth
Chapter# are not properly laws but @ualities that dispose men to peace
and to obedience. When a Commonwealth is once settled then are
they actually laws and not be!oreK as being then the commands o! the
CommonwealthK and there!ore also civil laws. !or it is the sovereign
power that obliges men to obey them. $or the di!!erences o! private
men to declare what is e@uity what is <ustice and is moral virtue and
to ma9e them binding there is need o! the ordinances o! sovereign
power and punishments to be ordained !or such as shall brea9 themK
which ordinances are there!ore part o! the civil law. 5he law o! nature
there!ore is a part o! the civil law in all Commonwealths o! the world.
8eciprocally also the civil law is a part o! the dictates o! nature. $or
<ustice that is to say per!ormance o! covenant and giving to every
man his own is a dictate o! the law o! nature. *ut every sub<ect in a
Commonwealth hath covenanted to obey the civil lawK either one with
another as when they assemble to ma9e a common representative or
with the representative itsel! one by one when subdued by the sword
they promise obedience that they may receive li!eK and there!ore
obedience to the civil law is part also o! the law o! nature. Civil and
natural law are not di!!erent 9inds but di!!erent parts o! lawK whereo!
one part being written is called civil the other unwritten natural. *ut
the right o! nature that is the natural liberty o! man may by the civil
law be abridged and restrained. nay the end o! ma9ing laws is no other
but such restraint without which there cannot possibly be any peace.
And law was brought into the world !or nothing else but to limit the
natural liberty o! particular men in such manner as they might not hurt
but assist one another and <oin together against a common enemy.
3. (! the sovereign o! one Commonwealth subdue a people that have
lived under other written laws and a!terwards govern them by the
same laws by which they were governed be!ore yet those laws are the
civil laws o! the victor and not o! the van@uished Commonwealth. $or
the legislator is he not by whose authority the laws were !irst made but
by whose authority they now continue to be laws. And there!ore where
there be diverse provinces within the dominion o! a Commonwealth
and in those provinces diversity o! laws which commonly are called the
customs o! each several province we are not to understand that such
customs have their !orce only !rom length o! timeK but that they were
anciently laws written or otherwise made 9nown !or the constitutions
1-2
and statutes o! their sovereignsK and are now laws not by virtue o! the
prescription o! time but by the constitutions o! their present sovereigns.
*ut i! an unwritten law in all the provinces o! a dominion shall be
generally observed and no ini@uity appear in the use thereo! that law
can be no other but a law o! nature e@ually obliging all man9ind.
2. )eeing then all laws written and unwritten have their authority and
!orce !rom the will o! the CommonwealthK that is to say !rom the will o!
the representative which in a monarchy is the monarch and in other
Commonwealths the sovereign assemblyK a man may wonder !rom
whence proceed such opinions as are !ound in the boo9s o! lawyers o!
eminence in several Commonwealths directly or by conse@uence
ma9ing the legislative power depend on private men or subordinate
<udges. As !or e=ample that the common law hath no controller but the
'arliamentK which is true only where a parliament has the sovereign
power and cannot be assembled nor dissolved but by their own
discretion. $or i! there be a right in any else to dissolve them there is a
right also to control them and conse@uently to control their controllings.
And i! there be no such right then the controller o! laws is not
parlamentum but re= in parlamento. And where a parliament is
sovereign i! it should assemble never so many or so wise men !rom
the countries sub<ect to them !or whatsoever cause yet there is no
man will believe that such an assembly hath thereby ac@uired to
themselves a legislative power. (tem that the two arms o! a
Commonwealth are !orce and <usticeK the !irst whereo! is in the 9ing
the other deposited in the hands o! the 'arliament. As i! a
Commonwealth could consist where the !orce were in any hand which
<ustice had not the authority to command and govern.
0. 5hat law can never be against reason our lawyers are agreed. and
that not the letter "that is every construction o! it# but that which is
according to the intention o! the legislator is the law. And it is true. but
the doubt is o! whose reason it is that shall be received !or law. (t is not
meant o! any private reasonK !or then there would be as much
contradiction in the laws as there is in the )choolsK nor yet as )ir
4dward Co9e ma9es it an OArti!icial per!ection o! reason gotten by
long study observation and e=perienceO as his was. $or it is possible
long study may increase and con!irm erroneous sentences. and where
men build on !alse grounds the more they build the greater is the ruin.
and o! those that study and observe with e@ual time and diligence the
reasons and resolutions are and must remain discordant. and
there!ore it is not that <uris prudentia or wisdom o! subordinate <udges
1--
but the reason o! this our arti!icial man the Commonwealth and his
command that ma9eth law. and the Commonwealth being in their
representative but one person there cannot easily arise any
contradiction in the lawsK and when there doth the same reason is
able by interpretation or alteration to ta9e it away. (n all courts o!
<ustice the sovereign "which is the person o! the Commonwealth# is he
that <udgeth. the subordinate <udge ought to have regard to the reason
which moved his sovereign to ma9e such law that his sentence may
be according thereunto which then is his sovereignFs sentenceK
otherwise it is his own and an un<ust one.
%. $rom this that the law is a command and a command consisteth in
declaration or mani!estation o! the will o! him that commandeth by
voice writing or some other su!!icient argument o! the same we may
understand that the command o! the Commonwealth is law only to
those that have means to ta9e notice o! it. &ver natural !ools children
or madmen there is no law no more than over brute beastsK nor are
they capable o! the title o! <ust or un<ust because they had never power
to ma9e any covenant or to understand the conse@uences thereo! and
conse@uently never too9 upon them to authoriDe the actions o! any
sovereign as they must do that ma9e to themselves a Commonwealth.
And as those !rom whom nature or accident hath ta9en away the notice
o! all laws in generalK so also every man !rom whom any accident not
proceeding !rom his own de!ault hath ta9en away the means to ta9e
notice o! any particular law is e=cused i! he observe it notK and to
spea9 properly that law is no law to him. (t is there!ore necessary to
consider in this place what arguments and signs be su!!icient !or the
9nowledge o! what is the lawK that is to say what is the will o! the
sovereign as well in monarchies as in other !orms o! government.
And !irst i! it be a law that obliges all the sub<ects without e=ception
and is not written nor otherwise published in such places as they may
ta9e notice thereo! it is a law o! nature. $or whatever men are to ta9e
9nowledge o! !or law not upon other menFs words but every one !rom
his own reason must be such as is agreeable to the reason o! all menK
which no law can be but the law o! nature. 5he laws o! nature
there!ore need not any publishing nor proclamationK as being contained
in this one sentence approved by all the world :o not that to another
which thou thin9est unreasonable to be done by another to thysel!.
)econdly i! it be a law that obliges only some condition o! men or one
particular man and be not written nor published by word then also it is
1-1
a law o! nature and 9nown by the same arguments and signs that
distinguish those in such a condition !rom other sub<ects. $or
whatsoever law is not written or some way published by him that
ma9es it law can be 9nown no way but by the reason o! him that is to
obey itK and is there!ore also a law not only civil but natural. $or
e=ample i! the sovereign employ a public minister without written
instructions what to do he is obliged to ta9e !or instructions the dictates
o! reason. as i! he ma9e a <udge the <udge is to ta9e notice that his
sentence ought to be according to the reason o! his sovereign which
being always understood to be e@uity he is bound to it by the law o!
nature. or i! an ambassador he is in all things not contained in his
written instructions to ta9e !or instruction that which reason dictates to
be most conducing to his sovereignFs interestK and so o! all other
ministers o! the sovereignty public and private. All which instructions o!
natural reason may be comprehended under one name o! !idelity
which is a branch o! natural <ustice.
5he law o! nature e=cepted it belonged to the essence o! all other laws
to be made 9nown to every man that shall be obliged to obey them
either by word or writing or some other act 9nown to proceed !rom the
sovereign authority. $or the will o! another cannot be understood but by
his own word or act or by con<ecture ta9en !rom his scope and
purposeK which in the person o! the Commonwealth is to be supposed
always consonant to e@uity and reason. And in ancient time be!ore
letters were in common use the laws were many times put into verseK
that the rude people ta9ing pleasure in singing or reciting them might
the more easily retain them in memory. And !or the same reason
)olomon adviseth a man to bind the 5en Commandments upon his ten
!ingers "'roverbs 0. -#. And !or the Law which ;oses gave to the
people o! (srael at the renewing o! the Covenant he biddeth them to
teach it their children by discoursing o! it both at home and upon the
way at going to bed and at rising !rom bedK and to write it upon the
posts and doors o! their houses ":euteronomy 11. 1/#K and to
assemble the people man woman and child to hear it read "(bid. -1.
12#. +or is it enough the law be written and published but also that
there be mani!est signs that it proceedeth !rom the will o! the sovereign.
$or private men when they have or thin9 they have !orce enough to
secure their un<ust designs and convoy them sa!ely to their ambitious
ends may publish !or laws what they please without or against the
legislative authority. 5here is there!ore re@uisite not only a declaration
o! the law but also su!!icient signs o! the author and authority. 5he
1-3
author or legislator is supposed in every Commonwealth to be evident
because he is the sovereign who having been constituted by the
consent o! every one is supposed by every one to be su!!iciently
9nown. And though the ignorance and security o! men be such !or the
most part as that when the memory o! the !irst constitution o! their
Commonwealth is worn out they do not consider by whose power they
used to be de!ended against their enemies and to have their industry
protected and to be righted when in<ury is done themK yet because no
man that considers can ma9e @uestion o! it no e=cuse can be derived
!rom the ignorance o! where the sovereignty is placed. And it is a
dictate o! natural reason and conse@uently an evident law o! nature
that no man ought to wea9en that power the protection whereo! he hath
himsel! demanded or wittingly received against others. 5here!ore o!
who is sovereign no man but by his own !ault "whatsoever evil men
suggest# can ma9e any doubt. 5he di!!iculty consisteth in the evidence
o! the authority derived !rom himK the removing whereo! dependeth on
the 9nowledge o! the public registers public counsels public ministers
and public sealsK by which all laws are su!!iciently veri!iedK veri!ied (
say not authoriDed. !or the veri!ication is but the testimony and recordK
not the authority o! the law which consisteth in the command o! the
sovereign only.
(! there!ore a man have a @uestion o! in<ury depending on the law o!
natureK that is to say on common e@uityK the sentence o! the <udge
that by commission hath authority to ta9e cogniDance o! such causes
is a su!!icient veri!ication o! the law o! nature in that individual case. $or
though the advice o! one that pro!esseth the study o! the law be use!ul
!or the avoiding o! contention yet it is but advice. it is the <udge must
tell men what is law upon the hearing o! the controversy.
*ut when the @uestion is o! in<ury or crime upon a written law every
man by recourse to the registers by himsel! or others may i! he will be
su!!iciently in!ormed be!ore he do such in<ury or commit the crime
whether it be an in<ury or notK nay he ought to do so. !or when a man
doubts whether the act he goeth about be <ust or un<ust and may
in!orm himsel! i! he will the doing is unlaw!ul. (n li9e manner he that
supposeth himsel! in<ured in a case determined by the written law
which he may by himsel! or others see and considerK i! he complain
be!ore he consults with the law he does un<ustly and betrayeth a
disposition rather to ve= other men than to demand his own right.
(! the @uestion be o! obedience to a public o!!icer to have seen his
1-2
commission with the public seal and heard it read or to have had the
means to be in!ormed o! it i! a man would is a su!!icient veri!ication o!
his authority. $or every man is obliged to do his best endeavour to
in!orm himsel! o! all written laws that may concern his own !uture
actions.
5he legislator 9nown and the laws either by writing or by the light o!
nature su!!iciently published there wanteth yet another very material
circumstance to ma9e them obligatory. $or it is not the letter but the
intendment or meaningK that is to say the authentic interpretation o!
the law "which is the sense o! the legislator# in which the nature o! the
law consistethK and there!ore the interpretation o! all laws dependeth on
the authority sovereignK and the interpreters can be none but those
which the sovereign to whom only the sub<ect oweth obedience shall
appoint. $or else by the cra!t o! an interpreter the law may be made to
bear a sense contrary to that o! the sovereign by which means the
interpreter becomes the legislator.
All laws written and unwritten have need o! interpretation. 5he
unwritten law o! nature though it be easy to such as without partiality
and passion ma9e use o! their natural reason and there!ore leaves the
violators thereo! without e=cuseK yet considering there be very !ew
perhaps none that in some cases are not blinded by sel!,love or some
other passion it is now become o! all laws the most obscure and has
conse@uently the greatest need o! able interpreters. 5he written laws i!
laws i! they be short are easily misinterpreted !or the diverse
signi!ications o! a word or twoK i! long they be more obscure by the
diverse signi!ications o! many words. in so much as no written law
delivered in !ew or many words can be well understood without a
per!ect understanding o! the !inal causes !or which the law was madeK
the 9nowledge o! which !inal causes is in the legislator. 5o him
there!ore there cannot be any 9not in the law insoluble either by !inding
out the ends to undo it by or else by ma9ing what ends he will "as
Ale=ander did with his sword in the Aordian 9not# by the legislative
powerK which no other interpreter can do.
5he interpretation o! the laws o! nature in a Commonwealth dependeth
not on the boo9s o! moral philosophy. 5he authority o! writers without
the authority o! the Commonwealth ma9eth not their opinions law be
they never so true. 5hat which ( have written in this treatise concerning
the moral virtues and o! their necessity !or the procuring and
maintaining peace though it be evident truth is not there!ore presently
1-0
law but because in all Commonwealths in the world it is part o! the civil
law. $or though it be naturally reasonable yet it is by the sovereign
power that it is law. otherwise it were a great error to call the laws o!
nature unwritten lawK whereo! we see so many volumes published and
in them so many contradictions o! one another and o! themselves.
5he interpretation o! the law o! nature is the sentence o! the <udge
constituted by the sovereign authority to hear and determine such
controversies as depend thereon and consisteth in the application o!
the law to the present case. $or in the act o! <udicature the <udge doth
no more but consider whether the demand o! the party be consonant to
natural reason and e@uityK and the sentence he giveth is there!ore the
interpretation o! the law o! natureK which interpretation is authentic not
because it is his private sentence but because he giveth it by authority
o! the sovereign whereby it becomes the sovereignFs sentenceK which
is law !or that time to the parties pleading.
*ut because there is no <udge subordinate nor sovereign but may err
in a <udgement e@uityK i! a!terward in another li9e case he !ind it more
consonant to e@uity to give a contrary sentence he is obliged to do it.
+o manFs error becomes his own law nor obliges him to persist in it.
+either !or the same reason becomes it a law to other <udges though
sworn to !ollow it. $or though a wrong sentence given by authority o!
the sovereign i! he 9now and allow it in such laws as are mutable be
a constitution o! a new law in cases in which every little circumstance is
the sameK yet in laws immutable such as are the laws o! nature they
are no laws to the same or other <udges in the li9e cases !or ever a!ter.
'rinces succeed one anotherK and one <udge passeth another comethK
nay heaven and earth shall passK but not one tittle o! the law o! nature
shall passK !or it is the eternal law o! Aod. 5here!ore all the sentences
o! precedent <udges that have ever been cannot all together ma9e a
law contrary to natural e@uity. +or any e=amples o! !ormer <udges can
warrant an unreasonable sentence or discharge the present <udge o!
the trouble o! studying what is e@uity "in the case he is to <udge# !rom
the principles o! his own natural reason. $or e=ample sa9e it is against
the law o! nature to punish the innocentK and innocent is he that
ac@uitteth himsel! <udicially and is ac9nowledged !or innocent by the
<udge. 'ut the case now that a man is accused o! a capital crime and
seeing the power and malice o! some enemy and the !re@uent
corruption and partiality o! <udges runneth away !or !ear o! the event
and a!terwards is ta9en and brought to a legal trial and ma9eth it
su!!iciently appear he was not guilty o! the crime and being thereo!
1-%
ac@uitted is nevertheless condemned to lose his goodsK this is a
mani!est condemnation o! the innocent. ( say there!ore that there is no
place in the world where this can be an interpretation o! a law o! nature
or be made a law by the sentences o! precedent <udges that had done
the same. $or he that <udged it !irst <udged un<ustlyK and no in<ustice
can be a pattern o! <udgement to succeeding <udges. A written law may
!orbid innocent men to !ly and they may be punished !or !lying. but that
!lying !or !ear o! in<ury should be ta9en !or presumption o! guilt a!ter a
man is already absolved o! the crime <udicially is contrary to the nature
o! a presumption which hath no place a!ter <udgement given. Get this is
set down by a great lawyer !or the common law o! 4ngland. O(! a manO
saith he Othat is innocent be accused o! !elony and !or !ear !lyeth !or
the sameK albeit he <udicially ac@uitteth himsel! o! the !elonyK yet i! it be
!ound that he !led !or the !elony he shall notwithstanding his
innocency !or!eit all his goods chattels debts and duties. $or as to
the !or!eiture o! them the law will admit no proo! against the
presumption in law grounded upon his !light.O Here you see an
innocent man <udicially ac@uitted notwithstanding his innocency "when
no written law !orbade him to !ly# a!ter his ac@uittal upon a presumption
in law condemned to lose all the goods he hath. (! the law ground upon
his !light a presumption o! the !act which was capital the sentence
ought to have been capital. the presumption were not o! the !act !or
what then ought he to lose his goods7 5his there!ore is no law o!
4nglandK nor is the condemnation grounded upon a presumption o!
law but upon the presumption o! the <udges. (t is also against law to
say that no proo! shall be admitted against a presumption o! law. $or all
<udges sovereign and subordinate i! they re!use to hear proo! re!use
to do <ustice. !or though the sentence be <ust yet the <udges that
condemn without hearing the proo!s o!!ered are un<ust <udgesK and
their presumption is but pre<udiceK which no man ought to bring with
him to the seat o! <ustice whatsoever precedent <udgements or
e=amples he shall pretend to !ollow. 5here be other things o! this
nature wherein menFs <udgements have been perverted by trusting to
precedents. but this is enough to show that though the sentence o! the
<udge be a law to the party pleading yet it is no law any <udge that shall
succeed him in that o!!ice.
(n li9e manner when @uestion is o! the meaning o! written laws he is
not the interpreter o! them that writeth a commentary upon them. $or
commentaries are commonly more sub<ect to cavil than the te=t and
there!ore need other commentariesK and so there will be no end o! such
1-/
interpretation. And there!ore unless there be an interpreter authoriDed
by the sovereign !rom which the subordinate <udges are not to recede
the interpreter can be no other than the ordinary <udges in the same
manner as they are in cases o! the unwritten lawK and their sentences
are to be ta9en by them that plead !or laws in that particular case but
not to bind other <udges in li9e cases to give li9e <udgements. $or a
<udge may err in the interpretation even o! written lawsK but no error o!
a subordinate <udge can change the law which is the general sentence
o! the sovereign.
(n written laws men use to ma9e a di!!erence between the letter and the
sentence o! the law. and when by the letter is meant whatsoever can
be gathered !rom the bare words it is well distinguished. $or the
signi!ications o! almost all are either in themselves or in the
metaphorical use o! them ambiguousK and may be drawn in argument
to ma9e many sensesK but there is only one sense o! the law. *ut i! by
the letter be meant the literal sense then the letter and the sentence or
intention o! the law is all one. $or the literal sense is that which the
legislator intended should by the letter o! the law be signi!ied. +ow the
intention o! the legislator is always supposed to be e@uity. !or it were a
great contumely !or a <udge to thin9 otherwise o! the sovereign. He
ought there!ore i! the word o! the law do not !ully authoriDe a
reasonable sentence to supply it with the law o! natureK or i! the case
be di!!icult to respite <udgement till he have received more ample
authority. $or e=ample a written law ordaineth that he which is thrust
out o! his house by !orce shall be restored by !orce. (t happens that a
man by negligence leaves his house empty and returning is 9ept out
by !orce in which case there is no special law ordained. (t is evident
that this case is contained in the same lawK !or else there is no remedy
!or him at all which is to be supposed against the intention o! the
legislator. Again the word o! the law commandeth to <udge according
to the evidence. A man is accused !alsely o! a !act which the <udge
himsel! saw done by another and not by him that is accused. (n this
case neither shall the letter o! the law be !ollowed to the condemnation
o! the innocent nor shall the <udge give sentence against the evidence
o! the witnesses because the letter o! the law is to the contraryK but
procure o! the sovereign that another be made <udge and himsel!
witness. )o that the incommodity that !ollows the bare words o! a
written law may lead him to the intention o! the law whereby to
interpret the same the betterK though no incommodity can warrant a
sentence against the law. $or every <udge o! right and wrong is not
110
<udge o! what is commodious or incommodious to the Commonwealth.
5he abilities re@uired in a good interpreter o! the law that is to say in a
good <udge are not the same with those o! an advocateK namely the
study o! the laws. $or a <udge as he ought to ta9e notice o! the !act
!rom none but the witnesses so also he ought to ta9e notice o! the law
!rom nothing but the statutes and constitutions o! the sovereign alleged
in the pleading or declared to him by some that have authority !rom the
sovereign power to declare themK and need not ta9e care be!orehand
what he shall <udgeK !or it shall be given him what he shall say
concerning the !act by witnessesK and what he shall say in point o! law
!rom those that shall in their pleadings show it and by authority
interpret it upon the place. 5he Lords o! 'arliament in 4ngland were
<udges and most di!!icult causes have been heard and determined by
themK yet !ew o! them were much versed in the study o! the laws and
!ewer had made pro!ession o! themK and though they consulted with
lawyers that were appointed to be present there !or that purpose yet
they alone had the authority o! giving sentence. (n li9e manner in the
ordinary trials o! right twelve men o! the common people are the
<udges and give sentence not only o! the !act but o! the rightK and
pronounce simply !or the complainant or !or the de!endantK that is to
say are <udges not only o! the !act but also o! the rightK and in a
@uestion o! crime not only determine whether done or not done but
also whether it be murder homicide !elony assault and the li9e which
are determinations o! law. but because they are not supposed to 9now
the law o! themselves there is one that hath authority to in!orm them o!
it in the particular case they are to <udge o!. *ut yet i! they <udge not
according to that he tells them they are not sub<ect thereby to any
penaltyK unless it be made appear they did it against their consciences
or had been corrupted by reward.
5he things that ma9e a good <udge or good interpreter o! the laws are
!irst a right understanding o! that principal law o! nature called e@uityK
which depending not on the reading o! other menFs writings but on the
goodness o! a manFs own natural reason and meditation is presumed
to be in those most that had most leisure and had the most inclination
to meditate thereon. )econdly contempt o! unnecessary riches and
pre!erments. 5hirdly to be able in <udgement to divest himsel! o! all
!ear anger hatred love and compassion. $ourthly and lastly
patience to hear diligent attention in hearing and memory to retain
digest and apply what he hath heard.
111
5he di!!erence and division o! the laws has been made in diverse
manners according to the di!!erent methods o! those men that have
written o! them. $or it is a thing that dependeth on nature but on the
scope o! the writer and is subservient to every manFs proper method.
(n the (nstitutions o! 6ustinian we !ind seven sorts o! civil laws.
1. 5he edicts constitutions and epistles o! princeK that is o! the
emperor because the whole power o! the people was in him. Li9e
these are the proclamations o! the 9ings o! 4ngland.
2. 5he decrees o! the whole people o! 8ome comprehending the
)enate when they were put to the @uestion by the )enate. 5hese were
laws at !irst by the virtue o! the sovereign power residing in the
peopleK and such o! them as by the emperors were not abrogated
remained laws by the authority imperial. $or all laws that bind are
understood to be laws by his authority that has power to repeal them.
)omewhat li9e to these laws are the Acts o! 'arliament in 4ngland.
-. 5he decrees o! the common people e=cluding the )enate when
they were put to the @uestion by the tribune o! the people. $or such o!
them as were not abrogated by the emperors remained laws by the
authority imperial. Li9e to these were the orders o! the House o!
Commons in 4ngland.
1. )enatus consulta the orders o! the )enate. because when the
people o! 8ome grew so numerous as it was inconvenient to assemble
them it was thought !it by the emperor that men should consult the
)enate instead o! the people. and these have some resemblance with
the Acts o! Council.
3. 5he edicts o! praetors and in some cases o! the aediles. such as are
the chie! <ustices in the courts o! 4ngland.
2. 8esponsa prudentum which were the sentences and opinions o!
those lawyers to whom the emperor gave authority to interpret the law
and to give answer to such as in matter o! law demanded their adviceK
which answers the <udges in giving <udgement were obliged by the
constitutions o! the emperor to observe. and should be li9e the reports
o! cases <udged i! other <udges be by the law o! 4ngland bound to
observe them. $or the <udges o! the common law o! 4ngland are not
properly <udges but <uris consultiK o! whom the <udges who are either
the lords or twelve men o! the country are in point o! law to as9
advice.
112
0. Also unwritten customs which in their own nature are an imitation o!
law by the tacit consent o! the emperor in case they be not contrary to
the law o! nature are very laws.
Another division o! laws is into natural and positive. +atural are those
which have been laws !rom all eternity and are called not only natural
but also moral laws consisting in the moral virtuesK as <ustice e@uity
and all habits o! the mind that conduce to peace and charity o! which (
have already spo9en in the !ourteenth and !i!teenth Chapters.
'ositive are those which have not been !rom eternity but have been
made laws by the will o! those that have had the sovereign power over
others and are either written or made 9nown to men by some other
argument o! the will o! their legislator.
Again o! positive laws some are human some divine. and o! human
positive laws some are distributive some penal. :istributive are those
that determine the rights o! the sub<ects declaring to every man what it
is by which he ac@uireth and holdeth a propriety in lands or goods and
a right or liberty o! action. and these spea9 to all the sub<ects. 'enal
are those which declare what penalty shall be in!licted on those that
violate the lawK and spea9 to the ministers and o!!icers ordained !or
e=ecution. $or though every one ought to be in!ormed o! the
punishments ordained be!orehand !or their transgressionK nevertheless
the command is not addressed to the delin@uent "who cannot be
supposed will !aith!ully punish himsel!# but to public ministers
appointed to see the penalty e=ecuted. And these penal laws are !or
the most part written together with the laws distributive and are
sometimes called <udgements. $or all laws are general <udgements or
sentences o! the legislatorK as also every particular <udgement is a law
to him whose case is <udged.
:ivine positive laws "!or natural laws being eternal and universal are
all divine# are those which being the commandments o! Aod not !rom
all eternity nor universally addressed to all men but only to a certain
people or to certain persons are declared !or such by those whom Aod
hath authoriDed to declare them. *ut this authority o! man to declare
what be these positive o! Aod how can it be 9nown7 Aod may
command a man by a supernatural way to deliver laws to other men.
*ut because it is o! the essence o! law that he who is to be obliged be
assured o! the authority o! him that declareth it which we cannot
naturally ta9e notice to be !rom Aod how can a man without
supernatural revelations be assured o! the revelation received by the
11-
declarer7 And how can he be bound to obey them7 $or the !irst
@uestion how a man can be assured o! the revelation o! another
without a revelation particularly to himsel! it is evidently impossible. !or
though a man may be induced to believe such revelation !rom the
miracles they see him do or !rom seeing the e=traordinary sanctity o!
his li!e or !rom seeing the e=traordinary wisdom or e=traordinary
!elicity o! his actions all which are mar9s o! AodFs e=traordinary !avourK
yet they are not assured evidences o! special revelation. ;iracles are
marvellous wor9sK but that which is marvellous to one may not be so to
another. )anctity may be !eignedK and the visible !elicities o! this world
are most o!ten the wor9 o! Aod by natural and ordinary causes. And
there!ore no man can in!allibly 9now by natural reason that another has
had a supernatural revelation o! AodFs will but only a belie!K every one
as the signs thereo! shall appear greater or lesser a !irmer or a wea9er
belie!.
*ut !or the second how he can be bound to obey them it is not so
hard. $or i! the law declared be not against the law o! nature which is
undoubtedly AodFs law and he underta9e to obey it he is bound by his
own actK bound ( say to obey it but not bound to believe it. !or menFs
belie! and interior cogitations are not sub<ect to the commands but
only to the operation o! Aod ordinary or e=traordinary. $aith o!
supernatural law is not a !ul!illing but only an assenting to the sameK
and not a duty that we e=hibit to Aod but a gi!t which Aod !reely giveth
to whom He pleasethK as also unbelie! is not a breach o! any o! His
laws but a re<ection o! them all e=cept the laws natural. *ut this that (
say will be made yet clearer by the e=amples and testimonies
concerning this point in Holy )cripture. 5he covenant Aod made with
Abraham in a supernatural manner was thus O5his is the covenant
which thou shalt observe between me and thee and thy seed a!ter
theeO "Aenesis 10. 10#. AbrahamFs seed had not this revelation nor
were yet in beingK yet they are a party to the covenant and bound to
obey what Abraham should declare to them !or AodFs lawK which they
could not be but in virtue o! the obedience they owed to their parents
who "i! they be sub<ect to no other earthly power as here in the case o!
Abraham# have sovereign power over their children and servants.
Again where Aod saith to Abraham O(n thee shall all nations o! the
earth be blessed. !or ( 9now thou wilt command thy children and thy
house a!ter thee to 9eep the way o! the Lord and to observe
righteousness and <udgementO it is mani!est the obedience o! his
!amily who had no revelation depended on their !ormer obligation to
111
obey their sovereign. At ;ount )inai ;oses only went up to AodK the
people were !orbidden to approach on pain o! deathK yet were they
bound to obey all that ;oses declared to them !or AodFs law. Hpon
what ground but on this submission o! their own O)pea9 thou to us
and we will hear theeK but let not Aod spea9 to us lest we dieO7 *y
which two places it su!!iciently appeareth that in a Commonwealth a
sub<ect that has no certain and assured revelation particularly to
himsel! concerning the will o! Aod is to obey !or such the command o!
the Commonwealth. !or i! men were at liberty to ta9e !or AodFs
commandments their own dreams and !ancies or the dreams and
!ancies o! private men scarce two men would agree upon what is
AodFs commandmentK and yet in respect o! them every man would
despise the commandments o! the Commonwealth. ( conclude
there!ore that in all things not contrary to the moral law "that is to say
to the law o! nature# all sub<ects are bound to obey that !or divine law
which is declared to be so by the laws o! the Commonwealth. Which
also is evident to any manFs reasonK !or whatsoever is not against the
law o! nature may be made law in the name o! them that have the
sovereign powerK there is no reason men should be the less obliged by
it when it is propounded in the name o! Aod. *esides there is no place
in the world where men are permitted to pretend other commandments
o! Aod than are declared !or such by the Commonwealth. Christian
states punish those that revolt !rom Christian religionK and all other
states those that set up any religion by them !orbidden. $or in
whatsoever is not regulated by the Commonwealth it is e@uity "which is
the law o! nature and there!ore an eternal law o! Aod# that every man
e@ually en<oy his liberty.
5here is also another distinction o! laws into !undamental and not
!undamental. but ( could never see in any author what a !undamental
law signi!ieth. +evertheless one may very reasonably distinguish laws
in that manner.
$or a !undamental law in every Commonwealth is that which being
ta9en away the Commonwealth !aileth and is utterly dissolved as a
building whose !oundation is destroyed. And there!ore a !undamental
law is that by which sub<ects are bound to uphold whatsoever power is
given to the sovereign whether a monarch or a sovereign assembly
without which the Commonwealth cannot standK such as is the power
o! war and peace o! <udicature o! election o! o!!icers and o! doing
whatsoever he shall thin9 necessary !or the public good. +ot
!undamental is that the abrogating whereo! draweth not with it the
113
dissolution o! the CommonwealthK such as are the laws concerning
controversies between sub<ect and sub<ect. 5hus much o! the division
o! laws.
( !ind the words le= civilis and <us civile that is to say and law and right
civil promiscuously used !or the same thing even in the most learned
authorsK which nevertheless ought not to be so. $or right is liberty
namely that liberty which the civil law leaves us. but civil law is an
obligation and ta9es !rom us the liberty which the law o! nature gave
us. +ature gave a right to every man to secure himsel! by his own
strength and to invade a suspected neighbour by way o! prevention.
but the civil law ta9es away that liberty in all cases where the
protection o! the law may be sa!ely stayed !or. (nsomuch as le= and <us
are as di!!erent as obligation and liberty.
Li9ewise laws and charters are ta9en promiscuously !or the same thing.
Get charters are donations o! the sovereignK and not laws but
e=emptions !rom law. 5he phrase o! a law is <ubeo in<ungoK ( command
and en<oin. the phrase o! a charter is dedi concessiK ( have given (
have granted. but what is given or granted to a man is not !orced upon
him by a law. A law may be made to bind all the sub<ects o! a
Commonwealth. a liberty or charter is only to one man or some one
part o! the people. $or to say all the people o! a Commonwealth have
liberty in any case whatsoever is to say that in such case there hath
been no law madeK or else having been made is now abrogated.
112
Source ;
Charles de *ontes>uieu
The Spirit of La$s
%oo" I5 6f La$s in ?eneral
1. 8f the %elation of -aws to different )eings. Laws in their most
general signi!ication are the necessary relations arising !rom the
nature o! things. (n this sense all beings have their laws. the :eity
1
His
laws the material world its laws the intelligences superior to man their
laws the beasts their laws man his laws.
5hey who assert that a blind !atality produced the various e!!ects we
behold in this world tal9 very absurdlyK !or can anything be more
unreasonable than to pretend that a blind !atality could be productive o!
intelligent beings7
5here is then a prime reasonK and laws are the relations subsisting
between it and di!!erent beings and the relations o! these to one
another.
Aod is related to the universe as Creator and 'reserverK the laws by
which He created all things are those by which He preserves them. He
acts according to these rules because He 9nows themK He 9nows
them because He made themK and He made them because they are
in relation to His wisdom and power.
)ince we observe that the world though !ormed by the motion o!
matter and void o! understanding subsists through so long a
succession o! ages its motions must certainly be directed by invariable
lawsK and could we imagine another world it must also have constant
rules or it would inevitably perish.
5hus the creation which seems an arbitrary act supposes laws as
invariable as those o! the !atality o! the Atheists. (t would be absurd to
say that the Creator might govern the world without those rules since
without them it could not subsist.
5hese rules are a !i=ed and invariable relation. (n bodies moved the
motion is received increased diminished or lost according to the
relations o! the @uantity o! matter and velocityK each diversity is
uniformity, each change is constancy.
110
'articular intelligent beings may have laws o! their own ma9ing but
they have some li9ewise which they never made. *e!ore there were
intelligent beings they were possibleK they had there!ore possible
relations and conse@uently possible laws. *e!ore laws were made
there were relations o! possible <ustice. 5o say that there is nothing <ust
or un<ust but what is commanded or !orbidden by positive laws is the
same as saying that be!ore the describing o! a circle all the radii were
not e@ual.
We must there!ore ac9nowledge relations o! <ustice antecedent to the
positive law by which they are established. as !or instance i! human
societies e=isted it would be right to con!orm to their lawsK i! there were
intelligent beings that had received a bene!it o! another being they
ought to show their gratitudeK i! one intelligent being had created
another intelligent being the latter ought to continue in its original state
o! dependenceK i! one intelligent being in<ures another it deserves a
retaliationK and so on.
*ut the intelligent world is !ar !rom being so well governed as the
physical. $or though the !ormer has also its laws which o! their own
nature are invariable it does not con!orm to them so e=actly as the
physical world. 5his is because on the one hand particular intelligent
beings are o! a !inite nature and conse@uently liable to errorK and on
the other their nature re@uires them to be !ree agents. Hence they do
not steadily con!orm to their primitive lawsK and even those o! their own
instituting they !re@uently in!ringe.
Whether brutes be governed by the general laws o! motion or by a
particular movement we cannot determine. *e that as it may they
have not a more intimate relation to Aod than the rest o! the material
worldK and sensation is o! no other use to them than in the relation they
have either to other particular beings or to themselves.
*y the allurement o! pleasure they preserve the individual and by the
same allurement they preserve their species. 5hey have natural laws
because they are united by sensationK positive laws they have none
because they are not connected by 9nowledge. And yet they do not
invariably con!orm to their natural lawsK these are better observed by
vegetables that have neither understanding nor sense.
*rutes are deprived o! the high advantages which we haveK but they
have some which we have not. 5hey have not our hopes but they are
without our !earsK they are sub<ect li9e us to death but without 9nowing
11%
itK even most o! them are more attentive than we to sel!,preservation
and do not ma9e so bad a use o! their passions.
;an as a physical being is li9e other bodies governed by invariable
laws. As an intelligent being he incessantly transgresses the laws
established by Aod and changes those o! his own instituting. He is le!t
to his private direction though a limited being and sub<ect li9e all !inite
intelligences to ignorance and error. even his imper!ect 9nowledge he
losesK and as a sensible creature he is hurried away by a thousand
impetuous passions. )uch a being might every instant !orget his
CreatorK Aod has there!ore reminded him o! his duty by the laws o!
religion. )uch a being is liable every moment to !orget himsel!K
philosophy has provided against this by the laws o! morality. $ormed to
live in society he might !orget his !ellow,creaturesK legislators have
there!ore by political and civil laws con!ined him to his duty.
2. 8f the -aws of /ature. Antecedent to the above,mentioned laws are
those o! nature so called because they derive their !orce entirely !rom
our !rame and e=istence. (n order to have a per!ect 9nowledge o! these
laws we must consider man be!ore the establishment o! society. the
laws received in such a state would be those o! nature.
5he law which impressing on our minds the idea o! a Creator inclines
us towards Him is the !irst in importance though not in order o!
natural laws. ;an in a state o! nature would have the !aculty o!
9nowing be!ore he had ac@uired any 9nowledge. 'lain it is that his !irst
ideas would not be o! a speculative natureK he would thin9 o! the
preservation o! his being be!ore he would investigate its origin. )uch a
man would !eel nothing in himsel! at !irst but impotency and wea9nessK
his !ears and apprehensions would be e=cessiveK as appears !rom
instances "were there any necessity o! proving it# o! savages !ound in
!orests
2
trembling at the motion o! a lea! and !lying !rom every
shadow.
(n this state every man instead o! being sensible o! his e@uality would
!ancy himsel! in!erior. 5here would there!ore be no danger o! their
attac9ing one anotherK peace would be the !irst law o! nature.
5he natural impulse or desire which Hobbes attributes to man9ind o!
subduing one another is !ar !rom being well !ounded. 5he idea o!
empire and dominion is so comple= and depends on so many other
notions that it could never be the !irst which occurred to the human
understanding.
11/
Hobbes
-
in@uires O$or what reason go men armed and have loc9s and
9eys to !asten their doors i! they be not naturally in a state o! war7O *ut
is it not obvious that he attributes to man9ind be!ore the establishment
o! society what can happen but in conse@uence o! this establishment
which !urnishes them with motives !or hostile attac9s and sel!,de!ence7
+e=t to a sense o! his wea9ness man would soon !ind that o! his wants.
Hence another law o! nature would prompt him to see9 !or
nourishment.
$ear ( have observed would induce men to shun one anotherK but the
mar9s o! this !ear being reciprocal would soon engage them to
associate. *esides this association would @uic9ly !ollow !rom the very
pleasure one animal !eels at the approach o! another o! the same
species. Again the attraction arising !rom the di!!erence o! se=es would
enhance this pleasure and the natural inclination they have !or each
other would !orm a third law.
*eside the sense or instinct which man possesses in common with
brutes he has the advantage o! ac@uired 9nowledgeK and thence
arises a second tie which brutes have not. ;an9ind have there!ore a
new motive o! unitingK and a !ourth law o! nature results !rom the desire
o! living in society.
-. 8f +ositive -aws. As soon as man enters into a state o! society he
loses the sense o! his wea9nessK e@uality ceases and then
commences the state o! war.
4ach particular society begins to !eel its strength whence arises a
state o! war between di!!erent nations. 5he individuals li9ewise o! each
society become sensible o! their !orceK hence the principal advantages
o! this society they endeavour to convert to their own emolument
which constitutes a state o! war between individuals.
5hese two di!!erent 9inds o! states give rise to human laws. Considered
as inhabitants o! so great a planet which necessarily contains a variety
o! nations they have laws relating to their mutual intercourse which is
what we call the law of nations. As members o! a society that must be
properly supported they have laws relating to the governors and the
governed and this we distinguish by the name o! politic law. 5hey have
also another sort o! law as they stand in relation to each otherK by
which is understood the civil law.
5he law o! nations is naturally !ounded on this principle that di!!erent
130
nations ought in time o! peace to do one another all the good they can
and in time o! war as little in<ury as possible without pre<udicing their
real interests.
5he ob<ect o! war is victoryK that o! victory is con@uestK and that o!
con@uest preservation. $rom this and the preceding principle all those
rules are derived which constitute the law of nations.
All countries have a law o! nations not e=cepting the (ro@uois
themselves though they devour their prisoners. !or they send and
receive ambassadors and understand the rights o! war and peace. 5he
mischie! is that their law o! nations is not !ounded on true principles.
*esides the law o! nations relating to all societies there is a polity or
civil constitution !or each particularly considered. +o society can
subsist without a !orm o! government. O5he united strength o!
individualsO as Aravina
1
well observes Oconstitutes what we call the
body politic.O
5he general strength may be in the hands o! a single person or o!
many. )ome thin9 that nature having established paternal authority the
most natural government was that o! a single person. *ut the e=ample
o! paternal authority proves nothing. $or i! the power o! a !ather relates
to a single government that o! brothers a!ter the death o! a !ather and
that o! cousins,german a!ter the decease o! brothers re!er to a
government o! many. 5he political power necessarily comprehends the
union o! several !amilies.
*etter is it to say that the government most con!ormable to nature is
that which best agrees with the humour and disposition o! the people in
whose !avour it is established.
5he strength o! individuals cannot be united without a con<unction o! all
their wills. O5he con<unction o! those willsO as Aravina again very <ustly
observes Ois what we call the civil state.O
Law in general is human reason inasmuch as it governs all the
inhabitants o! the earth. the political and civil laws o! each nation ought
to be only the particular cases in which human reason is applied.
5hey should be adapted in such a manner to the people !or whom they
are !ramed that it should be a great chance i! those o! one nation suit
another.
5hey should be in relation to the nature and principle o! each
131
governmentK whether they !orm it as may be said o! politic lawsK or
whether they support it as in the case o! civil institutions.
5hey should be in relation to the climate o! each country to the @uality
o! its soil to its situation and e=tent to the principal occupation o! the
natives whether husbandmen huntsmen or shepherds. they should
have relation to the degree o! liberty which the constitution will bearK to
the religion o! the inhabitants to their inclinations riches numbers
commerce manners and customs. (n !ine they have relations to each
other as also to their origin to the intent o! the legislator and to the
order o! things on which they are establishedK in all o! which di!!erent
lights they ought to be considered.
5his is what ( have underta9en to per!orm in the !ollowing wor9. 5hese
relations ( shall e=amine since all these together constitute what ( call
the &pirit of -aws.
( have not separated the political !rom the civil institutions as ( do not
pretend to treat o! laws but o! their spiritK and as this spirit consists in
the various relations which the laws may bear to di!!erent ob<ects it is
not so much my business to !ollow the natural order o! laws as that o!
these relations and ob<ects.
( shall !irst e=amine the relations which laws bear to the nature and
principle o! each governmentK and as this principle has a strong
in!luence on laws ( shall ma9e it my study to understand it thoroughly.
and i! ( can but once establish it the laws will soon appear to !low
thence as !rom their source. ( shall proceed a!terwards to other and
more particular relations.
1
OLawO says 'lutarch Ois the 9ing o! mortal and immortal beings.O )ee
his treatise 2 'iscourse to an ?nlearned +rince.
2
Witness the savage !ound in the !orests o! Hanover who was carried
over to 4ngland during the reign o! Aeorge (.
-
(n pre!. 'e cive.
1
(talian poet and <urist 1221,101%.
132
Source /A
Aristotle
The Art of (hetoric
%oo" I. Chapter 0
"4=cerpts#
(t may be said that every individual man and all men in common aim at
a certain end which determines what they choose and what they avoid.
5his end to sum it up brie!ly is happiness and its constituents.
...
We may de!ine happiness as prosperity combined with virtueK or as
independence o! li!eK or as the secure en<oyment o! the ma=imum o!
pleasureK or as a good condition o! property and body together with the
power o! guarding oneFs property and body and ma9ing use o! them.
5hat happiness is one or more o! these things pretty well everybody
agrees.
...
5he constituents o! wealth are. plenty o! coined money and territoryK
the ownership o! numerous large and beauti!ul estatesK also the
ownership o! numerous and beauti!ul implements live stoc9 and
slaves. All these 9inds o! property are our own are secure
gentlemanly and use!ul. 5he use!ul 9inds are those that are
productive the gentlemanly 9inds are those that provide en<oyment. *y
OproductiveO ( mean those !rom which we get our incomeK by
Oen<oyableO those !rom which we get nothing worth mentioning e=cept
the use o! them. 5he criterion o! OsecurityO is the ownership o! property
in such places and under such Conditions that the use o! it is in our
powerK and it is Oour ownO i! it is in our own power to dispose o! it or
9eep it. *y Odisposing o! itO ( mean giving it away or selling it. Wealth as
a whole consists in using things rather than in owning themK it is really
the activity J that is the use J o! property that constitutes wealth.
13-
Source /%
Aristotle
The Politics
%oo" II. Part '5
The 6$nership of Property
+e=t let us consider what should be our arrangements about property.
should the citiDens o! the per!ect state have their possessions in
common or not7 5his @uestion may be discussed separately !rom the
enactments about women and children. 4ven supposing that the
women and children belong to individuals according to the custom
which is at present universal may there not be an advantage in having
and using possessions in common7 5hree cases are possible. "1# the
soil may be appropriated but the produce may be thrown !or
consumption into the common stoc9K and this is the practice o! some
nations. &r "2# the soil may be common and may be cultivated in
common but the produce divided among individuals !or their private
useK this is a !orm o! common property which is said to e=ist among
certain barbarians. &r "-# the soil and the produce may be ali9e
common.
When the husbandmen are not the owners the case will be di!!erent
and easier to deal withK but when they till the ground !or themselves the
@uestion o! ownership will give a world o! trouble. (! they do not share
e@ually en<oyments and toils those who labor much and get little will
necessarily complain o! those who labor little and receive or consume
much. *ut indeed there is always a di!!iculty in men living together and
having all human relations in common but especially in their having
common property. 5he partnerships o! !ellow,travelers are an e=ample
to the pointK !or they generally !all out over everyday matters and
@uarrel about any tri!le which turns up. )o with servants. we are most
able to ta9e o!!ense at those with whom we most !re@uently come into
contact in daily li!e.
5hese are only some o! the disadvantages which attend the community
o! propertyK the present arrangement i! improved as it might be by
good customs and laws would be !ar better and would have the
advantages o! both systems. 'roperty should be in a certain sense
131
common but as a general rule privateK !or when everyone has a
distinct interest men will not complain o! one another and they will
ma9e more progress because every one will be attending to his own
business. And yet by reason o! goodness and in respect o! use
F$riendsF as the proverb says Fwill have all things common.F 4ven now
there are traces o! such a principle showing that it is not impracticable
but in well,ordered states e=ists already to a certain e=tent and may
be carried !urther. $or although every man has his own property some
things he will place at the disposal o! his !riends while o! others he
shares the use with them. 5he Lacedaemonians !or e=ample use one
anotherFs slaves and horses and dogs as i! they were their ownK and
when they lac9 provisions on a <ourney they appropriate what they !ind
in the !ields throughout the country. (t is clearly better that property
should be private but the use o! it commonK and the special business
o! the legislator is to create in men this benevolent disposition. Again
how immeasurably greater is the pleasure when a man !eels a thing to
be his ownK !or surely the love o! sel! is a !eeling implanted by nature
and not given in vain although sel!ishness is rightly censuredK this
however is not the mere love o! sel! but the love o! sel! in e=cess li9e
the miserFs love o! moneyK !or all or almost all men love money and
other such ob<ects in a measure. And !urther there is the greatest
pleasure in doing a 9indness or service to !riends or guests or
companions which can only be rendered when a man has private
property. 5hese advantages are lost by e=cessive uni!ication o! the
state. 5he e=hibition o! two virtues besides is visibly annihilated in
such a state. !irst temperance towards women "!or it is an honorable
action to abstain !rom anotherFs wi!e !or temperanceF sa9e#K secondly
liberality in the matter o! property. +o one when men have all things in
common will any longer set an e=ample o! liberality or do any liberal
actionK !or liberality consists in the use which is made o! property.
)uch legislation may have a specious appearance o! benevolenceK
men readily listen to it and are easily induced to believe that in some
wonder!ul manner everybody will become everybodyFs !riend
especially when some one is heard denouncing the evils now e=isting
in states suits about contracts convictions !or per<ury !latteries o! rich
men and the li9e which are said to arise out o! the possession o!
private property. 5hese evils however are due to a very di!!erent
cause J the wic9edness o! human nature. (ndeed we see that there is
much more @uarrelling among those who have all things in common
though there are not many o! them when compared with the vast
133
numbers who have private property.
Again we ought to rec9on not only the evils !rom which the citiDens will
be saved but also the advantages which they will lose. 5he li!e which
they are to lead appears to be @uite impracticable. 5he error o!
)ocrates must be attributed to the !alse notion o! unity !rom which he
starts. Hnity there should be both o! the !amily and o! the state but in
some respects only. $or there is a point at which a state may attain
such a degree o! unity as to be no longer a state or at which without
actually ceasing to e=ist it will become an in!erior state li9e harmony
passing into unison or rhythm which has been reduced to a single !oot.
5he state as ( was saying is a plurality which should be united and
made into a community by educationK and it is strange that the author
o! a system o! education which he thin9s will ma9e the state virtuous
should e=pect to improve his citiDens by regulations o! this sort and not
by philosophy or by customs and laws li9e those which prevail at
)parta and Crete respecting common meals whereby the legislator
has made property common. Let us remember that we should not
disregard the e=perience o! agesK in the multitude o! years these
things i! they were good would certainly not have been un9nownK !or
almost everything has been !ound out although sometimes they are
not put togetherK in other cases men do not use the 9nowledge which
they have. Areat light would be thrown on this sub<ect i! we could see
such a !orm o! government in the actual process o! constructionK !or the
legislator could not !orm a state at all without distributing and dividing
its constituents into associations !or common meals and into phratries
and tribes. *ut all this legislation ends only in !orbidding agriculture to
the guardians a prohibition which the Lacedaemonians try to en!orce
already.
*ut indeed )ocrates has not said nor is it easy to decide what in
such a community will be the general !orm o! the state. 5he citiDens
who are not guardians are the ma<ority and about them nothing has
been determined. are the husbandmen too to have their property in
common7 &r is each individual to have his own7 And are the wives and
children to be individual or common. (! li9e the guardians they are to
have all things in common what do they di!!er !rom them or what will
they gain by submitting to their government7 &r upon what principle
would they submit unless indeed the governing class adopt the
ingenious policy o! the Cretans who give their slaves the same
institutions as their own but !orbid them gymnastic e=ercises and the
132
possession o! arms. (! on the other hand the in!erior classes are to be
li9e other cities in respect o! marriage and property what will be the
!orm o! the community7 ;ust it not contain two states in one each
hostile to the other7 He ma9es the guardians into a mere occupying
garrison while the husbandmen and artisans and the rest are the real
citiDens. *ut i! so the suits and @uarrels and all the evils which
)ocrates a!!irms to e=ist in other states will e=ist e@ually among them.
He says indeed that having so good an education the citiDens will not
need many laws !or e=ample laws about the city or about the mar9etsK
but then he con!ines his education to the guardians. Again he ma9es
the husbandmen owners o! the property upon condition o! their paying
a tribute. *ut in that case they are li9ely to be much more
unmanageable and conceited than the Helots or 'enestae or slaves
in general. And whether community o! wives and property be
necessary !or the lower e@ually with the higher class or not and the
@uestions a9in to this what will be the education !orm o! government
laws o! the lower class )ocrates has nowhere determined. neither is it
easy to discover this nor is their character o! small importance i! the
common li!e o! the guardians is to be maintained.
Again i! )ocrates ma9es the women common and retains private
property the men will see to the !ields but who will see to the house7
And who will do so i! the agricultural class have both their property and
their wives in common7 &nce more. it is absurd to argue !rom the
analogy o! the animals that men and women should !ollow the same
pursuits !or animals have not to manage a household. 5he
government too as constituted by )ocrates contains elements o!
dangerK !or he ma9es the same persons always rule. And i! this is o!ten
a cause o! disturbance among the meaner sort how much more
among high,spirited warriors7 *ut that the persons whom he ma9es
rulers must be the same is evidentK !or the gold which the Aod mingles
in the souls o! men is not at one time given to one at another time to
another but always to the same. as he says FAod mingles gold in
some and silver in others !rom their very birthK but brass and iron in
those who are meant to be artisans and husbandmen.F Again he
deprives the guardians even o! happiness and says that the legislator
ought to ma9e the whole state happy. *ut the whole cannot be happy
unless most or all or some o! its parts en<oy happiness. (n this respect
happiness is not li9e the even principle in numbers which may e=ist
only in the whole but in neither o! the partsK not so happiness. And i!
the guardians are not happy who are7 )urely not the artisans or the
130
common people. 5he 8epublic o! which )ocrates discourses has all
these di!!iculties and others @uite as great.
13%
Source /C
,ohn Loc"e
T$o Treatises of ?o#ern!ent
Chapter '5 6f Property
)ect. 23. Whether we consider natural reason, which tells us that men
being once born have a right to their preservation and conse@uently to
meat and drin9 and such other things as nature a!!ords !or their
subsistence. or revelation, which gives us an account o! those grants
Aod made o! the world to 2dam, and to /oah, and his sons it is very
clear that Aod as 9ing 'avid says +sal. c=v. 12. has given the earth
to the children of men: given it to man9ind in common. *ut this being
supposed it seems to some a very great di!!iculty how any one should
ever come to have a property in any thing. ( will not content mysel! to
answer that i! it be di!!icult to ma9e out property, upon a supposition
that Aod gave the world to 2dam, and his posterity in common it is
impossible that any man but one universal monarch should have any
property upon a supposition that Aod gave the world to Adam and his
heirs in succession e=clusive o! all the rest o! his posterity. *ut ( shall
endeavour to shew how men might come to have a property in several
parts o! that which Aod gave to man9ind in common and that without
any e=press compact o! all the commoners.
)ect. 22. Aod who hath given the world to men in common hath also
given them reason to ma9e use o! it to the best advantage o! li!e and
convenience. 5he earth and all that is therein is given to men !or the
support and com!ort o! their being. And thoF all the !ruits it naturally
produces and beasts it !eeds belong to man9ind in common as they
are produced by the spontaneous hand o! natureK and no body has
originally a private dominion e=clusive o! the rest o! man9ind in any o!
them as they are thus in their natural state. yet being given !or the use
o! men there must o! necessity be a means to appropriate them some
way or other be!ore they can be o! any use or at all bene!icial to any
particular man. 5he !ruit or venison which nourishes the wild Indian,
who 9nows no enclosure and is still a tenant in common must be his
and so his i.e. a part o! him that another can no longer have any right
to it be!ore it can do him any good !or the support o! his li!e.
)ect. 20. 5hough the earth and all in!erior creatures be common to all
13/
men yet every man has a property in his own person> this no body has
any right to but himsel!. 5he labour o! his body and the work o! his
hands we may say are properly his. Whatsoever then he removes out
o! the state that nature hath provided and le!t it in he hath mi=ed his
labour with and <oined to it something that is his own and thereby
ma9es it his property. (t being by him removed !rom the common state
nature hath placed it in it hath by this labour something anne=ed to it
that e=cludes the common right o! other men. !or this labour being the
un@uestionable property o! the labourer no man but he can have a
right to what that is once <oined to at least where there is enough and
as good le!t in common !or others.
)ect. 2%. He that is nourished by the acorns he pic9ed up under an
oa9 or the apples he gathered !rom the trees in the wood has certainly
appropriated them to himsel!. +o body can deny but the nourishment is
his. ( as9 then when did they begin to be his7 when he digested7 or
when he eat7 or when he boiled7 or when he brought them home7 or
when he pic9ed them up7 and it is plain i! the !irst gathering made
them not his nothing else could. 5hat labour put a distinction between
them and common. that added something to them more than nature
the common mother o! all had doneK and so they became his private
right. And will any one say he had no right to those acorns or apples
he thus appropriated because he had not the consent o! all man9ind to
ma9e them his7 Was it a robbery thus to assume to himsel! what
belonged to all in common7 (! such a consent as that was necessary
man had starved notwithstanding the plenty Aod had given him. We
see in commons, which remain so by compact that it is the ta9ing any
part o! what is common and removing it out o! the state nature leaves
it in which begins the property: without which the common is o! no use.
And the ta9ing o! this or that part does not depend on the e=press
consent o! all the commoners. 5hus the grass my horse has bitK the
tur!s my servant has cutK and the ore ( have digged in any place where
( have a right to them in common with others become my property,
without the assignation or consent o! any body. 5he labour that was
mine removing them out o! that common state they were in hath fixed
my property in them.
)ect. 2/. *y ma9ing an e=plicit consent o! every commoner necessary
to any oneFs appropriating to himsel! any part o! what is given in
common children or servants could not cut the meat which their !ather
or master had provided !or them in common without assigning to every
one his peculiar part. 5hough the water running in the !ountain be every
120
oneFs yet who can doubt but that in the pitcher is his only who drew it
out7 His labour hath ta9en it out o! the hands o! nature where it was
common and belonged e@ually to all her children and hath thereby
appropriated it to himsel!.
)ect. -0. 5hus this law o! reason ma9es the deer that Indian's who hath
9illed itK it is allowed to be his goods who hath bestowed his labour
upon it though be!ore it was the common right o! every one. And
amongst those who are counted the civiliDed part o! man9ind who
have made and multiplied positive laws to determine property, this
original law o! nature !or the beginning of property, in what was be!ore
common still ta9es placeK and by virtue thereo! what !ish any one
catches in the ocean that great and still remaining common o!
man9indK or what ambergrise any one ta9es up here is by the labour
that removes it out o! that common state nature le!t it in made his
property, who ta9es that pains about it. And even amongst us the hare
that any one is hunting is thought his who pursues her during the
chase. !or being a beast that is still loo9ed upon as common and no
manFs private possessionK whoever has employed so much labour
about any o! that 9ind as to !ind and pursue her has thereby removed
her !rom the state o! nature wherein she was common and hath
begun a property.
)ect. -1. (t will perhaps be ob<ected to this that i! gathering the acorns
or other !ruits o! the earth Yc. ma9es a right to them then any one may
ingross as much as he will. 5o which ( answer +ot so. 5he same law o!
nature that does by this means give us property does also bound that
property too. (od has given us all things richly, 1 5im. vi. 12. is the
voice o! reason con!irmed by inspiration. *ut how !ar has he given it
us7 9o en$oy. As much as any one can ma9e use o! to any advantage
o! li!e be!ore it spoils so much he may by his labour !i= a property in.
whatever is beyond this is more than his share and belongs to others.
+othing was made by Aod !or man to spoil or destroy. And thus
considering the plenty o! natural provisions there was a long time in the
world and the !ew spendersK and to how small a part o! that provision
the industry o! one man could e=tend itsel! and ingross it to the
pre<udice o! othersK especially 9eeping within the bounds, set by
reason o! what might serve !or his use: there could be then little room
!or @uarrels or contentions about property so established.
)ect. -2. *ut the chief matter of property being now not the !ruits o! the
earth and the beasts that subsist on it but the earth itself: as that
121
which ta9es in and carries with it all the restK ( thin9 it is plain that
property in that too is ac@uired as the !ormer. As much land as a man
tills plants improves cultivates and can use the product o! so much
is his property. He by his labour does as it were inclose it !rom the
common. +or will it invalidate his right to say every body else has an
e@ual title to itK and there!ore he cannot appropriate he cannot inclose
without the consent o! all his !ellow,commoners all man9ind. Aod
when he gave the world in common to all man9ind commanded man
also to labour and the penury o! his condition re@uired it o! him. Aod
and his reason commanded him to subdue the earth i.e. improve it !or
the bene!it o! li!e and therein lay out something upon it that was his
own his labour. He that in obedience to this command o! Aod
subdued tilled and sowed any part o! it thereby anne=ed to it
something that was his property, which another had no title to nor
could without in<ury ta9e !rom him.
)ect. --. +or was this appropriation o! any parcel o! land by improving
it any pre<udice to any other man since there was still enough and as
good le!tK and more than the yet unprovided could use. )o that in
e!!ect there was never the less le!t !or others because o! his enclosure
!or himsel!. !or he that leaves as much as another can ma9e use o!
does as good as ta9e nothing at all. +o body could thin9 himsel! in<ured
by the drin9ing o! another man though he too9 a good draught who
had a whole river o! the same water le!t him to @uench his thirst. and
the case o! land and water where there is enough o! both is per!ectly
the same.
)ect. -1. Aod gave the world to men in commonK but since he gave it
them !or their bene!it and the greatest conveniencies o! li!e they were
capable to draw !rom it it cannot be supposed he meant it should
always remain common and uncultivated. He gave it to the use o! the
industrious and rational "and labour was to be his title to itK# not to the
!ancy or covetousness o! the @uarrelsome and contentious. He that had
as good le!t !or his improvement as was already ta9en up needed not
complain ought not to meddle with what was already improved by
anotherFs labour. i! he did it is plain he desired the bene!it o! anotherFs
pains which he had no right to and not the ground which Aod had
given him in common with others to labour on and whereo! there was
as good le!t as that already possessed and more than he 9new what
to do with or his industry could reach to.
)ect. -3. (t is true in land that is common in @ngland, or any other
122
country where there is plenty o! people under government who have
money and commerce no one can inclose or appropriate any part
without the consent o! all his !ellow,commonersK because this is le!t
common by compact i.e. by the law o! the land which is not to be
violated. And though it be common in respect o! some men it is not so
to all man9indK but is the <oint property o! this country or this parish.
*esides the remainder a!ter such enclosure would not be as good to
the rest o! the commoners as the whole was when they could all ma9e
use o! the wholeK whereas in the beginning and !irst peopling o! the
great common o! the world it was @uite otherwise. 5he law man was
under was rather !or appropriating. Aod commanded and his wants
!orced him to labour. 5hat was his property which could not be ta9en
!rom him where,ever he had !i=ed it. And hence subduing or cultivating
the earth and having dominion we see are <oined together. 5he one
gave title to the other. )o that Aod by commanding to subdue gave
authority so !ar to appropriate> and the condition o! human li!e which
re@uires labour and materials to wor9 on necessarily introduces private
possessions.
)ect. -2. 5he measure of property nature has well set by the e=tent o!
menFs labour and the conveniencies of life> no manFs labour could
subdue or appropriate allK nor could his en<oyment consume more than
a small partK so that it was impossible !or any man this way to intrench
upon the right o! another or ac@uire to himsel! a property to the
pre<udice o! his neighbour who would still have room !or as good and
as large a possession "a!ter the other had ta9en out his# as be!ore it
was appropriated. 5his measure did con!ine every manFs possession to
a very moderate proportion and such as he might appropriate to
himsel! without in<ury to any body in the !irst ages o! the world when
men were more in danger to be lost by wandering !rom their company
in the then vast wilderness o! the earth than to be straitened !or want
o! room to plant in. And the same measure may be allowed still without
pre<udice to any body as !ull as the world seems. !or supposing a man
or !amily in the state they were at !irst peopling o! the world by the
children o! 2dam, or /oah: let him plant in some inland vacant places
o! 2merica, we shall !ind that the possessions he could ma9e himsel!
upon the measures we have given would not be very large nor even
to this day pre<udice the rest o! man9ind or give them reason to
complain or thin9 themselves in<ured by this manFs incroachment
though the race o! men have now spread themselves to all the corners
o! the world and do in!initely e=ceed the small number that was at the
12-
beginning. +ay the e=tent o! ground is o! so little value without labour,
that ( have heard it a!!irmed that in &pain itsel! a man may be
permitted to plough sow and reap without being disturbed upon land
he has no other title to but only his ma9ing use o! it. *ut on the
contrary the inhabitants thin9 themselves beholden to him who by his
industry on neglected and conse@uently waste land has increased the
stoc9 o! corn which they wanted. *ut be this as it will which ( lay no
stress onK this ( dare boldly a!!irm that the same rule of propriety, Aviz.B
that every man should have as much as he could ma9e use o! would
hold still in the world without straitening any bodyK since there is land
enough in the world to su!!ice double the inhabitants had not the
invention o! money and the tacit agreement o! men to put a value on it
introduced "by consent# larger possessions and a right to themK which
how it has done ( shall by and by shew more at large.
)ect. -0. 5his is certain that in the beginning be!ore the desire o!
having more than man needed had altered the intrinsic value o! things
which depends only on their use!ulness to the li!e o! manK or had
agreed, that a little piece of yellow metal, which would 9eep without
wasting or decay should be worth a great piece o! !lesh or a whole
heap o! cornK though men had a right to appropriate by their labour
each one o! himsel! as much o! the things o! nature as he could use.
yet this could not be much nor to the pre<udice o! others where the
same plenty was still le!t to those who would use the same industry. 5o
which let me add that he who appropriates land to himsel! by his
labour does not lessen but increase the common stoc9 o! man9ind. !or
the provisions serving to the support o! human li!e produced by one
acre o! inclosed and cultivated land are "to spea9 much within
compass# ten times more than those which are yielded by an acre o!
land o! an e@ual richness lying waste in common. And there!ore he that
incloses land and has a greater plenty o! the conveniencies o! li!e !rom
ten acres than he could have !rom an hundred le!t to nature may truly
be said to give ninety acres to man9ind. !or his labour now supplies him
with provisions out o! ten acres which were but the product o! an
hundred lying in common. ( have here rated the improved land very
low in ma9ing its product but as ten to one when it is much nearer an
hundred to one. !or ( as9 whether in the wild woods and uncultivated
waste o! 2merica, le!t to nature without any improvement tillage or
husbandry a thousand acres yield the needy and wretched inhabitants
as many conveniencies o! li!e as ten acres o! e@ually !ertile land do in
'evonshire, where they are well cultivated7
121
*e!ore the appropriation o! land he who gathered as much o! the wild
!ruit 9illed caught or tamed as many o! the beasts as he couldK he
that so imployed his pains about any o! the spontaneous products o!
nature as any way to alter them !rom the state which nature put them
in by placing any o! his labour on them did thereby acquire a propriety
in them> but i! they perished in his possession without their due useK i!
the !ruits rotted or the venison putri!ied be!ore he could spend it he
o!!ended against the common law o! nature and was liable to be
punishedK he invaded his neighbourFs share !or he had no right, farther
than his use called !or any o! them and they might serve to a!!ord him
conveniencies o! li!e.
)ect. -%. 5he same measures governed the possession of land too.
whatsoever he tilled and reaped laid up and made use o! be!ore it
spoiled that was his peculiar rightK whatsoever he enclosed and could
!eed and ma9e use o! the cattle and product was also his. *ut i! either
the grass o! his enclosure rotted on the ground or the !ruit o! his
planting perished without gathering and laying up this part o! the
earth notwithstanding his enclosure was still to be loo9ed on as waste
and might be the possession o! any other. 5hus at the beginning ,ain
might ta9e as much ground as he could till and ma9e it his own land
and yet leave enough to 2bel's sheep to !eed onK a !ew acres would
serve !or both their possessions. *ut as !amilies increased and
industry inlarged their stoc9s their possessions inlarged with the need
o! themK but yet it was commonly without any fixed property in the
ground they made use o! till they incorporated settled themselves
together and built citiesK and then by consent they came in time to
set out the bounds of their distinct territories, and agree on limits
between them and their neighboursK and by laws within themselves
settled the properties o! those o! the same society. !or we see that in
that part o! the world which was !irst inhabited and there!ore li9e to be
best peopled even as low down as 2braham's time they wandered
with their !loc9s and their herds which was their substance !reely up
and downK and this 2braham did in a country where he was a stranger.
Whence it is plain that at least a great part o! the land lay in common:
that the inhabitants valued it not nor claimed property in any more than
they made use o!. *ut when there was not room enough in the same
place !or their herds to !eed together they by consent as 2braham
and -ot did (en. =iii. 3. separated and inlarged their pasture where it
best li9ed them. And !or the same reason 4sau went !rom his !ather
and his brother and planted in mount )eir Aen. ===vi. 2.
123
)ect. -/. And thus without supposing any private dominion and
property in 2dam, over all the world e=clusive o! all other men which
can no way be proved nor any oneFs property be made out !rom itK but
supposing the world given as it was to the children o! men in
common, we see how labour could ma9e men distinct titles to several
parcels o! it !or their private usesK wherein there could be no doubt o!
right no room !or @uarrel.
)ect. 10. +or is it so strange as perhaps be!ore consideration it may
appear that the property of labour should be able to over,balance the
community o! land. !or it is labour indeed that puts the difference of
value on every thingK and let any one consider what the di!!erence is
between an acre o! land planted with tobacco or sugar sown with
wheat or barley and an acre o! the same land lying in common without
any husbandry upon it and he will !ind that the improvement o! labour
makes the !ar greater part o! the value. ( thin9 it will be but a very
modest computation to say that o! the products o! the earth use!ul to
the li!e o! man nine tenths are the effects of labour> nay i! we will rightly
estimate things as they come to our use and cast up the several
e=pences about them what in them is purely owing to nature, and what
to labour, we shall !ind that in most o! them ninety,nine hundredths are
wholly to be put on the account o! labour.
)ect. 11. 5here cannot be a clearer demonstration o! any thing than
several nations o! the 2mericans are o! this who are rich in land and
poor in all the com!orts o! li!eK whom nature having !urnished as
liberally as any other people with the materials o! plenty i.e. a !ruit!ul
soil apt to produce in abundance what might serve !or !ood raiment
and delightK yet !or want of improving it by labour, have not one
hundredth part o! the conveniencies we en<oy. and a 9ing o! a large
and !ruit!ul territory there !eeds lodges and is clad worse than a day,
labourer in @ngland.
)ect. 12. 5o ma9e this a little clearer let us but trace some o! the
ordinary provisions o! li!e through their several progresses be!ore they
come to our use and see how much they receive o! their value from
human industry. *read wine and cloth are things o! daily use and
great plentyK yet notwithstanding acorns water and leaves or s9ins
must be our bread drin9 and cloathing did not labour !urnish us with
these more use!ul commodities. !or whatever bread is more worth than
acorns wine than water and cloth or silk, than leaves s9ins or moss
that is wholly owing to labour and industry: the one o! these being the
122
!ood and raiment which unassisted nature !urnishes us withK the other
provisions which our industry and pains prepare !or us which how
much they e=ceed the other in value when any one hath computed he
will then see how much labour makes the far greatest part of the value
o! things we en<oy in this world. and the ground which produces the
materials is scarce to be rec9oned in as any or at most but a very
small part o! itK so little that even amongst us land that is le!t wholly to
nature that hath no improvement o! pasturage tillage or planting is
called as indeed it is waste: and we shall !ind the bene!it o! it amount
to little more than nothing.
5his shews how much numbers o! men are to be pre!erred to largeness
o! dominionsK and that the increase o! lands and the right employing o!
them is the great art o! government. and that prince who shall be so
wise and godli9e as by established laws o! liberty to secure protection
and encouragement to the honest industry o! man9ind against the
oppression o! power and narrowness o! party will @uic9ly be too hard
!or his neighboursK but this by the by. 5o return to the argument in
hand.
)ect. 1-. An acre o! land that bears here twenty bushels o! wheat and
another in 2merica, which with the same husbandry would do the li9e
are without doubt o! the same natural intrinsic value. but yet the
bene!it man9ind receives !rom the one in a year is worth 3 l. and !rom
the other possibly not worth a penny i! all the pro!it an Indian received
!rom it were to be valued and sold hereK at least ( may truly say not
one thousandth. (t is labour then which puts the greatest part of value
upon land, without which it would scarcely be worth any thing. it is to
that we owe the greatest part o! all its use!ul productsK !or all that the
straw bran bread o! that acre o! wheat is more worth than the
product o! an acre o! as good land which lies waste is all the e!!ect o!
labour. !or it is not barely the plough,manFs pains the reaperFs and
thresherFs toil and the ba9erFs sweat is to be counted into the bread
we eatK the labour o! those who bro9e the o=en who digged and
wrought the iron and stones who !elled and !ramed the timber
employed about the plough mill oven or any other utensils which are
a vast number re@uisite to this corn !rom its being !eed to be sown to
its being made bread must all be charged on the account o! labour
and received as an e!!ect o! that. nature and the earth !urnished only
the almost worthless materials as in themselves. (t would be a strange
catalogue of things, that industry provided and made use of, about
every loaf of bread, be!ore it came to our use i! we could trace themK
120
iron wood leather bar9 timber stone bric9s coals lime cloth dying
drugs pitch tar masts ropes and all the materials made use o! in the
ship that brought any o! the commodities made use o! by any o! the
wor9men to any part o! the wor9K all which it would be almost
impossible at least too long to rec9on up.
)ect. 11. $rom all which it is evident that though the things o! nature
are given in common yet man by being master o! himsel! and
proprietor of his own person, and the actions or labour of it, had still in
himself the great foundation of property: and that which made up the
great part o! what he applied to the support or com!ort o! his being
when invention and arts had improved the conveniencies o! li!e was
per!ectly his own and did not belong in common to others.
)ect. 13. 5hus labour, in the beginning gave a right of property,
wherever any one was pleased to employ it upon what was common
which remained a long while the !ar greater part and is yet more than
man9ind ma9es use o!. ;en at !irst !or the most part contented
themselves with what unassisted nature o!!ered to their necessities.
and though a!terwards in some parts o! the world "where the increase
o! people and stoc9 with the use of money, had made land scarce and
so o! some value# the several communities settled the bounds o! their
distinct territories and by laws within themselves regulated the
properties o! the private men o! their society and so by compact and
agreement settled the property which labour and industry beganK and
the leagues that have been made between several states and
9ingdoms either e=pressly or tacitly disowning all claim and right to the
land in the others possession have by common consent given up
their pretences to their natural common right which originally they had
to those countries and so have by positive agreement, settled a
property amongst themselves in distinct parts and parcels o! the earthK
yet there are still great tracts of ground to be !ound which "the
inhabitants thereo! not having <oined with the rest o! man9ind in the
consent o! the use o! their common money# lie waste, and are more
than the people who dwell on it do or can ma9e use o! and so still lie
in commonK thoF this can scarce happen amongst that part o! man9ind
that have consented to the use o! money.
)ect. 12. 5he greatest part o! things really useful to the li!e o! man and
such as the necessity o! subsisting made the !irst commoners o! the
world loo9 a!ter as it cloth the 2mericans now are generally things o!
short duration: such as i! they are not consumed by use will decay
12%
and perish o! themselves. gold silver and diamonds are things that
!ancy or agreement hath put the value on more than real use and the
necessary support o! li!e. +ow o! those good things which nature hath
provided in common every one had a right "as hath been said# to as
much as he could use and property in all that he could e!!ect with his
labourK all that his industry could e=tend to to alter !rom the state
nature had put it in was his. He that gathered a hundred bushels o!
acorns or apples had thereby a property in them they were his goods
as soon as gathered. He was only to loo9 that he used them be!ore
they spoiled else he too9 more than his share and robbed others. And
indeed it was a !oolish thing as well as dishonest to hoard up more
than he could ma9e use o!. (! he gave away a part to any body else so
that it perished not uselesly in his possession these he also made use
o!. And i! he also bartered away plums that would have rotted in a
wee9 !or nuts that would last good !or his eating a whole year he did
no in<uryK he wasted not the common stoc9K destroyed no part o! the
portion o! goods that belonged to others so long as nothing perished
uselessly in his hands. Again i! he would give his nuts !or a piece o!
metal pleased with its colourK or e=change his sheep !or shells or wool
!or a spar9ling pebble or a diamond and 9eep those by him all his li!e
he invaded not the right o! others he might heap up as much o! these
durable things as he pleasedK the exceeding of the bounds of his $ust
property not lying in the largeness o! his possession but the perishing
o! any thing uselesly in it.
)ect. 10. And thus came in the use of money, some lasting thing that
men might 9eep without spoiling and that by mutual consent men
would ta9e in e=change !or the truly use!ul but perishable supports o!
li!e.
)ect. 1%. And as di!!erent degrees o! industry were apt to give men
possessions in di!!erent proportions so this invention o! money gave
them the opportunity to continue and enlarge them. !or supposing an
island separate !rom all possible commerce with the rest o! the world
wherein there were but an hundred !amilies but there were sheep
horses and cows with other use!ul animals wholsome !ruits and land
enough !or corn !or a hundred thousand times as many but nothing in
the island either because o! its commonness or perishableness !it to
supply the place o! money: what reason could any one have there to
enlarge his possessions beyond the use o! his !amily and a plenti!ul
supply to its consumption, either in what their own industry produced
or they could barter !or li9e perishable use!ul commodities with
12/
others7 Where there is not some thing both lasting and scarce and so
valuable to be hoarded up there men will not be apt to enlarge their
possessions of land, were it never so rich never so !ree !or them to
ta9e. !or ( as9 what would a man value ten thousand or an hundred
thousand acres o! e=cellent land, ready cultivated and well stoc9ed too
with cattle in the middle o! the inland parts o! 2merica, where he had
no hopes o! commerce with other parts o! the world to draw money to
him by the sale o! the product7 (t would not be worth the enclosing and
we should see him give up again to the wild common o! nature
whatever was more than would supply the conveniencies o! li!e to be
had there !or him and his !amily.
)ect. 1/. 5hus in the beginning all the world was 2merica, and more so
than that is nowK !or no such thing as money was any where 9nown.
$ind out something that hath the use and value of money amongst his
neighbours you shall see the same man will begin presently to enlarge
his possessions.
)ect. 30. *ut since gold and silver being little use!ul to the li!e o! man
in proportion to !ood raiment and carriage has its value only !rom the
consent o! men whereo! labour yet makes, in great part the measure,
it is plain that men have agreed to a disproportionate and une@ual
possession of the earth, they having by a tacit and voluntary consent
!ound out a way how a man may !airly possess more land than he
himsel! can use the product o! by receiving in e=change !or the
overplus gold and silver which may be hoarded up without in<ury to any
oneK these metals not spoiling or decaying in the hands o! the
possessor. 5his partage o! things in an ine@uality o! private
possessions men have made practicable out o! the bounds o! society
and without compact only by putting a value on gold and silver and
tacitly agreeing in the use o! money. !or in governments the laws
regulate the right o! property and the possession o! land is determined
by positive constitutions.
)ect. 31. And thus ( thin9 it is very easy to conceive without any
di!!iculty how labour could at first begin a title of property in the
common things o! nature and how the spending it upon our uses
bounded it. )o that there could then be no reason o! @uarrelling about
title nor any doubt about the largeness o! possession it gave. 8ight
and conveniency went togetherK !or as a man had a right to all he could
employ his labour upon so he had no temptation to labour !or more
than he could ma9e use o!. 5his le!t no room !or controversy about the
100
title nor !or encroachment on the right o! othersK what portion a man
carved to himsel! was easily seenK and it was useless as well as
dishonest to carve himsel! too much or ta9e more than he needed.
101
Source /
Hans2Her!ann Hoppe
The )thics and )cono!ics of Pri#ate Property
I. The Problem of Social Order
Alone on his island 8obinson Crusoe can do whatever he pleases. $or
him the @uestion concerning rules o! orderly human conduct J social
cooperation J simply does not arise. +aturally this @uestion can only
arise once a second person $riday arrives on the island. Get even
then the @uestion remains largely irrelevant so long as no scarcity
e=ists. )uppose the island is the Aarden o! 4denK all e=ternal goods
are available in superabundance. 5hey are L!ree goodsM <ust as the air
that we breathe is normally a L!reeM good. Whatever Crusoe does with
these goods his actions have repercussions neither with respect to his
own !uture supply o! such goods nor regarding the present or !uture
supply o! the same goods !or $riday "and vice versa#. Hence it is
impossible that there could ever be a con!lict between Crusoe and
$riday concerning the use o! such goods. A con!lict is only possible i!
goods are scarce. &nly then will there arise the need to !ormulate rules
that ma9e orderly J con!lict,!ree J social cooperation possible.
(n the Aarden o! 4den only two scarce goods e=ist. the physical body
o! a person and its standing room. Crusoe and $riday each have only
one body and can stand only at one place at a time. Hence even in the
Aarden o! 4den con!licts between Crusoe and $riday can arise. Crusoe
and $riday cannot occupy the same standing room simultaneously
without coming thereby into physical con!lict with each other.
Accordingly even in the Aarden o! 4den rules o! orderly social conduct
must e=ist J rules regarding the proper location and movement o!
human bodies. And outside the Aarden o! 4den in the realm o!
scarcity there must be rules that regulate not only the use o! personal
bodies but also o! everything scarce so that all possible con!licts can be
ruled out. 5his is the problem o! social order.
II The Solution: Private Property and Original Appropriation
(n the history o! social and political thought various proposals have
been advanced as a solution to the problem o! social order and this
variety o! mutually inconsistent proposals has contributed to the !act
102
that todayXs search !or a single LcorrectM solution is !re@uently deemed
illusory. Get as ( will try to demonstrate a correct solution e=istsK hence
there is no reason to succumb to moral relativism. 5he solution has
been 9nown !or hundreds o! years i! not !or much longer.

(n modern
times this old and simple solution was !ormulated most clearly and
convincingly by ;urray +. 8othbard.
Let me begin by !ormulating the solution J !irst !or the special case
represented by the Aarden o! 4den and subse@uently !or the general
case represented by the LrealM world o! all,around scarcity J and then
proceed to the e=planation o! why this solution and no other is correct.
(n the Aarden o! 4den the solution is provided by the simple rule
stipulating that everyone may place or move his own body wherever he
pleases provided only that no one else is already standing there and
occupying the same space. And outside o! the Aarden o! 4den in the
realm o! all,around scarcity the solution is provided by this rule.
4veryone is the proper owner o! his own physical body as well as o! all
places and nature,given goods that he occupies and puts to use by
means o! his body provided that no one else has already occupied or
used the same places and goods before him. 5his ownership o!
Loriginally appropriatedM places and goods by a person implies his right
to use and trans!orm these places and goods in any way he sees !it
provided that he does not thereby forcibly change the physical integrity
of places and goods originally appropriated by another person. (n
particular once a place or good has been !irst appropriated in 6ohn
Loc9eXs words by Lmi=ing oneXs laborM with it ownership in such places
and goods can be ac@uired only by means o! a voluntary J contractual
J trans!er o! its property title !rom a previous to a later owner.
(n light o! widespread moral relativism it is worth pointing out that this
idea o! original appropriation and private property as a solution to the
problem o! social order is in complete accordance with our moral
Lintuition.M (s it not simply absurd to claim that a person should not be
the proper owner o! his body and the places and goods that he
originally i.e. prior to anyone else appropriates uses andPor produces
by means o! his body7 $or who else i! not he should be their owner7
And is it not also obvious that the overwhelming ma<ority o! people J
including children and primitives J in !act act according to these rules
and do so as a matter o! course7
;oral intuition as important as it is is not proo!. However there also
e=ists proo! o! the veracity o! our moral intuition.
10-
5he proo! is two!old. &n the one hand the conse@uences that !ollow i!
one were to deny the validity o! the institution o! original appropriation
and private property are spelled out. (! person A were not the owner o!
his own body and the places and goods originally appropriated andPor
produced with this body as well as o! the goods voluntarily
"contractually# ac@uired !rom another previous owner then only two
alternatives would e=ist. 4ither another person * must be recogniDed
as the owner o! AXs body as well as the places and goods appropriated
produced or ac@uired by A or both persons A and * must be
considered e@ual co,owners o! all bodies places and goods.
(n the !irst case A would be reduced to the ran9 o! *Xs slave and ob<ect
o! e=ploitation. * would be the owner o! AXs body and all places and
goods appropriated produced and ac@uired by A but A in turn would
not be the owner o! *Xs body and the places and goods appropriated
produced and ac@uired by *. Hence under this ruling two categorically
distinct classes o! persons would be constituted J ?ntermenschen such
as A and Cbermenschen such as * J to whom di!!erent LlawsM apply.
Accordingly such ruling must be discarded as a human ethic e@ually
applicable to everyone qua human being "rational animal#. $rom the
very outset any such ruling is recogniDed as not universally acceptable
and thus cannot claim to represent law. $or a rule to aspire to the ran9
o! a law J a $ust rule J it is necessary that such a rule apply e@ually and
universally to everyone.
Alternatively in the second case o! universal and e@ual co,ownership
the re@uirement o! e@ual law !or everyone would be !ul!illed. However
this alternative would su!!er !rom an even more severe de!iciency
because i! it were applied all o! man9ind would instantly perish. ")ince
every human ethic must permit the survival o! man9ind this alternative
must also be re<ected.# 4very action o! a person re@uires the use o!
some scarce means "at least o! the personXs body and its standing
room# but i! all goods were co,owned by everyone then no one at no
time and no place would be allowed to do anything unless he had
previously secured every other co,ownerXs consent to do so. Get how
could anyone grant such consent were he not the e=clusive owner o!
his own body "including his vocal chords# by which means his consent
must be e=pressed7 (ndeed he would !irst need anotherXs consent in
order to be allowed to e=press his own but these others could not give
their consent without having !irst his and so it would go on.
5his insight into the pra=eological impossibility o! Luniversal
101
communismM as 8othbard re!erred to this proposal brings me
immediately to an alternative way o! demonstrating the idea o! original
appropriation and private property as the only correct solution to the
problem o! social order.

Whether or not persons have any rights and i!
so which ones can only be decided in the course o! argumentation
"propositional e=change#. 6usti!ication J proo! con<ecture re!utation J
is argumentative <usti!ication. Anyone who denied this proposition
would become involved in a per!ormative contradiction because his
denial would itsel! constitute an argument. 4ven an ethical relativist
would have to accept this !irst proposition which is re!erred to
accordingly as the apriori of argumentation.
$rom the undeniable acceptance J the a=iomatic status J o! this apriori
o! argumentation two e@ually necessary conclusions !ollow. $irst it
!ollows !rom the apriori o! argumentation when there is no rational
solution to the problem o! con!lict arising !rom the e=istence o! scarcity.
)uppose in my earlier scenario o! Crusoe and $riday that $riday were
not the name o! a man but o! a gorilla. &bviously <ust as Crusoe could
!ace con!lict regarding his body and its standing room with $riday the
man so might he with $riday the gorilla. 5he gorilla might want to
occupy the same space that Crusoe already occupied. (n this case at
least i! the gorilla were the sort o! entity that we 9now gorillas to be
there would be no rational solution to their con!lict. 4ither the gorilla
would push aside crush or devour Crusoe J that would be the gorillaXs
solution to the problem J or Crusoe would tame chase beat or 9ill the
gorilla J that would be CrusoeXs solution. (n this situation one might
indeed spea9 o! moral relativism. However it would be more
appropriate to re!er to this situation as one in which the @uestion o!
<ustice and rationality simply would not ariseK that is it would be
considered an e=tra,moral situation. 5he e=istence o! $riday the gorilla
would pose a technical not a moral problem !or Crusoe. He would
have no other choice than to learn how to success!ully manage and
control the movements o! the gorilla <ust as he would have to learn to
manage and control other inanimate ob<ects o! his environment.
*y implication only i! both parties in a con!lict are capable o! engaging
in argumentation with one another can one spea9 o! a moral problem
and is the @uestion o! whether or not there e=ists a solution to it a
meaning!ul @uestion. &nly i! $riday regardless o! his physical
appearance is capable o! argumentation "even i! he has shown himsel!
to be capable only once# can he be deemed rational and does the
@uestion whether or not a correct solution to the problem o! social order
103
e=ists ma9e sense. +o one can be e=pected to give any answer to
someone who has never raised a @uestion or more to the point who
has never stated his own relativistic viewpoint in the !orm o! an
argument. (n that case this LotherM cannot but be regarded and treated
as an animal or plant i.e. as an e=tra,moral entity. &nly i! this other
entity can pause in his activity whatever it might be step bac9 and say
LyesM or LnoM to something one has said do we owe this entity an
answer and accordingly can we possibly claim that our answer is the
correct one !or both parties involved in a con!lict.
;oreover it !ollows !rom the apriori o! argumentation that everything
that must be presupposed in the course o! an argumentation as the
logical and pra=eological precondition o! argumentation cannot in turn
be argumentatively disputed as regards its validity without becoming
thereby entangled in an internal "per!ormative# contradiction.
+ow propositional e=changes are not made up o! !ree,!loating
propositions but rather constitute a speci!ic human activity.
Argumentation between Crusoe and $riday re@uires that both have
and mutually recogniDe each other as having e=clusive control over
their respective bodies "their brain vocal chords etc.# as well as the
standing room occupied by their bodies. +o one could propose
anything and e=pect the other party to convince himsel! o! the validity
o! this proposition or deny it and propose something else unless his
and his opponentXs right to e=clusive control over their respective
bodies and standing rooms were presupposed. (n !act it is precisely
this mutual recognition o! the proponentXs as well as the opponentXs
property in his own body and standing room which constitutes the
characteristicum specificum o! all propositional disputes. that while one
may not agree regarding the validity o! a speci!ic proposition one can
agree nonetheless on the !act that one disagrees. ;oreover this right
to property in oneXs own body and its standing room must be
considered apriori "or indisputably# <usti!ied by proponent and opponent
ali9e. Anyone who claimed any proposition as valid vis,Z,vis an
opponent would already presuppose his and his opponentXs e=clusive
control over their respective body and standing room simply in order to
say L( claim such and such to be true and ( challenge you to prove me
wrong.M
$urthermore it would be e@ually impossible to engage in
argumentation and rely on the propositional !orce o! oneXs arguments i!
one were not allowed to own "e=clusively control# other scarce means
102
"besides oneXs body and its standing room#. (! one did not have such a
right then we would all immediately perish and the problem o! <usti!ying
rules J as well as any other human problem J would simply not e=ist
Hence by virtue o! the !act o! being alive property rights to other things
must be presupposed as valid too. +o one who is alive can possibly
argue otherwise.
$urthermore i! a person were not permitted to ac@uire property in
these goods and spaces by means o! an act o! original appropriation
i.e. by establishing an ob<ective "intersub<ectively ascertainable# lin9
between himsel! and a particular good andPor space prior to anyone
else and i! instead property in such goods or spaces were granted to
late,comers then no one would ever be permitted to begin using any
good unless he had previously secured such a late,comerXs consent.
Get how can a latecomer consent to the actions o! an early,comer7
;oreover every latecomer would in turn need the consent o! other and
later later,comers and so on. 5hat is neither we our !ore!athers nor
our progeny would have been or would be able to survive i! one
!ollowed this rule. However in order !or any person J past present or
!uture J to argue anything survival must be possibleK and in order to do
<ust this property rights cannot be conceived o! as being timeless and
unspeci!ic with respect to the number o! persons concerned. 8ather
property rights must necessarily be conceived o! as originating by
means o! action at de!inite points in time and space by de!inite
individuals. &therwise it would be impossible !or anyone to ever say
anything at a de!inite point in time and space and !or someone else to
be able to reply. )imply saying then that the !irst,user,!irst,owner rule
o! the ethics o! private property can be ignored or is un<usti!ied implies
a per!ormative contradiction as oneXs being able to say so must
presuppose oneXs e=istence as an independent decision,ma9ing unit at
a given point in time and space.
100
Source @A
,ean2%aptiste Say
Treatise on Political )cono!y
%66= III. CHAPT)( 'I
6n Public Consu!ption
S)CTI6N I5
6f the Nature and general )ffect of Public Consu!ption5
*esides the wants o! individuals and o! !amilies which it is the ob<ect o!
private consumption to satis!y the collection o! many individuals into a
community gives rise to a new class o! wants the wants o! the society
in its aggregate capacity the satis!action o! which is the ob<ect o! public
consumption. 5he public buys and consumes the personal service o!
the minister that directs its a!!airs the soldier that protects it !rom
e=ternal violence the civil or criminal <udge that protects the rights and
interests o! each member against the aggression o! the rest. All these
di!!erent vocations have their use although they may o!ten be
unnecessarily multiplied or overpaidK but that arises !rom a de!ective
political organiDation which it does not !all within the scope o! this wor9
to investigate.
We shall see presently whence it is that the public derives all the
values wherewith it purchases the services o! its agents as well as the
articles its wants re@uire. All we have to consider in this chapter is the
mode in which its consumption is e!!ected and the conse@uences
resulting !rom it.
(! ( have made mysel! understood in the commencement o! this third
boo9 my readers will have no di!!iculty in comprehending that public
consumption or that which ta9es place !or the general utility o! the
whole community is precisely analogous to that consumption which
goes to satis!y the wants o! individuals or !amilies. (n either case there
is a destruction o! values and a loss o! wealthK although perhaps not
a shilling o! specie goes out o! the country.
*y way o! insuring conviction o! the truth o! this position let us trace
!rom !irst to last the passage o! a product towards ultimate consumption
10%
on the public account.
5he government e=acts !rom a ta=,payer the payment o! a given ta= in
the shape o! money. 5o meet this demand the ta=,payer e=changes
part o! the products at his disposal !or coin which he pays to the ta=,
gatherer. a second set o! government agents is busied in buying with
that coin cloth and other necessaries !or the soldiery. Hp to this point
there is no value lost or consumed. there has only been a gratuitous
trans!er o! value and a subse@uent act o! barter. but the value
contributed by the sub<ect still e=ists in the shape o! stores and
supplies in the military dep[t. (n the end however this value is
consumedK and then the portion o! wealth which passes !rom the
hands o! the ta=,payer into those o! the ta=,gatherer is destroyed and
annihilated.
Get it is not the sum o! money that is destroyed. that has only passed
!rom one hand to another either without any return as when it passed
!rom the ta=,payer to the ta=,gathererK or in e=change !or an e@uivalent
as when it passed !rom the government agent to the contractor !or
clothing and supplies. 5he value o! the money survives the whole
operation and goes through three !our or a doDen hands without any
sensible alterationK it is the value o! the clothing and necessaries that
disappears with precisely the same e!!ect as i! the ta=,payer had with
the same money purchased clothing and necessaries !or his own
private consumption. 5he sole di!!erence is that the individual in the
one case and the state in the other en<oys the satis!action resulting
!rom that consumption.
5he same reasoning may be easily applied to all other 9inds o! public
consumption. When the money o! the ta=,payer goes to pay the salary
o! a public o!!icer that o!!icer sells his time his talents and his
e=ertions to the public all o! which are consumed !or public purposes.
&n the other hand that o!!icer consumes instead o! the ta=,payer the
value he receives in lieu o! his servicesK in the same manner as any
cler9 or person in the private employ o! the ta=,payer would do.
5here has been long a prevalent notion that the values paid by the
community !or the public service return to it again in some shape or
otherK in the vulgar phrase that what government and its agents
receive is re!unded again by their e=penditure. 5his is a gross !allacyK
but one that has been productive o! in!inite mischie! inasmuch as it has
10/
been the prete=t !or a great deal o! shameless waste and dilapidation.
5he value paid to government by the ta=,payer is given without
e@uivalent or return. it is e=pended by the government in the purchase
o! personal service o! ob<ects o! consumptionK in one word o! products
o! e@uivalent value which are actually trans!erred. 'urchase or
e=change is a very di!!erent thing !rom restitution.
5urn it which way you will this operation though o!ten very comple= in
the e=ecution must always be reducible by analysis to this plain
statement. A product consumed must always be a product lost be the
consumer who he mayK lost without return whenever no value or
advantage is received in returnK but to the ta=,payer the advantage
derived !rom the services o! the public !unctionary or !rom the
consumption e!!ected in the prosecution o! public ob<ects is a positive
return.
(! then public and private e=penditure a!!ect social wealth in the same
manner the principles o! economy by which it should be regulated
must be the same in both cases. 5here are not two 9inds o! economy
any more than two 9inds o! honesty or o! morality. (! a government or
an individual consume in such a way as to give birth to a product
larger than that consumed a success!ul e!!ort o! productive industry
will be made. (! no product result !rom the act o! consumption there is
a loss o! value whether to the state or to the individualK yet probably
that loss o! value may have been productive o! all the good anticipated.
;ilitary stores and supplies and the time and labour o! civil and military
!unctionaries engaged in the e!!ectual de!ence o! the state are well
bestowed though consumed and annihilatedK it is the same with them
as with the commodities and personal service that have been
consumed in a private establishment. 5he sole bene!it resulting in the
latter case is the satis!action o! a wantK i! the want had no e=istence
the e=pense or consumption is a positive mischie! incurred without an
ob<ect. )o li9ewise o! the public consumptionK consumption !or the
mere purpose o! consumption systematic pro!usion the creation o! an
o!!ice !or the sole purpose o! giving a salary the destruction o! an
article !or the mere pleasure o! paying !or it are acts o! e=travagance
either in a government or an individual in a small state or a large one
a republic or a monarchy. +ay there is more criminality in public than
in private e=travagance and pro!usionK inasmuch as the individual
s@uanders only what belongs to himK but the government has nothing
o! its own to s@uander being in !act a mere trustee o! the public
1%0
treasure.
What then are we to thin9 o! the principles laid down by those writers
who have laboured to draw an essential distinction between public and
private wealthK to show that economy is the way to increase private
!ortune but on the contrary that public wealth increases with the
increase o! public consumption. in!erring thence this !alse and
dangerous conclusion that the rules o! conduct in the management o!
private !ortune and o! public treasure are not only di!!erent but in
direct opposition7
(! such principles were to be !ound only in boo9s and had never crept
into practice one might su!!er them without care or regret to swell the
monstrous heap o! printed absurdityK but it must e=cite our compassion
and indignation to hear them pro!essed by men o! eminent ran9
talents and intelligenceK and still more to see them reduced into
practice by the agents o! public authority who can en!orce error and
absurdity at the point o! the bayonet or mouth o! the cannon.
;adame de ;aintenon mentions in a letter to the Cardinal de +oailles
that when she one day urged Louis >(?. to be more liberal in
charitable donations he replied that royalty dispenses charity by its
pro!use e=penditureK a truly alarming dogma and one that shows the
ruin o! $rance to have been reduced to principle. $alse principles are
more !atal than even intentional misconductK because they are !ollowed
up with erroneous notions o! sel!,interest and are long persevered in
without remorse or reserve. (! Louis >(?. had believed his e=travagant
ostentation to have been a mere grati!ication o! his personal vanity and
his con@uests the satis!action o! personal ambition alone his good
sense and proper !eeling would probably in a short time have made it
a matter o! conscience to desist or at any rate he would have stopped
short !or his own sa9eK but he was !irmly persuaded that his prodigality
was !or the public good as well as his ownK so that nothing could stop
him but mis!ortune and humiliation.
)o little were the true principles o! political economy understood even
by men o! the greatest science so late as the 1%th century that
$rederic9 ((. o! 'russia with all his an=iety in search o! truth his
sagacity and his merit writes thus to :FAlembert in <usti!ication o! his
wars. O;y numerous armies promote the circulation o! money and
disburse impartially amongst the provinces the ta=es paid by the
1%1
people to the state.O Again ( repeat this is not the !actK the ta=es paid to
the government by the sub<ect are not re!unded by its e=penditure.
Whether paid in money or in 9ind they are converted into provisions
and supplies and in that shape consumed and destroyed by persons
that never can replace the value because they produce no value
whatever. (t was well !or 'russia that $rederic9 ((. did not s@uare his
conduct to his principles. 5he good he did to his people by the
economy o! his internal administration more than compensated !or the
mischie! o! his wars.
)ince the consumption o! nations or the governments which represent
them occasions a loss o! value and conse@uently o! wealth it is only
so !ar <usti!iable as there results !rom it some national advantage
e@uivalent to the sacri!ice o! value. 5he whole s9ill o! government
there!ore consists in the continual and <udicious comparison o! the
sacri!ice about to be incurred with the e=pected bene!it to the
communityK !or ( have no hesitation in pronouncing every instance
where the bene!it is not e@uivalent to the loss to be an instance o! !olly
or o! criminality in the government.
(t is yet more monstrous then to see how !re@uently governments not
content with s@uandering the substance o! the people in !olly and
absurdity instead o! aiming at any return o! value actually spend that
substance in bringing down upon the nation calamities innumerableK
practise e=actions the most cruel and arbitrary to !orward schemes the
most e=travagant and wic9edK !irst ri!le the poc9ets o! the sub<ect to
enable them a!terwards to urge him to the !urther sacri!ice o! his blood.
+othing but the obstinacy o! human passion and wea9ness could
induce me again and again to repeat these unpalatable truths at the
ris9 o! incurring the charge o! declamation.
5he consumption e!!ected by the government !orms so large a portion
o! the total national consumption amounting sometimes to a si=th a
!i!th or even a !ourth part o! the total consumption o! the community
that the system acted upon by the government must needs have a
vast in!luence upon the advance or decline o! the national prosperity.
)hould an individual ta9e it into his head that the more he spends the
more he gets or that his pro!usion is a virtueK or should he yield to the
power!ul attractions o! pleasure or the suggestions o! perhaps a
reasonable resentment he will in all probability be ruined and his
e=ample will operate upon a very small circle o! his neighbours. *ut a
1%2
mista9e o! this 9ind in the government will entail misery upon millions
and possibly end in the national down!all or degradation. (t is doubtless
very desirable that private persons should have a correct 9nowledge o!
their personal interestsK but it must be in!initely more so that
governments should possess that 9nowledge. 4conomy and order are
virtues in a private stationK but in a public station their in!luence upon
national happiness is so immense that one hardly 9nows how
su!!iciently to e=tol and honour them in the guides and rulers o! national
conduct.
An individual is !ully sensible o! the value o! the article he is consumingK
it has probably cost him a world o! labour perseverance and economyK
he can easily balance the satis!action he derives !rom its consumption
against the loss it will involve. *ut a government is not so immediately
interested in regularity and economy nor does it so soon !eel the ill
conse@uences o! the opposite @ualities. *esides private persons have
a !urther motive than even sel!,interestK their !eelings are concernedK
their economy may be a bene!it to the ob<ects o! their a!!ectionK
whereas the economy o! a ruler accrues to the bene!it o! those he
9nows very little o!K and perhaps he is but husbanding !or an
e=travagant and rival successor.
+or is this evil remedied by adopting the principle o! hereditary rule.
5he monarch has little o! the !eelings common to other men in this
respect. He is taught to consider the !ortune o! his descendants as
secure i! they have ever so little assurance o! the succession. *esides
the !ar greater part o! the public consumption is not personally directed
by himsel!K contracts are not made by himsel! but by his generals and
ministersK the e=perience o! the world hitherto all tends to show that
aristocratical republics are more economical than either monarchies or
democracies.
+either are we to suppose that the genius which prompts and e=cites
great national underta9ings is incompatible with the spirit o! public
order and economy. 5he name o! Charlemagne stands among the
!oremost in the records o! renownK he achieved the con@uest o! (taly
Hungary and AustriaK repulsed the )aracensK bro9e the )a=on
con!ederacyK and obtained at length the honours o! the purple. Get
;ontes@uieu has thought it not derogatory to say o! him that Othe
!ather o! a !amily might ta9e a lesson o! good house9eeping !rom the
ordinances o! Charlemagne. His e=penditure was conducted with
1%-
admirable systemK he had his demesnes valued with care s9ill and
minuteness. We !ind detailed in his capitularies the pure and legitimate
sources o! his wealth. (n a word such were his regularity and thri!t that
he gave orders !or the eggs o! his poultry,yards and the surplus
vegetables o! his garden to be brought to mar9et.O 5he celebrated
'rince 4ugene who displayed e@ual talent in negotiation and
administration as in the !ield advised the 4mperor Charles ?(. to ta9e
the advice o! merchants and men o! business in matters o! !inance.
Leopold when Arand :u9e o! 5uscany towards the close o! the 1%th
century gave an eminent e=ample o! the resources to be derived !rom
a rigid adherence to the principles o! private economy in the
administration o! a state o! very limited e=tent. (n a !ew years he made
5uscany one o! the most !lourishing states o! 4urope.
5he most success!ul !inanciers o! $rance )uger AbbB de )t. :ennis
the Cardinal :FAmboise )ully Colbert and +ec9er have all acted on
the same principle. All !ound means o! carrying into e!!ect the grandest
operations by adhering to the dictates o! private economy. 5he AbbB
de )t. :ennis !urnished the out!it o! the second crusadeK a scheme that
re@uired very large supplies although one ( am !ar !rom approving. 5he
Cardinal !urnished Louis >((. with the means o! ma9ing his con@uest o!
the ;ilanese. )ully accumulated the resources that a!terwards
humbled the house o! Austria. Colbert supplied the splendid operations
o! Louis >(?. +ec9er provided the ways and means o! the only
success!ul war waged by $rance in the 1%th century.
5hose governments on the contrary that have been perpetually
pressed with the want o! money have been obliged li9e individuals to
have recourse to the most ruinous and sometimes the most
disgrace!ul e=pedients to e=tricate themselves. Charles the *ald put
his titles and sa!e,conducts up to sale. 5hus too Charles ((. o! 4ngland
sold :un9ir9 to the $rench 9ing and too9 a bribe o! %0000l. !rom the
:utch to delay the sailing o! the 4nglish e=pedition to the 4ast (ndies
12%0 intended to protect their settlements in that @uarter which in
conse@uence !ell into the hands o! the :utchmen. 5hus too have
governments committed !re@uent acts o! ban9ruptcy sometimes in the
shape o! adulteration o! their coin and sometimes by open breach o!
their engagements.
Louis >(?. towards the close o! his reign having utterly e=hausted the
resources o! a noble territory was reduced to the paltry shi!t o! creating
1%1
the most ridiculous o!!ices ma9ing his counsellors o! state one an
inspector o! !agots another a licenser o! barber,wig,ma9ers another
visiting inspector o! !resh or taster o! salt butter and the li9e. )uch
paltry and mischievous e=pedients can never long de!er the hour o!
calamities that must sooner or later be!all the e=travagant and
spendthri!t governments. OWhen a man will not listen to reasonO says
$ran9lin Oshe is sure to ma9e hersel! !elt.O
$ortunately an economical administration soon repairs the mischie!s o!
one o! an opposite character. )ound health can not be restored all at
onceK but there is a gradual and perceptible improvementK every day
some cause o! complaint disappears and some new !aculty comes
again into play. Hal! the remaining resources o! a nation impoverished
by an e=travagant administration are neutraliDed by alarm and
uncertaintyK whereas credit doubles those o! a nation blessed with
one o! a !rugal character. (t would seem that there e=ists in the politic
to a stronger degree than even in the natural body a principle o! vitality
and elasticity which can not be e=tinguished without the most violent
pressure. &ne can not loo9 into the pages o! history without being
struc9 with the rapidity with which this principle has operated. (t has
nowhere been more stri9ingly e=empli!ied than in the !re@uent
vicissitudes that our own $rance has e=perienced since the
commencement o! the revolution. 'russia has a!!orded another
illustration in our time. 5he successor o! $rederic9 the Areat
s@uandered the accumulations o! that monarch which were estimated
at no less a sum than 12 millions o! dollars and le!t behind him
besides a debt o! 20 millions. (n less than eight years $rederic9
William (((. had not only paid o!! his !atherFs debts but actually began a
!resh accumulationK such is the power o! economy even in a country o!
limited e=tent and resources.
1%3
Source @ %
7rAdAric %astiat
That Which is Seen. and That Which is Not Seen
+5 The %ro"en Windo$
Have you ever witnessed the anger o! the good shop9eeper 6ames *.
when his careless son happened to brea9 a s@uare o! glass7 (! you
have been present at such a scene you will most assuredly bear
witness to the !act that every one o! the spectators were there even
thirty o! them by common consent apparently o!!ered the un!ortunate
owner this invariable consolation J O(t is an ill wind that blows nobody
good. 4verybody must live and what would become o! the glaDiers i!
panes o! glass were never bro9en7O
+ow this !orm o! condolence contains an entire theory which it will be
well to show up in this simple case seeing that it is precisely the same
as that which unhappily regulates the greater part o! our economical
institutions.
)uppose it cost si= !rancs to repair the damage and you say that the
accident brings si= !rancs to the glaDierFs trade J that it encourages that
trade to the amount o! si= !rancs J ( grant itK ( have not a word to say
against itK you reason <ustly. 5he glaDier comes per!orms his tas9
receives his si= !rancs rubs his hands and in his heart blesses the
careless child. All this is that which is seen.
*ut i! on the other hand you come to the conclusion as is too o!ten
the case that it is a good thing to brea9 windows that it causes money
to circulate and that the encouragement o! industry in general will be
the result o! it you will oblige me to call out O)top thereQ your theory is
con!ined to that which is seenK it ta9es no account o! that which is not
seen.O
(t is not seen that as our shop9eeper has spent si= !rancs upon one
thing he cannot spend them upon another. (t is not seen that i! he had
not had a window to replace he would perhaps have replaced his old
shoes or added another boo9 to his library. (n short he would have
employed his si= !rancs in some way which this accident has
prevented.
1%2
Let us ta9e a view o! industry in general as a!!ected by this
circumstance. 5he window being bro9en the glaDierFs trade is
encouraged to the amount o! si= !rancsK this is that which is seen. (! the
window had not been bro9en the shoema9erFs trade "or some other#
would have been encouraged to the amount o! si= !rancsK this is that
which is not seen.
And i! that which is not seen is ta9en into consideration because it is a
negative !act as well as that which is seen because it is a positive !act
it will be understood that neither industry in general nor the sum total
o! national labour is a!!ected whether windows are bro9en or not.
+ow let us consider 6ames *. himsel!. (n the !ormer supposition that o!
the window being bro9en he spends si= !rancs and has neither more
nor less than he had be!ore the en<oyment o! a window.
(n the second where we suppose the window not to have been bro9en
he would have spent si= !rancs on shoes and would have had at the
same time the en<oyment o! a pair o! shoes and o! a window.
+ow as 6ames *. !orms a part o! society we must come to the
conclusion that ta9ing it altogether and ma9ing an estimate o! its
en<oyments and its labours it has lost the value o! the bro9en window.
When we arrive at this une=pected conclusion. O)ociety loses the value
o! things which are uselessly destroyedKO and we must assent to a
ma=im which will ma9e the hair o! protectionists stand on end J 5o
brea9 to spoil to waste is not to encourage national labourK or more
brie!ly Odestruction is not pro!it.O
What will you say ;onsieur (ndustriel J what will you say disciples o!
good ;. $. Chamans who has calculated with so much precision how
much trade would gain by the burning o! 'aris !rom the number o!
houses it would be necessary to rebuild7
( am sorry to disturb these ingenious calculations as !ar as their spirit
has been introduced into our legislationK but ( beg him to begin them
again by ta9ing into the account that which is not seen and placing it
alongside o! that which is seen. 5he reader must ta9e care to
remember that there are not two persons only but three concerned in
the little scene which ( have submitted to his attention. &ne o! them
6ames *. represents the consumer reduced by an act o! destruction
to one en<oyment instead o! two. Another under the title o! the glaDier
shows us the producer whose trade is encouraged by the accident.
1%0
5he third is the shoema9er "or some other tradesman# whose labour
su!!ers proportionably by the same cause. (t is this third person who is
always 9ept in the shade and who personating that which is not seen
is a necessary element o! the problem. (t is he who shows us how
absurd it is to thin9 we see a pro!it in an act o! destruction. (t is he who
will soon teach us that it is not less absurd to see a pro!it in a
restriction which is a!ter all nothing else than a partial destruction.
5here!ore i! you will only go to the root o! all the arguments which are
adduced in its !avour all you will !ind will be the paraphrase o! this
vulgar saying J What would become o! the glaDiers i! nobody ever
bro9e windows7
1%%
Source @ C
=arl *arx
The ?er!an Ideology
Part I: 7euerbach5
6pposition of the *aterialist and Idealist 6utloo"
5 Proletarians and Co!!unis!
Indi#iduals. Class. and Co!!unity
(n the ;iddle Ages the citiDens in each town were compelled to unite
against the landed nobility to save their s9ins. 5he e=tension o! trade
the establishment o! communications led the separate towns to get to
9now other towns which had asserted the same interests in the
struggle with the same antagonist. &ut o! the many local corporations
o! burghers there arose only gradually the burgher class. 5he
conditions o! li!e o! the individual burghers became on account o! their
contradiction to the e=isting relationships and o! the mode o! labour
determined by these conditions which were common to them all and
independent o! each individual. 5he burghers had created the
conditions inso!ar as they had torn themselves !ree !rom !eudal ties
and were created by them inso!ar as they were determined by their
antagonism to the !eudal system which they !ound in e=istence. When
the individual towns began to enter into associations these common
conditions developed into class conditions. 5he same conditions the
same contradiction the same interests necessarily called !orth on the
whole similar customs everywhere. 5he bourgeoisie itsel! with its
conditions develops only gradually splits according to the division o!
labour into various !ractions and !inally absorbs all propertied classes it
!inds in e=istence
1
"while it develops the ma<ority o! the earlier
propertyless and a part o! the hitherto propertied classes into a new
class the proletariat# in the measure to which all property !ound in
e=istence is trans!ormed into industrial or commercial capital. 5he
separate individuals !orm a class only inso!ar as they have to carry on
a common battle against another classK otherwise they are on hostile
terms with each other as competitors. &n the other hand the class in
its turn achieves an independent e=istence over against the individuals
so that the latter !ind their conditions o! e=istence predestined and
1%/
hence have their position in li!e and their personal development
assigned to them by their class become subsumed under it. 5his is the
same phenomenon as the sub<ection o! the separate individuals to the
division o! labour and can only be removed by the abolition o! private
property and o! labour itsel!. We have already indicated several times
how this subsuming o! individuals under the class brings with it their
sub<ection to all 9inds o! ideas etc.
(! !rom a philosophical point o! view one considers this evolution o!
individuals in the common conditions o! e=istence o! estates and
classes which !ollowed on one another and in the accompanying
general conceptions !orced upon them it is certainly very easy to
imagine that in these individuals the species or O;anO has evolved or
that they evolved O;anO J and in this way one can give history some
hard clouts on the ear.
2
&ne can conceive these various estates and
classes to be speci!ic terms o! the general e=pression subordinate
varieties o! the species or evolutionary phases o! O;anO.
5his subsuming o! individuals under de!inite classes cannot be
abolished until a class has ta9en shape which has no longer any
particular class interest to assert against the ruling class.
5he trans!ormation through the division o! labour o! personal powers
"relationships# into material powers cannot be dispelled by dismissing
the general idea o! it !rom oneFs mind but can only be abolished by the
individuals again sub<ecting these material powers to themselves and
abolishing the division o! labour. 5his is not possible without the
community. &nly in community \with others has each] individual the
means o! cultivating his gi!ts in all directionsK only in the community
there!ore is personal !reedom possible. (n the previous substitutes !or
the community in the )tate etc. personal !reedom has e=isted only !or
the individuals who developed within the relationships o! the ruling
class and only inso!ar as they were individuals o! this class. 5he
illusory community in which individuals have up till now combined
always too9 on an independent e=istence in relation to them and was
at the same time since it was the combination o! one class over
against another not only a completely illusory community but a new
!etter as well. (n a real community the individuals obtain their !reedom
in and through their association.
(ndividuals have always built on themselves but naturally on
themselves within their given historical conditions and relationships not
on the OpureO individual in the sense o! the ideologists. *ut in the
1/0
course o! historical evolution and precisely through the inevitable !act
that within the division o! labour social relationships ta9e on an
independent e=istence there appears a division within the li!e o! each
individual inso!ar as it is personal and inso!ar as it is determined by
some branch o! labour and the conditions pertaining to it. "We do not
mean it to be understood !rom this that !or e=ample the rentier the
capitalist etc. cease to be personsK but their personality is conditioned
and determined by @uite de!inite class relationships and the division
appears only in their opposition to another class and !or themselves
only when they go ban9rupt.# (n the estate "and even more in the tribe#
this is as yet concealed. !or instance a nobleman always remains a
nobleman a commoner always a commoner apart !rom his other
relationships a @uality inseparable !rom his individuality. 5he division
between the personal and the class individual the accidental nature o!
the conditions o! li!e !or the individual appears only with the
emergence o! the class which is itsel! a product o! the bourgeoisie.
5his accidental character is only engendered and developed by
competition and the struggle o! individuals among themselves. 5hus in
imagination individuals seem !reer under the dominance o! the
bourgeoisie than be!ore because their conditions o! li!e seem
accidentalK in reality o! course they are less !ree because they are
more sub<ected to the violence o! things. 5he di!!erence !rom the estate
comes out particularly in the antagonism between the bourgeoisie and
the proletariat. When the estate o! the urban burghers the
corporations etc. emerged in opposition to the landed nobility their
condition o! e=istence J movable property and cra!t labour which had
already e=isted latently be!ore their separation !rom the !eudal ties J
appeared as something positive which was asserted against !eudal
landed property and there!ore in its own way at !irst too9 on a !eudal
!orm. Certainly the re!ugee ser!s treated their previous servitude as
something accidental to their personality. *ut here they only were doing
what every class that is !reeing itsel! !rom a !etter doesK and they did
not !ree themselves as a class but separately. ;oreover they did not
rise above the system o! estates but only !ormed a new estate
retaining their previous mode o! labour even in their new situation and
developing it !urther by !reeing it !rom its earlier !etters which no longer
corresponded to the development already attained.
-
$or the proletarians on the other hand the condition o! their e=istence
labour and with it all the conditions o! e=istence governing modern
society have become something accidental something over which
1/1
they as separate individuals have no control and over which no social
organisation can give them control. 5he contradiction between the
individuality o! each separate proletarian and labour the condition o!
li!e !orced upon him becomes evident to him himsel! !or he is
sacri!iced !rom youth upwards and within his own class has no chance
o! arriving at the conditions which would place him in the other class.
5hus while the re!ugee ser!s only wished to be !ree to develop and
assert those conditions o! e=istence which were already there and
hence in the end only arrived at !ree labour the proletarians i! they
are to assert themselves as individuals will have to abolish the very
condition o! their e=istence hitherto "which has moreover been that o!
all society up to the present# namely labour. 5hus they !ind
themselves directly opposed to the !orm in which hitherto the
individuals o! which society consists have given themselves collective
e=pression that is the )tate. (n order there!ore to assert themselves
as individuals they must overthrow the )tate.
(t !ollows !rom all we have been saying up till now that the communal
relationship into which the individuals o! a class entered and which
was determined by their common interests over against a third party
was always a community to which these individuals belonged only as
average individuals only inso!ar as they lived within the conditions o!
e=istence o! their class J a relationship in which they participated not
as individuals but as members o! a class. With the community o!
revolutionary proletarians on the other hand who ta9e their conditions
o! e=istence and those o! all members o! society under their control it
is <ust the reverseK it is as individuals that the individuals participate in
it. (t is <ust this combination o! individuals "assuming the advanced
stage o! modern productive !orces o! course# which puts the conditions
o! the !ree development and movement o! individuals under their
control J conditions which were previously abandoned to chance and
had won an independent e=istence over against the separate
individuals <ust because o! their separation as individuals and because
o! the necessity o! their combination which had been determined by the
division o! labour and through their separation had become a bond
alien to them. Combination up till now "by no means an arbitrary one
such as is e=pounded !or e=ample in the ,ontrat social but a
necessary one# was an agreement upon these conditions within which
the individuals were !ree to en<oy the !rea9s o! !ortune "compare e.g.
the !ormation o! the +orth American )tate and the )outh American
republics#. 5his right to the undisturbed en<oyment within certain
1/2
conditions o! !ortuity and chance has up till now been called personal
!reedom. 5hese conditions o! e=istence are o! course only the
productive !orces and !orms o! intercourse at any particular time.
7or!s of Intercourse
Communism di!!ers !rom all previous movements in that it overturns the
basis o! all earlier relations o! production and intercourse and !or the
!irst time consciously treats all natural premises as the creatures o!
hitherto e=isting men strips them o! their natural character and
sub<ugates them to the power o! the united individuals. (ts organisation
is there!ore essentially economic the material production o! the
conditions o! this unityK it turns e=isting conditions into conditions o!
unity. 5he reality which communism is creating is precisely the true
basis !or rendering it impossible that anything should e=ist
independently o! individuals inso!ar as reality is only a product o! the
preceding intercourse o! individuals themselves. 5hus the communists
in practice treat the conditions created up to now by production and
intercourse as inorganic conditions without however imagining that it
was the plan or the destiny o! previous generations to give them
material and without believing that these conditions were inorganic !or
the individuals creating them.
Contradiction between individuals and their conditions o! li!e
as contradiction between productive !orces and the !orm o!
intercourse
5he di!!erence between the individual as a person and what is
accidental to him is not a conceptual di!!erence but an historical !act.
5his distinction has a di!!erent signi!icance at di!!erent times J e.g. the
estate as something accidental to the individual in the eighteenth
century the !amily more or less too. (t is not a distinction that we have
to ma9e !or each age but one which each age ma9es itsel! !rom
among the di!!erent elements which it !inds in e=istence and indeed
not according to any theory but compelled by material collisions in li!e.
What appears accidental to the later age as opposed to the earlier J
and this applies also to the elements handed down by an earlier age J
is a !orm o! intercourse which corresponded to a de!inite stage o!
development o! the productive !orces. 5he relation o! the productive
!orces to the !orm o! intercourse is the relation o! the !orm o!
intercourse to the occupation or activity o! the individuals. "5he
!undamental !orm o! this activity is o! course material on which
1/-
depend all other !orms J mental political religious etc. 5he various
shaping o! material li!e is o! course in every case dependent on the
needs which are already developed and the production as well as the
satis!action o! these needs is an historical process which is not !ound
in the case o! a sheep or a dog ")tirnerFs re!ractory principal argument
adversus hominem# although sheep and dogs in their present !orm
certainly but malgr3 eux, are products o! an historical process.# 5he
conditions under which individuals have intercourse with each other so
long as the above,mentioned contradiction is absent are conditions
appertaining to their individuality in no way e=ternal to themK conditions
under which these de!inite individuals living under de!inite
relationships can alone produce their material li!e and what is
connected with it are thus the conditions o! their sel!,activity and are
produced by this sel!,activity. 5he de!inite condition under which they
produce thus corresponds as long as the contradiction has not yet
appeared to the reality o! their conditioned nature their one,sided
e=istence the one,sidedness o! which only becomes evident when the
contradiction enters on the scene and thus e=ists !or the later
individuals. 5hen this condition appears as an accidental !etter and the
consciousness that it is a !etter is imputed to the earlier age as well.
5hese various conditions which appear !irst as conditions o! sel!,
activity later as !etters upon it !orm in the whole evolution o! history a
coherent series o! !orms o! intercourse the coherence o! which
consists in this. in the place o! an earlier !orm o! intercourse which has
become a !etter a new one is put corresponding to the more
developed productive !orces and hence to the advanced mode o! the
sel!,activity o! individuals , a !orm which in its turn becomes a !etter and
is then replaced by another. )ince these conditions correspond at
every stage to the simultaneous development o! the productive !orces
their history is at the same time the history o! the evolving productive
!orces ta9en over by each new generation and is there!ore the history
o! the development o! the !orces o! the individuals themselves.
)ince this evolution ta9es place naturally i.e. is not subordinated to a
general plan o! !reely combined individuals it proceeds !rom various
localities tribes nations branches o! labour etc. each o! which to start
with develops independently o! the others and only gradually enters
into relation with the others. $urthermore it ta9es place only very
slowlyK the various stages and interests are never completely
overcome but only subordinated to the prevailing interest and trail
along beside the latter !or centuries a!terwards. (t !ollows !rom this that
1/1
within a nation itsel! the individuals even apart !rom their pecuniary
circumstances have @uite di!!erent developments and that an earlier
interest the peculiar !orm o! intercourse o! which has already been
ousted by that belonging to a later interest remains !or a long time
a!terwards in possession o! a traditional power in the illusory
community ")tate law# which has won an e=istence independent o!
the individualsK a power which in the last resort can only be bro9en by a
revolution. 5his e=plains why with re!erence to individual points which
allow o! a more general summing,up consciousness can sometimes
appear !urther advanced than the contemporary empirical relationships
so that in the struggles o! a later epoch one can re!er to earlier
theoreticians as authorities.
&n the other hand in countries which li9e +orth America begin in an
already advanced historical epoch the development proceeds very
rapidly. )uch countries have no other natural premises than the
individuals who settled there and were led to do so because the !orms
o! intercourse o! the old countries did not correspond to their wants.
5hus they begin with the most advanced individuals o! the old
countries and there!ore with the correspondingly most advanced !orm
o! intercourse be!ore this !orm o! intercourse has been able to
establish itsel! in the old countries. 5his is the case with all colonies
inso!ar as they are not mere military or trading stations. Carthage the
Aree9 colonies and (celand in the eleventh and twel!th centuries
provide e=amples o! this. A similar relationship issues !rom con@uest
when a !orm o! intercourse which has evolved on another soil is
brought over complete to the con@uered country. whereas in its home it
was still encumbered with interests and relationships le!t over !rom
earlier periods here it can and must be established completely and
without hindrance i! only to assure the con@uerorsF lasting power.
"4ngland and +aples a!ter the +orman con@uest when they received
the most per!ect !orm o! !eudal organisation.#
H05 The Contradiction %et$een the Producti#e 7orces and the
7or! of Intercourse as the %asis for Social (e#olutionI
5his contradiction between the productive !orces and the !orm o!
intercourse which as we saw has occurred several times in past
history without however endangering the basis necessarily on each
occasion burst out in a revolution ta9ing on at the same time various
subsidiary !orms such as all,embracing collisions collisions o! various
classes contradiction o! consciousness battle o! ideas etc. political
1/3
con!lict etc. $rom a narrow point o! view one may isolate one o! these
subsidiary !orms and consider it as the basis o! these revolutionsK and
this is all the more easy as the individuals who started the revolutions
had illusions about their own activity according to their degree o!
culture and the stage o! historical development.
5hus all collisions in history have their origin according to our view in
the contradiction between the productive !orces and the !orm o!
intercourse. (ncidentally to lead to collisions in a country this
contradiction need not necessarily have reached its e=treme limit in this
particular country. 5he competition with industrially more advanced
countries brought about by the e=pansion o! international intercourse
is su!!icient to produce a similar contradiction in countries with a
bac9ward industry "e.g. the latent proletariat in Aermany brought into
view by the competition o! 4nglish industry#.
Con>uest
5his whole interpretation o! history appears to be contradicted by the
!act o! con@uest. Hp till now violence war pillage murder and robbery
etc. have been accepted as the driving !orce o! history. Here we must
limit ourselves to the chie! points and ta9e there!ore only the most
stri9ing e=ample J the destruction o! an old civilisation by a barbarous
people and the resulting !ormation o! an entirely new organisation o!
society. "8ome and the barbariansK !eudalism and AaulK the *yDantine
4mpire and the 5ur9s.#
With the con@uering barbarian people war itsel! is still as indicated
above a regular !orm o! intercourse which is the more eagerly
e=ploited as the increase in population together with the traditional and
!or it the only possible crude mode o! production gives rise to the need
!or new means o! production. (n (taly on the other hand the
concentration o! landed property "caused not only by buying,up and
indebtedness but also by inheritance since loose living being ri!e and
marriage rare the old !amilies gradually died out and their possessions
!ell into the hands o! a !ew# and its conversion into graDing land
"caused not only by the usual economic !orces still operative today but
by the importation o! plundered and tribute,corn and the resultant lac9
o! demand !or (talian corn# brought about the almost total
disappearance o! the !ree population. 5he very slaves died out again
and again and had constantly to be replaced by new ones. )lavery
remained the basis o! the whole productive system. 5he plebeians
midway between !reemen and slaves never succeeded in becoming
1/2
more than a proletarian rabble. 8ome indeed never became more than
a cityK its connection with the provinces was almost e=clusively political
and could there!ore easily be bro9en again by political events.
+othing is more common than the notion that in history up till now it has
only been a @uestion o! ta9ing. 5he barbarians ta9e the 8oman 4mpire
and this !act o! ta9ing is made to e=plain the transition !rom the old
world to the !eudal system. (n this ta9ing by barbarians however the
@uestion is whether the nation which is con@uered has evolved
industrial productive !orces as is the case with modern peoples or
whether their productive !orces are based !or the most part merely on
their association and on the community. 5a9ing is !urther determined
by the ob<ect ta9en. A ban9erFs !ortune consisting o! paper cannot be
ta9en at all without the ta9erFs submitting to the conditions o!
production and intercourse o! the country ta9en. )imilarly the total
industrial capital o! a modern industrial country. And !inally everywhere
there is very soon an end to ta9ing and when there is nothing more to
ta9e you have to set about producing. $rom this necessity o!
producing which very soon asserts itsel! it !ollows that the !orm o!
community adopted by the settling con@uerors must correspond to the
stage o! development o! the productive !orces they !ind in e=istenceK or
i! this is not the case !rom the start it must change according to the
productive !orces. *y this too is e=plained the !act which people
pro!ess to have noticed everywhere in the period !ollowing the
migration o! the peoples namely that the servant was master and that
the con@uerors very soon too9 over language culture and manners
!rom the con@uered. 5he !eudal system was by no means brought
complete !rom Aermany but had its origin as !ar as the con@uerors
were concerned in the martial organisation o! the army during the
actual con@uest and this only evolved a!ter the con@uest into the
!eudal system proper through the action o! the productive !orces !ound
in the con@uered countries. 5o what an e=tent this !orm was
determined by the productive !orces is shown by the abortive attempts
to realise other !orms derived !rom reminiscences o! ancient 8ome
"Charlemagne etc.#.
Contradictions of %ig Industry: (e#olution
&ur investigation hitherto started !rom the instruments o! production
and it has already shown that private property was a necessity !or
certain industrial stages. (n industrie extractive private property still
coincides with labourK in small industry and all agriculture up till now
1/0
property is the necessary conse@uence o! the e=isting instruments o!
productionK in big industry the contradiction between the instrument o!
production and private property appears !rom the !irst time and is the
product o! big industryK moreover big industry must be highly
developed to produce this contradiction. And thus only with big industry
does the abolition o! private property become possible.
HE5 Contradiction bet$een the Producti#e 7orces and the 7or! of
IntercourseI
(n big industry and competition the whole mass o! conditions o!
e=istence limitations biases o! individuals are !used together into the
two simplest !orms. private property and labour. With money every !orm
o! intercourse and intercourse itsel! is considered !ortuitous !or the
individuals. 5hus money implies that all previous intercourse was only
intercourse o! individuals under particular conditions not o! individuals
as individuals. 5hese conditions are reduced to two. accumulated
labour or private property and actual labour. (! both or one o! these
ceases then intercourse comes to a standstill. 5he modern economists
themselves e.g. )ismondi CherbulieD etc. oppose Oassociation o!
individualsO to Oassociation o! capitalO. &n the other hand the
individuals themselves are entirely subordinated to the division o!
labour and hence are brought into the most complete dependence on
one another. 'rivate property inso!ar as within labour itsel! it is
opposed to labour evolves out o! the necessity o! accumulation and
has still to begin with rather the !orm o! the communalityK but in its
!urther development it approaches more and more the modern !orm o!
private property. 5he division o! labour implies !rom the outset the
division o! the conditions o! labour o! tools and materials and thus the
splitting,up o! accumulated capital among di!!erent owners and thus
also the division between capital and labour and the di!!erent !orms o!
property itsel!. 5he more the division o! labour develops and
accumulation grows the sharper are the !orms that this process o!
di!!erentiation assumes. Labour itsel! can only e=ist on the premise o!
this !ragmentation.
5hus two !acts are here revealed. $irst the productive !orces appear as
a world !or themselves @uite independent o! and divorced !rom the
individuals alongside the individuals. the reason !or this is that the
individuals whose !orces they are e=ist split up and in opposition to
one another whilst on the other hand these !orces are only real !orces
in the intercourse and association o! these individuals. 5hus on the
1/%
one hand we have a totality o! productive !orces which have as it
were ta9en on a material !orm and are !or the individuals no longer the
!orces o! the individuals but o! private property and hence o! the
individuals only inso!ar as they are owners o! private property
themselves. +ever in any earlier period have the productive !orces
ta9en on a !orm so indi!!erent to the intercourse o! individuals as
individuals because their intercourse itsel! was !ormerly a restricted
one. &n the other hand standing over against these productive !orces
we have the ma<ority o! the individuals !rom whom these !orces have
been wrested away and who robbed thus o! all real li!e,content have
become abstract individuals but who are however only by this !act put
into a position to enter into relation with one another as individuals.
5he only connection which still lin9s them with the productive !orces
and with their own e=istence J labour J has lost all semblance o! sel!,
activity and only sustains their li!e by stunting it. While in the earlier
periods sel!,activity and the production o! material li!e were separated
in that they devolved on di!!erent persons and while on account o! the
narrowness o! the individuals themselves the production o! material li!e
was considered as a subordinate mode o! sel!,activity they now
diverge to such an e=tent that altogether material li!e appears as the
end and what produces this material li!e labour "which is now the only
possible but as we see negative !orm o! sel!,activity# as the means.
H+F5 The Necessity. Preconditions and Conse>uences of the
Abolition of Pri#ate PropertyI
5hus things have now come to such a pass that the individuals must
appropriate the e=isting totality o! productive !orces not only to achieve
sel!,activity but also merely to sa!eguard their very e=istence. 5his
appropriation is !irst determined by the ob<ect to be appropriated the
productive !orces which have been developed to a totality and which
only e=ist within a universal intercourse. $rom this aspect alone
there!ore this appropriation must have a universal character
corresponding to the productive !orces and the intercourse.
5he appropriation o! these !orces is itsel! nothing more than the
development o! the individual capacities corresponding to the material
instruments o! production. 5he appropriation o! a totality o! instruments
o! production is !or this very reason the development o! a totality o!
capacities in the individuals themselves.
5his appropriation is !urther determined by the persons appropriating.
1//
&nly the proletarians o! the present day who are completely shut o!!
!rom all sel!,activity are in a position to achieve a complete and no
longer restricted sel!,activity which consists in the appropriation o! a
totality o! productive !orces and in the thus postulated development o! a
totality o! capacities. All earlier revolutionary appropriations were
restrictedK individuals whose sel!,activity was restricted by a crude
instrument o! production and a limited intercourse appropriated this
crude instrument o! production and hence merely achieved a new
state o! limitation. 5heir instrument o! production became their property
but they themselves remained subordinate to the division o! labour and
their own instrument o! production. (n all e=propriations up to now a
mass o! individuals remained subservient to a single instrument o!
productionK in the appropriation by the proletarians a mass o!
instruments o! production must be made sub<ect to each individual and
property to all. ;odern universal intercourse can be controlled by
individuals there!ore only when controlled by all.
5his appropriation is !urther determined by the manner in which it must
be e!!ected. (t can only be e!!ected through a union which by the
character o! the proletariat itsel! can again only be a universal one and
through a revolution in which on the one hand the power o! the earlier
mode o! production and intercourse and social organisation is
overthrown and on the other hand there develops the universal
character and the energy o! the proletariat without which the revolution
cannot be accomplishedK and in which !urther the proletariat rids itsel!
o! everything that still clings to it !rom its previous position in society.
&nly at this stage does sel!,activity coincide with material li!e which
corresponds to the development o! individuals into complete individuals
and the casting,o!! o! all natural limitations. 5he trans!ormation o!
labour into sel!,activity corresponds to the trans!ormation o! the earlier
limited intercourse into the intercourse o! individuals as such. With the
appropriation o! the total productive !orces through united individuals
private property comes to an end. Whilst previously in history a
particular condition always appeared as accidental now the isolation o!
individuals and the particular private gain o! each man have
themselves become accidental.
5he individuals who are no longer sub<ect to the division o! labour
have been conceived by the philosophers as an ideal under the name
O;anO. 5hey have conceived the whole process which we have outlined
as the evolutionary process o! O;anO so that at every historical stage
200
O;anO was substituted !or the individuals and shown as the motive
!orce o! history. 5he whole process was thus conceived as a process o!
the sel!,estrangement o! O;anO and this was essentially due to the !act
that the average individual o! the later stage was always !oisted on to
the earlier stage and the consciousness o! a later age on to the
individuals o! an earlier. 5hrough this inversion which !rom the !irst is
an abstract image o! the actual conditions it was possible to trans!orm
the whole o! history into an evolutionary process o! consciousness.
The Necessity of the Co!!unist (e#olution
$inally !rom the conception o! history we have s9etched we obtain
these !urther conclusions.
"1# (n the development o! productive !orces there comes a stage when
productive !orces and means o! intercourse are brought into being
which under the e=isting relationships only cause mischie! and are no
longer productive but destructive !orces "machinery and money#K and
connected with this a class is called !orth which has to bear all the
burdens o! society without en<oying its advantages which ousted !rom
society is !orced into the most decided antagonism to all other classesK
a class which !orms the ma<ority o! all members o! society and !rom
which emanates the consciousness o! the necessity o! a !undamental
revolution the communist consciousness which may o! course arise
among the other classes too through the contemplation o! the situation
o! this class.
"2# 5he conditions under which de!inite productive !orces can be
applied are the conditions o! the rule o! a de!inite class o! society
whose social power deriving !rom its property has its practical,
idealistic e=pression in each case in the !orm o! the )tateK and
there!ore every revolutionary struggle is directed against a class
which till then has been in power.
1
"-# (n all revolutions up till now the mode o! activity always remained
unscathed and it was only a @uestion o! a di!!erent distribution o! this
activity a new distribution o! labour to other persons whilst the
communist revolution is directed against the preceding mode o! activity
does away with labour and abolishes the rule o! all classes with the
classes themselves because it is carried through by the class which no
longer counts as a class in society is not recognised as a class and is
in itsel! the e=pression o! the dissolution o! all classes nationalities
etc. within present societyK and
201
"1# *oth !or the production on a mass scale o! this communist
consciousness and !or the success o! the cause itsel! the alteration o!
men on a mass scale is necessary an alteration which can only ta9e
place in a practical movement a revolutionK this revolution is
necessary there!ore not only because the ruling class cannot be
overthrown in any other way but also because the class overthrowing it
can only in a revolution succeed in ridding itsel! o! all the muc9 o! ages
and become !itted to !ound society anew.
7ootnotes
1
\0arginal note by 0arx>] 5o begin with it absorbs the branches o!
labour directly belonging to the )tate and then all ^\more or less]
ideological estates.
2
5he )tatement which !re@uently occurs with )aint ;a= that each is all
that he is through the )tate is !undamentally the same as the statement
that bourgeois is only a specimen o! the bourgeois speciesK a
statement which presupposes that the class o! bourgeois e=isted
be!ore the individuals constituting it. \0arginal note by 0arx to this
sentence>] With the philosophers pre,e=istence o! the class.
-
+.*. J (t must not he !orgotten that the ser!Fs very need o! e=isting and
the impossibility o! a large,scale economy which involved the
distribution o! the allotments among the ser!s very soon reduced the
services o! the ser!s to their lord to an average o! payments in 9ind and
statute,labour. 5his made it possible !or the ser! to accumulate
movable property and hence !acilitated his escape out o! the
possession o! his lord and gave him the prospect o! ma9ing his way as
an urban citiDenK it also created gradations among the ser!s so that the
runaway ser!s were already hal! burghers. (t is li9ewise obvious that the
ser!s who were masters o! a cra!t had the best chance o! ac@uiring
movable property.
1
\0arginal note by 0arx.] 5he people are interested in maintaining the
present state o! production.
202
Source @
7riedrich Niet&sche
Hu!an5 All Too Hu!an
S)CTI6N )I?HT
A Loo" At The State
&ocialism in respect to its means. )ocialism is the visionary younger
brother o! an almost decrepit despotism whose heir it wants to be.
5hus its e!!orts are reactionary in the deepest sense. $or it desires a
wealth o! e=ecutive power as only despotism had itK indeed it outdoes
everything in the past by striving !or the downright destruction o! the
individual which it sees as an un<usti!ied lu=ury o! nature and which it
intends to improve into an e=pedient organ of the community. )ocialism
crops up in the vicinity o! all e=cessive displays o! power because o! its
relation to it li9e the typical old socialist 'lato at the court o! the
)icilian tyrantK
1
it desires "and in certain circumstances !urthers# the
Caesarean power state o! this century because as we said it would
li9e to be its heir. *ut even this inheritance would not su!!ice !or its
purposesK it needs the most submissive sub<ugation o! all citiDens to
the absolute state the li9e o! which has never e=isted. And since it
cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the
state having rather always to wor9 automatically to eliminate piety
"because it wor9s on the elimination o! all e=isting statesB, it can only
hope to e=ist here and there !or short periods o! time by means o! the
most e=treme terrorism. 5here!ore it secretly prepares !or reigns o!
terror and drives the word O<usticeO li9e a nail into the heads o! the
semieducated masses to rob them completely o! their reason "a!ter
this reason has already su!!ered a great deal !rom its semieducation#
and to give them a good conscience !or the evil game that they are
supposed to play.
)ocialism can serve as a rather brutal and !orce!ul way to teach the
danger o! all accumulations o! state power and to that e=tent instill one
with distrust o! the state itsel!. When its rough voice chimes in with the
battle cry OAs much state as possible,* it will at !irst ma9e the cry noisier
than everK but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the
greater. OAs little state as possible.*
20-
9he development of the spirit, feared by the state. Li9e every
organiDational political power the Aree9 polis spurned and distrusted
the increase o! culture among its citiDensK its power!ul natural impulse
was to do almost nothing but cripple and obstruct it. 5he polis did not
want to permit to culture any history or evolutionK the education
determined by the law o! the land was intended to bind all generations
and 9eep them at one level. Later 'lato too wanted it no di!!erent !or
his ideal state. )o culture developed in spite of the polisK the polis
helped indirectly o! course and involuntarily because in it an
individualFs ambition was stimulated greatly so that once he had come
to the path o! intellectual development he pursued that too as !ar as it
would go. &ne should not evo9e 'ericlesF panegyric
2
as re!utation !or it
is only a great optimistic delusion about the allegedly necessary
connection between the polis and Athenian civiliDationK <ust be!ore the
night !alls on Athens "the plague and the brea9 with tradition#
5hucydides lets it
-
shine resplendent once again li9e a trans!iguring
sunset at whose sight we are to !orget the bad day that went be!ore it.
1
(n -%% *.C. 'lato visited the court o! the )icilian tyrant :ionysius the
4lder in )yracuse where he returned in -20 and -21 *.C. hoping to
realiDe his political ideals there.
2
(n 5hucydides 2.-3,12 "c!. n. 12 to )ection $ive#.
-
L(tO can re!er either to OciviliDationO or Opanegyric.O
201
Source 0 A
Plato
Crito
Persons of the ialogue
)&C8A54)
C8(5&
Scene
5he 'rison o! )ocrates.
...
Soc5 :ear Crito your Deal is invaluable i! a right oneK but i! wrong the
greater the Deal the greater the evilK and there!ore we ought to consider
whether these things shall be done or not. $or ( am and always have
been one o! those natures who must be guided by reason whatever
the reason may be which upon re!lection appears to me to be the bestK
and now that this !ortune has come upon me ( cannot put away the
reasons which ( have be!ore given. the principles which ( have hitherto
honored and revered ( still honor and unless we can !ind other and
better principles on the instant ( am certain not to agree with youK no
not even i! the power o! the multitude could in!lict many more
imprisonments con!iscations deaths !rightening us li9e children with
hobgoblin terrors. *ut what will be the !airest way o! considering the
@uestion7 )hall ( return to your old argument about the opinions o!
men some o! which are to be regarded and others as we were
saying are not to be regarded7 +ow were we right in maintaining this
be!ore ( was condemned7 And has the argument which was once good
now proved to be tal9 !or the sa9e o! tal9ingK in !act an amusement
only and altogether vanity7 5hat is what ( want to consider with your
help Crito. whether under my present circumstances the argument
appears to be in any way di!!erent or notK and is to be allowed by me or
disallowed. 5hat argument which as ( believe is maintained by many
who assume to be authorities was to the e!!ect as ( was saying that
the opinions o! some men are to be regarded and o! other men not to
be regarded. +ow you Crito are a disinterested person who are not
going to die to,morrow J at least there is no human probability o! this
and you are there!ore not liable to be deceived by the circumstances in
which you are placed. 5ell me then whether ( am right in saying that
203
some opinions and the opinions o! some men only are to be valued
and other opinions and the opinions o! other men are not to be
valued. ( as9 you whether ( was right in maintaining this7
Cr5 Certainly.
Soc5 5he good are to be regarded and not the bad7
Cr5 Ges.
Soc5 And the opinions o! the wise are good and the opinions o! the
unwise are evil7
Cr5 Certainly.
Soc5 And what was said about another matter7 Was the disciple in
gymnastics supposed to attend to the praise and blame and opinion o!
every man or o! one man only J his physician or trainer whoever that
was7
Cr5 &! one man only.
Soc5 And he ought to !ear the censure and welcome the praise o! that
one only and not o! the many7
Cr5 5hat is clear.
Soc5 And he ought to live and train and eat and drin9 in the way which
seems good to his single master who has understanding rather than
according to the opinion o! all other men put together7
Cr5 5rue.
Soc5 And i! he disobeys and disregards the opinion and approval o! the
one and regards the opinion o! the many who have no understanding
will he not su!!er evil7
Cr5 Certainly he will.
Soc5 And what will the evil be whither tending and what a!!ecting in
the disobedient person7
Cr5 Clearly a!!ecting the bodyK that is what is destroyed by the evil.
Soc5 ?ery goodK and is not this true Crito o! other things which we
need not separately enumerate7 (n the matter o! <ust and un<ust !air
and !oul good and evil which are the sub<ects o! our present
consultation ought we to !ollow the opinion o! the many and to !ear
themK or the opinion o! the one man who has understanding and whom
202
we ought to !ear and reverence more than all the rest o! the world. and
whom deserting we shall destroy and in<ure that principle in us which
may be assumed to be improved by <ustice and deteriorated by
in<usticeK is there not such a principle7
Cr5 Certainly there is )ocrates.
Soc5 5a9e a parallel instanceK i! acting under the advice o! men who
have no understanding we destroy that which is improvable by health
and deteriorated by disease J when that has been destroyed ( say
would li!e be worth having7 And that is J the body7
Cr5 Ges.
Soc5 Could we live having an evil and corrupted body7
Cr5 Certainly not.
Soc5 And will li!e be worth having i! that higher part o! man be
depraved which is improved by <ustice and deteriorated by in<ustice7
:o we suppose that principle whatever it may be in man which has to
do with <ustice and in<ustice to be in!erior to the body7
Cr5 Certainly not.
Soc5 ;ore honored then7
Cr5 $ar more honored.
Soc5 5hen my !riend we must not regard what the many say o! us. but
what he the one man who has understanding o! <ust and un<ust will
say and what the truth will say. And there!ore you begin in error when
you suggest that we should regard the opinion o! the many about <ust
and un<ust good and evil honorable and dishonorable. Well someone
will say O*ut the many can 9ill us.O
Cr5 Ges )ocratesK that will clearly be the answer.
Soc5 5hat is trueK but still ( !ind with surprise that the old argument is
as ( conceive unsha9en as ever. And ( should li9e to 9now Whether (
may say the same o! another proposition J that not li!e but a good li!e
is to be chie!ly valued7
Cr5 Ges that also remains.
Soc5 And a good li!e is e@uivalent to a <ust and honorable one J that
holds also7
200
Cr5 Ges that holds.
Soc5 $rom these premises ( proceed to argue the @uestion whether (
ought or ought not to try to escape without the consent o! the
Athenians. and i! ( am clearly right in escaping then ( will ma9e the
attemptK but i! not ( will abstain. 5he other considerations which you
mention o! money and loss o! character and the duty o! educating
children are ( !ear only the doctrines o! the multitude who would be
as ready to call people to li!e i! they were able as they are to put them
to death J and with as little reason. *ut now since the argument has
thus !ar prevailed the only @uestion which remains to be considered is
whether we shall do rightly either in escaping or in su!!ering others to
aid in our escape and paying them in money and than9s or whether we
shall not do rightlyK and i! the latter then death or any other calamity
which may ensue on my remaining here must not be allowed to enter
into the calculation.
Cr5 ( thin9 that you are right )ocratesK how then shall we proceed7
Soc5 Let us consider the matter together and do you either re!ute me i!
you can and ( will be convincedK or else cease my dear !riend !rom
repeating to me that ( ought to escape against the wishes o! the
Athenians. !or ( am e=tremely desirous to be persuaded by you but not
against my own better <udgment. And now please to consider my !irst
position and do your best to answer me.
Cr5 ( will do my best.
Soc5 Are we to say that we are never intentionally to do wrong or that
in one way we ought and in another way we ought not to do wrong or
is doing wrong always evil and dishonorable as ( was <ust now saying
and as has been already ac9nowledged by us7 Are all our !ormer
admissions which were made within a !ew days to be thrown away7
And have we at our age been earnestly discoursing with one another
all our li!e long only to discover that we are no better than children7 &r
are we to rest assured in spite o! the opinion o! the many and in spite
o! conse@uences whether better or worse o! the truth o! what was then
said that in<ustice is always an evil and dishonor to him who acts
un<ustly7 )hall we a!!irm that7
Cr5 Ges.
Soc5 5hen we must do no wrong7
Cr5 Certainly not.
20%
Soc5 +or when in<ured in<ure in return as the many imagineK !or we
must in<ure no one at all7
Cr5 Clearly not.
Soc5 Again Crito may we do evil7
Cr5 )urely not )ocrates.
Soc5 And what o! doing evil in return !or evil which is the morality o!
the many J is that <ust or not7
Cr5 +ot <ust.
Soc5 $or doing evil to another is the same as in<uring him7
Cr5 ?ery true.
Soc5 5hen we ought not to retaliate or render evil !or evil to anyone
whatever evil we may have su!!ered !rom him. *ut ( would have you
consider Crito whether you really mean what you are saying. $or this
opinion has never been held and never will be held by any
considerable number o! personsK and those who are agreed and those
who are not agreed upon this point have no common ground and can
only despise one another when they see how widely they di!!er. 5ell
me then whether you agree with and assent to my !irst principle that
neither in<ury nor retaliation nor warding o!! evil by evil is ever right. And
shall that be the premise o! our agreement7 &r do you decline and
dissent !rom this7 $or this has been o! old and is still my opinionK but i!
you are o! another opinion let me hear what you have to say. (!
however you remain o! the same mind as !ormerly ( will proceed to the
ne=t step.
Cr5 Gou may proceed !or ( have not changed my mind.
Soc5 5hen ( will proceed to the ne=t step which may be put in the !orm
o! a @uestion. &ught a man to do what he admits to be right or ought
he to betray the right7
Cr5 He ought to do what he thin9s right.
Soc5 *ut i! this is true what is the application7 (n leaving the prison
against the will o! the Athenians do ( wrong any7 or rather do ( not
wrong those whom ( ought least to wrong7 :o ( not desert the
principles which were ac9nowledged by us to be <ust7 What do you
say7
20/
Cr5 ( cannot tell )ocrates !or ( do not 9now.
Soc5 5hen consider the matter in this way. (magine that ( am about to
play truant "you may call the proceeding by any name which you li9e#
and the laws and the government come and interrogate me. O5ell us
)ocratesO they sayK Owhat are you about7 are you going by an act o!
yours to overturn us J the laws and the whole )tate as !ar as in you
lies7 :o you imagine that a )tate can subsist and not be overthrown in
which the decisions o! law have no power but are set aside and
overthrown by individuals7O What will be our answer Crito to these
and the li9e words7 Anyone and especially a clever rhetorician will
have a good deal to urge about the evil o! setting aside the law which
re@uires a sentence to be carried outK and we might reply OGesK but the
)tate has in<ured us and given an un<ust sentence.O )uppose ( say
that7
Cr5 ?ery good )ocrates.
)oc. OAnd was that our agreement with you7O the law would say Oor
were you to abide by the sentence o! the )tate7O And i! ( were to
e=press astonishment at their saying this the law would probably add.
OAnswer )ocrates instead o! opening your eyes. you are in the habit
o! as9ing and answering @uestions. 5ell us what complaint you have to
ma9e against us which <usti!ies you in attempting to destroy us and the
)tate7 (n the !irst place did we not bring you into e=istence7 Gour !ather
married your mother by our aid and begat you. )ay whether you have
any ob<ection to urge against those o! us who regulate marriage7O
+one ( should reply. O&r against those o! us who regulate the system
o! nurture and education o! children in which you were trained7 Were
not the laws who have the charge o! this right in commanding your
!ather to train you in music and gymnastic7O 8ight ( should reply. OWell
then since you were brought into the world and nurtured and educated
by us can you deny in the !irst place that you are our child and slave
as your !athers were be!ore you7 And i! this is true you are not on
e@ual terms with usK nor can you thin9 that you have a right to do to us
what we are doing to you. Would you have any right to stri9e or revile
or do any other evil to a !ather or to your master i! you had one when
you have been struc9 or reviled by him or received some other evil at
his hands7 J you would not say this7 And because we thin9 right to
destroy you do you thin9 that you have any right to destroy us in
return and your country as !ar as in you lies7 And will you & pro!essor
o! true virtue say that you are <usti!ied in this7 Has a philosopher li9e
210
you !ailed to discover that our country is more to be valued and higher
and holier !ar than mother or !ather or any ancestor and more to be
regarded in the eyes o! the gods and o! men o! understanding7 also to
be soothed and gently and reverently entreated when angry even
more than a !ather and i! not persuaded obeyed7 And when we are
punished by her whether with imprisonment or stripes the punishment
is to be endured in silenceK and i! she leads us to wounds or death in
battle thither we !ollow as is rightK neither may anyone yield or retreat
or leave his ran9 but whether in battle or in a court o! law or in any
other place he must do what his city and his country order himK or he
must change their view o! what is <ust. and i! he may do no violence to
his !ather or mother much less may he do violence to his country.O
What answer shall we ma9e to this Crito7 :o the laws spea9 truly or
do they not7
Cr5 ( thin9 that they do.
Soc5 5hen the laws will say. OConsider )ocrates i! this is true that in
your present attempt you are going to do us wrong. $or a!ter having
brought you into the world and nurtured and educated you and given
you and every other citiDen a share in every good that we had to give
we !urther proclaim and give the right to every Athenian that i! he does
not li9e us when he has come o! age and has seen the ways o! the city
and made our ac@uaintance he may go where he pleases and ta9e his
goods with himK and none o! us laws will !orbid him or inter!ere with
him. Any o! you who does not li9e us and the city and who wants to go
to a colony or to any other city may go where he li9es and ta9e his
goods with him. *ut he who has e=perience o! the manner in which we
order <ustice and administer the )tate and still remains has entered
into an implied contract that he will do as we command him. And he
who disobeys us is as we maintain thrice wrong. !irst because in
disobeying us he is disobeying his parentsK secondly because we are
the authors o! his educationK thirdly because he has made an
agreement with us that he will duly obey our commandsK and he neither
obeys them nor convinces us that our commands are wrongK and we
do not rudely impose them but give him the alternative o! obeying or
convincing usK that is what we o!!er and he does neither. 5hese are the
sort o! accusations to which as we were saying you )ocrates will be
e=posed i! you accomplish your intentionsK you above all other
Athenians.O )uppose ( as9 why is this7 they will <ustly retort upon me
that ( above all other men have ac9nowledged the agreement. O5here is
clear proo!O they will say O)ocrates that we and the city were not
211
displeasing to you. &! all Athenians you have been the most constant
resident in the city which as you never leave you may be supposed to
love. $or you never went out o! the city either to see the games e=cept
once when you went to the (sthmus or to any other place unless when
you were on military serviceK nor did you travel as other men do. +or
had you any curiosity to 9now other )tates or their laws. your a!!ections
did not go beyond us and our )tateK we were your especial !avorites
and you ac@uiesced in our government o! youK and this is the )tate in
which you begat your children which is a proo! o! your satis!action.
;oreover you might i! you had li9ed have !i=ed the penalty at
banishment in the course o! the trial J the )tate which re!uses to let
you go now would have let you go then. *ut you pretended that you
pre!erred death to e=ile and that you were not grieved at death. And
now you have !orgotten these !ine sentiments and pay no respect to
us the laws o! whom you are the destroyerK and are doing what only a
miserable slave would do running away and turning your bac9 upon
the compacts and agreements which you made as a citiDen. And !irst o!
all answer this very @uestion. Are we right in saying that you agreed to
be governed according to us in deed and not in word only7 (s that true
or not7O How shall we answer that Crito7 ;ust we not agree7
Cr5 5here is no help )ocrates.
Soc5 5hen will they not say. OGou )ocrates are brea9ing the
covenants and agreements which you made with us at your leisure not
in any haste or under any compulsion or deception but having had
seventy years to thin9 o! them during which time you were at liberty to
leave the city i! we were not to your mind or i! our covenants appeared
to you to be un!air. Gou had your choice and might have gone either to
Lacedaemon or Crete which you o!ten praise !or their good
government or to some other Hellenic or !oreign )tate. Whereas you
above all other Athenians seemed to be so !ond o! the )tate or in
other words o! us her laws "!or who would li9e a )tate that has no
laws7# that you never stirred out o! her. the halt the blind the maimed
were not more stationary in her than you were. And now you run away
and !orsa9e your agreements. +ot so )ocrates i! you will ta9e our
adviceK do not ma9e yoursel! ridiculous by escaping out o! the city.
O$or <ust consider i! you transgress and err in this sort o! way what
good will you do either to yoursel! or to your !riends7 5hat your !riends
will be driven into e=ile and deprived o! citiDenship or will lose their
property is tolerably certainK and you yoursel! i! you !ly to one o! the
212
neighboring cities as !or e=ample 5hebes or ;egara both o! which
are well,governed cities will come to them as an enemy )ocrates and
their government will be against you and all patriotic citiDens will cast
an evil eye upon you as a subverter o! the laws and you will con!irm in
the minds o! the <udges the <ustice o! their own condemnation o! you.
$or he who is a corrupter o! the laws is more than li9ely to be corrupter
o! the young and !oolish portion o! man9ind. Will you then !lee !rom
well,ordered cities and virtuous men7 and is e=istence worth having on
these terms7 &r will you go to them without shame and tal9 to them
)ocrates7 And what will you say to them7 What you say here about
virtue and <ustice and institutions and laws being the best things among
men7 Would that be decent o! you7 )urely not. *ut i! you go away !rom
well,governed )tates to CritoFs !riends in 5hessaly where there is great
disorder and license they will be charmed to have the tale o! your
escape !rom prison set o!! with ludicrous particulars o! the manner in
which you were wrapped in a goats9in or some other disguise and
metamorphosed as the !ashion o! runaways is J that is very li9elyK but
will there be no one to remind you that in your old age you violated the
most sacred laws !rom a miserable desire o! a little more li!e7 'erhaps
not i! you 9eep them in a good temperK but i! they are out o! temper
you will hear many degrading thingsK you will live but how7 J as the
!latterer o! all men and the servant o! all menK and doing what7 J
eating and drin9ing in 5hessaly having gone abroad in order that you
may get a dinner. And where will be your !ine sentiments about <ustice
and virtue then7 )ay that you wish to live !or the sa9e o! your children
that you may bring them up and educate them J will you ta9e them into
5hessaly and deprive them o! Athenian citiDenship7 (s that the bene!it
which you would con!er upon them7 &r are you under the impression
that they will be better cared !or and educated here i! you are still alive
although absent !rom themK !or that your !riends will ta9e care o! them7
:o you !ancy that i! you are an inhabitant o! 5hessaly they will ta9e
care o! them and i! you are an inhabitant o! the other world they will
not ta9e care o! them7 +ayK but i! they who call themselves !riends are
truly !riends they surely will.
OListen then )ocrates to us who have brought you up. 5hin9 not o! li!e
and children !irst and o! <ustice a!terwards but o! <ustice !irst that you
may be <usti!ied be!ore the princes o! the world below. $or neither will
you nor any that belong to you be happier or holier or <uster in this li!e
or happier in another i! you do as Crito bids. +ow you depart in
innocence a su!!erer and not a doer o! evilK a victim not o! the laws
21-
but o! men. *ut i! you go !orth returning evil !or evil and in<ury !or
in<ury brea9ing the covenants and agreements which you have made
with us and wronging those whom you ought least to wrong that is to
say yoursel! your !riends your country and us we shall be angry with
you while you live and our brethren the laws in the world below will
receive you as an enemyK !or they will 9now that you have done your
best to destroy us. Listen then to us and not to Crito.O
5his is the voice which ( seem to hear murmuring in my ears li9e the
sound o! the !lute in the ears o! the mysticK that voice ( say is
humming in my ears and prevents me !rom hearing any other. And (
9now that anything more which you will say will be in vain. Get spea9 i!
you have anything to say.
Cr5 ( have nothing to say )ocrates.
Soc5 5hen let me !ollow the intimations o! the will o! Aod.
211
Source 0 %
Jtienne de la %oAtie
iscourse on 'oluntary Ser#itude
I see no good in having several lords:
-et one alone be master, let one alone be king.
5hese words Homer puts in the mouth o! Hlysses
1
as he addresses
the people. (! he had said nothing !urther than O( see no good in having
several lordsO it would have been well spo9en. $or the sa9e o! logic he
should have maintained that the rule o! several could not be good since
the power o! one man alone as soon as he ac@uires the title o! master
becomes abusive and unreasonable. (nstead he declared what seems
preposterous. OLet one alone be master let one alone be 9ing.O We
must not be critical o! Hlysses who at the moment was perhaps
obliged to spea9 these words in order to @uell a mutiny in the army !or
this reason in my opinion choosing language to meet the emergency
rather than the truth. Get in the light o! reason it is a great mis!ortune
to be at the bec9 and call o! one master !or it is impossible to be sure
that he is going to be 9ind since it is always in his power to be cruel
whenever he pleases. As !or having several masters according to the
number one has it amounts to being that many times un!ortunate.
Although ( do not wish at this time to discuss this much debated
@uestion namely whether other types o! government are pre!erable to
monarchy
2
still ( should li9e to 9now be!ore casting doubt on the place
that monarchy should occupy among commonwealths whether or not it
belongs to such a group since it is hard to believe that there is
anything o! common wealth in a country where everything belongs to
one master. 5his @uestion however can remain !or another time and
would really re@uire a separate treatment involving by its very nature all
sorts o! political discussion.
$or the present ( should li9e merely to understand how it happens that
so many men so many villages so many cities so many nations
sometimes su!!er under a single tyrant who has no other power than
the power they give himK who is able to harm them only to the e=tent to
which they have the willingness to bear with himK who could do them
absolutely no in<ury unless they pre!erred to put up with him rather than
contradict him.
-
)urely a stri9ing situationQ Get it is so common that one
213
must grieve the more and wonder the less at the spectacle o! a million
men serving in wretchedness their nec9s under the yo9e not
constrained by a greater multitude than they but simply it would seem
delighted and charmed by the name o! one man alone whose power
they need not !ear !or he is evidently the one person whose @ualities
they cannot admire because o! his inhumanity and brutality toward
them. A wea9ness characteristic o! human 9ind is that we o!ten have to
obey !orceK we have to ma9e concessionsK we ourselves cannot always
be the stronger. 5here!ore when a nation is constrained by the !ortune
o! war to serve a single cli@ue as happened when the city o! Athens
served the thirty 5yrants
1
one should not be amaDed that the nation
obeys but simply be grieved by the situationK or rather instead o! being
amaDed or saddened consider patiently the evil and loo9 !orward
hope!ully toward a happier !uture.
&ur nature is such that the common duties o! human relationship
occupy a great part o! the course o! our li!e. (t is reasonable to love
virtue to esteem good deeds to be grate!ul !or good !rom whatever
source we may receive it and o!ten to give up some o! our com!ort in
order to increase the honor and advantage o! some man whom we love
and who deserves it. 5here!ore i! the inhabitants o! a country have
!ound some great personage who has shown rare !oresight in
protecting them in an emergency rare boldness in de!ending them
rare solicitude in governing them and i! !rom that point on they
contract the habit o! obeying him and depending on him to such an
e=tent that they grant him certain prerogatives ( !ear that such a
procedure is not prudent inasmuch as they remove him !rom a position
in which he was doing good and advance him to a dignity in which he
may do evil. Certainly while he continues to mani!est good will one
need !ear no harm !rom a man who seems to be generally well
disposed.
*ut & good LordQ What strange phenomenon is this7 What name shall
we give to it7 What is the nature o! this mis!ortune7 What vice is it or
rather what degradation7 5o see an endless multitude o! people not
merely obeying but driven to servility7 +ot ruled but tyranniDed over7
5hese wretches have no wealth no 9in nor wi!e nor children not even
li!e itsel! that they can call their own. 5hey su!!er plundering
wantonness cruelty not !rom an army not !rom a barbarian horde on
account o! whom they must shed their blood and sacri!ice their lives
but !rom a single manK not !rom a Hercules nor !rom a )amson but
!rom a single little man. 5oo !re@uently this same little man is the most
212
cowardly and e!!eminate in the nation a stranger to the powder o!
battle and hesitant on the sands o! the tournamentK not only without
energy to direct men by !orce but with hardly enough virility to bed with
a common womanQ )hall we call sub<ection to such a leader
cowardice7 )hall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and
!aint,hearted7 (! two i! three i! !our do not de!end themselves !rom the
one we might call that circumstance surprising but nevertheless
conceivable. (n such a case one might be <usti!ied in suspecting a lac9
o! courage. *ut i! a hundred i! a thousand endure the caprice o! a
single man should we not rather say that they lac9 not the courage but
the desire to rise against him and that such an attitude indicates
indi!!erence rather than cowardice7 When not a hundred not a
thousand men but a hundred provinces a thousand cities a million
men re!use to assail a single man !rom whom the 9indest treatment
received is the in!liction o! ser!dom and slavery what shall we call that7
(s it cowardice7 &! course there is in every vice inevitably some limit
beyond which one cannot go. 5wo possibly ten may !ear oneK but
when a thousand a million men a thousand cities !ail to protect
themselves against the domination o! one man this cannot be called
cowardly !or cowardice does not sin9 to such a depth any more than
valor can be termed the e!!ort o! one individual to scale a !ortress to
attac9 an army or to con@uer a 9ingdom. What monstrous vice then is
this which does not even deserve to be called cowardice a vice !or
which no term can be !ound vile enough which nature hersel! disavows
and our tongues re!use to name7
'lace on one side !i!ty thousand armed men and on the other the
same numberK let them <oin in battle one side !ighting to retain its
liberty the other to ta9e it awayK to which would you at a guess
promise victory7 Which men do you thin9 would march more gallantly
to combat J those who anticipate as a reward !or their su!!ering the
maintenance o! their !reedom or those who cannot e=pect any other
priDe !or the blows e=changed than the enslavement o! others7 &ne
side will have be!ore its eyes the blessings o! the past and the hope o!
similar <oy in the !utureK their thoughts will dwell less on the
comparatively brie! pain o! battle than on what they may have to
endure !orever they their children and all their posterity. 5he other
side has nothing to inspire it with courage e=cept the wea9 urge o!
greed which !ades be!ore danger and which can never be so 9een it
seems to me that it will not be dismayed by the least drop o! blood
!rom wounds. Consider the <ustly !amous battles o! ;iltiades
3
210
Leonidas
2
5hemistocles
0
still !resh today in recorded history and in the
minds o! men as i! they had occurred but yesterday battles !ought in
Areece !or the wel!are o! the Aree9s and as an e=ample to the world.
What power do you thin9 gave to such a mere hand!ul o! men not the
strength but the courage to withstand the attac9 o! a !leet so vast that
even the seas were burdened and to de!eat the armies o! so many
nations armies so immense that their o!!icers alone outnumbered the
entire Aree9 !orce7 What was it but the !act that in those glorious days
this struggle represented not so much a !ight o! Aree9s against
'ersians as a victory o! liberty over domination o! !reedom over greed7
(t amaDes us to hear accounts o! the valor that liberty arouses in the
hearts o! those who de!end itK but who could believe reports o! what
goes on every day among the inhabitants o! some countries who could
really believe that one man alone may mistreat a hundred thousand
and deprive them o! their liberty7 Who would credit such a report i! he
merely heard it without being present to witness the event7 And i! this
condition occurred only in distant lands and were reported to us which
one among us would not assume the tale to be imagined or invented
and not really true7 &bviously there is no need o! !ighting to overcome
this single tyrant !or he is automatically de!eated i! the country re!uses
consent to its own enslavement. it is not necessary to deprive him o!
anything but simply to give him nothingK there is no need that the
country ma9e an e!!ort to do anything !or itsel! provided it does nothing
against itsel!. (t is there!ore the inhabitants themselves who permit or
rather bring about their own sub<ection since by ceasing to submit
they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itsel! cuts
its own throat when having a choice between being vassals and being
!ree men it deserts its liberties and ta9es on the yo9e gives consent to
its own misery or rather apparently welcomes it. (! it cost the people
anything to recover its !reedom ( should not urge action to this end
although there is nothing a human should hold more dear than the
restoration o! his own natural right to change himsel! !rom a beast o!
burden bac9 to a man so to spea9. ( do not demand o! him so much
boldnessK let him pre!er the doubt!ul security o! living wretchedly to the
uncertain hope o! living as he pleases. What then7 (! in order to have
liberty nothing more is needed than to long !or it i! only a simple act o!
the will is necessary is there any nation in the world that considers a
single wish too high a price to pay in order to recover rights which it
ought to be ready to redeem at the cost o! its blood rights such that
their loss must bring all men o! honor to the point o! !eeling li!e to be
21%
unendurable and death itsel! a deliverance7
4veryone 9nows that the !ire !rom a little spar9 will increase and blaDe
ever higher as long as it !inds wood to burnK yet without being
@uenched by water but merely by !inding no more !uel to !eed on it
consumes itsel! dies down and is no longer a !lame. )imilarly the
more tyrants pillage the more they crave the more they ruin and
destroyK the more one yields to them and obeys them by that much do
they become mightier and more !ormidable the readier to annihilate
and destroy. *ut i! not one thing is yielded to them i! without any
violence they are simply not obeyed they become na9ed and undone
and as nothing <ust as when the root receives no nourishment the
branch withers and dies.
5o achieve the good that they desire the bold do not !ear dangerK the
intelligent do not re!use to undergo su!!ering. (t is the stupid and
cowardly who are neither able to endure hardship nor to vindicate their
rightsK they stop at merely longing !or them and lose through timidity
the valor roused by the e!!ort to claim their rights although the desire to
en<oy them still remains as part o! their nature. A longing common to
both the wise and the !oolish to brave men and to cowards is this
longing !or all those things which when ac@uired would ma9e them
happy and contented. Get one element appears to be lac9ing. ( do not
9now how it happens that nature !ails to place within the hearts o! men
a burning desire !or liberty a blessing so great and so desirable that
when it is lost all evils !ollow therea!ter and even the blessings that
remain lose taste and savor because o! their corruption by servitude.
Liberty is the only <oy upon which men do not seem to insistK !or surely
i! they really wanted it they would receive it. Apparently they re!use this
wonder!ul privilege because it is so easily ac@uired.
'oor wretched and stupid peoples nations determined on your own
mis!ortune and blind to your own goodQ Gou let yourselves be deprived
be!ore your own eyes o! the best part o! your revenuesK your !ields are
plundered your homes robbed your !amily heirlooms ta9en away. Gou
live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your ownK and
it would seem that you consider yourselves luc9y to be loaned your
property your !amilies and your very lives. All this havoc this
mis!ortune this ruin descends upon you not !rom alien !oes but !rom
the one enemy whom you yourselves render as power!ul as he is !or
whom you go bravely to war !or whose greatness you do not re!use to
o!!er your own bodies unto death. He who thus domineers over you has
21/
only two eyes only two hands only one body no more than is
possessed by the least man among the in!inite numbers dwelling in
your citiesK he has indeed nothing more than the power that you con!er
upon him to destroy you. Where has he ac@uired enough eyes to spy
upon you i! you do not provide them yourselves7 How can he have so
many arms to beat you with i! he does not borrow them !rom you7 5he
!eet that trample down your cities where does he get them i! they are
not your own7 How does he have any power over you e=cept through
you7 How would he dare assail you i! he had no cooperation !rom you7
What could he do to you i! you yourselves did not connive with the thie!
who plunders you i! you were not accomplices o! the murderer who
9ills you i! you were not traitors to yourselves7 Gou sow your crops in
order that he may ravage them you install and !urnish your homes to
give him goods to pillageK you rear your daughters that he may grati!y
his lustK you bring up your children in order that he may con!er upon
them the greatest privilege he 9nows J to be led into his battles to be
delivered to butchery to be made the servants o! his greed and the
instruments o! his vengeanceK you yield your bodies unto hard labor in
order that he may indulge in his delights and wallow in his !ilthy
pleasuresK you wea9en yourselves in order to ma9e him the stronger
and the mightier to hold you in chec9. $rom all these indignities such
as the very beasts o! the !ield would not endure you can deliver
yourselves i! you try not by ta9ing action but merely by willing to be
!ree. 8esolve to serve no more and you are at once !reed. ( do not as9
that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over but simply that
you support him no longerK then you will behold him li9e a great
Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away !all o! his own weight
and brea9 in pieces.
:octors are no doubt correct in warning us not to touch incurable
woundsK and ( am presumably ta9ing chances in preaching as ( do to a
people which has long lost all sensitivity and no longer conscious o! its
in!irmity is plainly su!!ering !rom mortal illness. Let us there!ore
understand by logic i! we can how it happens that this obstinate
willingness to submit has become so deeply rooted in a nation that the
very love o! liberty now seems no longer natural.
(n the !irst place all would agree that i! we led our lives according to
the ways intended by nature and the lessons taught by her we should
be intuitively obedient to our parentsK later we should adopt reason as
our guide and become slaves to nobody. Concerning the obedience
given instinctively to oneFs !ather and mother we are in agreement
220
each one admitting himsel! to be a model. As to whether reason is born
with us or not that is a @uestion loudly discussed by academicians and
treated by all schools o! philosophers. $or the present ( thin9 ( do not
err in stating that there is in our souls some native seed o! reason
which i! nourished by good counsel and training !lowers into virtue but
which on the other hand i! unable to resist the vices surrounding it is
sti!led and blighted. Get surely i! there is anything in this world clear
and obvious to which one cannot close oneFs eyes it is the !act that
nature handmaiden o! Aod governess o! men has cast us all in the
same mold in order that we may behold in one another companions or
rather brothers. (! in distributing her gi!ts nature has !avored some more
than others with respect to body or spirit she has nevertheless not
planned to place us within this world as i! it were a !ield o! battle and
has not endowed the stronger or the cleverer in order that they may act
li9e armed brigands in a !orest and attac9 the wea9er. &ne should
rather conclude that in distributing larger shares to some and smaller
shares to others nature has intended to give occasion !or brotherly
love to become mani!est some o! us having the strength to give help to
others who are in need o! it. Hence since this 9ind mother has given us
the whole world as a dwelling place has lodged us in the same house
has !ashioned us according to the same model so that in beholding one
another we might almost recogniDe ourselvesK since she has bestowed
upon us all the great gi!t o! voice and speech !or !raternal relationship
thus achieving by the common and mutual statement o! our thoughts a
communion o! our willsK and since she has tried in every way to narrow
and tighten the bond o! our union and 9inshipK since she has revealed
in every possible manner her intention not so much to associate us as
to ma9e us one organic whole there can be no !urther doubt that we
are all naturally !ree inasmuch as we are all comrades. Accordingly it
should not enter the mind o! anyone that nature has placed some o! us
in slavery since she has actually created us all in one li9eness.
5here!ore it is !ruitless to argue whether or not liberty is natural since
none can be held in slavery without being wronged and in a world
governed by a nature which is reasonable there is nothing so contrary
as an in<ustice. )ince !reedom is our natural state we are not only in
possession o! it but have the urge to de!end it. +ow i! perchance some
cast a doubt on this conclusion and are so corrupted that they are not
able to recogniDe their rights and inborn tendencies ( shall have to do
them the honor that is properly theirs and place so to spea9 brute
beasts in the pulpit to throw light on their nature and condition. 5he
221
very beasts Aod help meQ i! men are not too dea! cry out to them
OLong live LibertyQO ;any among them die as soon as captured. <ust as
the !ish loses li!e as soon as he leaves the water so do these creatures
close their eyes upon the light and have no desire to survive the loss o!
their natural !reedom. (! the animals were to constitute their 9ingdom by
ran9 their nobility would be chosen !rom this type. &thers !rom the
largest to the smallest when captured put up such a strong resistance
by means o! claws horns bea9 and paws that they show clearly
enough how they cling to what they are losingK a!terwards in captivity
they mani!est by so many evident signs their awareness o! their
mis!ortune that it is easy to see they are languishing rather than living
and continue their e=istence more in lamentation o! their lost !reedom
than in en<oyment o! their servitude. What else can e=plain the
behavior o! the elephant who a!ter de!ending himsel! to the last ounce
o! his strength and 9nowing himsel! on the point o! being ta9en dashes
his <aws against the trees and brea9s his tus9s thus mani!esting his
longing to remain !ree as he has been and proving his wit and ability to
buy o!! the huntsmen in the hope that through the sacri!ice o! his tus9s
he will be permitted to o!!er his ivory as a ransom !or his liberty7 We
!eed the horse !rom birth in order to train him to do our bidding. Get he
is tamed with such di!!iculty that when we begin to brea9 him in he bites
the bit he rears at the touch o! the spur as i! to reveal his instinct and
show by his actions that i! he obeys he does so not o! his own !ree will
but under constraint. What more can we say7
O4ven the o=en under the weight o! the yo9e complain
And the birds in their cage lamentO
as ( e=pressed it some time ago toying with our $rench poesy. $or (
shall not hesitate in writing to you & Longa
%
to introduce some o! my
verses which ( never read to you because o! your obvious
encouragement which is @uite li9ely to ma9e me conceited. And now
since all beings because they !eel su!!er misery in sub<ection and long
!or libertyK since the very beasts although made !or the service o! man
cannot become accustomed to control without protest what evil chance
has so denatured man that he the only creature really born to be !ree
lac9s the memory o! his original condition and the desire to return to it7
5here are three 9inds o! tyrantsK some receive their proud position
through elections by the people others by !orce o! arms others by
inheritance. 5hose who have ac@uired power by means o! war act in
such wise that it is evident they rule over a con@uered country. 5hose
222
who are born to 9ingship are scarcely any better because they are
nourished on the breast o! tyranny suc9 in with their mil9 the instincts
o! the tyrant and consider the people under them as their inherited
ser!sK and according to their individual disposition miserly or prodigal
they treat their 9ingdom as their property. He who has received the
state !rom the people however ought to be it seems to me more
bearable and would be so ( thin9 were it not !or the !act that as soon
as he sees himsel! higher than the others !lattered by that @uality
which we call grandeur he plans never to relin@uish his position. )uch
a man usually determines to pass on to his children the authority that
the people have con!erred upon himK and once his heirs have ta9en
this attitude strange it is how !ar they surpass other tyrants in all sorts
o! vices and especially in cruelty because they !ind no other means to
impose this new tyranny than by tightening control and removing their
sub<ects so !ar !rom any notion o! liberty that even i! the memory o! it is
!resh it will soon be eradicated. Get to spea9 accurately ( do perceive
that there is some di!!erence among these three types o! tyranny but
as !or stating a pre!erence ( cannot grant there is any. $or although the
means o! coming into power di!!er still the method o! ruling is
practically the sameK those who are elected act as i! they were brea9ing
in bulloc9sK those who are con@uerors ma9e the people their preyK
those who are heirs plan to treat them as i! they were their natural
slaves.
(n connection with this let us imagine some newborn individuals
neither ac@uainted with slavery nor desirous o! liberty ignorant indeed
o! the very words. (! they were permitted to choose between being
slaves and !ree men to which would they give their vote7 5here can be
no doubt that they would much pre!er to be guided by reason itsel! than
to be ordered about by the whims o! a single man. 5he only possible
e=ception might be the (sraelites who without any compulsion or need
appointed a tyrant.
/
( can never read their history without becoming
angered and even inhuman enough to !ind satis!action in the many
evils that be!ell them on this account. *ut certainly all men as long as
they remain men be!ore letting themselves become enslaved must
either be driven by !orce or led into it by deceptionK con@uered by
!oreign armies as were )parta and Athens by the !orces o! Ale=ander
10
or by political !actions as when at an earlier period the control o!
Athens had passed into the hands o! 'isistrates.
11
When they lose their
liberty through deceit they are not so o!ten betrayed by others as
misled by themselves. 5his was the case with the people o! )yracuse
22-
chie! city o! )icily "( am told the place is now named )aragossa
12
#
when in the throes o! war and heedlessly planning only !or the present
danger they promoted :enis
1-
their !irst tyrant by entrusting to him the
command o! the army without realiDing that they had given him such
power that on his victorious return this worthy man would behave as i!
he had van@uished not his enemies but his compatriots trans!orming
himsel! !rom captain to 9ing and then !rom 9ing to tyrant.
(t is incredible how as soon as a people becomes sub<ect it promptly
!alls into such complete !orget!ulness o! its !reedom that it can hardly
be roused to the point o! regaining it obeying so easily and so willingly
that one is led to say on beholding such a situation that this people
has not so much lost its liberty as won its enslavement. (t is true that in
the beginning men submit under constraint and by !orceK but those who
come a!ter them obey without regret and per!orm willingly what their
predecessors had done because they had to. 5his is why men born
under the yo9e and then nourished and reared in slavery are content
without !urther e!!ort to live in their native circumstance unaware o!
any other state or right and considering as @uite natural the condition
into which they were born. 5here is however no heir so spendthri!t or
indi!!erent that he does not sometimes scan the account boo9s o! his
!ather in order to see i! he is en<oying all the privileges o! his legacy or
whether perchance his rights and those o! his predecessor have not
been encroached upon. +evertheless it is clear enough that the
power!ul in!luence o! custom is in no respect more compelling than in
this namely habituation to sub<ection. (t is said that ;ithridates
11
trained himsel! to drin9 poison. Li9e him we learn to swallow and not to
!ind bitter the venom o! servitude. (t cannot be denied that nature is
in!luential in shaping us to her will and ma9ing us reveal our rich or
meager endowmentK yet it must be admitted that she has less power
over us than custom !or the reason that native endowment no matter
how good is dissipated unless encouraged whereas environment
always shapes us in its own way whatever that may be in spite o!
natureFs gi!ts. 5he good seed that nature plants in us is so slight and so
slippery that it cannot withstand the least harm !rom wrong
nourishmentK it !lourishes less easily becomes spoiled withers and
comes to nothing. $ruit trees retain their own particular @uality i!
permitted to grow undisturbed but lose it promptly and bear strange
!ruit not their own when ingra!ted. 4very herb has its peculiar
characteristics its virtues and propertiesK yet !rost weather soil or the
gardenerFs hand increase or diminish its strengthK the plant seen in one
221
spot cannot be recogniDed in another.
Whoever could have observed the early ?enetians
13
a hand!ul o!
people living so !reely that the most wic9ed among them would not
wish to be 9ing over them so born and trained that they would not vie
with one another e=cept as to which one could give the best counsel
and nurture their liberty most care!ully so instructed and developed
!rom their cradles that they would not e=change !or all the other
delights o! the world an iota o! their !reedomK who ( say !amiliar with
the original nature o! such a people could visit today the territories o!
the man 9nown as the Areat :oge and there contemplate with
composure a people unwilling to live e=cept to serve him and
maintaining his power at the cost o! their lives7 Who would believe that
these two groups o! people had an identical origin7 Would one not
rather conclude that upon leaving a city o! men he had chanced upon a
menagerie o! beasts7 Lycurgus
12
the lawgiver o! )parta is reported to
have reared two dogs o! the same litter by !attening one in the 9itchen
and training the other in the !ields to the sound o! the bugle and the
horn thereby to demonstrate to the Lacedaemonians that men too
develop according to their early habits. He set the two dogs in the open
mar9et place and between them he placed a bowl o! soup and a hare.
&ne ran to the bowl o! soup the other to the hareK yet they were as he
maintained born brothers o! the same parents. (n such manner did this
leader by his laws and customs shape and instruct the )partans so
well that any one o! them would sooner have died than ac9nowledge
any sovereign other than law and reason.
(t gives me pleasure to recall a conversation o! the olden time between
one o! the !avorites o! >er=es the great 9ing o! 'ersia and two
Lacedaemonians. When >er=es
10
e@uipped his great army to con@uer
Areece he sent his ambassadors into the Aree9 cities to as9 !or water
and earth. 5hat was the procedure the 'ersians adopted in summoning
the cities to surrender. +either to Athens nor to )parta however did he
dispatch such messengers because those who had been sent there by
:arius his !ather had been thrown by the Athenians and )partans
some into ditches and others into wells with the invitation to help
themselves !reely there to water and soil to ta9e bac9 to their prince.
5hose Aree9s could not permit even the slightest suggestion o!
encroachment upon their liberty. 5he )partans suspected
nevertheless that they had incurred the wrath o! the gods by their
action and especially the wrath o! 5althybios
1%
the god o! the heraldsK
in order to appease him they decided to send to >er=es two o! their
223
citiDens in atonement !or the cruel death in!licted upon the
ambassadors o! his !ather. 5wo )partans one named )perte and the
other *ulis volunteered to o!!er themselves as a sacri!ice. )o they
departed and on the way they came to the palace o! the 'ersian
named Hydarnes lieutenant o! the 9ing in all the Asiatic cities situated
on the sea coasts. He received them with great honor !easted them
and then spea9ing o! one thing and another he as9ed them why they
re!used so obdurately his 9ingFs !riendship. OConsider well &
)partansO said he Oand realiDe by my e=ample that the 9ing 9nows
how to honor those who are worthy and believe that i! you were his
men he would do the same !or youK i! you belonged to him and he had
9nown you there is not one among you who might not be the lord o!
some Aree9 city.O
O*y such words Hydarnes you give us no good counselO replied the
Lacedaemonians Obecause you have e=perienced merely the
advantage o! which you spea9K you do not 9now the privilege we en<oy.
Gou have the honor o! the 9ingFs !avorK but you 9now nothing about
liberty what relish it has and how sweet it is. $or i! you had any
9nowledge o! it you yoursel! would advise us to de!end it not with
lance and shield but with our very teeth and nails.O
&nly )partans could give such an answer and surely both o! them
spo9e as they had been trained. (t was impossible !or the 'ersian to
regret liberty not having 9nown it nor !or the Lacedaemonians to !ind
sub<ection acceptable a!ter having en<oyed !reedom.
Cato the Htican
1/
while still a child under the rod could come and go in
the house o! )ylla the despot. *ecause o! the place and !amily o! his
origin and because he and )ylla were close relatives the door was
never closed to him. He always had his teacher with him when he went
there as was the custom !or children o! noble birth. He noticed that in
the house o! )ylla in the dictatorFs presence or at his command some
men were imprisoned and others sentencedK one was banished
another was strangledK one demanded the goods o! another citiDen
another his headK in short all went there not as to the house o! a city
magistrate but as to the peopleFs tyrant and this was there!ore not a
court o! <ustice but rather a resort o! tyranny. Whereupon the young lad
said to his teacher OWhy donFt you give me a dagger7 ( will hide it
under my robe. ( o!ten go into )yllaFs room be!ore he is risen and my
arm is strong enough to rid the city o! him.O 5here is a speech truly
characteristic o! CatoK it was a true beginning o! this hero so worthy o!
222
his end. And should one not mention his name or his country but state
merely the !act as it is the episode itsel! would spea9 elo@uently and
anyone would divine that he was a 8oman born in 8ome at the time
when she was !ree.
And why all this7 Certainly not because ( believe that the land or the
region has anything to do with it !or in any place and in any climate
sub<ection is bitter and to be !ree is pleasantK but merely because ( am
o! the opinion that one should pity those who at birth arrive with the
yo9e upon their nec9s. We should e=onerate and !orgive them since
they have not seen even the shadow o! liberty and being @uite
unaware o! it cannot perceive the evil endured through their own
slavery. (! there were actually a country li9e that o! the Cimmerians
mentioned by Homer where the sun shines otherwise than on our own
shedding its radiance steadily !or si= successive months and then
leaving humanity to drowse in obscurity until it returns at the end o!
another hal!,year should we be surprised to learn that those born
during this long night do grow so accustomed to their native dar9ness
that unless they were told about the sun they would have no desire to
see the light7 &ne never pines !or what he has never 9nownK longing
comes only a!ter en<oyment and constitutes amidst the e=perience o!
sorrow the memory o! past <oy. (t is truly the nature o! man to be !ree
and to wish to be so yet his character is such that he instinctively
!ollows the tendencies that his training gives him.
Let us there!ore admit that all those things to which he is trained and
accustomed seem natural to man and that only that is truly native to
him which he receives with his primitive untrained individuality. 5hus
custom becomes the !irst reason !or voluntary servitude. ;en are li9e
handsome race horses who !irst bite the bit and later li9e it and rearing
under the saddle a while soon learn to en<oy displaying their harness
and prance proudly beneath their trappings. )imilarly men will grow
accustomed to the idea that they have always been in sub<ection that
their !athers lived in the same wayK they will thin9 they are obliged to
su!!er this evil and will persuade themselves by e=ample and imitation
o! others !inally investing those who order them around with
proprietary rights based on the idea that it has always been that way.
5here are always a !ew better endowed than others who !eel the
weight o! the yo9e and cannot restrain themselves !rom attempting to
sha9e it o!!. these are the men who never become tamed under
sub<ection and who always li9e Hlysses on land and sea constantly
220
see9ing the smo9e o! his chimney cannot prevent themselves !rom
peering about !or their natural privileges and !rom remembering their
ancestors and their !ormer ways. 5hese are in !act the men who
possessed o! clear minds and !ar,sighted spirit are not satis!ied li9e
the brutish mass to see only what is at their !eet but rather loo9 about
them behind and be!ore and even recall the things o! the past in order
to <udge those o! the !uture and compare both with their present
condition. 5hese are the ones who having good minds o! their own
have !urther trained them by study and learning. 4ven i! liberty had
entirely perished !rom the earth such men would invent it. $or them
slavery has no satis!actions no matter how well disguised.
5he Arand 5ur9 was well aware that boo9s and teaching more than
anything else give men the sense to comprehend their own nature and
to detest tyranny. ( understand that in his territory there are !ew
educated people !or he does not want many. &n account o! this
restriction men o! strong Deal and devotion who in spite o! the passing
o! time have preserved their love o! !reedom still remain ine!!ective
because however numerous they may be they are not 9nown to one
anotherK under the tyrant they have lost !reedom o! action o! speech
and almost o! thoughtK they are alone in their aspiration. (ndeed
;omus god o! moc9ery was not merely <o9ing when he !ound this to
criticiDe in the man !ashioned by ?ulcan namely that the ma9er had
not set a little window in his creatureFs heart to render his thoughts
visible. (t is reported that *rutus Cassius and Casca on underta9ing
to !ree 8ome and !or that matter the whole world re!used to include in
their band Cicero
20
that great enthusiast !or the public wel!are i! ever
there was one because they considered his heart too timid !or such a
lo!ty deedK they trusted his willingness but they were none too sure o!
his courage. Get whoever studies the deeds o! earlier days and the
annals o! anti@uity will !ind practically no instance o! heroes who !ailed
to deliver their country !rom evil hands when they set about their tas9
with a !irm whole,hearted and sincere intention. Liberty as i! to reveal
her nature seems to have given them new strength. Harmodios and
Aristogiton
21
5hrasybulus
22
*rutus the 4lder
2-
?alerianus
21
and :ion
23
achieved success!ully what they planned virtuously. !or hardly ever
does good !ortune !ail a strong will. *rutus the Gounger and Cassius
were success!ul in eliminating servitude and although they perished in
their attempt to restore liberty they did not die miserably "what
blasphemy it would be to say there was anything miserable about these
men either in their death or in their livingQ#. 5heir loss wor9ed great
22%
harm everlasting mis!ortune and complete destruction o! the 8epublic
which appears to have been buried with them. &ther and later
underta9ings against the 8oman emperors were merely plottings o!
ambitious people who deserve no pity !or the mis!ortunes that overtoo9
them !or it is evident that they sought not to destroy but merely to
usurp the crown scheming to drive away the tyrant but to retain
tyranny. $or mysel! ( could not wish such men to prosper and ( am
glad they have shown by their e=ample that the sacred name o! Liberty
must never be used to cover a !alse enterprise.
*ut to come bac9 to the thread o! our discourse which ( have
practically lost. the essential reason why men ta9e orders willingly is
that they are born ser!s and are reared as such. $rom this cause there
!ollows another result namely that people easily become cowardly and
submissive under tyrants. $or this observation ( am deeply grate!ul to
Hippocrates the renowned !ather o! medicine who noted and reported
it in a treatise o! his entitled ,oncerning 'iseases. 5his !amous man
was certainly endowed with a great heart and proved it clearly by his
reply to the Areat Cing
22
who wanted to attach him to his person by
means o! special privileges and large gi!ts. Hippocrates answered
!ran9ly that it would be a weight on his conscience to ma9e use o! his
science !or the cure o! barbarians who wished to slay his !ellow
Aree9s or to serve !aith!ully by his s9ill anyone who undertoo9 to
enslave Areece. 5he letter he sent the 9ing can still be read among his
other wor9s and will !orever testi!y to his great heart and noble
character.
*y this time it should be evident that liberty once lost valor also
perishes. A sub<ect people shows neither gladness nor eagerness in
combat. its men march sullenly to danger almost as i! in bonds and
stulti!iedK they do not !eel throbbing within them that eagerness !or
liberty which engenders scorn o! peril and imparts readiness to ac@uire
honor and glory by a brave death amidst oneFs comrades. Among !ree
men there is competition as to who will do most each !or the common
good each by himsel! all e=pecting to share in the mis!ortunes o!
de!eat or in the bene!its o! victoryK but an enslaved people loses in
addition to this warli9e courage all signs o! enthusiasm !or their hearts
are degraded submissive and incapable o! any great deed. 5yrants
are well aware o! this and in order to degrade their sub<ects !urther
encourage them to assume this attitude and ma9e it instinctive.
>enophon grave historian o! !irst ran9 among the Aree9s wrote a
22/
boo9
20
in which he ma9es )imonides spea9 with Hieron 5yrant o!
)yracuse concerning the an=ieties o! the tyrant. 5his boo9 is !ull o! !ine
and serious remonstrances which in my opinion are as persuasive as
words can be. Would to Aod that all despots who have ever lived might
have 9ept it be!ore their eyes and used it as a mirrorQ ( cannot believe
they would have !ailed to recogniDe their warts and to have conceived
some shame !or their blotches. (n this treatise is e=plained the torment
in which tyrants !ind themselves when obliged to !ear everyone
because they do evil unto every man. Among other things we !ind the
statement that bad 9ings employ !oreigners in their wars and pay them
not daring to entrust weapons in the hands o! their own people whom
they have wronged. "5here have been good 9ings who have used
mercenaries !rom !oreign nations even among the $rench although
more so !ormerly than today but with the @uite di!!erent purpose o!
preserving their own people considering as nothing the loss o! money
in the e!!ort to spare $rench lives. 5hat is ( believe what )cipio
2%
the
great A!rican meant when he said he would rather save one citiDen
than de!eat a hundred enemies.# $or it is plainly evident that the
dictator does not consider his power !irmly established until he has
reached the point where there is no man under him who is o! any
worth.
5here!ore there may be <ustly applied to him the reproach to the master
o! the elephants made by 5hrason and reported by 5erence.
Are you indeed so proud
*ecause you command wild beasts7
2/
5his method tyrants use o! stulti!ying their sub<ects cannot be more
clearly observed than in what Cyrus
-0
did with the Lydians a!ter he had
ta9en )ardis their chie! city and had at his mercy the captured
Croesus their !abulously rich 9ing. When news was brought to him that
the people o! )ardis had rebelled it would have been easy !or him to
reduce them by !orceK but being unwilling either to sac9 such a !ine city
or to maintain an army there to police it he thought o! an unusual
e=pedient !or reducing it. He established in it brothels taverns and
public games and issued the proclamation that the inhabitants were to
en<oy them. He !ound this type o! garrison so e!!ective that he never
again had to draw the sword against the Lydians. 5hese wretched
people en<oyed themselves inventing all 9inds o! games so that the
Latins have derived the word !rom them and what we call pastimes
2-0
they call ludi as i! they meant to say -ydi. +ot all tyrants have
mani!ested so clearly their intention to e!!eminiDe their victimsK but in
!act what the a!orementioned despot publicly proclaimed and put into
e!!ect most o! the others have pursued secretly as an end. (t is indeed
the nature o! the populace whose density is always greater in the
cities to be suspicious toward one who has their wel!are at heart and
gullible toward one who !ools them. :o not imagine that there is any
bird more easily caught by decoy nor any !ish sooner !i=ed on the hoo9
by wormy bait than are all these poor !ools neatly tric9ed into servitude
by the slightest !eather passed so to spea9 be!ore their mouths. 5ruly
it is a marvellous thing that they let themselves be caught so @uic9ly at
the slightest tic9ling o! their !ancy. 'lays !arces spectacles gladiators
strange beasts medals pictures and other such opiates these were
!or ancient peoples the bait toward slavery the price o! their liberty the
instruments o! tyranny. *y these practices and enticements the ancient
dictators so success!ully lulled their sub<ects under the yo9e that the
stupe!ied peoples !ascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures
!lashed be!ore their eyes learned subservience as naively but not so
creditably as little children learn to read by loo9ing at bright picture
boo9s. 8oman tyrants invented a !urther re!inement. 5hey o!ten
provided the city wards with !easts to ca<ole the rabble always more
readily tempted by the pleasure o! eating than by anything else. 5he
most intelligent and understanding amongst them would not have @uit
his soup bowl to recover the liberty o! the 8epublic o! 'lato. 5yrants
would distribute largess a bushel o! wheat a gallon o! wine and a
sesterce.
-1
and then everybody would shamelessly cry OLong live the
CingQO 5he !ools did not realiDe that they were merely recovering a
portion o! their own property and that their ruler could not have given
them what they were receiving without having !irst ta9en it !rom them. A
man might one day be presented with a sesterce and gorge himsel! at
the public !east lauding 5iberius and +ero !or handsome liberality who
on the morrow would be !orced to abandon his property to their
avarice his children to their lust his very blood to the cruelty o! these
magni!icent emperors without o!!ering any more resistance than a
stone or a tree stump. 5he mob has always behaved in this way J
eagerly open to bribes that cannot be honorably accepted and
dissolutely callous to degradation and insult that cannot be honorably
endured. +owadays ( do not meet anyone who on hearing mention o!
+ero does not shudder at the very name o! that hideous monster that
disgusting and vile pestilence. Get when he died J when this
incendiary this e=ecutioner this savage beast died as vilely as he had
2-1
lived J the noble 8oman people mind!ul o! his games and his !estivals
were saddened to the point o! wearing mourning !or him. 5hus wrote
Cornelius 5acitus
-2
a competent and serious author and one o! the
most reliable. 5his will not be considered peculiar in view o! what this
same people had previously done at the death o! 6ulius Caesar who
had swept away their laws and their liberty in whose character it
seems to me there was nothing worth while !or his very liberality
which is so highly praised was more bane!ul than the crudest tyrant
who ever e=isted because it was actually this poisonous amiability o!
his that sweetened servitude !or the 8oman people. A!ter his death
that people still preserving on their palates the !lavor o! his ban@uets
and in their minds the memory o! his prodigality vied with one another
to pay him homage. 5hey piled up the seats o! the $orum !or the great
!ire that reduced his body to ashes and later raised a column to him as
to O5he $ather o! His 'eople.O
--
")uch was the inscription on the
capital.# 5hey did him more honor dead as he was than they had any
right to con!er upon any man in the world e=cept perhaps on those
who had 9illed him.
5hey didnFt even neglect these 8oman emperors to assume generally
the title o! 5ribune o! the 'eople partly because this o!!ice was held
sacred and inviolable and also because it had been !ounded !or the
de!ense and protection o! the people and en<oyed the !avor o! the state.
*y this means they made sure that the populace would trust them
completely as i! they merely used the title and did not abuse it. 5oday
there are some who do not behave very di!!erently. they never
underta9e an un<ust policy even one o! some importance without
pre!acing it with some pretty speech concerning public wel!are and
common good. Gou well 9now & Longa this !ormula which they use
@uite cleverly in certain placesK although !or the most part to be sure
there cannot be cleverness where there is so much impudence. 5he
9ings o! the Assyrians and even a!ter them those o! the ;edes showed
themselves in public as seldom as possible in order to set up a doubt in
the minds o! the rabble as to whether they were not in some way more
than man and thereby to encourage people to use their imagination !or
those things which they cannot <udge by sight. 5hus a great many
nations who !or a long time dwelt under the control o! the Assyrians
became accustomed with all this mystery to their own sub<ection and
submitted the more readily !or not 9nowing what sort o! master they
had or scarcely even i! they had one all o! them !earing by report
someone they had never seen. 5he earliest 9ings o! 4gypt rarely
2-2
showed themselves without carrying a cat or sometimes a branch or
appearing with !ire on their heads mas9ing themselves with these
ob<ects and parading li9e wor9ers o! magic. *y doing this they inspired
their sub<ects with reverence and admiration whereas with people
neither too stupid nor too slavish they would merely have aroused it
seems to me amusement and laughter. (t is piti!ul to review the list o!
devices that early despots used to establish their tyrannyK to discover
how many little tric9s they employed always !inding the populace
conveniently gullible readily caught in the net as soon as it was
spread. (ndeed they always !ooled their victims so easily that while
moc9ing them they enslaved them the more.
What comment can ( ma9e concerning another !ine counter!eit that
ancient peoples accepted as true money7 5hey believed !irmly that the
great toe o! 'yrrhus
-1
9ing o! 4pirus per!ormed miracles and cured
diseases o! the spleenK they even enhanced the tale !urther with the
legend that this toe a!ter the corpse had been burned was !ound
among the ashes untouched by the !ire. (n this wise a !oolish people
itsel! invents lies and then believes them. ;any men have recounted
such things but in such a way that it is easy to see that the parts were
pieced together !rom idle gossip o! the city and silly reports !rom the
rabble. When ?espasian
-3
returning !rom Assyria passes through
Ale=andria on his way to 8ome to ta9e possession o! the empire he
per!orms wonders. he ma9es the crippled straight restores sight to the
blind and does many other !ine things concerning which the credulous
and undiscriminating were in my opinion more blind than those cured.
5yrants themselves have wondered that men could endure the
persecution o! a single manK they have insisted on using religion !or
their own protection and where possible have borrowed a stray bit o!
divinity to bolster up their evil ways. (! we are to believe the )ybil o!
?irgil )almoneus
-2
in torment !or having paraded as 6upiter in order to
deceive the populace now atones in nethermost Hell.
He su!!ered endless torment !or having dared to
imitate
5he thunderbolts o! heaven and the !lames o! 6upiter.
Hpon a chariot drawn by !our chargers he went
unsteadily
8iding alo!t in his !ist a great shining torch.
Among the Aree9s and into the mar9et,place
(n the heart o! the city o! 4lis he had ridden boldly.
And displaying thus his vainglory he assumed
2--
An honor which undeniably belongs to the gods
alone.
5his !ool who imitated storm and the inimitable
thunderbolt
*y clash o! brass and with his diDDying charge
&n horn,hoo!ed steeds the all,power!ul $ather
beheld
Hurled not a torch nor the !eeble light
$rom a wa=en taper with its smo9y !umes
*ut by the !urious blast o! thunder and lightning
He brought him low his heels above his head.
-0
(! such a one who in his time acted merely through the !olly o!
insolence is so well received in Hell ( thin9 that those who have used
religion as a cloa9 to hide their vileness will be even more deservedly
lodged in the same place.
&ur own leaders have employed in $rance certain similar devices such
as toads !leurs,de,lys sacred vessels and standards with !lames o!
gold.
-%
However that may be ( do not wish !or my part to be
incredulous since neither we nor our ancestors have had any occasion
up to now !or s9epticism. &ur 9ings have always been so generous in
times o! peace and so valiant in time o! war that !rom birth they seem
not to have been created by nature li9e many others but even be!ore
birth to have been designated by Almighty Aod !or the government and
preservation o! this 9ingdom. 4ven i! this were not so yet should ( not
enter the tilting ground to call in @uestion the truth o! our traditions or to
e=amine them so strictly as to ta9e away their !ine conceits. Here is
such a !ield !or our $rench poetry now not merely honored but it
seems to me reborn through our 8onsard our *a_! our *ellay.
-/
5hese
poets are de!ending our language so well that ( dare to believe that
very soon neither the Aree9s nor the Latins will in this respect have any
advantage over us e=cept possibly that o! seniority. And ( should
assuredly do wrong to our poesy J ( li9e to use that word despite the
!act that several have rimed mechanically !or ( still discern a number o!
men today capable o! ennobling poetry and restoring it to its !irst lustre
J but as ( say ( should do the ;use great in<ury i! ( deprived her now
o! those !ine tales about Cing Clovis amongst which it seems to me (
can already see how agreeably and how happily the inspiration o! our
8onsard in his 5ranciade
10
will play. ( appreciate his lo!tiness ( am
aware o! his 9een spirit and ( 9now the charm o! the man. he will
2-1
appropriate the ori!lamme to his use much as did the 8omans their
sacred buc9lers and the shields cast !rom heaven to earth according to
?irgil.
11
He will use our phial o! holy oil much as the Athenians used the
bas9et o! 4ricthoniusK
12
he will win applause !or our deeds o! valor as
they did !or their olive wreath which they insist can still be !ound in
;inervaFs tower. Certainly ( should be presumptuous i! ( tried to cast
slurs on our records and thus invade the realm o! our poets.
*ut to return to our sub<ect the thread o! which ( have unwittingly lost in
this discussion. it has always happened that tyrants in order to
strengthen their power have made every e!!ort to train their people not
only in obedience and servility toward themselves but also in
adoration. 5here!ore all that ( have said up to the present concerning
the means by which a more willing submission has been obtained
applies to dictators in their relationship with the in!erior and common
classes.
( come now to a point which is in my opinion the mainspring and the
secret o! domination the support and !oundation o! tyranny. Whoever
thin9s that halberds sentries the placing o! the watch serve to protect
and shield tyrants is in my <udgment completely mista9en. 5hese are
used it seems to me more !or ceremony and a show o! !orce than !or
any reliance placed in them. 5he archers !orbid the entrance to the
palace to the poorly dressed who have no weapons not to the well
armed who can carry out some plot. Certainly it is easy to say o! the
8oman emperors that !ewer escaped !rom danger by the aid o! their
guards than were 9illed by their own archers. (t is not the troops on
horsebac9 it is not the companies a!oot it is not arms that de!end the
tyrant. 5his does not seem credible on !irst thought but it is
nevertheless true that there are only !our or !ive who maintain the
dictator !our or !ive who 9eep the country in bondage to him. $ive or
si= have always had access to his ear and have either gone to him o!
their own accord or else have been summoned by him to be
accomplices in his cruelties companions in his pleasures panders to
his lusts and sharers in his plunders. 5hese si= manage their chie! so
success!ully that he comes to be held accountable not only !or his own
misdeeds but even !or theirs. 5he si= have si= hundred who pro!it
under them and with the si= hundred they do what they have
accomplished with their tyrant. 5he si= hundred maintain under them
si= thousand whom they promote in ran9 upon whom they con!er the
government o! provinces or the direction o! !inances in order that they
may serve as instruments o! avarice and cruelty e=ecuting orders at
2-3
the proper time and wor9ing such havoc all around that they could not
last e=cept under the shadow o! the si= hundred nor be e=empt !rom
law and punishment e=cept through their in!luence.
5he conse@uence o! all this is !atal indeed. And whoever is pleased to
unwind the s9ein will observe that not the si= thousand but a hundred
thousand and even millions cling to the tyrant by this cord to which
they are tied. According to Homer 6upiter boasts o! being able to draw
to himsel! all the gods when he pulls a chain. )uch a scheme caused
the increase in the senate under 6ulius
1-
the !ormation o! new ran9s
the creation o! o!!icesK not really i! properly considered to re!orm
<ustice but to provide new supporters o! despotism. (n short when the
point is reached through big !avors or little ones that large pro!its or
small are obtained under a tyrant there are !ound almost as many
people to whom tyranny seems advantageous as those to whom liberty
would seem desirable. :octors declare that i! when some part o! the
body has gangrene a disturbance arises in another spot it immediately
!lows to the troubled part. 4ven so whenever a ruler ma9es himsel! a
dictator all the wic9ed dregs o! the nation J ( do not mean the pac9 o!
petty thieves and earless ru!!ians
11
who in a republic are unimportant
in evil or good J but all those who are corrupted by burning ambition or
e=traordinary avarice these gather round him and support him in order
to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chie!s
under the big tyrant. 5his is the practice among notorious robbers and
!amous pirates. some scour the country others pursue voyagersK some
lie in ambush others 9eep a loo9outK some commit murder others
robberyK and although there are among them di!!erences in ran9 some
being only underlings while others are chie!tains o! gangs yet is there
not a single one among them who does not !eel himsel! to be a sharer
i! not o! the main booty at least in the pursuit o! it. (t is dependably
related that )icilian pirates gathered in such great numbers that it
became necessary to send against them 'ompey the Areat
13
and that
they drew into their alliance !ine towns and great cities in whose
harbors they too9 re!uge on returning !rom their e=peditions paying
handsomely !or the haven given their stolen goods.
5hus the despot subdues his sub<ects some o! them by means o!
others and thus is he protected by those !rom whom i! they were
decent men he would have to guard himsel!K <ust as in order to split
wood one has to use a wedge o! the wood itsel!. )uch are his archers
his guards his halberdiersK not that they themselves do not su!!er
occasionally at his hands but this ri!!,ra!! abandoned ali9e by Aod and
2-2
man can be led to endure evil i! permitted to commit it not against him
who e=ploits them but against those who li9e themselves submit but
are helpless. +evertheless observing those men who pain!ully serve
the tyrant in order to win some pro!it !rom his tyranny and !rom the
sub<ection o! the populace ( am o!ten overcome with amaDement at
their wic9edness and sometimes by pity !or their !olly. $or in all
honesty can it be in any way e=cept in !olly that you approach a tyrant
withdrawing !urther !rom your liberty and so to spea9 embracing with
both hands your servitude7 Let such men lay aside brie!ly their
ambition or let them !orget !or a moment their avarice and loo9 at
themselves as they really are. 5hen they will realiDe clearly that the
townspeople the peasants whom they trample under !oot and treat
worse than convicts or slaves they will realiDe ( say that these people
mistreated as they may be are nevertheless in comparison with
themselves better o!! and !airly !ree. 5he tiller o! the soil and the
artisan no matter how enslaved discharge their obligation when they
do what they are told to doK but the dictator sees men about him
wooing and begging his !avor and doing much more than he tells them
to do. )uch men must not only obey ordersK they must anticipate his
wishesK to satis!y him they must !oresee his desiresK they must wear
themselves out torment themselves 9ill themselves with wor9 in his
interest and accept his pleasure as their own neglecting their
pre!erences !or his distorting their character and corrupting their
natureK they must pay heed to his words to his intonation to his
gestures and to his glance. Let them have no eye nor !oot nor hand
that is not alert to respond to his wishes or to see9 out his thoughts.
Can that be called a happy li!e7 Can it be called living7 (s there
anything more intolerable than that situation ( wonFt say !or a man o!
mettle nor even !or a man o! high birth but simply !or a man o!
common sense or to go even !urther !or anyone having the !ace o! a
man7 What condition is more wretched than to live thus with nothing to
call oneFs own receiving !rom someone else oneFs sustenance oneFs
power to act oneFs body oneFs very li!e7
)till men accept servility in order to ac@uire wealthK as i! they could
ac@uire anything o! their own when they cannot even assert that they
belong to themselves or as i! anyone could possess under a tyrant a
single thing in his own name. Get they act as i! their wealth really
belonged to them and !orget that it is they themselves who give the
ruler the power to deprive everybody o! everything leaving nothing that
anyone can identi!y as belonging to somebody. 5hey notice that
2-0
nothing ma9es men so subservient to a tyrantFs cruelty as propertyK that
the possession o! wealth is the worst o! crimes against him punishable
even by deathK that he loves nothing @uite so much as money and ruins
only the rich who come be!ore him as be!ore a butcher o!!ering
themselves so stu!!ed and bulging that they ma9e his mouth water.
5hese !avorites should not recall so much the memory o! those who
have won great wealth !rom tyrants as o! those who a!ter they had !or
some time amassed it have lost to him their property as well as their
livesK they should consider not how many others have gained a !ortune
but rather how !ew o! them have 9ept it. Whether we e=amine ancient
history or simply the times in which we live we shall see clearly how
great is the number o! those who having by shame!ul means won the
ear o! princes J who either pro!it !rom their villainies or ta9e advantage
o! their na_vetB J were in the end reduced to nothing by these very
princesK and although at !irst such servitors were met by a ready
willingness to promote their interests they later !ound an e@ually
obvious inconstancy which brought them to ruin. Certainly among so
large a number o! people who have at one time or another had some
relationship with bad rulers there have been !ew or practically none at
all who have not !elt applied to themselves the tyrantFs animosity which
they had !ormerly stirred up against others. ;ost o!ten a!ter becoming
rich by despoiling others under the !avor o! his protection they !ind
themselves at last enriching him with their own spoils.
4ven men o! character J i! it sometimes happens that a tyrant li9es
such a man well enough to hold him in his good graces because in him
shine !orth the virtue and integrity that inspire a certain reverence even
in the most depraved J even men o! character ( say could not long
avoid succumbing to the common malady and would early e=perience
the e!!ects o! tyranny at their own e=pense. A )eneca a *urrus a
5hrasea this triumvirate
12
o! splendid men will provide a su!!icient
reminder o! such mis!ortune. 5wo o! them were close to the tyrant by
the !atal responsibility o! holding in their hands the management o! his
a!!airs and both were esteemed and beloved by him. &ne o! them
moreover had a peculiar claim upon his !riendship having instructed
his master as a child. Get these three by their cruel death give su!!icient
evidence o! how little !aith one can place in the !riendship o! an evil
ruler. (ndeed what !riendship may be e=pected !rom one whose heart is
bitter enough to hate even his own people who do naught else but
obey him7 (t is because he does not 9now how to love that he
ultimately impoverishes his own spirit and destroys his own empire.
2-%
+ow i! one would argue that these men !ell into disgrace because they
wanted to act honorably let him loo9 around boldly at others close to
that same tyrant and he will see that those who came into his !avor
and maintained themselves by dishonorable means did not !are much
better. Who has ever heard tell o! a love more centered o! an a!!ection
more persistent who has ever read o! a man more desperately
attached to a woman than +ero was to 'oppaea7 Get she was later
poisoned by his own hand.
10
Agrippina his mother had 9illed her
husband Claudius in order to e=alt her sonK to grati!y him she had
never hesitated at doing or bearing anythingK and yet this very son her
o!!spring her emperor elevated by her hand a!ter !ailing her o!ten
!inally too9 her li!e.
1%
(t is indeed true that no one denies she would
have well deserved this punishment i! only it had come to her by some
other hand than that o! the son she had brought into the world. Who
was ever more easily managed more naive or to spea9 @uite !ran9ly
a greater simpleton than Claudius the 4mperor7 Who was ever more
wrapped up in his wi!e than he in ;essalina
1/
whom he delivered
!inally into the hands o! the e=ecutioner7 )tupidity in a tyrant always
renders him incapable o! benevolent actionK but in some mysterious
way by dint o! acting cruelly even towards those who are his closest
associates he seems to mani!est what little intelligence he may have.
`uite generally 9nown is the stri9ing phrase o! that other tyrant who
gaDing at the throat o! his wi!e a woman he dearly loved and without
whom it seemed he could not live caressed her with this charming
comment. O5his lovely throat would be cut at once i! ( but gave the
order.O
30
5hat is why the ma<ority o! the dictators o! !ormer days were
commonly slain by their closest !avorites who observing the nature o!
tyranny could not be so con!ident o! the whim o! the tyrant as they
were distrust!ul o! his power. 5hus was :omitian
31
9illed by )tephen
Commodus by one o! his mistresses
32
Antoninus by ;acrinus
3-
and
practically all the others in similar violent !ashion. 5he !act is that the
tyrant is never truly loved nor does he love. $riendship is a sacred
word a holy thingK it is never developed e=cept between persons o!
character and never ta9es root e=cept through mutual respectK it
!lourishes not so much by 9indnesses as by sincerity. What ma9es one
!riend sure o! another is the 9nowledge o! his integrity. as guarantees
he has his !riendFs !ine nature his honor and his constancy. 5here can
be no !riendship where there is cruelty where there is disloyalty where
there is in<ustice. And in places where the wic9ed gather there is
conspiracy only not companionship. these have no a!!ection !or one
2-/
anotherK !ear alone holds them togetherK they are not !riends they are
merely accomplices.
Although it might not be impossible yet it would be di!!icult to !ind true
!riendship in a tyrantK elevated above others and having no
companions he !inds himsel! already beyond the pale o! !riendship
which receives its real sustenance !rom an e@uality that to proceed
without a limp must have its two limbs e@ual. 5hat is why there is
honor among thieves "or so it is reported# in the sharing o! the bootyK
they are peers and comradesK i! they are not !ond o! one another they
at least respect one another and do not see9 to lessen their strength by
s@uabbling. *ut the !avorites o! a tyrant can never !eel entirely secure
and the less so because he has learned !rom them that he is all
power!ul and unlimited by any law or obligation. 5hus it becomes his
wont to consider his own will as reason enough and to be master o! all
with never a compeer. 5here!ore it seems a pity that with so many
e=amples at hand with the danger always present no one is an=ious
to act the wise man at the e=pense o! the others and that among so
many persons !awning upon their ruler there is not a single one who
has the wisdom and the boldness to say to him what according to the
!able the !o= said to the lion who !eigned illness. O( should be glad to
enter your lair to pay my respectsK but ( see many trac9s o! beasts that
have gone toward you yet not a single trace o! any who have come
bac9.O
5hese wretches see the glint o! the despotFs treasures and are
bedaDDled by the radiance o! his splendor. :rawn by this brilliance they
come near without realiDing they are approaching a !lame that cannot
!ail to scorch them. )imilarly attracted the indiscreet satyr o! the old
!ables on seeing the bright !ire brought down by 'rometheus !ound it
so beauti!ul that he went and 9issed it and was burnedK so as the
5uscan
31
poet reminds us the moth intent upon desire see9s the
!lame because it shines and also e=periences its other @uality the
burning. ;oreover even admitting that !avorites may at times escape
!rom the hands o! him they serve they are never sa!e !rom the ruler
who comes a!ter him. (! he is good they must render an account o!
their past and recogniDe at last that <ustice e=istsK i! he is bad and
resembles their late master he will certainly have his own !avorites
who are not usually satis!ied to occupy in their turn merely the posts o!
their predecessors but will more o!ten insist on their wealth and their
lives. Can anyone be !ound then who under such perilous
circumstances and with so little security will still be ambitious to !ill such
210
an ill,!ated position and serve despite such perils so dangerous a
master7 Aood Aod what su!!ering what martyrdom all this involvesQ
5o be occupied night and day in planning to please one person and
yet to !ear him more than anyone else in the worldK to be always on the
watch ears open wondering whence the blow will comeK to search out
conspiracy to be on guard against snares to scan the !aces o!
companions !or signs o! treachery to smile at everybody and be
mortally a!raid o! all to be sure o! nobody either as an open enemy or
as a reliable !riendK showing always a gay countenance despite an
apprehensive heart unable to be <oyous yet not daring to be sadQ
However there is satis!action in e=amining what they get out o! all this
torment what advantage they derive !rom all the trouble o! their
wretched e=istence. Actually the people never blame the tyrant !or the
evils they su!!er but they do place responsibility on those who
in!luence himK peoples nations all compete with one another even the
peasants even the tillers o! the soil in mentioning the names o! the
!avorites in analyDing their vices and heaping upon them a thousand
insults a thousand obscenities a thousand maledictions. All their
prayers all their vows are directed against these personsK they hold
them accountable !or all their mis!ortunes their pestilences their
!aminesK and i! at times they show them outward respect at those very
moments they are !uming in their hearts and hold them in greater
horror than wild beasts. 5his is the glory and honor heaped upon
in!luential !avorites !or their services by people who i! they could tear
apart their living bodies would still clamor !or more only hal! satiated
by the agony they might behold. $or even when the !avorites are dead
those who live a!ter are never too laDy to blac9en the names o! these
man,eaters with the in9 o! a thousand pens tear their reputations into
bits in a thousand boo9s and drag so to spea9 their bones past
posterity !orever punishing them a!ter their death !or their wic9ed lives.
Let us there!ore learn while there is yet time let us learn to do good.
Let us raise our eyes to Heaven !or the sa9e o! our honor !or the very
love o! virtue or to spea9 wisely !or the love and praise o! Aod
Almighty who is the in!allible witness o! our deeds and the <ust <udge o!
our !aults. As !or me ( truly believe ( am right since there is nothing so
contrary to a generous and loving Aod as dictatorship J ( believe He
has reserved in a separate spot in Hell some very special punishment
!or tyrants and their accomplices.
211
+otes.
1
Iliad *oo9 (( Lines 201,203.
2
Aovernment by a single ruler. $rom the Aree9 monos "single# and
arkhein "to command#.
-
At this point begins the te=t o! the long !ragment published in the
%eveille40atin des 5ranDois. )ee (ntroduction p. =vii.
1
An autocratic council o! thirty magistrates that governed Athens !or
eight months in 101 *.C. 5hey e=hibited such monstrous despotism
that the city rose in anger and drove them !orth.
3
Athenian general died 1%/ *.C. )ome o! his battles. e=pedition
against )cythiansK LemnosK (mbrosK ;arathon where :arius the
'ersian was de!eated.
2
Cing o! )parta died at 5hermopylae in 1%0 *.C. de!ending the pass
with three hundred loyal )partans against >er=es.
0
Athenian statesman and general died 120 *.C. )ome o! his battles.
e=pedition against Aegean (slesK victory over 'ersians under >er=es at
)alamis.
%
)ee (ntroduction p. =.
/
5he re!erence is to )aul anointed by )amuel.
10
Ale=ander the ;acedonian became the ac9nowledged master o! all
Hellenes at the Assembly o! Corinth --3 *.C.
11
Athenian tyrant died 320 *.C. He used ruse and bluster to control
the city and was obliged to !lee several times.
12
5he name )yracuse is derived !rom )yraca the marshland near
which the city was !ounded. 5he author is misin!ormed about
O)arragousseO which is the )panish NaragoDa capital o! Aragan.
1-
:enis or :ionysius tyrant o! )yracuse died in -20 *.C. &! lowly
birth this dictator imposed himsel! by plottings putsches and purges.
5he danger !rom which he saved his city was the invasion by the
Carthaginians.
11
;ithridates "c. 1-3,2- *.C.# was ne=t to Hannibal the most dreaded
and potent enemy o! 8oman 'ower. 5he re!erence in the te=t is to his
youth when he spent some years in retirement hardening himsel! and
immuniDing himsel! against poison. (n his old age de!eated by
212
'ompey betrayed by his own son he tried poison and !inally had to
resort to the dagger o! a !riendly Aaul. "'liny /atural 1istory >>(? 2.#
13
5his passage probably suggested to ;ontaigne that his !riend would
have been glad to see the light in ?enice. )ee @ssays *oo9 ( Chapter
>>?(((.
12
A hal!,legendary !igure concerning whose li!e 'lutarch admits there is
much obscurity. He be@ueathed to his land a rigid code regulating land
assembly education with the individual subordinate to the state.
10
5he 'ersian !leet and army under >er=es or Ahasuerus set out !rom
)ardis in 1%0 and were at !irst success!ul even ta9ing Athens and
driving the Aree9s to their last line o! de!ense in the *ay o! )alamis.
:arius the !ather o! >er=es had made a similar incursion into Areece
but was stopped at ;arathon.
1%
5he messenger and herald o! Agamemnon in the Iliad.
1/
;arcus 'orcius Cato o!ten called the Htican !rom the city where in
12 *.C. a!ter reading the +haedo o! 'lato he ended his li!e. He was
an uncompromising re!ormer and relentlessly attac9ed the vicious heirs
to the power o! Lucius Cornelius )ylla the 8oman dictator "1-2,0%
*.C.#. 5he Htican born in /3 *.C. was only seventeen years old when
)ylla died.
20
Cited !rom 'lutarchFs -ife of ,icero.
21
5radition made o! Harmodios and Aristogiton martyrs !or Athenian
liberty. 5hey plotted the death o! the tyrant Hippias but were betrayed
and put to death by torture c. 300 *.C.
22
Athenian statesmen and general "died -%% *.C.# who ousted the
5hirty 5yrants !rom power in Athens and restored the government to
the people.
2-
Lucius 6unius *rutus was the leader o! the 8oman revolution which
overthrew the tyranny o! 5ar@uinius )uperbus c. 300 *.C. and
established the republic under the two praetors or consuls. As one o!
these magistrates it became his dolorous duty to condemn to death his
two sons because they had plotted !or the return o! the 5ar@uins.
21
'ublius Licinius ?alerianus was a brilliant military leader chosen by
his troops to be 4mperor during a time o! great anarchy. He met his
death in 'ersia "220 A.:.#.
21-
23
:ion o! )yracuse "100,-317 *.C.# was !amous !or his protection o!
'lato in )icily and !or his e=pedition in -30 which !reed his city !rom
the tyranny o! :enis.
22
Arta=er=es.
20
5he 1ieron a youth!ul didactic wor9 consisting o! a dialogue
between )imonides and the 5yrant o! )yracuse. 5he latter con!esses
his inner doubts and misgivings his weariness at the dangers
constantly besetting him his sadness at not being loved by anyone.
4ven i! he gave up his power he would be in danger !rom the many
enemies he has made. )imonides advises him to mend his ways and
try 9indness and generosity as a way o! government.
2%
'ublius Cornelius )cipio "2-3,1%- *.C.# led the brilliant campaign in
A!rica which caused HannibalFs recall !rom (taly and his !inal de!eat.
2/
9he @unuch Act ((( )cene 1.
-0
Cyrus the Areat "died 32% *.C.# !ounder o! the 'ersian 4mpire
attac9ed Croesus be!ore the latter could organiDe his army and drove
him in mid,winter out o! his capital o! )ardis. 5he episode here
mentioned is related in 1erodotus *oo9 ( chap. %2.
-1
A 8oman coin "semis,hal! tertius,third# o! variable value originally o!
silver later o! bronDe.
-2
(n his 1istories "*oo9 ( chap. 1# which cover the period "2/,/2 A.:.#
!rom the !all o! +ero to the crowning o! +erva.
--
)uetonius -ife of ,aesar paragraphs %1,%%.
-1
5he great dreamer o! empire whose costly victory at Asculum
wrec9ed his hopes o! world domination. He was !inally 9illed "202 *.C.#
by a tile dropped on his head by an old woman. 5his story o! the toe
conies !rom 'lutarchFs -ife of +yrrhus.
-3
5itus $lavius ?espasianus le!t his son 5itus to complete the capture
o! 6erusalem while he newly elected 4mperor by his armies turned
bac9 to 8ome a!ter the death o! Aalba in 2/ A.:. 5he re!erence here is
!ound in )uetonius -ife of <espasian Chapter ?((.
-2
(n Aree9 mythology )almoneus Cing o! 4lis was the son o! Aeolus
and the brother o! )isyphus. He was rec9less and sacrilegious and
claimed to be the e@ual o! Neus by imitating his thunderbolts. Neus
threw him into Hades.
211
-0
2eneid Chapter ?( verses 3%3 et seq.
-%
5hese are re!erences to heraldic emblems o! royalty. 5he sacred
vessel contained the holy oil !or the coronation o! the 9ings o! $rance
said to have been brought by an angel !rom heaven !or the crowning o!
Clovis in 1/2. 5he !leur,de,lis is the well,9nown heraldic !lower dating
!rom the 12th century. (n its earlier !orms it has other elements besides
petals such as arrow tips spi9es and even bees and toads. 5he
ori!lamme or standard o! gold was also adopted by $rench royalty.
&riginally it belonged to the Abbey o! )t. :enis and had a red
bac9ground dotted with stars surrounding a !laming sun. )ome
scholars have noted in the three branches o! the !leur,de,lis a heraldic
trans!ormation o! toads which !ormed presumably the totem o! the
ancient $rancs.
-/
5hese three were the most inspired o! the 'lBiade a group o! seven
poets o! the 8enaissance in $rance. La *oBtieFs boast is impulsive but
natural when one thin9s o! the vigor and hope o! this period. :u *ellay
"131%# published a 'efense of the 5rench -anguage which e=plained
the literary doctrines o! the group. 5he re!erence in the te=t to this
'efense helps date the ,ontr'un.
10
5his un!inished epic has only !our cantosK it attempts to relate how to
$rancus son o! Hector is revealed the glorious !uture o! $rance. He
beholds a visionary procession o! her 9ings descending !rom him all the
way to Charlemagne. Cing Clovis "123,311# o! whom many tales are
told was baptiDed a!ter the miracle o! 5olbiac and !ounded the
;erovingian dynasty. Although the poem was not published till a !ew
days a!ter the ;assacre o! )t. *artholomew 8onsard had spo9en o!
his pro<ect more than twenty years be!ore. He had even read the
!inished 'rologue to Henry (( in 1330. La *oBtieFs early re!erence
bespea9s his close relations with the poets o! his day.
11
2eneid Canto viii verse 221.
12
4ricthonius legendary Cing o! Athens "130-,1332 *.C.# was the son
o! the earth. He is at times represented in the guise o! a serpent carried
by the Cecropides maidens to whom Athens had entrusted him as a
child. 5he allusion here is to the 'anathenaea !estival when maidens
carried garlanded bas9ets on their heads. 8aces were also held !or
which the winners received olive wreaths as priDes.
1-
Hnder Caesar the power o! the )enators was greatly reduced and
military leaders were permitted to share with them legislative and
213
<udicial powers.
11
5he cutting o!! o! ears as a punishment !or thievery is very ancient. (n
the middle ages it was still practiced under )t. Louis. ;en so mutilated
were dishonored and could not enter the clergy or the magistracy.
13
'lutarchFs -ife of +ompey.
12
Lucius Annaeus )eneca "1 *.C.,23 A.:.# was e=iled !rom 8ome to
Corsica !or eight years by the intrigues o! ;essalina wi!e o! Claudius.
Agrippina had him recalled and entrusted to him <ointly with *urrus the
education o! her son +ero. )eneca ended his li!e some !i!teen years
later when +ero suspecting him o! conspiracy ordered him to die.
*urrus similarly tried to restrain the tyrant but he lost his power a!ter the
murder o! Agrippina a crime which he had prevented once be!ore. He
died in 22 A.:. suspecting he had been poisoned. 5hrasea unli9e
these two teachers o! +ero re!used to condone the crime o! matricide.
He attac9ed +ero in the )enate but !inally in 22 A.:. he was
condemned by that august body and a!ter a philosophic discourse
celebrated with his !riends by his side he opened his veins.
10
)he was really 9illed by a 9ic9 according to )uetonius A-ife of /ero
chap. -3# and 5acitus A2nnals *oo9 >?( chap. 2#. )he abetted +ero in
many o! his crimesK the murder o! his mother o! his gentle wi!e
&ctavia. A!ter the brutal death in!licted on 'oppaea +ero shed many
tears.
1%
)uetonius op. cit. chap. -1 and 5acitus op. cit. *oo9 >(( chap. 20.
1/
;essalina "13,1% A.:.# was the !i!th wi!e o! the emperor Claudius. At
!irst honorable mother o! two children she suddenly turned to vice and
has transmitted her name to the ages as a synonym !or the lowest type
o! degraded womanhood. While still the wi!e o! Claudius she married a
!avorite with his connivance. 5he 4mperor !inally convinced o! her
treachery permitted the 9illing o! his wi!e and her lover. He then
married Agrippina who persuaded him to adopt +ero as his son
thereby signing his own death warrant !or his new wi!e by giving him a
plate o! poisonous mushrooms opened the way !or her sonFs
succession to the throne.
30
)uetonius -ife of ,aligula Chapter --.
31
)uetonius -ife of 'omitian Chapter 10. 5he tyrant died in /2 A.:.
a!ter three years o! bestial government inspired by ab<ect !ear o!
conspirators. $inally :omitia his wi!e hatched the plot which led an
212
imperial slave to stab his royal master to death.
32
Herodian *oo9 ( chap. 31. Commodus "121,1/2 A.:.# unworthy son
o! ;arcus Aurelius had planned to put to death his concubine ;arcia.
)he poisoned him !irst.
3-
Ibid. *oo9 (? chap. 2-. 5he re!erence is to ;arcus Aurelius
Antoninus *assianus better 9nown as Caracalla who was 9illed "210
A.:.# in a plot arranged by his own praetor ;acrinas who succeeded
him to power lasted a year and was 9illed in his turn by his own
soldiers.
31
'etrarch ,anzoniere )onnet >?((. La *oBtie has accurately
rendered the lines concerning the moth.
210
Source 0 C
,ohn Loc"e
Second Treatise of ?o#ern!ent
CHAPT)( <I<5 6f the issolution of ?o#ern!ent5
)ec. 211. H4 that will with any clearness spea9 o! the dissolution o!
government ought in the !irst place to distinguish between the
dissolution o! the society and the dissolution o! the government. 5hat
which ma9es the community and brings men out o! the loose state o!
nature into one politic society is the agreement which every one has
with the rest to incorporate and act as one body and so be one distinct
commonwealth. 5he usual and almost only way whereby this union is
dissolved is the inroad o! !oreign !orce ma9ing a con@uest upon them.
!or in that case "not being able to maintain and support themselves as
one intire and independent body# the union belonging to that body
which consisted therein must necessarily cease and so every one
return to the state he was in be!ore with a liberty to shi!t !or himsel!
and provide !or his own sa!ety as he thin9s !it in some other society.
Whenever the society is dissolved it is certain the government o! that
society cannot remain. 5hus con@uerors swords o!ten cut up
governments by the roots and mangle societies to pieces separating
the subdued or scattered multitude !rom the protection o! and
dependence on that society which ought to have preserved them !rom
violence. 5he world is too well instructed in and too !orward to allow o!
this way o! dissolving o! governments to need any more to be said o!
itK and there wants not much argument to prove that where the society
is dissolved the government cannot remainK that being as impossible
as !or the !rame o! an house to subsist when the materials o! it are
scattered and dissipated by a whirl,wind or <umbled into a con!used
heap by an earth@ua9e.
)ec. 212. *esides this over,turning !rom without governments are
dissolved !rom within
$irst When the legislative is altered. Civil society being a state o!
peace amongst those who are o! it !rom whom the state o! war is
e=cluded by the umpirage which they have provided in their legislative
!or the ending all di!!erences that may arise amongst any o! them it is
in their legislative that the members o! a commonwealth are united
21%
and combined together into one coherent living body. 5his is the soul
that gives !orm li!e and unity to the common,wealth. !rom hence the
several members have their mutual in!luence sympathy and
conne=ion. and there!ore when the legislative is bro9en or dissolved
dissolution and death !ollows. !or the essence and union o! the society
consisting in having one will the legislative when once established by
the ma<ority has the declaring and as it were 9eeping o! that will. 5he
constitution o! the legislative is the !irst and !undamental act o! society
whereby provision is made !or the continuation o! their union under the
direction o! persons and bonds o! laws made by persons authoriDed
thereunto by the consent and appointment o! the people without which
no one man or number o! men amongst them can have authority o!
ma9ing laws that shall be binding to the rest. When any one or more
shall ta9e upon them to ma9e laws whom the people have not
appointed so to do they ma9e laws without authority which the people
are not there!ore bound to obeyK by which means they come again to
be out o! sub<ection and may constitute to themselves a new
legislative as they thin9 best being in !ull liberty to resist the !orce o!
those who without authority would impose any thing upon them. 4very
one is at the disposure o! his own will when those who had by the
delegation o! the society the declaring o! the public will are e=cluded
!rom it and others usurp the place who have no such authority or
delegation.
)ec. 21-. 5his being usually brought about by such in the
commonwealth who misuse the power they haveK it is hard to consider
it aright and 9now at whose door to lay it without 9nowing the !orm o!
government in which it happens. Let us suppose then the legislative
placed in the concurrence o! three distinct persons.
1. A single hereditary person having the constant supreme e=ecutive
power and with it the power o! convo9ing and dissolving the other two
within certain periods o! time.
2. An assembly o! hereditary nobility.
-. An assembly o! representatives chosen pro tempore by the people.
)uch a !orm o! government supposed it is evident
)ec. 211. $irst 5hat when such a single person or prince sets up his
own arbitrary will in place o! the laws which are the will o! the society
declared by the legislative then the legislative is changed. !or that
being in e!!ect the legislative whose rules and laws are put in
21/
e=ecution and re@uired to be obeyedK when other laws are set up and
other rules pretended and in!orced than what the legislative
constituted by the society have enacted it is plain that the legislative is
changed. Whoever introduces new laws not being thereunto
authoriDed by the !undamental appointment o! the society or subverts
the old disowns and overturns the power by which they were made
and so sets up a new legislative.
)ec. 213. )econdly When the prince hinders the legislative !rom
assembling in its due time or !rom acting !reely pursuant to those ends
!or which it was constituted the legislative is altered. !or it is not a
certain number o! men no nor their meeting unless they have also
!reedom o! debating and leisure o! per!ecting what is !or the good o!
the society wherein the legislative consists. when these are ta9en
away or altered so as to deprive the society o! the due e=ercise o! their
power the legislative is truly alteredK !or it is not names that constitute
governments but the use and e=ercise o! those powers that were
intended to accompany themK so that he who ta9es away the !reedom
or hinders the acting o! the legislative in its due seasons in e!!ect ta9es
away the legislative and puts an end to the government.
)ec. 212. 5hirdly When by the arbitrary power o! the prince the
electors or ways o! election are altered without the consent and
contrary to the common interest o! the people there also the legislative
is altered. !or i! others than those whom the society hath authoriDed
thereunto do chuse or in another way than what the society hath
prescribed those chosen are not the legislative appointed by the
people.
)ec. 210. $ourthly 5he delivery also o! the people into the sub<ection
o! a !oreign power either by the prince or by the legislative is certainly
a change o! the legislative and so a dissolution o! the government. !or
the end why people entered into society being to be preserved one
intire !ree independent society to be governed by its own lawsK this is
lost whenever they are given up into the power o! another.
)ec. 21%. Why in such a constitution as this the dissolution o! the
government in these cases is to be imputed to the prince is evidentK
because he having the !orce treasure and o!!ices o! the state to
employ and o!ten persuading himsel! or being !lattered by others that
as supreme magistrate he is uncapable o! controulK he alone is in a
condition to ma9e great advances toward such changes under
pretence o! law!ul authority and has it in his hands to terri!y or
230
suppress opposers as !actious seditious and enemies to the
government. whereas no other part o! the legislative or people is
capable by themselves to attempt any alteration o! the legislative
without open and visible rebellion apt enough to be ta9en notice o!
which when it prevails produces e!!ects very little di!!erent !rom !oreign
con@uest. *esides the prince in such a !orm o! government having the
power o! dissolving the other parts o! the legislative and thereby
rendering them private persons they can never in opposition to him or
without his concurrence alter the legislative by a law his consent being
necessary to give any o! their decrees that sanction. *ut yet so !ar as
the other parts o! the legislative any way contribute to any attempt upon
the government and do either promote or notwhat lies in them hinder
such designs they are guilty and parta9e in this which is certainly the
greatest crime men can be guilty o! one towards another.
)ec. 21/. 5here is one way more whereby such a government may be
dissolved and that is. When he who has the supreme e=ecutive power
neglects and abandons that charge so that the laws already made can
no longer be put in e=ecutionK this is demonstratively to reduce all to
anarchy and so e!!ectively to dissolve the government. $or laws not
being made !or themselves but to be by their e=ecution the bonds o!
the society to 9eep every part o! the body politic in its due place and
!unction. When that totally ceases the government visibly ceases and
the people become a con!used multitude without order or connection.
Where there is no longer the administration o! <ustice !or the securing o!
menFs rights nor any remaining power within the community to direct
the !orce or provide !or the necessities o! the public there certainly is
no government le!t. Where the laws cannot be e=ecuted it is all one as
i! there were no laws and a government without laws is ( suppose a
mystery in politics inconceivable to human capacity and inconsistent
with human society.
)ec. 220. (n these and the li9e cases when the government is
dissolved the people are at liberty to provide !or themselves by
erecting a new legislative di!!ering !rom the other by the change o!
persons or !orm or both as they shall !ind it most !or their sa!ety and
good. !or the society can never by the !ault o! another lose the native
and original right it has to preserve itsel! which can only be done by a
settled legislative and a !air and impartial e=ecution o! the laws made
by it. *ut the state o! man9ind is not so miserable that they are not
capable o! using this remedy till it be too late to loo9 !or any. 5o tell
people they may provide !or themselves by erecting a new legislative
231
when by oppression arti!ice or being delivered over to a !oreign
power their old one is gone is only to tell them they may e=pect relie!
when it is too late and the evil is past cure. 5his is in e!!ect no more
than to bid them !irst be slaves and then to ta9e care o! their libertyK
and when their chains are on tell them they may act li9e !reemen.
5his i! barely so is rather moc9ery than relie!K and men can never be
secure !rom tyranny i! there be no means to escape it till they are
per!ectly under it. and there!ore it is that they have not only a right to
get out o! it but to prevent it.
)ec. 221. 5here is there!ore secondly another way whereby
governments are dissolved and that is when the legislative or the
prince either o! them act contrary to their trust. $irst 5he legislative
acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to invade
the property o! the sub<ect and to ma9e themselves or any part o! the
community masters or arbitrary disposers o! the lives liberties or
!ortunes o! the people.
)ec. 222. 5he reason why men enter into society is the preservation o!
their propertyK and the end why they chuse and authoriDe a legislative
is that there may be laws made and rules set as guards and !ences to
the properties o! all the members o! the society to limit the power and
moderate the dominion o! every part and member o! the society. !or
since it can never be supposed to be the will o! the society that the
legislative should have a power to destroy that which every one
designs to secure by entering into society and !or which the people
submitted themselves to legislators o! their own ma9ingK whenever the
legislators endeavour to ta9e away and destroy the property o! the
people or to reduce them to slavery under arbitrary power they put
themselves into a state o! war with the people who are thereupon
absolved !rom any !arther obedience and are le!t to the common
re!uge which Aod hath provided !or all men against !orce and
violence. Whensoever there!ore the legislative shall transgress this
!undamental rule o! societyK and either by ambition !ear !olly or
corruption endeavour to grasp themselves or put into the hands o! any
other an absolute power over the lives liberties and estates o! the
peopleK by this breach o! trust they !or!eit the power the people had put
into their hands !or @uite contrary ends and it devolves to the people
who have a right to resume their original liberty and by the
establishment o! a new legislative "such as they shall thin9 !it# provide
!or their own sa!ety and security which is the end !or which they are in
society. What ( have said here concerning the legislative in general
232
holds true also concerning the supreme e=ecutor who having a double
trust put in him both to have a part in the legislative and the supreme
e=ecution o! the law acts against both when he goes about to set up
his own arbitrary will as the law o! the society. He acts also contrary to
his trust when he either employs the !orce treasure and o!!ices o! the
society to corrupt the representatives and gain them to his purposesK
or openly preengages the electors and prescribes to their choice
such whom he has by sollicitations threats promises or otherwise
won to his designsK and employs them to bring in such who have
promised be!ore,hand what to vote and what to enact. 5hus to
regulate candidates and electors and new,model the ways o! election
what is it but to cut up the government by the roots and poison the
very !ountain o! public security7 !or the people having reserved to
themselves the choice o! their representatives as the !ence to their
properties could do it !or no other end but that they might always be
!reely chosen and so chosen !reely act and advise as the necessity
o! the common,wealth and the public good should upon e=amination
and mature debate be <udged to re@uire. 5his those who give their
votes be!ore they hear the debate and have weighed the reasons on
all sides are not capable o! doing. 5o prepare such an assembly as
this and endeavour to set up the declared abettors o! his own will !or
the true representatives o! the people and the law,ma9ers o! the
society is certainly as great a breach o! trust and as per!ect a
declaration o! a design to subvert the government as is possible to be
met with. 5o which i! one shall add rewards and punishments visibly
employed to the same end and all the arts o! perverted law made use
o! to ta9e o!! and destroy all that stand in the way o! such a design
and will not comply and consent to betray the liberties o! their country
it will be past doubt what is doing. What power they ought to have in
the society who thus employ it contrary to the trust went along with it in
its !irst institution is easy to determineK and one cannot but see that
he who has once attempted any such thing as this cannot any longer
be trusted.
)ec. 22-. 5o this perhaps it will be said that the people being ignorant
and always discontented to lay the !oundation o! government in the
unsteady opinion and uncertain humour o! the people is to e=pose it to
certain ruinK and no government will be able long to subsist i! the
people may set up a new legislative whenever they ta9e o!!ence at the
old one. 5o this ( answer `uite the contrary. 'eople are not so easily
got out o! their old !orms as some are apt to suggest. 5hey are hardly
23-
to be prevailed with to amend the ac9nowledged !aults in the !rame
they have been accustomed to. And i! there be any original de!ects or
adventitious ones introduced by time or corruptionK it is not an easy
thing to get them changed even when all the world sees there is an
opportunity !or it. 5his slowness and aversion in the people to @uit their
old constitutions has in the many revolutions which have been seen in
this 9ingdom in this and !ormer ages still 9ept us to or a!ter some
interval o! !ruitless attempts still brought us bac9 again to our old
legislative o! 9ing lords and commons. and whatever provocations
have made the crown be ta9en !rom some o! our princes heads they
never carried the people so !ar as to place it in another line.
)ec. 221. *ut it will be said this hypothesis lays a !erment !or !re@uent
rebellion. 5o which ( answer
$irst +o more than any other hypothesis. !or when the people are
made miserable and !ind themselves e=posed to the ill usage o!
arbitrary power cry up their governors as much as you will !or sons o!
6upiterK let them be sacred and divine descended or authoriDed !rom
heavenK give them out !or whom or what you please the same will
happen. 5he people generally ill treated and contrary to right will be
ready upon any occasion to ease themselves o! a burden that sits
heavy upon them. 5hey will wish and see9 !or the opportunity which in
the change wea9ness and accidents o! human a!!airs seldom delays
long to o!!er itsel!. He must have lived but a little while in the world who
has not seen e=amples o! this in his timeK and he must have read very
little who cannot produce e=amples o! it in all sorts o! governments in
the world.
)ec. 223. )econdly ( answer such revolutions happen not upon every
little mismanagement in public a!!airs. Areat mista9es in the ruling part
many wrong and inconvenient laws and all the slips o! human !railty
will be born by the people without mutiny or murmur. *ut i! a long train
o! abuses prevarications and arti!ices all tending the same way ma9e
the design visible to the people and they cannot but !eel what they lie
under and see whither they are goingK it is not to be wondered that
they should then rouDe themselves and endeavour to put the rule into
such hands which may secure to them the ends !or which government
was at !irst erectedK and without which ancient names and specious
!orms are so !ar !rom being better that they are much worse than the
state o! nature or pure anarchyK the inconveniencies being all as great
and as near but the remedy !arther o!! and more di!!icult.
231
)ec. 222. 5hirdly ( answer that this doctrine o! a power in the people
o! providing !or their sa!ety a,new by a new legislative when their
legislators have acted contrary to their trust by invading their property
is the best !ence against rebellion and the probablest means to hinder
it. !or rebellion being an opposition not to persons but authority which
is !ounded only in the constitutions and laws o! the governmentK those
whoever they be who by !orce brea9 through and by !orce <usti!y their
violation o! them are truly and properly rebels. !or when men by
entering into society and civil,government have e=cluded !orce and
introduced laws !or the preservation o! property peace and unity
amongst themselves those who set up !orce again in opposition to the
laws do rebellare that is bring bac9 again the state o! war and are
properly rebels. which they who are in power "by the pretence they
have to authority the temptation o! !orce they have in their hands and
the !lattery o! those about them# being li9eliest to doK the properest way
to prevent the evil is to shew them the danger and in<ustice o! it who
are under the greatest temptation to run into it.
)ec. 220. (n both the !ore,mentioned cases when either the legislative
is changed or the legislators act contrary to the end !or which they
were constitutedK those who are guilty are guilty o! rebellion. !or i! any
one by !orce ta9es away the established legislative o! any society and
the laws by them made pursuant to their trust he thereby ta9es away
the umpirage which every one had consented to !or a peaceable
decision o! all their controversies and a bar to the state o! war amongst
them. 5hey who remove or change the legislative ta9e away this
decisive power which no body can have but by the appointment and
consent o! the peopleK and so destroying the authority which the people
did and no body else can set up and introducing a power which the
people hath not authoriDed they actually introduce a state o! war
which is that o! !orce without authority. and thus by removing the
legislative established by the society "in whose decisions the people
ac@uiesced and united as to that o! their own will# they untie the 9not
and e=pose the people a,new to the state o! war. And i! those who by
!orce ta9e away the legislative are rebels the legislators themselves
as has been shewn can be no less esteemed soK when they who were
set up !or the protection and preservation o! the people their liberties
and properties shall by !orce invade and endeavour to ta9e them
awayK and so they putting themselves into a state o! war with those
who made them the protectors and guardians o! their peace are
properly and with the greatest aggravation rebellantes rebels.
233
)ec. 22%. *ut i! they who say it lays a !oundation !or rebellion mean
that it may occasion civil wars or intestine broils to tell the people they
are absolved !rom obedience when illegal attempts are made upon
their liberties or properties and may oppose the unlaw!ul violence o!
those who were their magistrates when they invade their properties
contrary to the trust put in themK and that there!ore this doctrine is not
to be allowed being so destructive to the peace o! the world. they may
as well say upon the same ground that honest men may not oppose
robbers or pirates because this may occasion disorder or bloodshed. (!
any mischie! come in such cases it is not to be charged upon him who
de!ends his own right but on him that invades his neighbours. (! the
innocent honest man must @uietly @uit all he has !or peace sa9e to
him who will lay violent hands upon it ( desire it may be considered
what a 9ind o! peace there will be in the world which consists only in
violence and rapineK and which is to be maintained only !or the bene!it
o! robbers and oppressors. Who would not thin9 it an admirable peace
betwi=t the mighty and the mean when the lamb without resistance
yielded his throat to be torn by the imperious wol!7 'olyphemusFs den
gives us a per!ect pattern o! such a peace and such a government
wherein Hlysses and his companions had nothing to do but @uietly to
su!!er themselves to be devoured. And no doubt Hlysses who was a
prudent man preached up passive obedience and e=horted them to a
@uiet submission by representing to them o! what concernment peace
was to man9indK and by shewing the inconveniences might happen i!
they should o!!er to resist 'olyphemus who had now the power over
them.
)ec. 22/. 5he end o! government is the good o! man9indK and which is
best !or man9ind that the people should be always e=posed to the
boundless will o! tyranny or that the rulers should be sometimes liable
to be opposed when they grow e=orbitant in the use o! their power
and employ it !or the destruction and not the preservation o! the
properties o! their people7
)ec. 2-0. +or let any one say that mischie! can arise !rom hence as
o!ten as it shall please a busy head or turbulent spirit to desire the
alteration o! the government. (t is true such men may stir whenever
they pleaseK but it will be only to their own <ust ruin and perdition. !or till
the mischie! be grown general and the ill designs o! the rulers become
visible or their attempts sensible to the greater part the people who
are more disposed to su!!er than right themselves by resistance are
not apt to stir. 5he e=amples o! particular in<ustice or oppression o!
232
here and there an un!ortunate man moves them not. *ut i! they
universally have a persuasion grounded upon mani!est evidence that
designs are carrying on against their liberties and the general course
and tendency o! things cannot but give them strong suspicions o! the
evil intention o! their governors who is to be blamed !or it7 Who can
help it i! they who might avoid it bring themselves into this suspicion7
Are the people to be blamed i! they have the sense o! rational
creatures and can thin9 o! things no otherwise than as they !ind and
!eel them7 And is it not rather their !ault who put things into such a
posture that they would not have them thought to be as they are7 (
grant that the pride ambition and turbulency o! private men have
sometimes caused great disorders in commonwealths and !actions
have been !atal to states and 9ingdoms. *ut whether the mischie! hath
o!tener begun in the peoples wantonness and a desire to cast o!! the
law!ul authority o! their rulers or in the rulers insolence and
endeavours to get and e=ercise an arbitrary power over their peopleK
whether oppression or disobedience gave the !irst rise to the disorder
( leave it to impartial history to determine. 5his ( am sure whoever
either ruler or sub<ect by !orce goes about to invade the rights o! either
prince or people and lays the !oundation !or overturning the
constitution and !rame o! any <ust government is highly guilty o! the
greatest crime ( thin9 a man is capable o! being to answer !or all
those mischie!s o! blood rapine and desolation which the brea9ing to
pieces o! governments bring on a country. And he who does it is <ustly
to be esteemed the common enemy and pest o! man9ind and is to be
treated accordingly.
230
Source 0
Herbert Spencer
The (ight to Ignore the State
Herbert )pencer was an incredible prophet and a magni!icent de!ender
o! laisseD,!aire. Among his numerous wor9s is 9he 0an <ersus 9he
&tate !irst published in 1%%1. 5hat boo9 launched one o! the most
spirited attac9s on statism ever written. He ridiculed the idea that
government intervention o! any 9ind Owill wor9 as it is intended to wor9
which it never does.O He drew on his tremendous 9nowledge o! history
citing one dramatic case a!ter another o! price controls usury laws
slum clearance laws and myriad other laws which touted as
compassionate policies intensi!ied human misery. *elow is one o! his
essays that e=plores the principles o! sel!,government which Henry
:avid 5horeau de!ended in his seminal essay Civil :isobedience.
The (ight to Ignore the State
1. 5he 8ight to ?oluntary &utlawry
As a corollary to the proposition that all institutions must be
subordinated to the law o! e@ual !reedom we cannot choose but admit
the right o! the citiDen to adopt a condition o! voluntary outlawry. (!
every man has !reedom to do all that he wills provided he in!ringes not
the e@ual !reedom o! any other man then he is !ree to drop connection
with the state J to relin@uish its protection and to re!use paying toward
its support. (t is sel!,evident that in so behaving he in no way trenches
upon the liberty o! othersK !or his position is a passive oneK and whilst
passive he cannot become an aggressor. (t is e@ually sel!,evident that
he cannot be compelled to continue one o! a political corporation
without a breach o! the moral law seeing that citiDenship involves
payment o! ta=esK and the ta9ing away o! a manFs property against his
will is an in!ringement o! his rights. Aovernment being simply an agent
employed in common by a number o! individuals to secure to them
certain advantages the very nature o! the connection implies that it is
!or each to say whether he will employ such an agent or not. (! any one
o! them determines to ignore this mutual,sa!ety con!ederation nothing
can be said e=cept that he loses all claim to its good o!!ices and
e=poses himsel! to the danger o! maltreatment J a thing he is @uite at
liberty to do i! he li9es. He cannot be coerced into political combination
23%
without a breach o! the law o! e@ual !reedomK he can withdraw !rom it
without committing any such breachK and he has there!ore a right so to
withdraw.
2. 5he (mmorality o! the )tate
O+o human laws are o! any validity i! contrary to the law o! natureK and
such o! them as are valid derive all their !orce and all their authority
mediately or immediately !rom this original.O 5hus writes *lac9stone
1
to
whom let all honour be given !or having so !ar outseen the ideas o! his
timeK and indeed we may say o! our time. A good antidote this !or
those political superstitions which so widely prevail. A good chec9 upon
that sentiment o! power,worship which still misleads us by magni!ying
the prerogatives o! constitutional governments as it once did those o!
monarchs. Let men learn that a legislature is not Oour Aod upon earthO
though by the authority they ascribe to it and the things they e=pect
!rom it they would seem to thin9 it is. Let them learn rather that it is an
institution serving a purely temporary purpose whose power when not
stolen is at the best borrowed.
+ay indeed have we not seen that government is essentially immoral7
(s it not the o!!spring o! evil bearing about it all the mar9s o! its
parentage7 :oes it not e=ist because crime e=ists7 (s it not strong or
as we say despotic when crime is great7 (s there not more liberty that
is less government as crime diminishes7 And must not government
cease when crime ceases !or very lac9 o! ob<ects on which to per!orm
its !unction7 +ot only does magisterial power e=ist because o! evilK but
it e=ists by evil. ?iolence is employed to maintain itK and all violence
involves criminality. )oldiers policemen and gaolersK swords batons
and !etters are instruments !or in!licting painK and all in!liction o! pain is
in the abstract wrong. 5he state employs evil weapons to sub<ugate
evil and is ali9e contaminated by the ob<ects with which it deals and
the means by which it wor9s. ;orality cannot recogniDe itK !or morality
being simply a statement o! the per!ect law can give no countenance to
any thing growing out o! and living by breaches o! that law.
Where!ore legislative authority can never be ethical J must always be
conventional merely.
Hence there is a certain inconsistency in the attempt to determine the
right position structure and conduct o! a government by appeal to the
!irst principles o! rectitude. $or as <ust pointed out the acts o! an
institution which is in both nature and origin imper!ect cannot be made
to s@uare with the per!ect law. All that we can do is to ascertain !irstly
23/
in what attitude a legislature must stand to the community to avoid
being by its mere e=istence an embodied wrongK J secondly in what
manner it must be constituted so as to e=hibit the least incongruity with
the moral lawK J and thirdly to what sphere its actions must be limited
to prevent it !rom multiplying those breaches o! e@uity it is set up to
prevent.
5he !irst condition to be con!ormed to be!ore a legislature can be
established without violating the law o! e@ual !reedom is the
ac9nowledgment o! the right now under discussion J the right to ignore
the state.
2
-. 5he 'eople as the )ource o! 'ower
Hpholders o! pure despotism may !itly believe state,control to be
unlimited and unconditional. 5hey who assert that men are made !or
governments and not governments !or men may consistently hold that
no one can remove himsel! beyond the pale o! political organiDation.
*ut they who maintain that the people are the only legitimate source o!
power J that legislative authority is not original but deputed J cannot
deny the right to ignore the state without entangling themselves in an
absurdity.
$or i! legislative authority is deputed it !ollows that those !rom whom it
proceeds are the masters o! those on whom it is con!erred. it !ollows
!urther that as masters they con!er the said authority voluntarily. and
this implies that they may give or withhold it as they please. 5o call that
deputed which is wrenched !rom men whether they will or not is
nonsense. *ut what is here true o! all collectively is e@ually true o! each
separately. As a government can rightly act !or the people only when
empowered by them so also can it rightly act !or the individual only
when empowered by him. (! A * and C debate whether they shall
employ an agent to per!orm !or them a certain service and i! whilst A
and * agree to do so C dissents C cannot e@uitably be made a party
to the agreement in spite o! himsel!. And this must be e@ually true o!
thirty as o! three. and i! o! thirty why not o! three hundred or three
thousand or three millions7
1. )ubordination o! Aovernment Authority
&! the political superstitions lately alluded to none is so universally
di!!used as the notion that ma<orities are omnipotent. Hnder the
impression that the preservation o! order will ever re@uire power to be
wielded by some party the moral sense o! our time !eels that such
220
power cannot rightly be con!erred on any but the largest moiety o!
society. (t interprets literally the saying that Othe voice o! the people is
the voice o! AodO and trans!erring to the one the sacredness attached
to the other it concludes that !rom the will o! the people that is o! the
ma<ority there can be no appeal. Get is this belie! entirely erroneous.
)uppose !or the sa9e o! argument that struc9 by some ;althusian
panic a legislature duly representing public opinion were to enact that
all children born during the ne=t ten years should be drowned. :oes
any one thin9 such an enactment would be warrantable7 (! not there is
evidently a limit to the power o! a ma<ority. )uppose again that o! two
races living together J Celts and )a=ons !or e=ample J the most
numerous determined to ma9e the others their slaves. Would the
authority o! the greatest number be in such case valid7 (! not there is
something to which its authority must be subordinate. )uppose once
more that all men having incomes under 30 pounds a year were to
resolve upon reducing every income above that amount to their own
standard and appropriating the e=cess !or public purposes. Could their
resolution be <usti!ied7 (! not it must be a third time con!essed that
there is a law to which the popular voice must de!er. What then is that
law i! not the law o! pure e@uity J the law o! e@ual !reedom7 5hese
restraints which all would put to the will o! the ma<ority are e=actly the
restraints set up by that law. We deny the right o! a ma<ority to murder
to enslave or to rob simply because murder enslaving and robbery
are violations o! that law J violations too gross to be overloo9ed. *ut i!
great violations o! it are wrong so also are smaller ones. (! the will o!
the many cannot supersede the !irst principle o! morality in these
cases neither can it in any. )o that however insigni!icant the minority
and however tri!ling the proposed trespass against their rights no such
trespass is permissible.
When we have made our constitution purely democratic thin9s to
himsel! the earnest re!ormer we shall have brought government into
harmony with absolute <ustice. )uch a !aith though perhaps need!ul !or
this age is a very erroneous one. *y no process can coercion be made
e@uitable. 5he !reest !orm o! government is only the least ob<ectional
!orm. 5he rule o! the many by the !ew we call tyranny. the rule o! the
!ew by the many is tyranny alsoK only o! a less intense 9ind. OGou shall
do as we will and not as you willO is in either case the declaration. and
i! the hundred ma9e it to the ninety,nine instead o! the ninety,nine to
the hundred it is only a !raction less immoral. &! two such parties
whichever !ul!ils this declaration necessarily brea9s the law o! e@ual
221
!reedom. the only di!!erence being that by the one it is bro9en in the
persons o! ninety,nine whilst by the other it is bro9en in the persons o!
a hundred. And the merit o! the democratic !orm o! government
consists solely in this that it trespasses against the smallest number.
5he very e=istence o! ma<orities and minorities is indicative o! an
immoral state. 5he man whose character harmoniDes with the moral
law we !ound to be one who can obtain complete happiness without
diminishing the happiness o! his !ellows. *ut the enactment o! public
arrangements by vote implies a society consisting o! men otherwise
constituted J implies that the desires o! some cannot be satis!ied
without sacri!icing the desires o! others J implies that in the pursuit o!
their happiness the ma<ority in!lict a certain amount o! unhappiness on
the minority J implies there!ore organic immorality. 5hus !rom another
point o! view we again perceive that even in its most e@uitable !orm it
is impossible !or government to dissociate itsel! !rom evilK and !urther
that unless the right to ignore the state is recogniDed its acts must be
essentially criminal.
3. 5he Limits o! 5a=ation
5hat a man is !ree to abandon the bene!its and throw o!! the burdens o!
citiDenship may indeed be in!erred !rom the admissions o! e=isting
authorities and o! current opinion. Hnprepared as they probably are !or
so e=treme a doctrine as the one here maintained the radicals o! our
day yet unwittingly pro!ess their belie! in a ma=im which obviously
embodies this doctrine. :o we not continually hear them @uote
*lac9stoneFs assertion that Ono sub<ect o! 4ngland can be constrained
to pay any aids or ta=es even !or the de!ence o! the realm or the
support o! government but such as are imposed by his own consent
or that o! his representative in parliament7O And what does this mean7
(t means say they that every man should have a vote. 5rue. but it
means much more. (! there is any sense in words it is a distinct
enunciation o! the very right now contended !or. (n a!!irming that a man
may not be ta=ed unless he has directly or indirectly given his consent
it a!!irms that he may re!use to be so ta=edK and to re!use to be ta=ed
is to cut all connection with the state. 'erhaps it will be said that this
consent is not a speci!ic but a general one and that the citiDen is
understood to have assented to every thing his representative may do
when he voted !or him. *ut suppose he did not vote !or himK and on the
contrary did all in his power to get elected some one holding opposite
views J what them7 5he reply will probably be that by ta9ing part in
222
such an election he tacitly agreed to abide by the decision o! the
ma<ority. And how i! he did not vote at all7 Why then he cannot <ustly
complain o! any ta= seeing that he made no protest against its
imposition. )o curiously enough it seems that he gave his consent in
whatever way he acted J whether he said yes whether he said no or
whether he remained neuterQ A rather aw9ward doctrine this. Here
stands an un!ortunate citiDen who is as9ed i! he will pay money !or a
certain pro!!ered advantageK and whether he employs the only means
o! e=pressing his re!usal or does not employ it we are told that he
practically agreesK i! only the number o! others who agree is greater
than the number o! those who dissent. And thus we are introduced to
the novel principle that AFs consent to a thing is not determined by what
A says but by what * may happen to sayQ
(t is !or those who @uote *lac9stone to choose between this absurdity
and the doctrine above set !orth. 4ither his ma=im implies the right to
ignore the state or it is sheer nonsense.
2. &n Civil and 8eligious Liberty
5here is a strange heterogeneity in our political !aiths. )ystems that
have had their day and are beginning here and there to let the daylight
through are patched with modern notions utterly unli9e in @uality and
colourK and men gravely display these systems wear them and wal9
about in them @uite unconscious o! their grotes@ueness. 5his transition
state o! ours parta9ing as it does e@ually o! the past and the !uture
breeds hybrid theories e=hibiting the oddest union o! bygone despotism
and coming !reedom. Here are types o! the old organiDation curiously
disguised by germs o! the new J peculiarities showing adaptation to a
preceding state modi!ied by rudiments that prophesy o! something to
come J ma9ing altogether so chaotic a mi=ture o! relationships that
there is no saying to what class these births o! the age should be
re!erred.
As ideas must o! necessity bear the stamp o! the time it is useless to
lament the contentment with which these incongruous belie!s are held.
&therwise it would seem un!ortunate that men do not pursue to the end
the trains o! reasoning which have led to these partial modi!ications. (n
the present case !or e=ample consistency would !orce them to admit
that on other points besides the one <ust noticed they hold opinions
and use arguments in which the right to ignore the state is involved.
$or what is the meaning o! :issent7 5he time was when a manFs !aith
22-
and his mode o! worship were as much determinable by law as his
secular actsK and according to provisions e=tant in our statute,boo9
are so still. 5han9s to the growth o! a 'rotestant spirit however we
have ignored the state in this matter J wholly in theory and partly in
practice. *ut how have we done so7 *y assuming an attitude which i!
consistently maintained implies a right to ignore the state entirely.
&bserve the positions o! the two parties. O5his is your creedO says the
legislatorK Oyou must believe and openly pro!ess what is here set down
!or you.O O( shall not do any thing o! the 9indO answers the non,
con!ormist O( will go to prison rather.O OGour religious ordinancesO
pursues the legislator Oshall be such as we have prescribed. Gou shall
attend the churches we have endowed and adopt the ceremonies
used in them.O O+othing shall induce me to do soO is the replyK O(
altogether deny your power to dictate to me in such matters and mean
to resist to the uttermost.O OLastlyO adds the legislator Owe shall re@uire
you to pay such sums o! money toward the support o! these religious
institutions as we may see !it to as9.O O+ot a !arthing will you have !rom
meO e=claims our sturdy (ndependent. Oeven did ( believe in the
doctrines o! your church "which ( do not# ( should still rebel against
your inter!erenceK and i! you ta9e my property it shall be by !orce and
under protest.O
What now does this proceeding amount to when regarded in the
abstract7 (t amounts to an assertion by the individual o! the right to
e=ercise one o! his !aculties J the religious sentiment J without let or
hindrance and with no limit save that set up by the e@ual claims o!
others. And what is meant by ignoring the state7 )imply an assertion o!
the right similarly to e=ercise all the !aculties. 5he one is <ust an
e=pansion o! the other J rests on the same !ooting with the other J
must stand or !all with the other. ;en do indeed spea9 o! civil and
religious liberty as di!!erent thingsK but the distinction is @uite arbitrary.
5hey are parts o! the same whole and cannot philosophically be
separated.
OGes they canO interposes an ob<ectorK Oassertion o! the one is
imperative as being a religious duty. 5he liberty to worship Aod in the
way that seems to him right is a liberty without which a man cannot
!ul!il what he believes to be :ivine commands and there!ore
conscience re@uires him to maintain it.O 5rue enoughK but how i! the
same can be asserted o! all other liberty7 How i! maintenance o! this
also turns out to be a matter o! conscience7 Have we not seen that
human happiness is the :ivine will J that only by e=ercising our
221
!aculties is this happiness obtainable J and that it is impossible to
e=ercise them without !reedom7 And i! this !reedom !or the e=ercise o!
!aculties is a condition without which the :ivine will cannot be !ul!illed
the preservation o! it is by our ob<ectorFs own showing a duty. &r in
other words it appears not only that the maintenance o! liberty o!
action may be a point o! conscience but that it ought to be one. And
thus we are clearly shown that the claims to ignore the state in religious
and in secular matters are in essence identical.
5he other reason commonly assigned !or noncon!ormity admits o!
similar treatment. *esides resisting state dictation in the abstract the
dissenter resists it !rom disapprobation o! the doctrines taught. +o
legislative in<unction will ma9e him adopt what he considers an
erroneous belie!K and bearing in mind his duty toward his !ellow,men
he re!uses to help through the medium o! his purse in disseminating
this erroneous belie!. 5he position is per!ectly intelligible. *ut it is one
which either commits its adherents to civil noncon!ormity also or
leaves them in a dilemma. $or why do they re!use to be instrumental in
spreading error7 *ecause error is adverse to human happiness. And
on what ground is any piece o! secular legislation disapproved7 $or the
same reason J because thought adverse to human happiness. How
then can it be shown that the state ought to be resisted in the one case
and not in the other7 Will any one deliberately assert that i! a
government demands money !rom us to aid in teaching what we thin9
will produce evil we ought to re!use itK but that i! the money is !or the
purpose o! doing what we thin9 will produce evil we ought not to re!use
it7 Get such is the hope!ul proposition which those have to maintain
who recogniDe the right to ignore the state in religious matters but
deny it in civil matters.
0. 'rogress Hindered by Lac9 o! )ocial ;orality
5he substance o! the essay once more reminds us o! the incongruity
between a per!ect law and an imper!ect state. 5he practicability o! the
principle here laid down varies directly as social morality. (n a
thoroughly vicious community its admission would be productive o!
anarchy. (n a completely virtuous one its admission will be both
innocuous and inevitable. 'rogress toward a condition o! social health
J a condition that is in which the remedial measures o! legislation will
no longer be needed is progress toward a condition in which those
remedial measures will be cast aside and the authority prescribing
them disregarded. 5he two changes are o! necessity coordinate. 5hat
223
moral sense whose supremacy will ma9e society harmonious and
government unnecessary is the same moral sense which will then
ma9e each man assert his !reedom even to the e=tent o! ignoring the
state J is the same moral sense which by deterring the ma<ority !rom
coercing the minority will eventually render government impossible.
And as what are merely di!!erent mani!estations o! the same sentiment
must bear a constant ratio to each other the tendency to repudiate
governments will increase only at the same rate that governments
become needless.
Let not any be alarmed there!ore at the promulgation o! the !oregoing
doctrine. 5here are many changes yet to be passed through be!ore it
can begin to e=ercise much in!luence. 'robably a long time will elapse
be!ore the right to ignore the )tate will be generally admitted even in
theory. (t will be still longer be!ore it receives legislative recognition.
And even then there will be plenty o! chec9s upon the premature
e=ercise o! it. A sharp e=perience will su!!iciently instruct those who
may too soon abandon legal protection. Whilst in the ma<ority o! men
there is such a love o! tried arrangements and so great a dread o!
e=periments that they will probably not act upon this right until long
a!ter it is sa!e to do so.
%. 5he Coming :ecay o! the )tate
(t is a mista9e to assume that government must necessarily last
!orever. 5he institution mar9s a certain stage o! civiliDation J is natural
to a particular phase o! human development. (t is not essential but
incidental. As amongst the *ushmen we !ind a state antecedent to
government so may there be one in which it shall have become
e=tinct. Already has it lost something o! its importance. 5he time was
when the history o! a people was but the history o! its government. (t is
otherwise now. 5he once universal despotism was but a mani!estation
o! the e=treme necessity o! restraint. $eudalism ser!dom slavery all
tyrannical institutions are merely the most vigorous 9inds o! rule
springing out o! and necessary to a bad state o! man. 5he progress
!rom these is in all cases the same J less government. Constitutional
!orms means this. 'olitical !reedom means this. :emocracy means
this. (n societies associations <oint,stoc9 companies we have new
agencies occupying big !ields !illed in less advanced times and
countries by the )tate. With us the legislature is dwar!ed by newer and
greater powers J is no longer master but slave. O'ressure !rom
withoutO has come to be ac9nowledged as ultimate ruler. 5he triumph
222
o! the Anti,Corn Law League is simply the most mar9ed instance yet o!
the new style o! government that o! opinion overcoming the old style
that o! !orce. (t bids !air to become a trite remar9 that the law,ma9er is
but the servant o! the thin9er. :aily is )tatecra!t held in less repute.
4ven the O5imesO can see that Othe social changes thic9ening around
us establish a truth su!!iciently humiliating to legislative bodiesO and
that Othe great stages o! our progress are determined rather by the
spontaneous wor9ings o! society connected as they are with the
progress o! art and science the operation o! nature and other such
unpolitical causes than by the proposition o! a bill the passing o! an
act or any other event o! politics or o! )tate.O 5hus as civiliDation
advances does government decay. 5o the bad it is essentialK to the
good not. (t is the chec9 which national wic9edness ma9es to itsel!
and e=ists only to the same degree. (ts continuance is proo! o! still,
e=isting barbarism. What a cage is to the wild beast law is to the
sel!ish man. 8estraint is !or the savage the rapacious the violentK not
!or the <ust the gentle the benevolent. All necessity !or e=ternal !orce
implies a morbid state. :ungeons !or the !elonK a strait <ac9et !or the
maniacK crutches !or the lameK stays !or the wea9,bac9edK !or the in!irm
o! purpose a masterK !or the !oolish a guideK but !or the sound mind in a
sound body none o! these. Were there no thieves and murderers
prisons would be unnecessary. (t is only because tyranny is yet ri!e in
the world that we have armies. *arristers <udges <uries all the
instruments o! law e=ist simply because 9navery e=ists. ;agisterial
!orce is the se@uence o! social vice and the policeman is but the
complement o! the criminal. 5here!ore it is that we call government Oa
necessary evil.O
What then must be thought o! a morality which chooses this
probationary institution !or its basis builds a vast !abric o! conclusions
upon its assumed permanence selects acts o! parliament !or its
materials and employs the statesman !or its architect7 5he
e=pediency,philosopher does this. (t ta9es government into partnership
assigns to it entire control o! its a!!airs en<oins all to de!er to its
<udgment ma9es it in short the vital principle the very soul o! its
system. When 'aley teaches that Othe interest o! the whole society is
binding upon every part o! itO he implies the e=istence o! some
supreme power by which Othat interest o! the whole societyO is to be
determined. And elsewhere he more e=plicitly tells us that !or the
attainment o! a national advantage the private will o! the sub<ect is to
give way and that Othe proo! o! this advantage lies with the legislature.O
220
)till more decisive is *entham when he says that Othe happiness o! the
individuals o! whom a community is composed J that is their pleasures
and their security J is the sole end which the legislator ought to have in
view the sole standard in con!ormity with which each individual ought
as !ar as depends upon the legislature to be made to !ashion his
behavior.O 5hese positions be it remembered are not voluntarily
assumedK they are necessitated by the premises. (! as its propounder
tells us Oe=pediencyO means the bene!it o! the mass not o! the
individual J o! the !uture as much as o! the present J it presupposes
some one to <udge o! what will most conduce to that bene!it. Hpon the
OutilityO o! this or that measure the views are so various as to render an
umpire essential.
Whether protective duties or established religions or capital
punishments or poor,laws do or do not minister to the Ogeneral goodO
are @uestions concerning which there is such di!!erence o! opinion that
were nothing to be done till all agreed upon them we might stand still
to the end o! time. (! each man carried out independently o! a )tate
power his own notions o! what would best secure Othe greatest
happiness o! the greatest numberO society would @uic9ly lapse into
con!usion. Clearly there!ore a morality established upon a ma=im o!
which the practical interpretation is @uestionable involves the e=istence
o! some authority whose decisions respecting it shall be !inal J that is
a legislature. And without that authority such a morality must ever
remain inoperative.
)ee here then the predicament a system o! moral philosophy
pro!esses to be a code o! correct rules !or the control o! human beings
J !itted !or the regulation o! the best as well as the worst members o!
the race J applicable i! true to the guidance o! humanity in its highest
conceivable per!ection. Aovernment however is an institution
originating in manFs imper!ectionK an institution con!essedly begotten by
necessity out o! evilK one which might be dispensed with were the world
peopled with the unsel!ish the conscientious the philanthropicK one in
short inconsistent with this same Ohighest conceivable per!ection.O
How then can that be a true system o! morality which adopts
government as one o! its premises7
22%
AuthorFs 4ndnotes
1
)ir William *lac9stone "102-,10%0# was the most renowned o!
4nglish <urists.
2
Hence may be drawn an argument !or direct ta=ationK seeing that only
when ta=ation is direct does repudiation o! state burdens become
possible.
22/
Source 0 )
Lysander Spooner
No Treason5 The Constitution of No Authority
I5
5he Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. (t has no
authority or obligation at all unless as a contract between man and
man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract
between persons now e=isting. (t purports at most to be only a
contract between persons living eighty years ago. \5his essay was
written in 1%2/.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then
only between persons who had already come to years o! discretion so
as to be competent to ma9e reasonable and obligatory contracts.
$urthermore we 9now historically that only a small portion even o! the
people then e=isting were consulted on the sub<ect or as9ed or
permitted to e=press either their consent or dissent in any !ormal
manner. 5hose persons i! any who did give their consent !ormally are
all dead now. ;ost o! them have been dead !orty !i!ty si=ty or seventy
years. 2nd the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with
them. 5hey had no natural power or right to ma9e it obligatory upon
their children. (t is not only plainly impossible in the nature o! things
that they could bind their posterity but they did not even attempt to
bind them. 5hat is to say the instrument does not purport to be an
agreement between any body but Othe peopleO 5H4+ e=istingK nor does
it either e=pressly or impliedly assert any right power or disposition
on their part to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. (ts language
is.
We the people o! the Hnited )tates "that is the people
5H4+ 4>()5(+A in the Hnited )tates# in order to !orm a
more per!ect union insure domestic tran@uility provide !or
the common de!ense promote the general wel!are and
secure the blessings o! liberty to ourselves A+: &H8
'&)548(5G do ordain and establish this Constitution !or
the Hnited )tates o! America.
(t is plain in the !irst place that this language A) A+ AA844;4+5
purports to be only what it at most really was viD. a contract between
the people then e=istingK and o! necessity binding as a contract only
200
upon those then e=isting. (n the second place the language neither
e=presses nor implies that they had any right or power to bind their
OposterityO to live under it. (t does not say that their OposterityO will shall
or must live under it. (t only says in e!!ect that their hopes and motives
in adopting it were that it might prove use!ul to their posterity as well as
to themselves by promoting their union sa!ety tran@uility liberty etc.
)uppose an agreement were entered into in this !orm.
We the people o! *oston agree to maintain a !ort on AovernorFs
(sland to protect ourselves and our posterity against invasion.
5his agreement as an agreement would clearly bind nobody but the
people then e=isting. )econdly it would assert no right power or
disposition on their part to compel their OposterityO to maintain such a
!ort. (t would only indicate that the supposed wel!are o! their posterity
was one o! the motives that induced the original parties to enter into the
agreement.
When a man says he is building a house !or himsel! and his posterity
he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought
o! binding them nor is it to be in!erred that he is so !oolish as to
imagine that he has any right or power to bind them to live in it. )o !ar
as they are concerned he only means to be understood as saying that
his hopes and motives in building it are that they or at least some o!
them may !ind it !or their happiness to live in it.
)o when a man says he is planting a tree !or himsel! and his posterity
he does not mean to be understood as saying that he has any thought
o! compelling them nor is it to be in!erred that he is such a simpleton
as to imagine that he has any right or power to compel them to eat the
!ruit. )o !ar as they are concerned he only means to say that his hopes
and motives in planting the tree are that its !ruit may be agreeable to
them.
)o it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever
may have been their personal intentions the legal meaning o! their
language so !ar as their OposterityO was concerned simply was that
their hopes and motives in entering into the agreement were that it
might prove use!ul and acceptable to their posterityK that it might
promote their union sa!ety tran@uility and wel!areK and that it might
tend Oto secure to them the blessings o! liberty.O 5he language does not
assert nor at all imply any right power or disposition on the part o!
the original parties to the agreement to compel their OposterityO to live
201
under it. (! they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it they
should have said that their ob<ective was not Oto secure to them the
blessings o! libertyO but to ma9e slaves o! themK !or i! their OposterityO
are bound to live under it they are nothing less than the slaves o! their
!oolish tyrannical and dead grand!athers.
(t cannot be said that the Constitution !ormed Othe people o! the Hnited
)tatesO !or all time into a corporation. (t does not spea9 o! Othe peopleO
as a corporation but as individuals. A corporation does not describe
itsel! as OweO nor as OpeopleO nor as Oourselves.O +or does a
corporation in legal language have any Oposterity.O (t supposes itsel! to
have and spea9s o! itsel! as having perpetual e=istence as a single
individuality.
;oreover no body o! men e=isting at any one time have the power to
create a perpetual corporation. A corporation can become practically
perpetual only by the voluntary accession o! new members as the old
ones die o!!. *ut !or this voluntary accession o! new members the
corporation necessarily dies with the death o! those who originally
composed it.
Legally spea9ing there!ore there is in the Constitution nothing that
pro!esses or attempts to bind the OposterityO o! those who established it.
(! then those who established the Constitution had no power to bind
and did not attempt to bind their posterity the @uestion arises whether
their posterity have bound themselves. (! they have done so they can
have done so in only one or both o! these two ways viD. by voting and
paying ta=es.
II5
Let us consider these two matters voting and ta= paying separately.
And !irst o! voting.
All the voting that has ever ta9en place under the Constitution has
been o! such a 9ind that it not only did not pledge the whole people to
support the Constitution but it did not even pledge any one o! them to
do so as the !ollowing considerations show.
1. (n the very nature o! things the act o! voting could bind nobody but
the actual voters. *ut owing to the property @uali!ications re@uired it is
probable that during the !irst twenty or thirty years under the
Constitution not more than one,tenth !i!teenth or perhaps twentieth o!
202
the whole population "blac9 and white men women and minors# were
permitted to vote. Conse@uently so !ar as voting was concerned not
more than one,tenth !i!teenth or twentieth o! those then e=isting could
have incurred any obligation to support the Constitution.
At the present time \1%2/] it is probable that not more than one,si=th o!
the whole population are permitted to vote. Conse@uently so !ar as
voting is concerned the other !ive,si=ths can have given no pledge that
they will support the Constitution.
2. &! the one,si=th that are permitted to vote probably not more than
two,thirds "about one,ninth o! the whole population# have usually voted.
;any never vote at all. ;any vote only once in two three !ive or ten
years in periods o! great e=citement.
+o one by voting can be said to pledge himsel! !or any longer period
than that !or which he votes. (! !or e=ample ( vote !or an o!!icer who is
to hold his o!!ice !or only a year ( cannot be said to have thereby
pledged mysel! to support the government beyond that term. 5here!ore
on the ground o! actual voting it probably cannot be said that more
than one,ninth or one,eighth o! the whole population are usually under
any pledge to support the Constitution. \(n recent years since 1/10 the
number o! voters in elections has usually !luctuated between one,third
and two,!i!ths o! the populace.]
-. (t cannot be said that by voting a man pledges himsel! to support
the Constitution unless the act o! voting be a per!ectly voluntary one
on his part. Get the act o! voting cannot properly be called a voluntary
one on the part o! any very large number o! those who do vote. (t is
rather a measure o! necessity imposed upon them by others than one
o! their own choice. &n this point ( repeat what was said in a !ormer
number viD..
O(n truth in the case o! individuals their actual voting is not
to be ta9en as proo! o! consent even for the time being.
&n the contrary it is to be considered that without his
consent having even been as9ed a man !inds himsel!
environed by a government that he cannot resistK a
government that !orces him to pay money render service
and !orego the e=ercise o! many o! his natural rights under
peril o! weighty punishments. He sees too that other men
practice this tyranny over him by the use o! the ballot. He
sees !urther that i! he will but use the ballot himsel! he
20-
has some chance o! relieving himsel! !rom this tyranny o!
others by sub<ecting them to his own. (n short he !inds
himsel! without his consent so situated that i! he use the
ballot he may become a masterK i! he does not use it he
must become a slave. And he has no other alternative than
these two. (n sel!,de!ence he attempts the !ormer. His
case is analogous to that o! a man who has been !orced
into battle where he must either 9ill others or be 9illed
himsel!. *ecause to save his own li!e in battle a man
ta9es the lives o! his opponents it is not to be in!erred that
the battle is one o! his own choosing. +either in contests
with the ballot J which is a mere substitute !or a bullet J
because as his only chance o! sel!,preservation a man
uses a ballot is it to be in!erred that the contest is one into
which he voluntarily enteredK that he voluntarily set up all
his own natural rights as a sta9e against those o! others
to be lost or won by the mere power o! numbers. &n the
contrary it is to be considered that in an e=igency into
which he had been !orced by others and in which no other
means o! sel!,de!ence o!!ered he as a matter o!
necessity used the only one that was le!t to him.
O:oubtless the most miserable o! men under the most
oppressive government in the world i! allowed the ballot
would use it i! they could see any chance o! thereby
meliorating their condition. *ut it would not there!ore be a
legitimate in!erence that the government itsel! that crushes
them was one which they had voluntarily set up or even
consented to.
O5here!ore a manFs voting under the Constitution o! the
Hnited )tates is not to be ta9en as evidence that he ever
!reely assented to the Constitution even for the time being.
Conse@uently we have no proo! that any very large portion
even o! the actual voters o! the Hnited )tates ever really
and voluntarily consented to the Constitution 4?4+ $&8
5H4 5(;4 *4(+A. +or can we ever have such proo! until
every man is le!t per!ectly !ree to consent or not without
thereby sub<ecting himsel! or his property to be disturbed
or in<ured by others.O
201
As we can have no legal 9nowledge as to who votes !rom choice and
who !rom the necessity thus !orced upon him we can have no legal
9nowledge as to any particular individual that he voted !rom choiceK
or conse@uently that by voting he consented or pledged himsel! to
support the government. Legally spea9ing there!ore the act o! voting
utterly !ails to pledge A+G &+4 to support the government. (t utterly
!ails to prove that the government rests upon the voluntary support o!
anybody. &n general principles o! law and reason it cannot be said
that the government has any voluntary supporters at all until it can be
distinctly shown who its voluntary supporters are.
1. As ta=ation is made compulsory on all whether they vote or not a
large proportion o! those who vote no doubt do so to prevent their own
money being used against themselvesK when in !act they would have
gladly abstained !rom voting i! they could thereby have saved
themselves !rom ta=ation alone to say nothing o! being saved !rom all
the other usurpations and tyrannies o! the government. 5o ta9e a manFs
property without his consent and then to in!er his consent because he
attempts by voting to prevent that property !rom being used to his
in<ury is a very insu!!icient proo! o! his consent to support the
Constitution. (t is in !act no proo! at all. And as we can have no legal
9nowledge as to who the particular individuals are i! there are any
who are willing to be ta=ed !or the sa9e o! voting we can have no legal
9nowledge that any particular individual consents to be ta=ed !or the
sa9e o! votingK or conse@uently consents to support the Constitution.
3. At nearly all elections votes are given !or various candidates !or the
same o!!ice. 5hose who vote !or the unsuccess!ul candidates cannot
properly be said to have voted to sustain the Constitution. 5hey may
with more reason be supposed to have voted not to support the
Constitution but specially to prevent the tyranny which they anticipate
the success!ul candidate intends to practice upon them under color o!
the ConstitutionK and there!ore may reasonably be supposed to have
voted against the Constitution itsel!. 5his supposition is the more
reasonable inasmuch as such voting is the only mode allowed to them
o! e=pressing their dissent to the Constitution.
2. ;any votes are usually given !or candidates who have no prospect
o! success. 5hose who give such votes may reasonably be supposed
to have voted as they did with a special intention not to support but to
obstruct the e=ecution o! the ConstitutionK and there!ore against the
Constitution itsel!.
203
0. As all the di!!erent votes are given secretly "by secret ballot# there is
no legal means o! 9nowing !rom the votes themselves who votes !or
and who votes against the Constitution. 5here!ore voting a!!ords no
legal evidence that any particular individual supports the Constitution.
And where there can be no legal evidence that any particular individual
supports the Constitution it cannot legally be said that anybody
supports it. (t is clearly impossible to have any legal proo! o! the
intentions o! large numbers o! men where there can be no legal proo!
o! the intentions o! any particular one o! them.
%. 5here being no legal proo! o! any manFs intentions in voting we can
only con<ecture them. As a con<ecture it is probable that a very large
proportion o! those who vote do so on this principle viD. that i! by
voting they could but get the government into their own hands "or that
o! their !riends# and use its powers against their opponents they would
then willingly support the ConstitutionK but i! their opponents are to
have the power and use it against them then they would +&5 willingly
support the Constitution.
(n short menFs voluntary support o! the Constitution is doubtless in
most cases wholly contingent upon the @uestion whether by means o!
the Constitution they can ma9e themselves masters or are to be made
slaves.
)uch contingent consent as that is in law and reason no consent at
all.
/. As everybody who supports the Constitution by voting "i! there are
any such# does so secretly "by secret ballot# and in a way to avoid all
personal responsibility !or the acts o! his agents or representatives it
cannot legally or reasonably be said that anybody at all supports the
Constitution by voting. +o man can reasonably or legally be said to do
such a thing as assent to or support the Constitution unless he does
it openly, and in a way to make himself personally responsible for the
acts of his agents, so long as they act within the limits of the power he
delegates to them.
10. As all voting is secret "by secret ballot# and as all secret
governments are necessarily only secret bands o! robbers tyrants and
murderers the general !act that our government is practically carried
on by means o! such voting only proves that there is among us a
secret band o! robbers tyrants and murderers whose purpose is to
rob enslave and so !ar as necessary to accomplish their purposes
202
murder the rest o! the people. 5he simple !act o! the e=istence o! such
a band does nothing towards proving that Othe people o! the Hnited
)tatesO or any one o! them voluntarily supports the Constitution.
$or all the reasons that have now been given voting !urnishes no legal
evidence as to who the particular individuals are "i! there are any# who
voluntarily support the Constitution. (t there!ore !urnishes no legal
evidence that anybody supports it voluntarily.
)o !ar there!ore as voting is concerned the Constitution legally
spea9ing has no supporters at all.
And as a matter o! !act there is not the slightest probability that the
Constitution has a single bona !ide supporter in the country. 5hat is to
say there is not the slightest probability that there is a single man in
the country who both understands what the Constitution really is and
sincerely supports it for what it really is.
5he ostensible supporters o! the Constitution li9e the ostensible
supporters o! most other governments are made up o! three classes
viD.. 1. Cnaves a numerous and active class who see in the
government an instrument which they can use !or their own
aggrandiDement or wealth. 2. :upes J a large class no doubt J each o!
whom because he is allowed one voice out o! millions in deciding what
he may do with his own person and his own property and because he
is permitted to have the same voice in robbing enslaving and
murdering others that others have in robbing enslaving and
murdering himsel! is stupid enough to imagine that he is a O!ree manO
a OsovereignOK that this is Oa !ree governmentOK Oa government o! e@ual
rightsO Othe best government on earthO
1
and such li9e absurdities. -. A
class who have some appreciation o! the evils o! government but
either do not see how to get rid o! them or do not choose to so !ar
sacri!ice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and
earnestly to the wor9 o! ma9ing a change.
III5
5he payment o! ta=es being compulsory o! course !urnishes no
evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.
1. (t is true that the 5H4&8G o! our Constitution is that all ta=es are
paid voluntarilyK that our government is a mutual insurance company
voluntarily entered into by the people with each otherK that each man
200
ma9es a !ree and purely voluntary contract with all others who are
parties to the Constitution to pay so much money !or so much
protection the same as he does with any other insurance companyK
and that he is <ust as !ree not to be protected and not to pay ta= as he
is to pay a ta= and be protected.
*ut this theory o! our government is wholly di!!erent !rom the practical
!act. 5he !act is that the government li9e a highwayman says to a
man. OGour money or your li!e.O And many i! not most ta=es are paid
under the compulsion o! that threat.
5he government does not indeed waylay a man in a lonely place
spring upon him !rom the roadside and holding a pistol to his head
proceed to ri!le his poc9ets. *ut the robbery is none the less a robbery
on that accountK and it is !ar more dastardly and shame!ul.
5he highwayman ta9es solely upon himsel! the responsibility danger
and crime o! his own act. He does not pretend that he has any right!ul
claim to your money or that he intends to use it !or your own bene!it.
He does not pretend to be anything but a robber. He has not ac@uired
impudence enough to pro!ess to be merely a OprotectorO and that he
ta9es menFs money against their will merely to enable him to OprotectO
those in!atuated travellers who !eel per!ectly able to protect
themselves or do not appreciate his peculiar system o! protection. He
is too sensible a man to ma9e such pro!essions as these. $urthermore
having ta9en your money he leaves you as you wish him to do. He
does not persist in !ollowing you on the road against your willK
assuming to be your right!ul OsovereignO on account o! the OprotectionO
he a!!ords you. He does not 9eep OprotectingO you by commanding you
to bow down and serve himK by re@uiring you to do this and !orbidding
you to do thatK by robbing you o! more money as o!ten as he !inds it !or
his interest or pleasure to do soK and by branding you as a rebel a
traitor and an enemy to your country and shooting you down without
mercy i! you dispute his authority or resist his demands. He is too
much o! a gentleman to be guilty o! such impostures and insults and
villanies as these. (n short he does not in addition to robbing you
attempt to ma9e you either his dupe or his slave.
5he proceedings o! those robbers and murderers who call themselves
Othe governmentO are directly the opposite o! these o! the single
highwayman.
(n the !irst place they do not li9e him ma9e themselves individually
20%
9nownK or conse@uently ta9e upon themselves personally the
responsibility o! their acts. &n the contrary they secretly "by secret
ballot# designate some one o! their number to commit the robbery in
their behal! while they 9eep themselves practically concealed. 5hey
say to the person thus designated. Ao to AWWWWW *WWWWW and say to
him that Othe governmentO has need o! money to meet the e=penses o!
protecting him and his property. (! he presumes to say that he has
never contracted with us to protect him and that he wants none o! our
protection say to him that that is our business and not hisK that we
CH&&)4 to protect him whether he desires us to do so or notK and
that we demand pay too !or protecting him. (! he dares to in@uire who
the individuals are who have thus ta9en upon themselves the title o!
Othe governmentO and who assume to protect him and demand
payment o! him without his having ever made any contract with them
say to him that that too is our business and not hisK that we do not
CH&&)4 to ma9e ourselves (+:(?(:HALLG 9nown to himK that we
have secretly "by secret ballot# appointed you our agent to give him
notice o! our demands and i! he complies with them to give him in
our name a receipt that will protect him against any similar demand !or
the present year. (! he re!uses to comply seiDe and sell enough o! his
property to pay not only our demands but all your own e=penses and
trouble beside. (! he resists the seiDure o! his property call upon the
bystanders to help you "doubtless some o! them will prove to be
members o! our band.# (! in de!ending his property he should 9ill any
o! our band who are assisting you capture him at all haDardsK charge
him "in one o! our courts# with murderK convict him and hang him. (! he
should call upon his neighbors or any others who li9e him may be
disposed to resist our demands and they should come in large
numbers to his assistance cry out that they are all rebels and traitorsK
that Oour countryO is in dangerK call upon the commander o! our hired
murderersK tell him to @uell the rebellion and Osave the countryO cost
what it may. 5ell him to 9ill all who resist though they should be
hundreds o! thousandsK and thus stri9e terror into all others similarly
disposed. )ee that the wor9 o! murder is thoroughly doneK that we may
have no !urther trouble o! this 9ind herea!ter. When these traitors shall
have thus been taught our strength and our determination they will be
good loyal citiDens !or many years and pay their ta=es without a why or
a where!ore.
(t is under such compulsion as this that ta=es so called are paid. And
how much proo! the payment o! ta=es a!!ords that the people consent
20/
to Osupport the governmentO it needs no !urther argument to show.
2. )till another reason why the payment o! ta=es implies no consent or
pledge to support the government is that the ta=payer does not 9now
and has no means o! 9nowing who the particular individuals are who
compose Othe government.O 5o him Othe governmentO is a myth an
abstraction an incorporeality with which he can ma9e no contract and
to which he can give no consent and ma9e no pledge. He 9nows it
only through its pretended agents. O5he governmentO itsel! he never
sees. He 9nows indeed by common report that certain persons o! a
certain age are permitted to voteK and thus to ma9e themselves parts
o! or "i! they choose# opponents o! the government !or the time being.
*ut who o! them do thus vote and especially how each one votes
"whether so as to aid or oppose the government# he does not 9nowK
the voting being all done secretly "by secret ballot#. Who there!ore
practically compose Othe governmentO !or the time being he has no
means o! 9nowing. &! course he can ma9e no contract with them give
them no consent and ma9e them no pledge. &! necessity there!ore
his paying ta=es to them implies on his part no contract consent or
pledge to support them J that is to support Othe governmentO or the
Constitution.
-. +ot 9nowing who the particular individuals are who call themselves
Othe governmentO the ta=payer does not 9now whom he pays his ta=es
to. All he 9nows is that a man comes to him representing himsel! to be
the agent o! Othe governmentO J that is the agent o! a secret band o!
robbers and murderers who have ta9en to themselves the title o! Othe
governmentO and have determined to 9ill everybody who re!uses to
give them whatever money they demand. 5o save his li!e he gives up
his money to this agent. *ut as this agent does not ma9e his principals
individually 9nown to the ta=payer the latter a!ter he has given up his
money 9nows no more who are Othe governmentO J that is who were
the robbers J than he did be!ore. 5o say there!ore that by giving up
his money to their agent he entered into a voluntary contract with
them that he pledges himsel! to obey them to support them and to
give them whatever money they should demand o! him in the !uture is
simply ridiculous.
1. All political power so called rests practically upon this matter o!
money. Any number o! scoundrels having money enough to start with
can establish themselves as a OgovernmentOK because with money
they can hire soldiers and with soldiers e=tort more moneyK and also
2%0
compel general obedience to their will. (t is with government as Caesar
said it was in war that money and soldiers mutually supported each
otherK that with money he could hire soldiers and with soldiers e=tort
money. )o these villains who call themselves governments well
understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money
they can hire soldiers and with soldiers e=tort money. And when their
authority is denied the !irst use they always ma9e o! money is to hire
soldiers to 9ill or subdue all who re!use them more money.
$or this reason whoever desires liberty should understand these vital
!acts viD.. 1. 5hat every man who puts money into the hands o! a
OgovernmentO "so called# puts into its hands a sword which will be used
against him to e=tort more money !rom him and also to 9eep him in
sub<ection to its arbitrary will. 2. 5hat those who will ta9e his money
without his consent in the !irst place will use it !or his !urther robbery
and enslavement i! he presumes to resist their demands in the !uture.
-. 5hat it is a per!ect absurdity to suppose that any body o! men would
ever ta9e a manFs money without his consent !or any such ob<ect as
they pro!ess to ta9e it !or viD. that o! protecting himK !or why should
they wish to protect him i! he does not wish them to do so7 5o
suppose that they would do so is <ust as absurd as it would be to
suppose that they would ta9e his money without his consent !or the
purpose o! buying !ood or clothing !or him when he did not want it. 1. (!
a man wants OprotectionO he is competent to ma9e his own bargains
!or itK and nobody has any occasion to rob him in order to OprotectO him
against his will. 3. 5hat the only security men can have !or their political
liberty consists in their 9eeping their money in their own poc9ets until
they have assurances per!ectly satis!actory to themselves that it will
be used as they wish it to be used !or their bene!it and not !or their
in<ury. 2. 5hat no government so called can reasonably be trusted !or
a moment or reasonably be supposed to have honest purposes in
view any longer than it depends wholly upon voluntary support.
5hese !acts are all so vital and so sel!,evident that it cannot
reasonably be supposed that any one will voluntarily pay money to a
OgovernmentO !or the purpose o! securing its protection unless he !irst
ma9e an e=plicit and purely voluntary contract with it !or that purpose.
(t is per!ectly evident there!ore that neither such voting nor such
payment o! ta=es as actually ta9es place proves anybodyFs consent
or obligation to support the Constitution. Conse@uently we have no
evidence at all that the Constitution is binding upon anybody or that
2%1
anybody is under any contract or obligation whatever to support it. And
nobody is under any obligation to support it.
1
)uppose it be Othe best government on earthO does that prove its own
goodness or only the badness o! all other governments7
2%2
Source 3 A
Tho!as Hobbes
Le#iathan
Part I5 6f *an5 Chapter <III
6f The Natural Condition 6f *an"ind
As Concerning Their 7elicity And *isery
+A5H84 hath made men so e@ual in the !aculties o! body and mind as
that though there be !ound one man sometimes mani!estly stronger in
body or o! @uic9er mind than another yet when all is rec9oned together
the di!!erence between man and man is not so considerable as that
one man can thereupon claim to himsel! any bene!it to which another
may not pretend as well as he. $or as to the strength o! body the
wea9est has strength enough to 9ill the strongest either by secret
machination or by con!ederacy with others that are in the same danger
with himsel!.
And as to the !aculties o! the mind setting aside the arts grounded
upon words and especially that s9ill o! proceeding upon general and
in!allible rules called science which very !ew have and but in !ew
things as being not a native !aculty born with us nor attained as
prudence while we loo9 a!ter somewhat else ( !ind yet a greater
e@uality amongst men than that o! strength. $or prudence is but
e=perience which e@ual time e@ually bestows on all men in those
things they e@ually apply themselves unto. 5hat which may perhaps
ma9e such e@uality incredible is but a vain conceit o! oneFs own
wisdom which almost all men thin9 they have in a greater degree than
the vulgarK that is than all men but themselves and a !ew others
whom by !ame or !or concurring with themselves they approve. $or
such is the nature o! men that howsoever they may ac9nowledge many
others to be more witty or more elo@uent or more learned yet they will
hardly believe there be many so wise as themselvesK !or they see their
own wit at hand and other menFs at a distance. *ut this proveth rather
that men are in that point e@ual than une@ual. $or there is not
ordinarily a greater sign o! the e@ual distribution o! anything than that
every man is contented with his share.
$rom this e@uality o! ability ariseth e@uality o! hope in the attaining o!
2%-
our ends. And there!ore i! any two men desire the same thing which
nevertheless they cannot both en<oy they become enemiesK and in the
way to their end "which is principally their own conservation and
sometimes their delectation only# endeavour to destroy or subdue one
another. And !rom hence it comes to pass that where an invader hath
no more to !ear than another manFs single power i! one plant sow
build or possess a convenient seat others may probably be e=pected
to come prepared with !orces united to dispossess and deprive him not
only o! the !ruit o! his labour but also o! his li!e or liberty. And the
invader again is in the li9e danger o! another.
And !rom this di!!idence o! one another there is no way !or any man to
secure himsel! so reasonable as anticipationK that is by !orce or wiles
to master the persons o! all men he can so long till he see no other
power great enough to endanger him. and this is no more than his own
conservation re@uireth and is generally allowed. Also because there
be some that ta9ing pleasure in contemplating their own power in the
acts o! con@uest which they pursue !arther than their security re@uires
i! others that otherwise would be glad to be at ease within modest
bounds should not by invasion increase their power they would not be
able long time by standing only on their de!ence to subsist. And by
conse@uence such augmentation o! dominion over men being
necessary to a manFs conservation it ought to be allowed him.
Again men have no pleasure "but on the contrary a great deal o! grie!#
in 9eeping company where there is no power able to overawe them all.
$or every man loo9eth that his companion should value him at the
same rate he sets upon himsel! and upon all signs o! contempt or
undervaluing naturally endeavours as !ar as he dares "which amongst
them that have no common power to 9eep them in @uiet is !ar enough
to ma9e them destroy each other# to e=tort a greater value !rom his
contemners by damageK and !rom others by the e=ample.
)o that in the nature o! man we !ind three principal causes o! @uarrel.
$irst competitionK secondly di!!idenceK thirdly glory.
5he !irst ma9eth men invade !or gainK the second !or sa!etyK and the
third !or reputation. 5he !irst use violence to ma9e themselves
masters o! other menFs persons wives children and cattleK the
second to de!end themK the third !or tri!les as a word a smile a
di!!erent opinion and any other sign o! undervalue either direct in their
persons or by re!lection in their 9indred their !riends their nation their
pro!ession or their name.
2%1
Hereby it is mani!est that during the time men live without a common
power to 9eep them all in awe they are in that condition which is called
warK and such a war as is o! every man against every man. $or war
consisteth not in battle only or the act o! !ighting but in a tract o! time
wherein the will to contend by battle is su!!iciently 9nown. and there!ore
the notion o! time is to be considered in the nature o! war as it is in the
nature o! weather. $or as the nature o! !oul weather lieth not in a
shower or two o! rain but in an inclination thereto o! many days
together. so the nature o! war consisteth not in actual !ighting but in
the 9nown disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance
to the contrary. All other time is peace.
Whatsoever there!ore is conse@uent to a time o! war where every man
is enemy to every man the same conse@uent to the time wherein men
live without other security than what their own strength and their own
invention shall !urnish them withal. (n such condition there is no place
!or industry because the !ruit thereo! is uncertain. and conse@uently no
culture o! the earthK no navigation nor use o! the commodities that may
be imported by seaK no commodious buildingK no instruments o! moving
and removing such things as re@uire much !orceK no 9nowledge o! the
!ace o! the earthK no account o! timeK no artsK no lettersK no societyK and
which is worst o! all continual !ear and danger o! violent deathK and
the li!e o! man solitary poor nasty brutish and short.
(t may seem strange to some man that has not well weighed these
things that +ature should thus dissociate and render men apt to invade
and destroy one another. and he may there!ore not trusting to this
in!erence made !rom the passions desire perhaps to have the same
con!irmed by e=perience. Let him there!ore consider with himsel!. when
ta9ing a <ourney he arms himsel! and see9s to go well accompaniedK
when going to sleep he loc9s his doorsK when even in his house he
loc9s his chestsK and this when he 9nows there be laws and public
o!!icers armed to revenge all in<uries shall be done himK what opinion
he has o! his !ellow sub<ects when he rides armedK o! his !ellow
citiDens when he loc9s his doorsK and o! his children and servants
when he loc9s his chests. :oes he not there as much accuse man9ind
by his actions as ( do by my words7 *ut neither o! us accuse manFs
nature in it. 5he desires and other passions o! man are in themselves
no sin. +o more are the actions that proceed !rom those passions till
they 9now a law that !orbids themK which till laws be made they cannot
9now nor can any law be made till they have agreed upon the person
that shall ma9e it.
2%3
(t may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor
condition o! war as thisK and ( believe it was never generally so over all
the world. but there are many places where they live so now. $or the
savage people in many places o! America e=cept the government o!
small !amilies the concord whereo! dependeth on natural lust have no
government at all and live at this day in that brutish manner as ( said
be!ore. Howsoever it may be perceived what manner o! li!e there
would be where there were no common power to !ear by the manner
o! li!e which men that have !ormerly lived under a peace!ul government
use to degenerate into a civil war.
*ut though there had never been any time wherein particular men were
in a condition o! war one against another yet in all times 9ings and
persons o! sovereign authority because o! their independency are in
continual <ealousies and in the state and posture o! gladiators having
their weapons pointing and their eyes !i=ed on one anotherK that is
their !orts garrisons and guns upon the !rontiers o! their 9ingdoms
and continual spies upon their neighbours which is a posture o! war.
*ut because they uphold thereby the industry o! their sub<ects there
does not !ollow !rom it that misery which accompanies the liberty o!
particular men.
5o this war o! every man against every man this also is conse@uentK
that nothing can be un<ust. 5he notions o! right and wrong <ustice and
in<ustice have there no place. Where there is no common power there
is no lawK where no law no in<ustice. $orce and !raud are in war the
two cardinal virtues. 6ustice and in<ustice are none o! the !aculties
neither o! the body nor mind. (! they were they might be in a man that
were alone in the world as well as his senses and passions. 5hey are
@ualities that relate to men in society not in solitude. (t is conse@uent
also to the same condition that there be no propriety no dominion no
mine and thine distinctK but only that to be every manFs that he can get
and !or so long as he can 9eep it. And thus much !or the ill condition
which man by mere nature is actually placed inK though with a
possibility to come out o! it consisting partly in the passions partly in
his reason.
5he passions that incline men to peace are. !ear o! deathK desire o!
such things as are necessary to commodious livingK and a hope by
their industry to obtain them. And reason suggesteth convenient
articles o! peace upon which men may be drawn to agreement. 5hese
articles are they which otherwise are called the laws o! nature whereo!
2%2
( shall spea9 more particularly in the two !ollowing chapters.
2%0
Source 3 %
?usta#e de *olinari
The Production of Security
1
5here are two ways o! considering society. According to some the
development o! human associations is not sub<ect to providential
unchangeable laws. 8ather these associations having originally been
organiDed in a purely arti!icial manner by primeval legislators can later
be modi!ied or remade by other legislators in step with the progress o!
social science. (n this system the government plays a preeminent role
because it is upon it the custodian o! the principle o! authority that the
daily tas9 o! modi!ying and rema9ing society devolves.
According to others on the contrary society is a purely natural !act.
Li9e the earth on which it stands society moves in accordance with
general pree=isting laws. (n this system there is no such thing strictly
spea9ing as social scienceK there is only economic science which
studies the natural organism o! society and shows how this organism
!unctions.
We propose to e=amine within the latter system the !unction and
natural organiDation o! government.
TH) NATD(AL 6()( 67 S6CI)TC
(n order to de!ine and delimit the !unction o! government it is !irst
necessary to investigate the essence and ob<ect o! society itsel!.
What natural impulse do men obey when they combine into society7
5hey are obeying the impulse or to spea9 more e=actly the instinct o!
sociability. 5he human race is essentially sociable. Li9e beavers and
the higher animal species in general men have an instinctive
inclination to live in society.
Why did this instinct come into being7
;an e=periences a multitude o! needs on whose satis!action his
happiness depends and whose non,satis!action entails su!!ering.
Alone and isolated he could only provide in an incomplete insu!!icient
manner !or these incessant needs. 5he instinct o! sociability brings him
2%%
together with similar persons and drives him into communication with
them. 5here!ore impelled by the self4interest o! the individuals thus
brought together a certain division of labor is established necessarily
!ollowed by exchanges. (n brie! we see an organization emerge by
means o! which man can more completely satis!y his needs than he
could living in isolation.
5his natural organiDation is called society.
5he ob<ect o! society is there!ore the most complete satis!action o!
manXs needs. 5he division o! labor and e=change are the means by
which this is accomplished.
Among the needs o! man there is one particular type which plays an
immense role in the history o! humanity namely the need !or security.
What is this need7
Whether they live in isolation or in society men are above all
interested in preserving their e=istence and the !ruits o! their labor. (!
the sense o! <ustice were universally prevalent on earthK i!
conse@uently each man con!ined himsel! to laboring and e=changing
the !ruits o! his labor without wishing to ta9e away by violence or
!raud the !ruits o! other menXs laborK i! everyone had in one word an
instinctive horror o! any act harm!ul to another person it is certain that
security would e=ist naturally on earth and that no arti!icial institution
would be necessary to establish it. Hn!ortunately this is not the way
things are. 5he sense o! <ustice seems to be the per@uisite o! only a
!ew eminent and e=ceptional temperaments. Among the in!erior races
it e=ists only in a rudimentary state. Hence the innumerable criminal
attempts ever since the beginning o! the world since the days o! Cain
and Abel against the lives and property o! individuals.
Hence also the creation o! establishments whose ob<ect is to guarantee
to everyone the peace!ul possession o! his person and his goods.
5hese establishments were called governments.
4verywhere even among the least enlightened tribes one encounters
a government so universal and urgent is the need !or security provided
by government.
4verywhere men resign themselves to the most e=treme sacri!ices
rather than do without government and hence security without realiDing
that in so doing they mis<udge their alternatives.
2%/
)uppose that a man !ound his person and his means o! survival
incessantly menacedK wouldnXt his !irst and constant preoccupation be
to protect himsel! !rom the dangers that surround him7 5his
preoccupation these e!!orts this labor would necessarily absorb the
greater portion o! his time as well as the most energetic and active
!aculties o! his intelligence. (n conse@uence he could only devote
insu!!icient and uncertain e!!orts and his divided attention to the
satis!action o! his other needs.
4ven though this man might be as9ed to surrender a very considerable
portion o! his time and o! his labor to someone who ta9es it upon
himsel! to guarantee the peace!ul possession o! his person and his
goods wouldnXt it be to his advantage to conclude this bargain7
)till it would obviously be no less in his sel!,interest to procure his
security at the lowest price possible.
C6*P)TITI6N IN S)CD(ITC
(! there is one well,established truth in political economy it is this.
9hat in all cases, for all commodities that serve to provide for the
tangible or intangible needs of the consumer, it is in the consumerEs
best interest that labor and trade remain free, because the freedom of
labor and of trade have as their necessary and permanent result the
maximum reduction of price.
And this.
9hat the interests of the consumer of any commodity whatsoever
should always prevail over the interests of the producer.
+ow in pursuing these principles one arrives at this rigorous
conclusion.
9hat the production of security should, in the interests of the
consumers of this intangible commodity, remain sub$ect to the law of
free competition.
Whence it !ollows.
9hat no government should have the right to prevent another
government from going into competition with it, or to require consumers
of security to come exclusively to it for this commodity.
2/0
+evertheless ( must admit that up until the present one recoiled
be!ore this rigorous implication o! the principle o! !ree competition.
&ne economist who has done as much as anyone to e=tend the
application o! the principle o! liberty ;. Charles :unoyer thin9s Lthat
the !unctions o! government will never be able to !all into the domain o!
private activity.M
2
+ow here is a citation o! a clear and obvious e=ception to the principle
o! !ree competition.
5his e=ception is all the more remar9able !or being uni@ue.
Hndoubtedly one can !ind economists who establish more numerous
e=ceptions to this principleK but we may emphatically a!!irm that these
are not pure economists. 5rue economists are generally agreed on the
one hand that the government should restrict itsel! to guaranteeing the
security o! its citiDens and on the other hand that the !reedom o! labor
and o! trade should otherwise be whole and absolute.
*ut why should there be an e=ception relative to security7 What special
reason is there that the production o! security cannot be relegated to
!ree competition7 Why should it be sub<ected to a di!!erent principle
and organiDed according to a di!!erent system7
&n this point the masters o! the science are silent and ;. :unoyer
who has clearly noted this e=ception does not investigate the grounds
on which it is based.
S)CD(ITC AN )<C)PTI6N-
We are conse@uently led to as9 ourselves whether his e=ception is well
!ounded in the eyes o! the economist.
(t o!!ends reason to believe that a well established natural law can
admit o! e=ceptions. A natural law must hold everywhere and always
or be invalid. ( cannot believe !or e=ample that the universal law o!
gravitation which governs the physical world is ever suspended in any
instance or at any point o! the universe. +ow ( consider economic laws
comparable to natural laws and ( have <ust as much !aith in the
principle o! the division o! labor as ( have in the universal law o!
gravitation. ( believe that while these principles can be disturbed they
admit o! no e=ceptions.
2/1
*ut i! this is the case the production o! security should not be removed
!rom the <urisdiction o! !ree competitionK and i! it is removed society as
a whole su!!ers a loss.
4ither this is logical and true or else the principles on which economic
science is based are invalid.
TH) ALT)(NATI')S
(t thus has been demonstrated a priori to those o! us who have !aith in
the principles o! economic science that the e=ception indicated above
is not <usti!ied and that the production o! security li9e anything else
should be sub<ect to the law o! !ree competition.
&nce we have ac@uired this conviction what remains !or us to do7 (t
remains !or us to investigate how it has come about that the production
o! security has not been sub<ected to the law o! !ree competition but
rather has been sub<ected to di!!erent principles.
What are those principles7
5hose o! monopoly and communism.
(n the entire world there is not a single establishment o! the security
industry that is not based on monopoly or on communism.
(n this connection we add in passing a simple remar9.
'olitical economy has disapproved e@ually o! monopoly and
communism in the various branches o! human activity wherever it has
!ound them. (s it not then strange and unreasonable that it accepts
them in the security industry7
*6N6P6LC AN C6**DNIS*
Let us now e=amine how it is that all 9nown governments have either
been sub<ected to the law o! monopoly or else organiDed according to
the communistic principle.
$irst let us investigate what is understood by the words monopoly and
communism.
(t is an observable truth that the more urgent and necessary are manXs
needs the greater will be the sacri!ices he will be willing to endure in
2/2
order to satis!y them. +ow there are some things that are !ound
abundantly in nature and whose production does not re@uire a great
e=penditure o! labor but which since they satis!y these urgent and
necessary wants can conse@uently ac@uire an e=change value all out
o! proportion with their natural value. 5a9e salt !or e=ample. )uppose
that a man or a group o! men succeed in having the e=clusive
production and sale o! salt assigned to themselves. (t is apparent that
this man or group could arise the price o! this commodity well above its
value well above the price it would have under a regime o! !ree
competition.
&ne will then say that this man or this group possesses a monopoly
and that the price o! salt is a monopoly price.
*ut it is obvious that the consumers will not consent !reely to paying the
abusive monopoly surta=. (t will be necessary to compel them to pay it
and in order to compel them the employment o! !orce will be
necessary.
4very monopoly necessarily rests on !orce.
When the monopolists are no longer as strong as the consumers they
e=ploit what happens7
(n every instance the monopoly !inally disappears either violently or as
the outcome o! an amicable transaction. What is it replaced with7
(! the roused and insurgent consumers secure the means o! production
o! the salt industry in all probability they will con!iscate this industry !or
their own pro!it and their !irst thought will be not to relegate it to !ree
competition but rather to e=ploit it in common !or their own account.
5hey will then name a director or a directive committee to operate the
saltwor9s to whom they will allocate the !unds necessary to de!ray the
costs o! salt production. 5hen since the e=perience o! the past will
have made them suspicious and distrust!ul since they will be a!raid
that the director named by them will seiDe production !or his own
bene!it and simply reconstitute by open or hidden means the old
monopoly !or his own pro!it they will elect delegates representatives
entrusted with appropriating the !unds necessary !or production with
watching over their use and with ma9ing sure that the salt produced is
e@ually distributed to those entitled to it. 5he production o! salt will be
organiDed in this manner.
5his !orm o! the organiDation o! production has been named
2/-
communism.
When this organiDation is applied to a single commodity the
communism is said to be partial.
When it is applied to all commodities the communism is said to be
complete.
*ut whether communism is partial or complete political economy is no
more tolerant o! it than it is o! monopoly o! which it is merely an
e=tension.
TH) *6N6P6LIKATI6N AN C6LL)CTI'IKATI6N 67 TH)
S)CD(ITC INDST(C
(snXt what has <ust been said about salt applicable to security7 (snXt this
the history o! all monarchies and all republics7
4verywhere the production o! security began by being organiDed as a
monopoly and everywhere nowadays it tends to be organiDed
communistically.
Here is why.
Among the tangible and intangible commodities necessary to man
none with the possible e=ception o! wheat is more indispensable and
there!ore none can support @uite so large a monopoly duty.
+or is any @uite so prone to monopoliDation.
What indeed is the situation o! men who need security7 Wea9ness.
What is the situation o! those who underta9e to provide them with this
necessary security7 )trength. (! it were otherwise i! the consumers o!
security were stronger than the producers they obviously would
dispense with their assistance.
+ow i! the producers o! security are originally stronger than the
consumers wonXt it be easy !or the !ormer to impose a monopoly on
the latter7
4verywhere when societies originate we see the strongest most
warli9e races seiDing the e=clusive government o! the society.
4verywhere we see these races seiDing a monopoly on security within
certain more or less e=tensive boundaries depending on their number
and strength.
2/1
And this monopoly being by its very nature e=traordinarily pro!itable
everywhere we see the races invested with the monopoly on security
devoting themselves to bitter struggles in order to add to the extent of
their market the number o! their forced consumers and hence the
amount o! their gains.
War has been the necessary and inevitable conse@uence o! the
establishment o! a monopoly on security.
Another inevitable conse@uence has been that this monopoly has
engendered all other monopolies.
When they saw the situation o! the monopoliDers o! security the
producers o! other commodities could not help but notice that nothing
in the world is more advantageous than monopoly. 5hey in turn were
conse@uently tempted to add to the gains !rom their own industry by
the same process. *ut what did they re@uire in order to monopoliDe to
the detriment o! the consumers the commodity they produced7 5hey
re@uired !orce. However they did not possess the !orce necessary to
constrain the consumers in @uestion. What did they do7 5hey borrowed
it !or a consideration !rom those who had it. 5hey petitioned and
obtained at the price o! an agreed upon !ee the e=clusive privilege o!
carrying on their industry within certain determined boundaries. )ince
the !ees !or these privileges brought the producers o! security a goodly
sum o! money the world was soon covered with monopolies. Labor
and trade were everywhere shac9led enchained and the condition o!
the masses remained as miserable as possible.
+evertheless a!ter long centuries o! su!!ering as enlightenment spread
through the world little by little the masses who had been smothered
under this ne=us o! privileges began to rebel against the privileged and
to demand liberty that is to say the suppression o! monopolies.
5his process too9 many !orms. What happened in 4ngland !or
e=ample7 &riginally the race which governed the country and which
was militarily organiDed "the aristocracy# having at its head a
hereditary leader "the 9ing# and an e@ually hereditary administrative
council "the House o! Lords# set the price o! security which it had
monopoliDed at whatever rate it pleased. 5here was no negotiation
between the producers o! security and the consumers. 5his was the
rule o! absolutism. *ut as time passed the consumers having become
aware o! their numbers and strength arose against the purely arbitrary
regime and they obtained the right to negotiate with the producers over
2/3
the price o! the commodity. $or this purpose they sent delegates to the
1ouse of ,ommons to discuss the level o! ta=es the price o! security.
5hey were thus able to improve their lot somewhat. +evertheless the
producers o! security had a direct say in the naming o! the members o!
the House o! Commons so that debate was not entirely open and the
price o! the commodity remained above its natural value. &ne day the
e=ploited consumers rose against the producers and dispossessed
them o! their industry. 5hey then undertoo9 to carry on this industry by
themselves and chose !or this purpose a director o! operations assisted
by a Council. 5hus communism replaced monopoly. *ut the scheme
did not wor9 and twenty years later primitive monopoly was re,
established. &nly this time the monopolists were wise enough not to
restore the rule o! absolutismK they accepted !ree debate over ta=es
being care!ul all the while incessantly to corrupt the delegates o! the
opposition party. 5hey gave these delegates control over various posts
in the administration o! security and they even went so !ar as to allow
the most in!luential into the bosom o! their superior Council. +othing
could have been more clever than this behavior. +evertheless the
consumers o! security !inally became aware o! these abuses and
demanded the re!orm o! 'arliament. 5his long contested re!orm was
!inally achieved and since that time the consumers have won a
signi!icant lightening o! their burdens.
(n $rance the monopoly on security a!ter having similarly undergone
!re@uent vicissitudes and various modi!ications has <ust been
overthrown !or the second time. \:e ;olinari was writing one year a!ter
the revolutions o! 1%1% J 5r.] As once happened in 4ngland monopoly
!or the bene!it o! one caste and then in the name o! a certain class o!
society was !inally replaced by communal production. 5he consumers
as a whole behaving li9e shareholders named a director responsible
!or supervising the actions o! the director and o! his administration.
We will content ourselves with ma9ing one simple observation on the
sub<ect o! this new regime.
6ust as the monopoly on security logically had to spawn universal
monopoly so communistic security must logically spawn universal
communism.
(n reality we have a choice o! two things.
4ither communistic production is superior to !ree production or it is not.
(! it is then it must be !or all things not <ust !or security.
2/2
(! not progress re@uires that it be replaced by !ree production.
Complete communism or complete liberty. that is the alternativeQ
?6')(N*)NT AN S6CI)TC
*ut is it conceivable that the production o! security could be organiDed
other than as a monopoly or communistically7 Could it conceivably be
relegated to !ree competition7
5he response to this @uestion on the part o! political writers is
unanimous. +o.
Why7 We will tell you why.
*ecause these writers who are concerned especially with
governments 9now nothing about society. 5hey regard it as an arti!icial
!abrication and believe that the mission o! government is to modi!y and
rema9e it constantly.
+ow in order to modi!y or rema9e society it is necessary to be
empowered with a authority superior to that o! the various individuals o!
which it is composed.
;onopolistic governments claim to have obtained !rom Aod himsel! this
authority which gives them the right to modi!y or rema9e society
according to their !ancy and to dispose o! persons and property
however they please. Communistic governments appeal to human
reason as mani!ested in the ma<ority o! the sovereign people.
*ut do monopolistic governments and communistic governments truly
possess this superior irresistible authority7 :o they in reality have a
higher authority than that which a !ree government could have7 5his is
what we must investigate.
TH) I'IN) (I?HT 67 =IN?S AN *A,6(ITI)S
(! it were true that society were not naturally organiDed i! it were true
that the laws which govern its motion were to be constantly modi!ied or
remade the legislators would necessarily have to have an immutable
sacred authority. *eing the continuators o! 'rovidence on earth they
would have to be regarded as almost e@ual to Aod. (! it were otherwise
would it not be impossible !or them to !ul!ill their mission7 (ndeed one
cannot intervene in human a!!airs one cannot attempt to direct and
2/0
regulate them without daily o!!ending a multitude o! interests. Hnless
those in power are believed to have a mandate !rom a superior entity
the in<ured interests will resist.
Whence the !iction o! divine right.
5his !iction was certainly the best imaginable. (! you succeed in
persuading the multitude that Aod himsel! has chosen certain men or
certain races to give laws to society and to govern it no one will dream
o! revolting against these appointees o! 'rovidence and everything the
government does will be accepted. A government based on divine right
is imperishable.
&n one condition only namely that divine right is believed in.
(! one ta9es the thought into oneXs head that the leaders o! the people
do not receive their inspirations directly !rom providence itsel! that they
obey purely human impulses the prestige that surrounds them will
disappear. &ne will irreverently resist their sovereign decisions as one
resists anything manmade whose utility has not been clearly
demonstrated.
(t is accordingly !ascinating to see the pains theoreticians o! the divine
right ta9e to establish the superhumanity o! the races in possession o!
human government.
Let us listen !or e=ample to ;. 6oseph de ;aistre.
;an does not ma9e sovereigns. At the very most he can
serve as an instrument !or dispossessing one sovereign
and handing his )tate over to another sovereign himsel!
already a prince. ;oreover there has never e=isted a
sovereign !amily traceable to plebeian origins. (! this
phenomenon were to appear it would mar9 a new epoch
on earth.
... (t is written. I am the 0aker of sovereigns. 5his is not
<ust a religious slogan a preacherXs metaphorK it is the
literal truth pure and simpleK it is a law o! the political world.
Aod makes 9ings word !or word. He prepares royal races
nurtures them at the center o! a cloud which hides their
origins. $inally they appear crowned with glory and honorK
they ta9e their places.
-
2/%
According to this system which embodies the will o! 'rovidence in
certain men and which invests these chosen ones these anointed ones
with a @uasi,divine authority the sub$ects evidently have no rights at
all. 5hey must submit without question to the decrees o! the sovereign
authority as i! they were the decrees o! 'rovidence itsel!.
According to 'lutarch the body is the instrument o! the soul and the
soul is the instrument o! Aod. According to the divine right school Aod
selects certain souls and uses them as instruments !or governing the
world.
(! men had faith in this theory surely nothing could unsettle a
government based on divine right.
Hn!ortunately they have completely lost !aith.
Why7
*ecause one !ine day they too9 it into their heads to @uestion and to
reason and in @uestioning in reasoning they discovered that their
governors governed them no better than they simply mortals out o!
communication with 'rovidence could have done themselves.
(t was free inquiry that demonetiDed the !iction o! divine right to the
point where the sub<ects o! monarchs or o! aristocracies based on
divine right obey them only inso!ar as they thin9 it in their own self4
interest to obey them.
Has the communist !iction !ared any better7
According to the communist theory o! which 8ousseau is the high,
priest authority does not descend !rom on high but rather comes up
!rom below. 5he government no longer loo9 to 'rovidence !or its
authority it loo9s to united man9ind to the one, indivisible, and
sovereign nation.
Here is what the communists the partisans o! popular sovereignty
assume. 5hey assume that human reason has the power to discover
the best laws and the organiDation which most per!ectly suits societyK
and that in practice these laws reveal themselves at the conclusion o!
a !ree debate between con!licting opinions. (! there is no unanimity i!
there is still dissension a!ter the debate the ma<ority is in the right
since it comprises the larger number o! reasonable individuals. "5hese
individuals are o! course assumed to be e@ual otherwise the whole
structure collapses.# Conse@uently they insist that the decisions o! the
2//
ma<ority must become law and that the minority is obliged to submit to
it even i! it is contrary to its most deeply rooted convictions and in<ures
its most precious interests.
5hat is the theoryK but in practice does the authority o! the decision o!
the ma<ority really have this irresistible absolute character as
assumed7 (s it always in every instance respected by the minority7
Could it be7
Let us ta9e an e=ample.
Let us suppose that socialism succeeds in propagating itsel! among the
wor9ing classes in the countryside as it has already among the wor9ing
classes in the citiesK that it conse@uently becomes the ma<ority in the
country and that pro!iting !rom this situation it sends a socialist
ma<ority to the Legislative Assembly and names a socialist president.
)uppose that this ma<ority and this president invested with sovereign
authority decrees the imposition o! a ta= on the rich o! three billions in
order to organiDe the labor o! the poor as ;. 'roudhon demanded. (s it
probable that the minority would submit peace!ully to his ini@uitous and
absurd yet legal yet constitutional plunder7
+o without a doubt it would not hesitate to disown the authority o! the
ma<ority and to de!end its property.
Hnder this regime as under the preceding one obeys the custodians
o! authority only inso!ar as one thin9s it in oneXs sel!,interest to obey
them.
5his leads us to a!!irm that the moral !oundation o! authority is neither
as solid nor as wide under a regime o! monopoly or o! communism as
it could be under a regime o! liberty.
TH) ()?I*) 67 T)((6(
)uppose nevertheless that the partisans o! an artificial organization
either the monopolists or the communists are rightK that society is not
naturally organiDed and that the tas9 o! ma9ing and unma9ing the laws
that regulate society continuously devolves upon men loo9 in what a
lamentable situation the world would !ind itsel!. 5he moral authority o!
governors rests in reality on the sel!,interest o! the governed. 5he
latter having a natural tendency to resist anything harm!ul to their sel!,
interest unac9nowledged authority would continually re@uire the help
-00
o! physical !orce.
5he monopolist and the communists !urthermore completely
understand this necessity.
(! anyone says ;. de ;aistre attempts to detract !rom the authority o!
AodXs chosen ones let him be turned over to the secular power let the
hangman per!orm his o!!ice.
(! anyone does not recogniDe the authority o! those chosen by the
people say the theoreticians o! the school o! 8ousseau i! he resists
any decision whatsoever o! the ma<ority let him be punished as an
enemy o! the sovereign people let the guillotine per!orm <ustice.
5hese two schools which both ta9e artificial organization as their point
o! departure necessarily lead to the same conclusion. 5488&8.
TH) 7()) *A(=)T 76( S)CD(ITC
Allow us now to !ormulate a simple hypothetical situation.
Let us imagine a new,born society. 5he men who compose it are busy
wor9ing and e=changing the !ruits o! their labor. A natural instinct
reveals to these men that their persons the land they occupy and
cultivate the !ruits o! their labor are their property and that no one
e=cept themselves has the right to dispose o! or touch this property.
5his instinct is not hypotheticalK it e=ists. *ut man being an imper!ect
creature this awareness o! the right o! everyone to his person and his
goods will not be !ound to the same degree in every soul and certain
individuals will ma9e criminal attempts by violence or by !raud against
the persons or the property o! others.
Hence the need !or an industry that prevents or suppresses these
!orcible or !raudulent aggressions.
Let us suppose that a man or a combination o! men comes and says.
$or a recompense ( will underta9e to prevent or suppress criminal
attempts against persons and property.
Let those who wish their persons and property to be sheltered !rom all
aggression apply to me.
*e!ore stri9ing a bargain with this producer of security what will the
consumers do7
-01
(n the !irst place they will chec9 i! he is really strong enough to protect
them.
(n the second place whether his character is such that they will not
have to worry about his instigating the very aggressions he is supposed
to suppress.
(n the third place whether any other producer o! security o!!ering e@ual
guarantees is disposed to o!!er them this commodity on better terms.
5hese terms are o! various 9inds.
(n order to be able to guarantee the consumers !ull security o! their
persons and property and in case o! harm to give them a
compensation proportioned to the loss su!!ered it would be necessary
indeed.
1. 5hat the producer establish certain penalties against the o!!enders o!
persons and the violators o! property and that the consumers agree to
submit to these penalties in case they themselves commit o!!ensesK
2. 5hat he impose certain inconveniences on the consumers with the
ob<ect o! !acilitating the discovery o! the authors o! o!!ensesK
-. 5hat he regularly gather in order to cover his costs o! production as
well as an appropriate return !or his e!!orts a certain sum variable
according to the situation o! the consumers the particular occupations
they engage in and the e=tent value and nature o! their properties.
(! these terms necessary !or carrying on this industry are agreeable to
the consumers a bargain will be struc9. &therwise the consumers will
either do without security or else apply to another producer.
+ow i! we consider the particular nature o! the security industry it is
apparent that the producers will necessarily restrict their clientele to
certain territorial boundaries. 5hey would be unable to cover their costs
i! they tried to provide police services in localities comprising only a !ew
clients. 5heir clientele will naturally be clustered around the center o!
their activities. 5hey would nevertheless be unable to abuse this
situation by dictating to the consumers. (n the event o! an abusive rise
in the price o! security the consumers would always have the option o!
giving their patronage to a new entrepreneur or to a neighboring
entrepreneur.
5his option the consumer retains o! being able to buy security
wherever he pleases brings about a constant emulation among all the
-02
producers each producer striving to maintain or augment his clientele
with the attraction o! cheapness or o! !aster more complete and better
<ustice.
1
(! on the contrary the consumer is not !ree to buy security wherever he
pleases you !orthwith see open up a large pro!ession dedicated to
arbitrariness and bad management. 6ustice becomes slow and costly
the police ve=atious individual liberty is no longer respected the price
o! security is abusively in!lated and ine@uitably apportioned according
to the power and in!luence o! this or that class o! consumers. 5he
protectors engage in bitter struggles to wrest customers !rom one
another. (n a word all the abuses inherent in monopoly or in
communism crop up.
Hnder the rule o! !ree competition war between the producers o!
security entirely loses its <usti!ication. Why would they ma9e war7 5o
con@uer consumers7 *ut the consumers would not allow themselves to
be con@uered. 5hey would be care!ul not to allow themselves to be
protected by men who would unscrupulously attac9 the persons and
property o! their rivals. (! some audacious con@ueror tried to become
dictator they would immediately call to their aid all the !ree consumers
menaced by this aggression and they would treat him as he deserved.
6ust as war is the natural conse@uence o! monopoly peace is the
natural conse@uence o! liberty.
Hnder a regime o! liberty the natural organiDation o! the security
industry would not be di!!erent !rom that o! other industries. (n small
districts a single entrepreneur could su!!ice. 5his entrepreneur might
leave his business to his son or sell it to another entrepreneur. (n
larger districts one company by itsel! would bring together enough
resources ade@uately to carry on this important and di!!icult business. (!
it were well managed this company could easily last and security
would last with it. (n the security industry <ust as in most o! the other
branches o! production the latter mode o! organiDation will probably
replace the !ormer in the end.
&n the one hand this would be a monarchy and on the other hand it
would be a republicK but it would be a monarchy without monopoly and
a republic without communism.
&n either hand this authority would be accepted and respected in the
name o! utility and would not be an authority imposed by terror.
(t will undoubtedly be disputed whether such a hypothetical situation is
-0-
realiDable. *ut at the ris9 o! being considered utopian we a!!irm that
this is not disputable that a care!ul e=amination o! the !acts will decide
the problem o! government more and more in !avor o! liberty <ust as it
does all other economic problems. We are convinced so !ar as we are
concerned that one day societies will be established to agitate !or the
freedom of government as they have already been established on
behal! o! the !reedom o! commerce.
And we do not hesitate to add that a!ter this re!orm has been achieved
and all arti!icial obstacles to the !ree action o! the natural laws that
govern the economic world have disappeared the situation o! the
various members o! society will become the best possible.
Notes
1
Although this article may appear utopian in its conclusions we
nevertheless believe that we should publish it in order to attract the
attention o! economists and <ournalists to a @uestion which has hitherto
been treated in only a desultory manner and which should
nevertheless in our day and age be approached with greater
precision. )o many people e=aggerate the nature and prerogatives o!
government that it has become use!ul to !ormulate strictly the
boundaries outside o! which the intervention o! authority becomes
anarchical and tyrannical rather than protective and pro!itable. \+ote o!
the editor,in,chie! o! the .ournal des @conomistes 1%1/.]
2
(n his remar9able boo9 'e la libert3 du travail "8n the 5reedom of
-abor# ?ol. ((( p. 23-. "'ublished by Auillaumin.#
-
'u principe g3n3rateur des constitutions politiques. "8n the
(enerating +rinciple of +olitical ,onstitutions.# 're!ace.
1
Adam )mith whose remar9able spirit o! observation e=tends to all
sub<ects remar9s that the administration o! <ustice gained much in
4ngland !rom the competition between the di!!erent courts o! law.
5he !ees o! court seem originally to have been the principal
support o! the di!!erent courts o! <ustice in 4ngland. 4ach
court endeavoured to draw to itsel! as much business as it
could and was upon that account willing to ta9e
cogniDance o! many suits which were not originally
intended to !all under its <urisdiction. 5he court o! 9ingXs
bench instituted !or the trial o! criminal causes only too9
-01
cogniDance o! civil suitsK the plainti!! pretending that the
de!endant in not doing him <ustice had been guilty o!
some trespass or misdemeanor. 5he court o! e=che@uer
instituted !or the levying o! the 9ingXs revenue and !or
en!orcing the payment o! such debts only as were due to
the 9ing too9 cogniDance o! all other contract debtsK the
plainti!! alleging that he could not pay the 9ing because the
de!endant would not pay him. (n conse@uence o! such
!ictions it came in many case to depend altogether upon
the parties be!ore what court they would chuse to have
their cause triedK and each court endeavoured by superior
dispatch and impartiality to draw to itsel! as many causes
as it could. 5he present admirable constitution o! the courts
o! <ustice in 4ngland was perhaps originally in a great
measure !ormed by this emulation which anciently too9
place between their respective <udgesK each <udge
endeavouring to give in his own court the speediest and
most e!!ectual remedy which the law would admit !or
every sort o! in<ustice.
J 9he ;ealth of /ations "+ew Gor9. ;odern
Library 1/-0K originally 1002# p. 20/.
&riginally published as L:e la production de la sBcuritBM in .ournal des
@conomistes "$eb 1%1/# pp. 200,/0.
-03
Source 3C
Hans2Her!ann Hoppe
?o#ern!ent and the Pri#ate Production of efense
It is the %ight of the +eople to alter or to abolish it, and to
institute new (overnment, laying its foundation on such
principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them
shall seem most likely to effect their &afety and 1appiness.
J :eclaration o! (ndependence
(
Among the most popular and conse@uential belie!s o! our age is the
belie! in collective security. +othing less signi!icant than the legitimacy
o! the modern state rests on this belie!.
( will demonstrate that the idea o! collective security is a myth that
provides no <usti!ication !or the modern state and that all security is
and must be private. $irst ( will present a two,step reconstruction o! the
myth o! collective security and at each step ( will raise a !ew theoretical
concerns.
5he myth o! collective security can also be called the Hobbesian myth.
5homas Hobbes and countless political philosophers and economists
a!ter him argued that in the state o! nature men would constantly be at
each othersX throats. 1omo homini lupus est. 'ut in modern <argon in
the state o! nature a permanent LunderproductionM o! security would
prevail. 4ach individual le!t to his own devices and provisions would
spend Ltoo littleM on his own de!ense resulting in permanent
interpersonal war!are. 5he solution to this presumably intolerable
situation according to Hobbes and his !ollowers is the establishment
o! a state. (n order to institute peace!ul cooperation among themselves
two individuals A and * re@uire a third independent party ) as
ultimate <udge and peacema9er. However this third party ) is not <ust
another individual and the good provided by ) that o! security is not
<ust another LprivateM good. 8ather ) is a sovereign and has as such
two uni@ue powers. &n the one hand ) can insist that his sub$ects A
and * not see9 protection !rom anyone but himK that is ) is a
compulsory territorial monopolist o! protection. &n the other hand )
can determine unilaterally how much A and * must spend on their own
-02
securityK that is ) has the power to impose ta=es in order to provide
security Lcollectively.M
5here is little use in @uarreling over whether or not man is as bad and
wol!,li9e as Hobbes supposes e=cept to note that HobbesXs thesis
obviously cannot mean that man is driven only and e=clusively by
aggressive instincts. (! this were the case man9ind would have died
out long ago. 5he !act that he did not demonstrates that man also
possesses reason and is capable o! constraining his natural impulses.
5he @uarrel is only with the Hobbesian solution. (iven manXs nature as
a rational animal is the proposed solution to the problem o! insecurity
an improvement7 Can the institution o! a state reduce aggressive
behavior and promote peace!ul cooperation and thus provide !or better
private security and protection7 5he di!!iculties with HobbesXs argument
are obvious. $or one regardless o! how bad men are ) J whether
9ing dictator or elected president J is still one o! them. ;anXs nature is
not trans!ormed upon becoming ). Get how can there be better
protection !or A and * i! ) must ta= them in order to provide it7 (s there
not a contradiction within the very construction o! ) as an e=propriating
property protector7 (n !act is this not e=actly what is also J and more
appropriately J re!erred to as a protection racket7 5o be sure ) will
ma9e peace between A and * but only so that he himsel! can rob both
o! them more pro!itably. )urely ) is better protected but the more he is
protected the less A and * are protected !rom attac9s by ). Collective
security it would seem is not better than private security. 8ather it is
the private security o! the state ) achieved through the e=propriation
i.e. the economic disarmament o! its sub<ects. $urther statists !rom
5homas Hobbes to 6ames *uchanan have argued that a protective
state ) would come about as the result o! some sort o! LconstitutionalM
contract.
1
Get who in his right mind would agree to a contract that
allowed oneXs protector to determine unilaterally J and irrevocably J the
sum that the protected must pay !or his protection7 5he fact is no one
ever hasQ
2
Let me interrupt my discussion and return to the reconstruction o! the
Hobbesian myth. &nce it is assumed that in order to institute peace!ul
cooperation between A and * it is necessary to have a state ) a
two!old conclusion !ollows. (! more than one state e=ists J )1 )2 )- J
then <ust as there can presumably be no peace among A and *
without ) so can there be no peace between the states )1 )2 and )-
as long as they remain in a state o! nature "i.e. a state o! anarchy# with
-00
regard to each other. Conse@uently in order to achieve universal
peace political centraliDation uni!ication and ultimately the
establishment o! a single world government are necessary.
(t is use!ul to indicate what can be ta9en as noncontroversial. 5o begin
with the argument is correct as !ar as it goes. (! the premise is correct
then the conse@uence spelled out does !ollow. 5he empirical
assumptions involved in the Hobbesian account appear at !irst glance
to be borne out by the !acts as well. (t is true that states are constantly
at war with each other and a historical tendency toward political
centraliDation and global rule does indeed appear to be occurring.
`uarrels arise only with the e=planation o! this !act and tendency and
the classi!ication o! a single uni!ied world state as an improvement in
the provision o! private security and protection. 5here appears to be an
empirical anomaly !or which the Hobbesian argument cannot account.
5he reason !or the warring among di!!erent states )1 )2 and )-
according to Hobbes is that they are in a state o! anarchy vis4F4vis
each other. However be!ore the arrival o! a single world state not only
are )1 )2 and )- in a state o! anarchy relative to each other but in
!act every sub<ect o! one state is in a state o! anarchy vis4F4vis every
sub<ect o! any other state. Accordingly <ust as much war and
aggression should e=ist between the private citiDens o! various states
as between di!!erent states. 4mpirically however this is not so. 5he
private dealings between !oreigners appear to be signi!icantly less
warli9e than the dealings between di!!erent governments. +or does this
seem to be surprising. A!ter all state agent ) in contrast to every one
o! its sub<ects can rely on domestic ta=ation in the conduct o! his
L!oreign a!!airs.M Aiven his natural human aggressiveness is it not
obvious that ) will be more braDen and aggressive in his conduct
toward !oreigners i! he can e=ternaliDe the cost o! such behavior onto
others7 )urely ( would be willing to ta9e greater ris9s and engage in
more provocation and aggression i! ( could ma9e others pay !or it. And
surely there would be a tendency o! one state J one protection rac9et J
to want to e=pand its territorial protection monopoly at the e=pense o!
other states and thus bring about world government as the ultimate
result o! interstate competition.
-
*ut how is this an improvement in the
provision o! private security and protection7 5he opposite seems to be
the case. 5he world state is the winner o! all wars and the last surviving
protection rac9et. :oesnXt this ma9e it particularly dangerous7
Will not the physical power o! any single world government be
-0%
overwhelming as compared to that o! any one o! its individual sub<ects7
((
Let me pause in my abstract theoretical considerations to ta9e a brie!
loo9 at the empirical evidence bearing on the issue at hand. As noted
at the outset the myth o! collective security is as widespread as it is
conse@uential. ( am not aware o! any survey on this matter but ( would
venture to predict that the Hobbesian myth is accepted more or less
un@uestioningly by well over /0 percent o! the adult population.
However to believe something does not ma9e it true. 8ather i! what
one believes is !alse oneXs actions will lead to !ailure. What about the
evidence7 :oes it support Hobbes and his !ollowers or does it con!irm
the opposite anarchist !ears and contentions7
5he H.). was e=plicitly !ounded as a LprotectiveM state Z la Hobbes. Let
me @uote to this e!!ect !rom 6e!!ersonXs 'eclaration of Independence.
We hold these truths to be sel!,evident that all men are created
e@ual that they are endowed by their Creator with unalienable
rights that among these are Li!e Liberty and the pursuit o!
Happiness. 5hat to secure these rights Aovernments are
instituted among ;en deriving their <ust powers !rom the
consent o! the governed.
Here we have it. 5he H.). government was instituted to !ul!ill one and
only one tas9. the protection o! li!e and property. 5hus it should
provide the per!ect e=ample !or <udging the validity o! the Hobbesian
claim as to the status o! states as protectors. A!ter more than two
centuries o! protective statism what is the status o! our protection and
peace!ul human cooperation7 Was the American e=periment in
protective statism a success7
According to the pronouncements o! our state rulers and their
intellectual bodyguards "o! whom there are more than ever be!ore# we
are better protected and more secure than ever. We are supposedly
protected !rom global warming and coolingK !rom the e=tinction o!
animals and plantsK !rom the abuses o! husbands and wives parents
and employersK !rom poverty disease disaster ignorance pre<udice
racism se=ism homophobia and countless other public enemies and
dangers.
(n !act however matters are stri9ingly di!!erent. (n order to provide us
-0/
with all this LprotectionM the state managers e=propriate more than 10
percent o! the incomes o! private producers year in and year out.
Aovernment debt and liabilities have increased uninterruptedly thus
increasing the need !or !uture e=propriations. &wing to the substitution
o! government paper money !or gold !inancial insecurity has increased
sharply and we are continually robbed through currency depreciation.
4very detail o! private li!e property trade and contract is regulated by
ever higher mountains o! laws "legislation# thereby creating permanent
legal uncertainty and moral haDard. (n particular we have been
gradually stripped o! the right to e=clusion implied in the very concept
o! private property. As sellers we cannot sell to and as buyers we
cannot buy !rom whomever we wish. And as members o! associations
we are not permitted to enter into whatever restrictive covenant we
believe to be mutually bene!icial. As Americans we must accept
immigrants we do not want as our neighbors. As teachers we cannot
get rid o! ill,behaved students. As employers we are stuc9 with
incompetent or destructive employees. As landlords we are !orced to
cope with bad tenants. As ban9ers and insurers we are not allowed to
avoid bad ris9s. As restaurant or bar owners we must accommodate
unwelcome customers. And as members o! private associations we
are compelled to accept individuals and actions in violation o! our own
rules and restrictions. (n short the more the state has increased its
e=penditures on LsocialM security and LpublicM sa!ety the more our
private property rights have been eroded the more our property has
been e=propriated con!iscated destroyed or depreciated and the
more we have been deprived o! the very !oundation o! all protection.
economic independence !inancial strength and personal wealth.
1
5he
path o! every president and practically every member o! congress is
littered with hundreds o! thousands o! nameless victims o! personal
economic ruin !inancial ban9ruptcy emergency impoverishment
despair hardship and !rustration.
5he picture appears even blea9er when we consider !oreign a!!airs.
+ever during its entire history has the continental H.). been territorially
attac9ed by any !oreign army. "'earl Harbor was the result o! a
preceding H.). provocation and the )eptember 11th attac9s were
carried out by a terrorist organiDation.# Get the H.). has the distinction
o! having had a government that declared war against a large part o! its
own population and engaged in the wanton murder o! hundreds o!
thousands o! its own citiDens. ;oreover while the relations between
American citiDens and !oreigners do not appear to be unusually
-10
contentious almost !rom its very beginning the H.). government
relentlessly pursued aggressive e=pansionism. *eginning with the
)panish,American War culminating in World War ( and World War ((
and continuing to the present the H.). government has become
entangled in hundreds o! !oreign con!licts and risen to the ran9 o! the
worldXs dominant imperialist power. 5hus nearly every president since
the turn o! the twentieth century has also been responsible !or the
murder 9illing or starvation o! countless innocent !oreigners all over
the world. (n short while we have become more helpless
impoverished threatened and insecure the H.). Aovernment has
become ever more braDen and aggressive. (n the name o! LnationalM
security it Lde!endsM us e@uipped with enormous stoc9piles o!
weapons o! aggression and mass destruction by bullying ever new
LHitlersM big or small and all suspected Hitlerite sympathiDers
anywhere and everywhere outside o! the territory o! the H.).
3
5he empirical evidence thus seems clear. 5he belie! in a protective
state appears to be a patent error and the American e=periment in
protective statism a complete !ailure. 5he H.). government does not
protect us. 5o the contrary there e=ists no greater danger to our li!e
property and prosperity than the H.). government and the H.).
president in particular is the worldXs single most threatening and armed
danger capable o! ruining everyone who opposes him and destroying
the entire globe.
(((
)tatists react much li9e socialists when !aced with the dismal economic
per!ormance o! the )oviet Hnion and its satellites. 5hey do not
necessarily deny the disappointing !acts but they try to argue them
away by claiming that these !acts are the result o! a systematic
discrepancy "deviancy# between LrealM and LidealM or LtrueM statism "i.e.
socialism#. 5o this day socialists claim that LtrueM socialism has not
been re!uted by the empirical evidence and that everything would have
turned out well and unparalleled prosperity would have resulted i! only
5rots9yXs or *u9harinXs or better still their very own brand o! socialism
rather than )talinXs had been implemented. )imilarly statists interpret
all seemingly contradictory evidence as only accidental. (! only some
other president had come to power at this or that turn in history or i!
only this or that constitutional change or amendment had been
adopted everything would have turned out beauti!ully and unparalleled
security and peace would have resulted. (ndeed this may still happen
-11
in the !uture i! their own policies are employed.
We have learned !rom Ludwig von ;ises how to respond to the
socialistsX evasion "immuniDation# strategy.
2
As long as the de!ining
characteristic J the essence J o! socialism i.e. the absence o! the
private ownership o! !actors o! production remains in place no re!orm
will be o! any help. 5he idea o! a socialist economy is a contradiction in
terms and the claim that socialism represents a LhigherM more e!!icient
mode o! social production is absurd. (n order to reach oneXs own ends
e!!iciently and without waste within the !ramewor9 o! an e=change
economy based on division o! labor it is necessary that one engage in
monetary calculation "cost,accounting#. 4verywhere outside the system
o! a primitive sel!,su!!icient single,household economy monetary
calculation is the sole tool o! rational and e!!icient action. &nly by
comparing inputs and outputs arithmetically in terms o! a common
medium o! e=change "money# can a person determine whether his
actions are success!ul or not. (n distinct contrast socialism means to
have no economy no economiDing at all because under these
conditions monetary calculation and cost,accounting are impossible by
de!inition. (! no private property in !actors o! production e=ists then no
prices !or any production !actor e=istK hence it is impossible to
determine whether or not they are employed economically.
Accordingly socialism is not a higher mode o! production but rather
economic chaos and regression to primitivism.
How to respond to the statistsX evasion strategy has been e=plained by
;urray +. 8othbard.
0
*ut 8othbardXs lesson while e@ually simple and
clear and o! even more momentous implications has remained to this
day !ar less 9nown and appreciated. )o long as the de!ining
characteristic J the essence J o! a state remains in place he
e=plained no re!orm whether o! personnel or constitution will be to
any avail. Aiven the principle o! government J <udicial monopoly and
the power to ta= J any notion o! limiting its power and sa!eguarding
individual li!e and property is illusory. Hnder monopolistic auspices the
price o! <ustice and protection must rise and its @uality must !all. A ta=,
!unded protection agency is a contradiction in terms and will lead to
ever more ta=es and less protection. 4ven i! a government limited its
activities e=clusively to the protection o! pree=isting property rights "as
every LprotectiveM state is supposed to do# the !urther @uestion o! how
much security to provide would arise. ;otivated "li9e everyone else# by
sel!,interest and the disutility o! labor but with the uni@ue power to ta=
-12
a governmentXs answer will invariably be the same. to maximize
expenditures on protection J and almost all o! a nationXs wealth can
conceivably be consumed by the cost o! protection J and at the same
time to minimize the production o! protection. $urthermore a <udicial
monopoly must lead to a deterioration in the @uality o! <ustice and
protection. (! one can only appeal to government !or <ustice and
protection <ustice and protection will be perverted in !avor o!
government J constitutions and supreme courts notwithstanding. A!ter
all constitutions and supreme courts are state constitutions and courts
and whatever limitations to government action they might contain is
determined by agents o! the very institution under consideration.
Accordingly the de!inition o! property and protection will continually be
altered and the range o! <urisdiction e=panded to the governmentXs
advantage.
Hence 8othbard pointed out it !ollows that <ust as socialism cannot be
re!ormed but must be abolished in order to achieve prosperity so the
institution o! a state cannot be re!ormed but must be abolished in order
to achieve <ustice and protection. L:e!ense in the !ree society "including
such de!ense services to person and property as police protection and
<udicial !indings#M 8othbard concluded
would there!ore have to be supplied by people or !irms who "a#
gained their revenue voluntarily rather than by coercion and "b#
did not J as the )tate does J arrogate to themselves a
compulsory monopoly o! police or <udicial protection. . . .
:e!ense !irms would have to be as !reely competitive and as
noncoercive against noninvaders as are all other suppliers o!
goods and services on the !ree mar9et. :e!ense services li9e
all other services would be mar9etable and mar9etable only.
%
5hat is every private property owner would be able to parta9e o! the
advantages o! the division o! labor and see9 better protection o! his
property than that a!!orded through sel!,de!ense by cooperation with
other owners and their property. Anyone could buy !rom sell to or
otherwise contract with anyone else concerning protective and <udicial
services and one could at any time unilaterally discontinue any such
cooperation with others and !all bac9 on sel!,reliant de!ense or change
oneXs protective a!!iliations.
-1-
Notes
1
6ames ;. *uchanan and Aordon 5ulloc9 5he Calculus o! Consent
"Ann Arbor. Hniversity o! ;ichigan 'ress 1/22#K 6ames ;. *uchanan
5he Limits o! Liberty "Chicago. Hniversity o! Chicago 'ress 1/03#K !or
a criti@ue see ;urray +. 8othbard L*uchanan and 5ulloc9Xs Calculus
o! ConsentM in idem 5he Logic o! Action ((. Applications and Criticisms
!rom the Austrian )chool "Cheltenham H.C.. 4dward 4lgar 1//3#K
idem L5he ;yth o! +eutral 5a=ationM 5he Logic o! Action ((K Hans,
Hermann Hoppe 5he 4conomics and 4thics o! 'rivate 'roperty
"*oston. Cluwer Academic 'ublishers 1//-# chap.1.
2
)ee on this in particular Lysander )pooner +o 5reason. 5he
Constitution o! +o Authority "Lar9spur Colo.. 'ine 5ree 'ress 1/22#.
-
)ee Hans,Hermann Hoppe L5he 5rouble With Classical LiberalismM
5riple 8. 8othbard,8oc9well 8eport / no. 1 "1//%#.
1 )ee Hans,Hermann Hoppe LWhere 5he 8ight Aoes WrongM 5riple
8. 8othbard,8oc9well 8eport % no. 1 "1//0#.
3
)ee 6ohn ?. :enson ed. 5he Costs o! War. AmericaXs 'yrrhic
?ictories "+ew *runswic9 +.6.. 5ransaction 'ublishers 1//0#K idem
LA Century o! War. )tudies in Classical LiberalismM "Auburn Ala..
Ludwig von ;ises (nstitute 1///#. )ince the end o! World War (( !or
instance the Hnited )tates government has intervened militarily in
China "1/13J12# Corea "1/30J3-# China "1/30J3-# (ran "1/3-#
Auatemala "1/31# (ndonesia "1/3%# Cuba "1/3/J20# Auatemala
"1/20# Congo "1/21# 'eru "1/23# Laos "1/21J0-# ?ietnam "1/21J
0-# Cambodia "1/2/J00# Auatemala "1/20J2/# Arenada "1/%-#
Lebanon "1/%-# Libya "1/%2# 4l )alvador "1/%0s# +icaragua "1/%0s#
'anama "1/%/# (ra@ "1//1J//# *osnia "1//3# )udan "1//%#
A!ghanistan "1//% and 2002# Gugoslavia "1///# and (ra@ "200-#.
;oreover the Hnited )tates government has troops stationed in nearly
130 countries around the world.
2
Ludwig von ;ises )ocialism "(ndianapolis. LibertyClassics 1/%1#K
Hans,Hermann Hoppe A 5heory o! )ocialism and Capitalism "*oston.
Cluwer Academic 'ublishers 1/%/# chap. 2.
0
;urray +. 8othbard 5he 4thics o! Liberty "+ew Gor9. +ew Gor9
Hniversity 'ress 1//%# esp. chaps. 22 and 2-.
-11
Source 4A
Thucydides
Peloponnesian War
%oo" ;5/@2@3
PericlesB 7uneral 6ration
9his famous speech was given by the 2thenian leader +ericles after
the first battles of the +eloponnesian war. 5unerals after such battles
were public rituals and +ericles used the occasion to make a classic
statement of the value of democracy. It is probably not an exact quote,
but a composition by 9hucydides representing the recollections of
witnesses.
(n the same winter the Athenians gave a !uneral at the public cost to
those who had !irst !allen in this war. (t was a custom o! their ancestors
and the manner o! it is as !ollows. 5hree days be!ore the ceremony the
bones o! the dead are laid out in a tent which has been erectedK and
their !riends bring to their relatives such o!!erings as they please. (n the
!uneral procession cypress co!!ins are borne in cars one !or each tribeK
the bones o! the deceased being placed in the co!!in o! their tribe.
Among these is carried one empty bier dec9ed !or the missing that is
!or those whose bodies could not be recovered. Any citiDen or stranger
who pleases <oins in the procession. and the !emale relatives are there
to wail at the burial. 5he dead are laid in the public sepulchre in the
most beauti!ul suburb o! the city in which those who !all in war are
always buriedK with the e=ception o! those slain at ;arathon who !or
their singular and e=traordinary valour were interred on the spot where
they !ell. A!ter the bodies have been laid in the earth a man chosen by
the state o! approved wisdom and eminent reputation pronounces
over them an appropriate panegyricK a!ter which all retire. )uch is the
manner o! the buryingK and throughout the whole o! the war whenever
the occasion arose the established custom was observed. ;eanwhile
these were the !irst that had !allen and 'ericles son o! >anthippus
was chosen to pronounce their eulogium. When the proper time
arrived he advanced !rom the sepulchre to an elevated plat!orm in
order to be heard by as many o! the crowd as possible and spo9e as
!ollows.
-13
;ost o! my predecessors in this place have commended
him who made this speech part o! the law telling us that it
is well that it should be delivered at the burial o! those who
!all in battle. $or mysel! ( should have thought that the
worth which had displayed itsel! in deeds would be
su!!iciently rewarded by honours also shown by deedsK
such as you now see in this !uneral prepared at the
peopleFs cost. And ( could have wished that the reputations
o! many brave men were not to be imperilled in the mouth
o! a single individual to stand or !all according as he spo9e
well or ill. $or it is hard to spea9 properly upon a sub<ect
where it is even di!!icult to convince your hearers that you
are spea9ing the truth. &n the one hand the !riend who is
!amiliar with every !act o! the story may thin9 that some
point has not been set !orth with that !ullness which he
wishes and 9nows it to deserveK on the other he who is a
stranger to the matter may be led by envy to suspect
e=aggeration i! he hears anything above his own nature.
$or men can endure to hear others praised only so long as
they can severally persuade themselves o! their own ability
to e@ual the actions recounted. when this point is passed
envy comes in and with it incredulity. However since our
ancestors have stamped this custom with their approval it
becomes my duty to obey the law and to try to satis!y your
several wishes and opinions as best ( may.
( shall begin with our ancestors. it is both <ust and proper
that they should have the honour o! the !irst mention on an
occasion li9e the present. 5hey dwelt in the country without
brea9 in the succession !rom generation to generation and
handed it down !ree to the present time by their valour. And
i! our more remote ancestors deserve praise much more
do our own !athers who added to their inheritance the
empire which we now possess and spared no pains to be
able to leave their ac@uisitions to us o! the present
generation. Lastly there are !ew parts o! our dominions
that have not been augmented by those o! us here who
are still more or less in the vigour o! li!eK while the mother
country has been !urnished by us with everything that can
enable her to depend on her own resources whether !or
war or !or peace. 5hat part o! our history which tells o! the
-12
military achievements which gave us our several
possessions or o! the ready valour with which either we or
our !athers stemmed the tide o! Hellenic or !oreign
aggression is a theme too !amiliar to my hearers !or me to
dilate on and ( shall there!ore pass it by. *ut what was the
road by which we reached our position what the !orm o!
government under which our greatness grew what the
national habits out o! which it sprangK these are @uestions
which ( may try to solve be!ore ( proceed to my panegyric
upon these menK since ( thin9 this to be a sub<ect upon
which on the present occasion a spea9er may properly
dwell and to which the whole assemblage whether
citiDens or !oreigners may listen with advantage.
&ur constitution does not copy the laws o! neighbouring
statesK we are rather a pattern to others than imitators
ourselves. (ts administration !avours the many instead o!
the !ewK this is why it is called a democracy. (! we loo9 to
the laws they a!!ord e@ual <ustice to all in their private
di!!erencesK i! no social standing advancement in public
li!e !alls to reputation !or capacity class considerations not
being allowed to inter!ere with meritK nor again does
poverty bar the way i! a man is able to serve the state he
is not hindered by the obscurity o! his condition. 5he
!reedom which we en<oy in our government e=tends also to
our ordinary li!e. 5here !ar !rom e=ercising a <ealous
surveillance over each other we do not !eel called upon to
be angry with our neighbour !or doing what he li9es or
even to indulge in those in<urious loo9s which cannot !ail to
be o!!ensive although they in!lict no positive penalty. *ut
all this ease in our private relations does not ma9e us
lawless as citiDens. Against this !ear is our chie! sa!eguard
teaching us to obey the magistrates and the laws
particularly such as regard the protection o! the in<ured
whether they are actually on the statute boo9 or belong to
that code which although unwritten yet cannot be bro9en
without ac9nowledged disgrace.
$urther we provide plenty o! means !or the mind to re!resh
itsel! !rom business. We celebrate games and sacri!ices all
-10
the year round and the elegance o! our private
establishments !orms a daily source o! pleasure and helps
to banish the spleenK while the magnitude o! our city draws
the produce o! the world into our harbour so that to the
Athenian the !ruits o! other countries are as !amiliar a
lu=ury as those o! his own.
(! we turn to our military policy there also we di!!er !rom our
antagonists. We throw open our city to the world and
never by alien acts e=clude !oreigners !rom any opportunity
o! learning or observing although the eyes o! an enemy
may occasionally pro!it by our liberalityK trusting less in
system and policy than to the native spirit o! our citiDensK
while in education where our rivals !rom their very cradles
by a pain!ul discipline see9 a!ter manliness at Athens we
live e=actly as we please and yet are <ust as ready to
encounter every legitimate danger. (n proo! o! this it may
be noticed that the Lacedaemonians do not invade our
country alone but bring with them all their con!ederatesK
while we Athenians advance unsupported into the territory
o! a neighbour and !ighting upon a !oreign soil usually
van@uish with ease men who are de!ending their homes.
&ur united !orce was never yet encountered by any enemy
because we have at once to attend to our marine and to
dispatch our citiDens by land upon a hundred di!!erent
servicesK so that wherever they engage with some such
!raction o! our strength a success against a detachment is
magni!ied into a victory over the nation and a de!eat into a
reverse su!!ered at the hands o! our entire people. And yet
i! with habits not o! labour but o! ease and courage not o!
art but o! nature we are still willing to encounter danger
we have the double advantage o! escaping the e=perience
o! hardships in anticipation and o! !acing them in the hour
o! need as !earlessly as those who are never !ree !rom
them.
+or are these the only points in which our city is worthy o!
admiration. We cultivate re!inement without e=travagance
and 9nowledge without e!!eminacyK wealth we employ
more !or use than !or show and place the real disgrace o!
-1%
poverty not in owning to the !act but in declining the
struggle against it. &ur public men have besides politics
their private a!!airs to attend to and our ordinary citiDens
though occupied with the pursuits o! industry are still !air
<udges o! public mattersK !or unli9e any other nation
regarding him who ta9es no part in these duties not as
unambitious but as useless we Athenians are able to
<udge at all events i! we cannot originate and instead o!
loo9ing on discussion as a stumbling,bloc9 in the way o!
action we thin9 it an indispensable preliminary to any wise
action at all. Again in our enterprises we present the
singular spectacle o! daring and deliberation each carried
to its highest point and both united in the same personsK
although usually decision is the !ruit o! ignorance
hesitation o! re!lection. *ut the palm o! courage will surely
be ad<udged most <ustly to those who best 9now the
di!!erence between hardship and pleasure and yet are
never tempted to shrin9 !rom danger. (n generosity we are
e@ually singular ac@uiring our !riends by con!erring not by
receiving !avours. Get o! course the doer o! the !avour is
the !irmer !riend o! the two in order by continued 9indness
to 9eep the recipient in his debtK while the debtor !eels less
9eenly !rom the very consciousness that the return he
ma9es will be a payment not a !ree gi!t. And it is only the
Athenians who !earless o! conse@uences con!er their
bene!its not !rom calculations o! e=pediency but in the
con!idence o! liberality.
(n short ( say that as a city we are the school o! Hellas
while ( doubt i! the world can produce a man who where
he has only himsel! to depend upon is e@ual to so many
emergencies and graced by so happy a versatility as the
Athenian. And that this is no mere boast thrown out !or the
occasion but plain matter o! !act the power o! the state
ac@uired by these habits proves. $or Athens alone o! her
contemporaries is !ound when tested to be greater than her
reputation and alone gives no occasion to her assailants
to blush at the antagonist by whom they have been
worsted or to her sub<ects to @uestion her title by merit to
rule. 8ather the admiration o! the present and succeeding
ages will be ours since we have not le!t our power without
-1/
witness but have shown it by mighty proo!sK and !ar !rom
needing a Homer !or our panegyrist or other o! his cra!t
whose verses might charm !or the moment only !or the
impression which they gave to melt at the touch o! !act we
have !orced every sea and land to be the highway o! our
daring and everywhere whether !or evil or !or good have
le!t imperishable monuments behind us. )uch is the
Athens !or which these men in the assertion o! their
resolve not to lose her nobly !ought and diedK and well
may every one o! their survivors be ready to su!!er in her
cause.
(ndeed i! ( have dwelt at some length upon the character o!
our country it has been to show that our sta9e in the
struggle is not the same as theirs who have no such
blessings to lose and also that the panegyric o! the men
over whom ( am now spea9ing might be by de!inite proo!s
established. 5hat panegyric is now in a great measure
completeK !or the Athens that ( have celebrated is only what
the heroism o! these and their li9e have made her men
whose !ame unli9e that o! most Hellenes will be !ound to
be only commensurate with their deserts. And i! a test o!
worth be wanted it is to be !ound in their closing scene
and this not only in cases in which it set the !inal seal upon
their merit but also in those in which it gave the !irst
intimation o! their having any. $or there is <ustice in the
claim that stead!astness in his countryFs battles should be
as a cloa9 to cover a manFs other imper!ectionsK since the
good action has blotted out the bad and his merit as a
citiDen more than outweighed his demerits as an individual.
*ut none o! these allowed either wealth with its prospect o!
!uture en<oyment to unnerve his spirit or poverty with its
hope o! a day o! !reedom and riches to tempt him to shrin9
!rom danger. +o holding that vengeance upon their
enemies was more to be desired than any personal
blessings and rec9oning this to be the most glorious o!
haDards they <oy!ully determined to accept the ris9 to
ma9e sure o! their vengeance and to let their wishes waitK
and while committing to hope the uncertainty o! !inal
success in the business be!ore them they thought !it to act
boldly and trust in themselves. 5hus choosing to die
-20
resisting rather than to live submitting they !led only !rom
dishonour but met danger !ace to !ace and a!ter one brie!
moment while at the summit o! their !ortune escaped not
!rom their !ear but !rom their glory.
)o died these men as became Athenians. Gou their
survivors must determine to have as un!altering a
resolution in the !ield though you may pray that it may
have a happier issue. And not contented with ideas derived
only !rom words o! the advantages which are bound up
with the de!ence o! your country though these would
!urnish a valuable te=t to a spea9er even be!ore an
audience so alive to them as the present you must
yourselves realiDe the power o! Athens and !eed your eyes
upon her !rom day to day till love o! her !ills your heartsK
and then when all her greatness shall brea9 upon you you
must re!lect that it was by courage sense o! duty and a
9een !eeling o! honour in action that men were enabled to
win all this and that no personal !ailure in an enterprise
could ma9e them consent to deprive their country o! their
valour but they laid it at her !eet as the most glorious
contribution that they could o!!er. $or this o!!ering o! their
lives made in common by them all they each o! them
individually received that renown which never grows old
and !or a sepulchre not so much that in which their bones
have been deposited but that noblest o! shrines wherein
their glory is laid up to be eternally remembered upon
every occasion on which deed or story shall call !or its
commemoration. $or heroes have the whole earth !or their
tombK and in lands !ar !rom their own where the column
with its epitaph declares it there is enshrined in every
breast a record unwritten with no tablet to preserve it
e=cept that o! the heart. 5hese ta9e as your model and
<udging happiness to be the !ruit o! !reedom and !reedom o!
valour never decline the dangers o! war. $or it is not the
miserable that would most <ustly be unsparing o! their livesK
these have nothing to hope !or. it is rather they to whom
continued li!e may bring reverses as yet un9nown and to
whom a !all i! it came would be most tremendous in its
conse@uences. And surely to a man o! spirit the
degradation o! cowardice must be immeasurably more
-21
grievous than the un!elt death which stri9es him in the
midst o! his strength and patriotismQ
Com!ort there!ore not condolence is what ( have to o!!er
to the parents o! the dead who may be here. +umberless
are the chances to which as they 9now the li!e o! man is
sub<ectK but !ortunate indeed are they who draw !or their lot
a death so glorious as that which has caused your
mourning and to whom li!e has been so e=actly measured
as to terminate in the happiness in which it has been
passed. )till ( 9now that this is a hard saying especially
when those are in @uestion o! whom you will constantly be
reminded by seeing in the homes o! others blessings o!
which once you also boasted. !or grie! is !elt not so much
!or the want o! what we have never 9nown as !or the loss
o! that to which we have been long accustomed. Get you
who are still o! an age to beget children must bear up in the
hope o! having others in their steadK not only will they help
you to !orget those whom you have lost but will be to the
state at once a rein!orcement and a securityK !or never can
a !air or <ust policy be e=pected o! the citiDen who does not
li9e his !ellows bring to the decision the interests and
apprehensions o! a !ather. While those o! you who have
passed your prime must congratulate yourselves with the
thought that the best part o! your li!e was !ortunate and
that the brie! span that remains will be cheered by the !ame
o! the departed. $or it is only the love o! honour that never
grows oldK and honour it is not gain as some would have
it that re<oices the heart o! age and helplessness.
5urning to the sons or brothers o! the dead ( see an
arduous struggle be!ore you. When a man is gone all are
wont to praise him and should your merit be ever so
transcendent you will still !ind it di!!icult not merely to
overta9e but even to approach their renown. 5he living
have envy to contend with while those who are no longer
in our path are honoured with a goodwill into which rivalry
does not enter. &n the other hand i! ( must say anything
on the sub<ect o! !emale e=cellence to those o! you who will
now be in widowhood it will be all comprised in this brie!
-22
e=hortation. Areat will be your glory in not !alling short o!
your natural characterK and greatest will be hers who is
least tal9ed o! among the men whether !or good or !or
bad.
;y tas9 is now !inished. ( have per!ormed it to the best o!
my ability and in word at least the re@uirements o! the
law are now satis!ied. (! deeds be in @uestion those who
are here interred have received part o! their honours
already and !or the rest their children will be brought up till
manhood at the public e=pense. the state thus o!!ers a
valuable priDe as the garland o! victory in this race o!
valour !or the reward both o! those who have !allen and
their survivors. And where the rewards !or merit are
greatest there are !ound the best citiDens.
And now that you have brought to a close your
lamentations !or your relatives you may depart.
-2-
Source 4 %
,ohann ?ottfried 7ichte
Addresses to the ?er!an Nation
Thirteenth Address To The ?er!an Nation
The *eans 7or 6ur Preser#ation Dntil We Attain 6ur *ain 6b8ect
At the end o! the preceding address we said that there were in
circulation among us a number o! worthless thoughts and deceptive
theories as to the a!!airs o! peoples and that this prevented the
Aermans !rom !orming such a de!inite view o! their present situation as
would be in accordance with their own special characteristics. As these
vain phantoms are being held up !or public veneration with great Deal
<ust at present and as they might be embraced by many people now
that so much else has begun to topple over solely in order to !ill up the
places that have become vacant it seems appropriate to our purpose
to sub<ect these phantoms to a more serious e=amination than their
intrinsic importance would deserve.
5o begin with and be!ore all things. the !irst original and truly natural
boundaries o! states are beyond doubt their internal boundaries. 5hose
who spea9 the same language are <oined to each other by a multitude
o! invisible bonds by nature hersel! long be!ore any human art beginsK
they understand each other and have the power o! continuing to ma9e
themselves understood more and more clearlyK they belong together
and are by nature one and an inseparable whole. )uch a whole i! it
wishes to absorb and mingle with itsel! any other people o! di!!erent
descent and language cannot do so without itsel! becoming con!used
in the beginning at any rate and violently disturbing the even progress
o! its culture. $rom this internal boundary which is drawn by the
spiritual nature o! man himsel! the mar9ing o! the e=ternal boundary by
dwelling place results as a conse@uenceK and in the natural view o!
things it is not because men dwell between certain mountains and
rivers that they are a people but on the contrary men dwell together
and i! their luc9 has so arranged it are protected by rivers and
mountains because they were a people already by a law o! nature
which is much higher.
5hus was the Aerman nation placed su!!iciently united within itsel! by a
-21
common language and a common way o! thin9ing and sharply enough
severed !rom the other peoples in the middle o! 4urope as a wall to
divide races not a9in. 5he Aerman nation was numerous and brave
enough to protect its boundaries against any !oreign attac9K it was le!t
to itsel! and by its whole way o! thin9ing was little inclined to ta9e
notice o! the neighboring peoples to inter!ere in their a!!airs or to
provo9e them to enmity by disturbances. As time went on a 9ind
!ortune preserved it !rom direct participation in the con@uest o! other
worlds that event which more than any other has been the basis o! the
development ta9en by modern world history o! the !ates o! peoples
and o! the largest part o! their ideas and opinions. )ince that event and
not be!ore Christian 4urope which hitherto without being clearly
conscious o! it had been one and by <oint enterprises had shown itsel!
to be one Christian 4urope ( say has split itsel! into various separate
parts. )ince that event and not be!ore there has been a booty in sight
which anyone might seiDeK and each one lusted a!ter it in the same
way because all were able to ma9e use o! it in the same wayK and
each one was envious on seeing it in the hands o! another.
+ow and not be!ore was there a reason !or secret enmity and lust !or
war on the part o! all against all. ;oreover now and not be!ore did it
become pro!itable !or peoples to incorporate with themselves peoples
o! other descent and other languages by con@uest or i! that were not
possible by alliances and to appropriate their !orces. A people that
has remained true to nature may have the wish when its abode
becomes too narrow !or it to enlarge it by con@uest o! the neighboring
soil in order to gain more room and then it will drive out the !ormer
inhabitants. (t may have the wish to e=change a harsh and un!ruit!ul
region !or a milder and more !ortunate one and in this case too it will
drive out the !ormer owners. (t may i! it should degenerate underta9e
mere pillaging raids in which without craving a!ter the soil or its
inhabitants it merely ta9es possession o! every use!ul thing sweeps
the countries clear and then departs. $inally it may regard the !ormer
inhabitants o! the con@uered soil as one o! the use!ul things and allot
them as slaves to individuals. *ut !or it to attach to itsel! as a
component part o! the state the !oreign population <ust as it is that will
not pro!it it in the least and it will never be tempted to do so. *ut i! the
case is thus. that there is a tempting common booty to be !ought !or
and to be won !rom an e@ually strong or even stronger rivalK then the
calculation is di!!erent. (t matters not how much or how little the
con@uered people may blend with usK we can at any rate ma9e use o!
-23
their !ists to overcome the opponent we have to rob and every man is
welcome to us as an addition to our !ighting strength. +ow suppose
that some wise man who wished !or peace and @uiet had had his eyes
opened to this state o! a!!airsK !rom what source could he e=pect @uiet
to come7 &bviously not !rom the limitation set by nature to human
greed viD. that super!luity is o! no bene!it to anyoneK !or there was a
prey which tempted everyone. 6ust as little could he e=pect peace to
come !rom the will to set a limit to oneFs sel!K !or where everyone grabs
!or himsel! everything that he can anyone who limits himsel! must o!
necessity perish. +o one wants to share with another what he then
owns himsel!K everyone wants to rob the other o! what he has i! he
possibly can. (! one o! them is @uiet it is only because he does not
thin9 himsel! strong enough to begin a @uarrelK he will certainly begin it
as soon as he perceives the necessary strength in himsel!.
Hence the only means o! maintaining peace is this. that no one shall
ac@uire enough power to be able to disturb the peace and that each
one shall 9now that there is <ust as much strength to resist on the other
side as there is to attac9 on his sideK and that thus there may arise a
balance and counterbalance o! the total power whereby alone now that
all other means have vanished each one is 9ept in possession o! what
he has at present and all are 9ept in peace. 5his well,9nown system o!
a balance o! power in 4urope there!ore assumes two things. !irst a
prey to which no one at all has any right but !or which all have a li9e
desireK and second the universal ever,present and unceasingly active
lust !or booty. (ndeed on these assumptions this balance o! power
would be the only means o! maintaining peace i! only one could !ind
the second means namely that o! creating the e@uilibrium and
trans!orming it !rom an empty thought into a thing o! reality.
*ut were these assumptions in !act to be made universally and without
any e=ception7 Had not the mighty Aerman nation in the middle o!
4urope 9ept its hands o!! this prey and was it not untainted by any
craving !or it and almost incapable o! ma9ing a claim to it7 (! only the
Aerman nation had remained united with a common will and a
common strengthQ 5hen though the other 4uropeans might have
wanted to murder each other on every sea and shore and on every
island too in the middle o! 4urope the !irm wall o! the Aermans would
have prevented them !rom reaching each other. Here peace would
have remained and the Aermans would have maintained themselves
and with themselves also a part o! the other 4uropean peoples in @uiet
and prosperity.
-22
5hat things should remain thus did not suit the sel!ishness o! !oreign
countries whose calculations did not loo9 more than one moment
ahead. 5hey !ound Aerman bravery use!ul in waging their wars and
Aerman hands use!ul to snatch the booty !rom their rivals. A means
had to be !ound to attain this end and !oreign cunning won an easy
victory over Aerman ingenuousness and lac9 o! suspicion. (t was
!oreign countries which !irst made use o! the division o! mind produced
by religious disputes in Aermany J Aermany which presented on a
small scale the !eatures o! Christian 4urope as a whole J !oreign
countries ( say made use o! these disputes to brea9 up the close inner
unity o! Aermany into separate and disconnected parts. $oreign
countries had already destroyed their own unity naturally by splitting
into parts over a common preyK and now they arti!icially destroyed
Aerman unity. 5hey 9new how to present each o! these separate states
that had thus arisen in the lap o! the one nation J which had no enemy
e=cept those !oreign countries themselves and no concern e=cept the
common one o! setting itsel! with united strength against their seductive
cra!t and cunning J !oreign countries ( say 9new how to present each
o! these states to the others as a natural enemy against which each
state must be perpetually on its guard. &n the other hand they 9new
how to ma9e themselves appear to the Aerman states as natural allies
against the danger threatening them !rom their own countrymen J as
allies with whom alone they would themselves stand or !all and whose
enterprises they must in turn support with all their might. (t was only
because o! this arti!icial bond that all the disputes which might arise
about any matter whatever in the &ld World or the +ew became
disputes o! the Aerman races in their relation to each other. 4very war
no matter what its cause had to be !ought out on Aerman soil and with
Aerman bloodK every disturbance o! the balance had to be ad<usted in
that nation to which the whole !ountainhead o! such relationships was
un9nownK and the Aerman states whose separate e=istence was in
itsel! contrary to all nature and reason were compelled in order that
they might count !or something to act as ma9eweights to the chie!
!orces in the scale o! the 4uropean e@uilibrium whose movement they
!ollowed blindly and without any will o! their own. 6ust as in many states
abroad the citiDens are designated as belonging to this or that !oreign
party or voting !or this or that !oreign alliance but no name is !ound !or
those who belong to the party o! their own country so it was with the
AermansK !or long enough they belonged only to some !oreign party or
other and one seldom came across a man who supported the party o!
the Aermans and was o! the opinion that this country ought to ma9e an
-20
alliance with itsel!.
5his then is the true origin and meaning this the result !or Aermany
and !or the world o! that notorious doctrine o! a balance o! power to be
arti!icially maintained between the 4uropean states. (! Christian 4urope
had remained one as it ought to be and as it originally was there
would never have been any occasion to thin9 o! such a thing. 5hat
which is one rests upon itsel! and supports itsel! and does not split up
into con!licting !orces which must be brought to an e@uilibrium. &nly
when 4urope became divided and without a law did the thought o! a
balance ac@uire a meaning !rom necessity. 5o this 4urope divided and
without a law Aermany did not belong. (! only Aermany at any rate had
remained one it would have rested on itsel! in the center o! the civiliDed
world li9e the sun in the center o! the universeK it would have 9ept itsel!
at peace and with itsel! the ad<acent countriesK and without any
arti!icial measures it would have 9ept everything in e@uilibrium by the
mere !act o! its natural e=istence. (t was only the deceit o! !oreign
countries that dragged Aermany into their own lawlessness and their
own disputesK it was they who taught Aermany the treacherous notion
o! the balance o! power !or they 9new it to be one o! the most e!!ective
means o! deluding Aermany as to its own true advantage and o!
9eeping it in that state o! delusion. 5his aim is now su!!iciently attained
and the result that was intended is now complete be!ore our eyes.
4ven i! we cannot do away with this result why should we not at any
rate e=tirpate the source o! it in our own understanding which is now
almost the only thing over which we still have sovereign power7 Why
should the old dream still be placed be!ore our eyes now that disaster
has awa9ened us !rom sleep7 Why should we not now at any rate see
the truth and perceive the only means that could have saved us7
'erhaps our descendants may do what we see ought to be done <ust
as we now su!!er because our !athers dreamed. Let us understand that
the conception o! an e@uilibrium to be arti!icially maintained might have
been a consoling dream !or !oreign countries amid the guilt and evil
that oppressed themK but that this conception being an entirely !oreign
product ought never to have ta9en root in the mind o! a Aerman and
that the Aermans ought never to have been so situated that it could
ta9e root among them. Let us understand that now at any rate we must
perceive the utter worthlessness o! such a conception and must see
that the salvation o! all is to be !ound not in it but solely in the unity o!
the Aermans among themselves.
6ust as !oreign to the Aerman is the !reedom o! the seas which is so
-2%
!re@uently preached in our days whether what is intended be real
!reedom or merely the power to e=clude everyone else !rom it.
5hroughout the course o! centuries while all other nations were in
rivalry the Aerman showed little desire to participate in this !reedom to
any great e=tent and he will never do so. ;oreover he is not in need
o! it. 5he abundant supplies o! his own land together with his own
diligence a!!ord him all that is needed in the li!e o! a civiliDed manK nor
does he lac9 s9ill in the art o! ma9ing his resources serve that purpose.
As !or ac@uiring the only true advantage that world trade brings in its
train viD. the increase in scienti!ic 9nowledge o! the earth and its
inhabitants his own scienti!ic spirit will not let him lac9 a means o!
e=change. &h i! only his 9indly !ortune had preserved the Aerman
!rom indirect participation in the booty o! other worlds as it preserved
him !rom direct participationQ (! only we had not been led by our
credulity and by the craving !or a li!e as !ine and as distinguished as
that o! other peoples to ma9e necessities o! the wares produced in
!oreign parts which we could do withoutK i! only we had made
conditions tolerable !or our !ree !ellow citiDen in regard to the wares we
can less easily do without instead o! wishing to draw a pro!it !rom the
sweat and blood o! a poor slave across the seasQ 5hen at any rate we
should not ourselves have !urnished the prete=t !or our present !ateK
war would not have been waged against us as purchasers nor would
we have been ruined because we are a mar9et place. Almost ten years
ago be!ore anyone could !oresee what has since happened the
Aermans were advised to ma9e themselves independent o! world
trade and to turn themselves into a closed commercial state. 5his
proposal ran counter to our habits and especially to our idolatrous
veneration o! coined metalsK it was passionately attac9ed and thrust
aside. )ince then we have been learning in dishonor and under the
compulsion o! a !oreign power to do without those things and !ar more
than those things which we then protested we could not do without
though we might have done so then in !reedom and with the greatest
honor to ourselves. 5hat we might seiDe this opportunity since
en<oyment at least is not corrupting us to correct our ideas once !or allQ
5hat we might at last see that all those swindling theories about world
trade and manu!acturing !or the world mar9et though they suit the
!oreigner and !orm part o! the weapons with which he has always made
war on us have no application to the AermansK and that ne=t to the
unity o! the Aermans among themselves their internal autonomy and
commercial independence !orm the second means !or their salvation
and through them !or the salvation o! 4uropeQ
-2/
+ow at last let us be bold enough to loo9 at the deceptive vision o! a
universal monarchy which people are beginning to hold up !or public
veneration in place o! that e@uilibrium which !or some time has been
growing more and more preposterous and let us perceive how hate!ul
and contrary to reason that vision is. )piritual nature was able to
present the essence o! humanity in e=tremely diverse gradations in
individuals and in individuality as a whole in peoples. &nly when each
people le!t to itsel! develops and !orms itsel! in accordance with its
own peculiar @uality and only when in every people each individual
develops himsel! in accordance with that common @uality as well as in
accordance with his own peculiar @uality then and then only does the
mani!estation o! divinity appear in its true mirror as it ought to beK and
only a man who either entirely lac9s the notion o! the rule o! law and
divine order or else is an obdurate enemy thereto could ta9e upon
himsel! to want to inter!ere with that law which is the highest law in the
spiritual world. &nly in the invisible @ualities o! nations which are
hidden !rom their own eyes J @ualities as the means whereby these
nations remain in touch with the source o! original li!e J only therein is
to be !ound the guarantee o! their present and !uture worth virtue and
merit. (! these @ualities are dulled by admi=ture and worn away by
!riction the !latness that results will bring about a separation !rom
spiritual nature and this in its turn will cause all men to be !used
together in their uni!orm and collective destruction.
As !or the writers who console us !or all our ills with the prospect that
we too shall be sub<ects o! the new universal monarchy that is
beginning are we to believe them when they say that someone or other
has decided upon such a grinding together o! all the germs o! what is
human in humanity in order to press the unresisting dough into some
new !orm and that so monstrous all act o! brutality or enmity against
the human race is possible in this age o! ours7 4ven i! in the !irst
place we were willing to ma9e our minds to believe such an utterly
incredible thing the !urther @uestion arises. *y what instrument is such
a plan to be carried out7 What sort o! people is it to be which in the
present state o! 4uropean culture shall con@uer the world !or some
new universal monarch7
$or many centuries now the peoples o! 4urope have ceased to be
savages or to re<oice in destructive activity !or its own sa9e. All men
see9 behind war a !inal peace behind e=ertion rest behind con!usion
orderK and all men want to see their career crowned with the peace o! a
@uiet and domestic li!e. $or a time they may be made enthusiastic !or
--0
war even by the mere prospect o! advantage to the nationK but when
the call comes again and again in the same !ashion the delusion
vanishes and with it the !everish strength it produced. 5he longing !or
peace and order returns and the @uestion arises. $or what purpose am
( doing and bearing all this7 All these !eelings a world con@ueror in our
time would !irst have to stamp outK and as the present age by its
nature does not produce a race o! savages he would have to create
one with deliberate art. *ut more would remain to be done. A man who
has been accustomed !rom youth upwards to cultivated and settled
countries to prosperity and order !inds pleasure in these things
wherever he sees them i! he is but permitted to be at peace !or a little
whileK !or they represent to him the bac9ground o! his own longing
which a!ter all can never @uite be rooted outK and it is a source o! pain
to himsel! when he is obliged to destroy them. 5o o!!set this 9indly
!eeling so deeply implanted in man as a social being and this grie! and
sorrow at the evils which the soldier brings upon the countries he
con@uers a counterpoise must be !ound. 5here is no other than the
lust !or booty. (! it becomes the soldierFs dominating motive to ac@uire a
!ortune !or himsel! and i! he becomes accustomed when devastating
!lourishing countries to thin9 o! nothing but what he may gain !or
himsel! !rom the general wretchedness then it is to be e=pected that
the !eelings o! sympathy and pity will become silent in him. (n addition
to that barbarous brutality a world con@ueror o! our time would have to
train his people to cold,blooded and deliberate lust !or bootyK he would
not have to punish e=tortions but rather to encourage them.
;oreover the disgrace that naturally adheres to such a thing would
!irst o! all have to be cleared away and robbery would have to be
loo9ed upon as the honorable sign o! a superior mindK it would have to
be rec9oned among great deeds and pave the way to all dignities and
honors. Where is there in modern 4urope a nation so lac9ing in honor
that it could be trained up in this way7 4ven supposing that a world
con@ueror succeeds in reshaping a nation in this !ashion the very
means he ta9es to do it will !rustrate the attainment o! his ob<ect. )uch
a people will thence!orward regard the human beings the countries
and the wor9s o! art that they have ac@uired by con@uest as nothing
more than a means o! ma9ing money with all speed so that they may
move on and ma9e more money. 5hey will e=tort rapidly and when
they have suc9ed the <uice out o! a thing they will throw it away
regardless o! what may happen to itK they will cut down the tree whose
!ruits they want to reach. $or a man who wor9s with such tools as these
--1
all the arts o! seduction persuasion and deception will be in vain. &nly
!rom a distance can such men deceive anyoneK as soon as they are
seen at close @uarters their brutal roughness and their shameless and
insolent lust !or booty will be obvious even to the !eeblest mindK and the
detestation o! the whole human race will cry aloud upon them. With
such tools as these one can indeed plunder and lay waste the earth
and grind it down to stupor and chaos but one can never establish it as
a universal monarchy.
5he ideas we have mentioned and all ideas o! this 9ind are products
o! a !orm o! thin9ing which merely plays a game with itsel! and
sometimes too gets caught in its own cobwebs a !orm o! thin9ing
which is unworthy o! Aerman thoroughness and earnestness. At best
some o! these ideas as !or e=ample that o! a political e@uilibrium are
serviceable guidelines to enable one to !ind oneFs way about in the
e=tensive and con!used multiplicity o! phenomena and to set it in orderK
but to believe that these things e=ist in nature or to strive to realiDe
them is the same as to e=pect to !ind the poles the meridians and the
tropics by which our survey o! earth is guided actually mar9ed and
indicated on the sur!ace o! the globe. ;ay it become the custom in our
nation not merely to thin9 idly and as it were e=perimentally <ust to see
what will come o! it but to thin9 in such a way that what we thin9 shall
be true and have a real e!!ect in li!eQ 5hen it will be super!luous to warn
people against such phantoms o! a political wisdom whose origin is
!oreign and which only deludes the Aermans.
5his thoroughness earnestness and weightiness in our way o!
thin9ing once we have made it our own will show itsel! in our li!e as
well. We are de!eatedK whether we are now to be despised as well and
rightly despised whether in addition to all other losses we are to lose
our honor also that will still depend on ourselves. 5he !ight with
weapons has endedK there arises now i! we so will it the new !ight o!
principles o! morals o! character.
Let us give our guests a picture o! !aith!ul devotion to !riends and
!atherland o! incorruptible uprightness and love o! duty o! all civic and
domestic virtues to ta9e home with them as a !riendly gi!t !rom their
hostsK !or they will return home at last sometime or other. Let us be
care!ul not to invite them to despise usK there would however be no
surer way !or us to do this than i! we either !eared them beyond
measure or gave up our own way o! li!e and strove to resemble them in
theirs. *e it !ar !rom us as individuals to be so unmannerly as to
--2
provo9e or irritate individualsK but as to the rest our sa!est measure will
be to go our own way in all things as i! we were alone with ourselves
and not to establish any relation that is not laid upon us by absolute
necessityK and the surest means to this will be !or each one to content
himsel! with what the old national conditions are able to a!!ord him to
ta9e up his share o! the common burden according to his powers but
to loo9 upon any !avor !rom !oreigners as a disgrace and a dishonor.
Hn!ortunately it has become an almost general 4uropean custom and
there!ore a Aerman custom too !or people to pre!er to descend to the
level o! others rather than to appear what is called singular or
noticeable when the choice is open to themK indeed the whole system
o! what are esteemed good manners may perhaps be regarded as
based upon that one principle. Let us Aermans at the present <uncture
o!!end rather against this code o! manners than against something
higher. Let us remain as we are even though that may be an o!!ense o!
this 9indK nay let us become i! we can even stronger and more
determined as we ought to be. (t is the custom to tell us that we are
sorely lac9ing in @uic9ness and ease and grace and that we grow too
serious too heavy and too ponderous over everything. Let us not be in
the least ashamed o! this but rather strive to deserve the accusation
more and more !ully and to an ever greater e=tent. Let us con!irm
ourselves in this resolve by the conviction which is easily to be
attained that in spite o! all the trouble we ta9e we shall never do right
in the eyes o! our accusers unless we cease entirely to be ourselves
which is the same thing as ceasing to e=ist at all. 5here are certain
peoples who while preserving their own special characteristics and
wishing to have them respected by others yet recogniDe the special
characteristics o! other peoples and permit and encourage their
retention. 5o such peoples the Aermans belong without a doubtK and
this trait is so deeply mar9ed in their whole li!e in the world both past
and present that very o!ten in order to be <ust both to contemporary
!oreign countries and to anti@uity they have been un<ust to themselves.
5hen there are other peoples whose ego is so closely wrapped up in
itsel! that it never allows them the !reedom to detach themselves !or the
purpose o! ta9ing a cool and calm view o! what is !oreign to them and
who are there!ore compelled to believe that there is only one possible
way o! e=istence !or a civiliDed human being and that is always the
way which some chance or other has indicated to them alone at the
timeK the rest o! man9ind all over the world have no other destiny in
their opinion than to become <ust what they are and ought to be
---
e=tremely grate!ul to them i! they ta9e upon themselves the trouble o!
molding them in this way. *etween peoples o! the !ormer type there
ta9es place an interaction o! culture and education which is most
bene!icial to the development o! man as such and an interpenetration
which nonetheless allows each one with the good will o! the other to
remain its own sel!. 'eoples o! the latter type are unable to !orm
anything !or they are unable to apprehend anything in its actual state
o! e=istenceK they only want to destroy everything that e=ists and to
create everywhere e=cept in themselves a void in which they can
reproduce their own image and never anything else. 4ven their
apparent acceptance o! !oreign ways when they begin is only gracious
condescension on the part o! the tutor to the still !eeble but promising
pupil. 4ven the !igures o! the ancient world that has come to an end do
not please them until they have clad them in their own garmentsK and
they would call them !rom their graves i! they had the power to train
them a!ter their own !ashion. $ar !rom me be the presumption o!
accusing any e=isting nation as a whole and without e=ception o! such
narrow,mindedness. Let us rather assume that here too those who
e=press no opinion are the better sort. *ut i! those who have appeared
among us and e=pressed their opinions are to be <udged by the
opinions they have e=pressed it seems to !ollow that they are to be
placed in the class we have described. As such a statement appears to
re@uire proo! ( adduce the !ollowing passing over in silence the other
mani!estations o! this spirit which are be!ore the eyes o! 4urope. We
have been at war with each otherK as !or us we are de!eated and they
are the victorsK that is true and is admittedK with that our opponents
might doubtless be contented.
*ut i! anyone among us went on to maintain that nevertheless we had
had the <ust cause and deserved the victory and that it was to be
deplored that victory had not !allen to us would this be so very wrong
and could those opponents who o! course !or their own part may
li9ewise thin9 what they will ta9e it amiss that we should be o! this
opinion7 *ut no we must not dare to thin9 that. We must at the same
time recogniDe how wrong it is ever to have a will other than theirs
and to resist themK we must bless our de!eats as the best thing that
could happen to us and bless them as our greatest bene!actors. (t
cannot be otherwise and they hope this much o! our good sense. *ut
should ( go on e=pounding what was e=pounded with great e=actness
almost two thousand years ago !or e=ample in the histories o!
5acitus7 5hat opinion o! the 8omans as to the relationship o! the
--1
con@uered barbarians toward them an opinion which in their case was
!ounded on a view o! things that had some e=cuse the opinion that it
was criminal rebellion and insurrection against divine and human laws
to o!!er resistance to them and that their arms could bring nothing but
blessing to the nations and their chains nothing but honor J it is this
opinion that has been !ormed about us in these daysK with great good,
nature they e=pect us to hold it about ourselves and they assume in
advance that we do hold it. ( do not ta9e these utterances as evidence
o! arrogance and scornK ( can understand how such opinions may be
held in earnest by people who are very conceited and narrow,minded
and how they can honestly impute the same belie! to their opponents
<ust as ( believe that the 8omans really thought soK but ( only raise a
doubt as to whether those among us whose conversion to that way o!
thin9ing is !orever impossible can rec9on upon an agreement o! any
9ind whatever.
We shall bring the deep contempt o! !oreigners upon ourselves i! in
their hearing we accuse each other Aerman races classes and
persons o! being responsible !or the !ate that has be!allen every one o!
us and bitterly and passionately reproach each other. (n the !irst place
all accusations o! this 9ind are !or the most part un!air un<ust and
un!ounded. 5he causes that have brought about AermanyFs latest
doom we have already indicatedK these causes have !or centuries been
native to all Aerman races without e=ception in the same wayK the
latest events are not the conse@uences o! any particular error o! any
one race or its governmentK they have been in preparation long
enough and might <ust as well have happened to us long ago i! it had
depended solely on the causes that lie within our own selves. (n this
matter the guilt or innocence o! all is one may see e@ually great and a
rec9oning is no longer possible. When the !inal result came about in
haste it was !ound that the separate Aerman states did not even 9now
themselves their powers and their true situationK how then could any
one o! them have the presumption to loo9 beyond its own borders and
pronounce upon the guilt o! others a !inal <udgment based on thorough
9nowledge7
(t may be that in every race o! the Aerman !atherland the blame !alls
with more reason on one special class not because it did not have
more insight or greater ability than all the others !or in that respect all
were e@ually to blame but because it pretended that it had more
insight and greater ability than all the others !or in that respect all were
e@ually to blame but because it pretended that it had more insight and
--3
greater ability and 9ept everyone else away !rom the wor9 o!
administration in the various states. *ut even i! a reproach o! this 9ind
were well !ounded who is to utter it and why is it necessary to utter
and discuss it <ust at this moment more loudly and more bitterly then
ever7 We see that men o! letters are doing this. (! they had spo9en <ust
as they do now in the days when all power and all authority were in the
hands o! that class with the tacit approval o! the decisive ma<ority o!
the rest o! man9ind who can ob<ect i! they bring to remembrance what
they then said now that it has been only too well con!irmed by
e=perience7 We hear also that they bring certain persons by name
be!ore the tribunal o! the people persons who !ormerly stood at the
head o! a!!airs that they set !orth their incapacity their indolence and
their evil will and clearly show how !rom such causes such e!!ects
were bound to !ollow. (! when power was still in the hands o! the
accused persons and when the evils that were the inevitable result o!
their administration could have been warded o!! these writers saw
what they now see and e=pressed it <ust as loudlyK i! they then accused
with the same vigor those whom they now !ind guilty and i! they le!t no
means untried to rescue the !atherland out o! their hands and i! no one
listened to themK then they do well to recall to mind the warning that
was scorn!ully re<ected. *ut i! they have derived their present wisdom
only !rom the course o! events !rom which all people since then have
derived with them e=actly the same wisdom why do they now say what
everyone else now 9nows <ust as well7 &r !urther i! in those days !rom
motives o! gain they !lattered or !rom motives o! !ear they remained
silent be!ore that class and those persons on whom now that they
have lost power they pour the !ull stream o! denunciationK then let
them not !orget hence!orth when they are stating the causes o! our
present miseries to put with the nobility and the incompetent ministers
and generals the writers on politics also who 9now only a!ter the event
what ought to have been done <ust li9e the common people and who
!latter the holders o! power but with malicious <oy deride the !allenQ
&r do they blame the errors o! the past which !or all their blame is
indestructible only in order that they may not be repeated in the !utureK
and is it solely their Deal to bring about a thorough improvement in
human a!!airs which ma9es them so bold in disregarding all
considerations o! prudence and decency7
Aladly would we credit them with such good will i! only they were
entitled by thorough insight and thorough understanding to have good
will in this matter. (t is not so much the particular persons who happen
--2
to have been in the highest places but the connection and
complication o! the whole the whole spirit o! the age the errors the
ignorance shallowness timidity and the uncertain tread inseparable
!rom these things it is the whole way o! li!e o! the age that has brought
these miseries upon usK and so it is !ar less the persons who have
acted than the placesK it is everyoneFs !aultK and everyone even the
violent !ault,!inders themselves may assume with great probability that
i! they had been in the same place they would have been !orced by
their surroundings to much the same end. Let us not dream so much o!
deliberate wic9edness and treacheryQ )tupidity and indolence are in
nearly every case su!!icient to e=plain the things that have happenedK
and this is a charge o! which no one should entirely clear himsel!
without searching sel!,e=amination. 4specially in a state o! a!!airs
where there is in the whole mass a very great measure o! indolence
the individual who is to !orce his way through must possess the power
o! action in a very high degree. )o even i! the mista9es o! individuals
are ever so sharply singled out that does not in any way lay bare the
cause o! the evilK nor is this cause removed by avoiding these mista9es
in !uture. )o long as men remain liable to error they cannot do
otherwise than commit errorsK and even i! they avoid those o! their
predecessors in the in!inite space o! liability to error they will all too
easily ma9e new errors o! their own. &nly a complete regeneration
only the beginning o! an entirely new spirit can help us. (! they co,
operate !or the development o! this new spirit we shall be ready and
willing to give them credit not only !or good will but also !or right and
saving understanding.
5hese mutual reproaches besides being un<ust and useless are
e=tremely unwise and must degrade us deeply in the eyes o!
!oreignersK we not only ma9e it easy !or them to !ind out all about us
but positively !orce the 9nowledge on them in every way. (! we never
grow weary o! telling them how con!used and stale all things were with
us and how miserably we were governed must they not believe that
no matter how they behave toward us they are none,the,less much too
good !or us and can never become too bad7 ;ust they not believe
that because o! our great clumsiness and helplessness we are bound
to accept with the humblest than9s any and every thing out o! the rich
store o! their art o! government administration and legislation that they
have already presented to us or have in contemplation !or us in the
!uture7 (s there any need !or us to con!irm their already not un!avorable
opinion o! themselves and the low opinion they have o! us7 :o not
--0
certain utterances which would otherwise have to be ta9en as
evidence o! bitter scorn !or e=ample that they have been the !irst to
bring a !atherland to Aerman countries which previously had none or
that they have abolished that slavish dependence o! persons as such
on other persons which used to be established by law among us J do
not such utterances when we remember what we ourselves have said
show themselves as a repetition o! our own statements and an echo o!
our own !lattering speeches7 (t is a disgrace which we Aermans share
with no other o! the 4uropean peoples whose !ate in other respects has
been similar to ours that as soon as ever !oreign arms ruled over us
we behaved as i! we had long been awaiting this moment and sought
to do ourselves a good turn @uic9ly be!ore it was too late by pouring
!orth a stream o! denunciation on our governments and our rulers
whom we had !ormerly !lattered in a way that o!!ended against good
taste and by railing against everything represented by the word
O!atherland.O
How shall those o! us who are not guilty ward o!! the disgrace !rom our
heads and let the guilty ones stand alone7 5here is a means. +o more
scurrilous denunciations will be printed the moment it is certain that no
more will be bought and as soon as their authors and publishers can
no longer rec9on on readers tempted to buy them !or lac9 o! something
better to do by idle curiosity and love o! gossip or by the malicious <oy
o! seeing those men humiliated who at one time instilled into them the
pain!ul !eeling o! respect. Let everyone who !eels the disgrace hand
bac9 with !itting contempt a libel that is o!!ered him to readK let him do
this although he believes he is the only one who acts in this way until
it becomes the custom among us !or every man o! honor to do the
sameK and then without any en!orcement o! restrictions on boo9s we
shall soon be !ree o! this scandalous portion o! our literature.
$inally we debase ourselves most o! all be!ore !oreigners when we lay
ourselves out to !latter them. (n !ormer days certain persons among us
made themselves contemptible ludicrous and nauseating beyond
measure by o!!ering up musty incense be!ore our own rulers on every
occasion and by caring neither !or sense nor decency neither taste
nor good manners when they thought there was a chance o! delivering
a !lattering address. 5his practice has ceased at this time and these
paeans o! praise have been trans!ormed in some cases into words o!
abuse. However in order not to get out o! practice as it were we gave
our clouds o! incense another direction and turned them towards the
place where power now resides. 4ven the old way and not only the
--%
!lattery itsel! but also the !act that it was not declined could not but give
pain to every serious,minded AermanK still we 9ept it to ourselves. Are
we now going to ma9e !oreigners also the witnesses o! this base
craving o! ours and o! the great clumsiness with which we give vent to
itK and are we thus going to add to the contemptible e=hibition o! our
baseness the ludicrous demonstration o! our lac9 o! adroitness7 $or
when we set about these things we are lac9ing in all the re!inement
that the !oreigner possessesK so as to avoid not being heard we lay it
on thic9 and e=aggerate everythingK we begin straight away with
dei!ications and place our heroes among the stars. Another thing is that
we give the impression o! being driven to these paeans o! praise chie!ly
by !ear and terrorK but there is nothing more ridiculous than a !rightened
man who praises the beauty and graciousness o! a creature which in
!act he ta9es to be a monster and which he merely see9s to bribe by
his !lattery not to swallow him up.
&r are these hymns o! praise perhaps not !lattery but the genuine
e=pression o! reverence and admiration which they are compelled to
pay to the great genius who according to them now directs the a!!airs
o! man9ind7 How little they 9now in this case too the character o! true
greatnessQ (n all ages and among all peoples true greatness has
remained the same in this respect that it was not vainK <ust as on the
other hand whatever displayed vanity has always been beyond a
doubt base and petty. 5rue greatness resting on itsel! !inds no
pleasure in monuments erected by contemporaries or in being called
O5he AreatO or in the shrie9ing applause and adulation o! the mobK
rather it re<ects these things with !itting contempt and awaits !irst the
verdict on itsel! !rom its own indwelling <udge and then the public
verdict !rom the <udgment o! posterity. 5rue greatness has always bade
this !urther characteristic. it is !illed with awe and reverence in the !ace
o! dar9 and mysterious !ate it is mind!ul o! the ever,rolling wheel o!
destiny and never allows itsel! to be counted great or happy be!ore its
end. Hence those who hymn its praises contradict themselves and by
using words they ma9e their words a lie. (! they believed that the ob<ect
o! their pretended veneration was really great they would humbly admit
that he was e=alted above their acclamations and laudation and they
would honor him by reverent silence. *y ma9ing it their business to
praise him they show that in !act they ta9e him to be petty and base
and so vain that their hymns o! praise can give him pleasure and that
they hope thereby to divert some evil !rom themselves or procure
themselves some bene!it.
--/
5hat cry o! enthusiasm. OWhat a sublime geniusQ What pro!ound
wisdomQ What a comprehensive planQO what a!ter all does it mean when
we loo9 at it properly7 (t means that the genius is so great that we too
can !ully understand it the wisdom so pro!ound that we too can see
through it the plan so comprehensive that we too are able to imitate it
complete. Hence it means that he who is praised has about the same
measure o! greatness as he who praisesK and yet not @uite !or the
latter o! course understands the !ormer !ully and is superior to himK
hence he stands above him and i! he only e=erted himsel! thoroughly
could no doubt achieve something even greater. He must have a very
good opinion o! himsel! who believes that he can pay court acceptably
in this wayK and the one who is praised must have a very low opinion o!
himsel! i! he !inds pleasure in such tributes.
+oQ Aood earnest steady Aerman men and countrymen !ar !rom our
spirit be such a lac9 o! understanding and !ar be such de!ilement !rom
our language which is !ormed to e=press the truth. Let us leave it to
!oreigners to burst into <ubilation and amaDement at every new
phenomenon to ma9e a new standard o! greatness every decade to
create new gods and to spea9 blasphemies in order to please human
beings. Let our standard o! greatness be the old one. that alone is
great which is capable o! receiving the ideas which always bring
nothing but salvation upon the peoples and which is inspired by those
ideas. *ut as regards the living let us leave the verdict to the <udgment
o! posterity.
-10
Source 4 C
?iuseppe *a&&ini
An )ssay 6n the uties of *an
Addressed to Wor"ing!en 9+101:
Chapter ' 2 uties To$ards Cour Country. pp5 0423/
Gour !irst duties J !irst as regards importance J are as ( have already
told you towards Humanity. Gou are men be!ore you are either citiDens
or !athers. (! you do not embrace the whole human !amily in your
a!!ectionK i! you do not bear witness to your belie! in the Hnity o! that
!amily conse@uent upon the Hnity o! Aod and in that !raternity among
the peoples which is destined to reduce that Hnity to actionK i!
wheresoever a !ellow,creature su!!ers or the dignity o! human nature is
violated by !alsehood or tyranny J you are not ready i! able to aid the
unhappy and do not !eel called upon to combat i! able !or the
redemption o! the betrayed and oppressed J you violate your law o!
li!e you comprehend not that 8eligion which will be the guide and
blessing o! the !uture.
*ut what can each o! you singly do !or the moral improvement and
progress o! Humanity7 Gou can !rom time to time give sterile utterance
to your belie!K you may on some rare occasions per!orm some act o!
charity towards a brother,man not belonging to your own land J no
more. *ut charity is not the watchword o! the $aith o! the $uture. 5he
watchword o! the !aith o! the !uture is 2ssociation and !raternal
cooperation towards a common aimK and this is !ar superior to all
charity as the edi!ice which all o! you should unite to raise would be
superior to the humble hut each one o! you might build alone or with
the mere assistance o! lending and borrowing stone mortar and tools.
*ut you tell me you cannot attempt united action distinct and divided
as you are in language customs tendencies and capacity. 5he
individual is too insigni!icant and Humanity too vast. 5he mariner o!
*rittany prays to Aod as he puts to seaK *1elp me, my (odG my boat is
so small and 9hy ocean so wideG* And this prayer is the true e=pression
o! the condition o! each one o! you until you !ind the means o! in!initely
multiplying your !orces and powers o! action.
5his means was provided !or you by Aod when He gave you a countryK
-11
when even as a wise overseer o! labour distributes the various
branches o! employment according to the di!!erent capacities o! the
wor9men he divided Humanity into distinct groups or nuclei upon the
!ace o! the earth thus creating the germ o! nationalities. 4vil
governments have dis!igured the :ivine design. +evertheless you may
still trace it distinctly mar9ed out J at least as !ar as 4urope is
concerned J by the course o! the great rivers the direction o! the
higher mountains and other geographical conditions. 5hey have
dis!igured it by their con@uests their greed and their <ealousy even o!
the righteous power o! othersK dis!igured it so !ar that i! we e=cept
4ngland and $rance there is not perhaps a single country whose
present boundaries correspond to that design.
5hese governments did not and do not recogniDe any country save
their own !amilies or dynasty the egoism o! caste. *ut the :ivine
design will in!allibly be realiDedK natural divisions and the spontaneous
innate tendencies o! the peoples will ta9e the place o! the arbitrary
divisions sanctioned by evil governments. 5he map o! 4urope will be
redrawn. 5he countries o! the peoples de!ined by the vote o! !ree men
will arise upon the ruins o! the countries o! 9ings and privileged castes
and between these countries harmony and !raternity will e=ist. And the
common wor9 o! Humanity o! general amelioration and the gradual
discovery and application o! its Law o! li!e being distributed according
to local and general capacities will be wrought out in peace!ul and
progressive development and advance. 5hen may each one o! you
!orti!ied by the power and a!!ection o! many millions all spea9ing the
same language gi!ted with the same tendencies and educated by the
same historical tradition hope even by your own single e!!orts to be
able to bene!it all Humanity.
& my brothers love your CountryQ &ur country is our Home a house
Aod has given us placing therein a numerous !amily that loves us and
whom we loveK a !amily with whom we sympathiDe more readily and
whom we understand more @uic9ly than we do othersK and which !rom
its being centred round a given spot and !rom the homogeneous
nature o! its elements is adapted to a special branch o! activity. &ur
Country is our common wor9shop whence the products o! our activity
are sent !orth !or the bene!it o! the whole worldK wherein the tools and
implements o! labour we can most use!ully employ are gathered
togetherK nor may we re<ect them without disobeying the plan o! the
Almighty and diminishing our own strength.
-12
(n labouring !or our own country on the right principle we labour !or
Humanity. &ur country is the !ulcrum o! the lever we have to wield !or
the common good. (! we abandon the !ulcrum we run the ris9 o!
rendering ourselves useless not only to Humanity but to our country
itsel!. *e!ore men can associate with the nations o! which Humanity is
composed they must have a national e=istence. 5here is no true
association e=cept among e@uals. (t is only through our country that we
can have a recogniDed collective e=istence. Humanity is a vast army
advancing to the con@uest o! lands un9nown against enemies both
power!ul and astute. 5he peoples are the di!!erent corps the divisions
o! that army. 4ach o! them has its post assigned to it and its special
operation to e=ecuteK and the common victory depends upon the
e=actitude with which those distinct operations are !ul!illed. :isturb not
the order o! battle. $orsa9e not the banner given to you by Aod.
Wheresoever you may be in the centre o! whatsoever people
circumstances may have placed you be ever ready to combat !or the
liberty o! that people should it be necessary but combat in such wise
that the blood you shed may re!lect glory not on yoursel! alone but on
your country. )ay not I but ;e. Let each man among you strive to
incarnate his country in himsel!. Let each man among you regard
himsel! as a guarantor responsible !or his !ellow,countrymen and
learn so to govern his actions as to cause his country to be loved and
respected through him. Gour country is the sign o! the ;ission Aod has
given you to !ul!ill towards Humanity. 5he !aculties and !orces o! all her
sons should be associated in the accomplishment o! that mission. 5he
true country is a community o! !ree men and e@uals bound together in
!raternal concord to labour towards a common aim. Gou are bound to
ma9e it and to maintain it such. 5he country is not an aggregation but
an association. 5here is there!ore no true country without a uni!orm
right. 5here is no true country where the uni!ormity o! that right is
violated by the e=istence o! caste privilege and ine@uality. Where the
activity o! a portion o! the powers and !aculties o! the individual is either
cancelled or dormantK where there is not a common 'rinciple
recogniDed accepted and developed by all there is no true +ation no
'eopleK but only a multitude a !ortuitous agglomeration o! men whom
circumstances have called together and whom circumstances may
again divide. (n the name o! the love you bear your country you must
peace!ully but untiringly combat the e=istence o! privilege and
ine@uality in the land that gave you li!e.
5here is but one sole legitimate privilege the privilege o! Aenius when
-1-
it reveals itsel! united with virtue. *ut this is a privilege given by Aod
and when you ac9nowledge it and !ollow its inspiration you do so
!reely e=ercising your own reason and your own choice. 4very
privilege which demands submission !rom you in virtue o! power
inheritance or any other right than the 8ight common to all is a
usurpation and a tyranny which you are bound to resist and destroy.
*e your country your 5emple. Aod at the summitK a people o! e@uals at
the base.
Accept no other !ormula no other moral law i! you would not dishonour
ali9e your country and yourselves. Let all secondary laws be but the
gradual regulation o! your e=istence by the progressive application o!
this )upreme law. And in order that they may be such it is necessary
that all o! you should aid in !raming them. Laws !ramed only by a single
!raction o! the citiDens can never in the very nature o! things be other
than the mere e=pression o! the thoughts aspirations and desires o!
that !ractionK the representation not o! the country but o! a third or
!ourth part o! a class or Done o! the country.
5he laws should be the e=pression o! the universal aspiration and
promote the universal good. 5hey should be a pulsation o! the heart o!
the nation. 5he entire nation should either directly or indirectly
legislate.
*y yielding up this mission into the hands o! a !ew you substitute the
sel!ishness o! one class !or the Country which is the union o! all
classes.
Country is not only a mere Done o! territory. 5he true Country is the
(dea to which it gives birthK it is the 5hought o! love the sense o!
communion which unites in one all the sons o! that territory.
)o long as a single one amongst your brothers has no vote to
represent him in the development o! the national li!e so long as there is
one le!t to vegetate in ignorance where others are educated so long as
a single man able and willing to wor9 languishes in poverty through
want o! wor9 to do you have no country in the sense in which Country
ought to e=ist J the country o! all and !or all.
4ducation labour and the !ranchise are the three main pillars o! the
+ationK rest not until you have built them thoroughly up with your own
labour and e=ertions.
*e it yours to evolve the li!e o! your country in loveliness and strengthK
-11
!ree !rom all servile !ears or sceptical doubtsK maintaining as its basis
the 'eopleK as its guide the principles o! its 8eligious $aith logically
and energetically appliedK its strength the united strength o! allK its aim
the !ul!illment o! the mission given to it by Aod.
And so long as you are ready to die !or Humanity the li!e o! your
country will be immortal.
-13
Source 4
Theodor Her&l
The ,e$ish State
I5
Introduction
(t is astonishing how little insight into the science o! economics many o!
the men who move in the midst o! active li!e possess. Hence it is that
even 6ews !aith!ully repeat the cry o! the Anti,)emites. OWe depend !or
sustenance on the nations who are our hosts and i! we had no hosts to
support us we should die o! starvation.O 5his is a point that shows how
un<ust accusations may wea9en our sel!,9nowledge. *ut what are the
true grounds !or this statement concerning the nations that act as
OhostsO7 Where it is not based on limited physiocratic views it is
!ounded on the childish error that commodities pass !rom hand to hand
in continuous rotation. We need not wa9e !rom long slumber li9e 8ip
van Win9le to realiDe that the world is considerably altered by the
production o! new commodities. 5he technical progress made during
this wonder!ul era enables even a man o! most limited intelligence to
note with his short,sighted eyes the appearance o! new commodities all
around him. 5he spirit o! enterprise has created them.
Labor without enterprise is the stationary labor o! ancient daysK and
typical o! it is the wor9 o! the husbandman who stands now <ust where
his progenitors stood a thousand years ago. All our material wel!are
has been brought about by men o! enterprise. ( !eel almost ashamed o!
writing down so trite a remar9. 4ven i! we were a nation o!
entrepreneurs J such as absurdly e=aggerated accounts ma9e us out
to be J we should not re@uire another nation to live on. We do not
depend on the circulation o! old commodities because we produce
new ones.
5he world possesses slaves o! e=traordinary capacity !or wor9 whose
appearance has been !atal to the production o! handmade goods.
these slaves are the machines. (t is true that wor9men are re@uired to
set machinery in motionK but !or this we have men in plenty in super,
abundance. &nly those who are ignorant o! the conditions o! 6ews in
many countries o! 4astern 4urope would venture to assert that 6ews
-12
are either un!it or unwilling to per!orm manual labor.
*ut ( do not wish to ta9e up the cudgels !or the 6ews in this pamphlet. (t
would be useless. 4verything rational and everything sentimental that
can possibly be said in their de!ense has been said already. (! oneFs
hearers are incapable o! comprehending themK one is a preacher in a
desert. And i! oneFs hearers are broad and high,minded enough to have
grasped them already then the sermon is super!luous. ( believe in the
ascent o! man to higher and yet higher grades o! civiliDationK but (
consider this ascent to be desperately slow. Were we to wait till over
age humanity had become as charitably inclined as was Lessing when
he wrote O+athan the WiseO we should wait beyond our day beyond
the days o! our children o! our grandchildren and o! our great,
grandchildren. *ut the worldFs spirit comes to our aid in another way.
5his century has given the world a wonder!ul renaissance by means o!
its technical achievementsK but at the same time its miraculous
improvements have not been employed in the service o! humanity.
:istance has ceased to be an obstacle yet we complain o! insu!!icient
space. &ur great steamships carry us swi!tly and surely over hitherto
unvisited seas. &ur railways carry us sa!ely into a mountain,world
hitherto tremblingly scaled on !oot. 4vents occurring in countries
undiscovered when 4urope con!ined the 6ews in Ahettos are 9nown to
us in the course o! an hour. Hence the misery o! the 6ews is an
anachronism J not because there was a period o! enlightenment one
hundred years ago !or that enlightenment reached in reality only the
choicest spirits.
( believe that electric light was not invented !or the purpose o!
illuminating the drawing,rooms o! a !ew snobs but rather !or the
purpose o! throwing light on some o! the dar9 problems o! humanity.
&ne o! these problems and not the least o! them is the 6ewish
@uestion. (n solving it we are wor9ing not only !or ourselves but also !or
many other over,burdened and oppressed beings.
5he 6ewish @uestion still e=ists. (t would be !oolish to deny it. (t is a
remnant o! the ;iddle Ages which civiliDed nations do not even yet
seem able to sha9e o!! try as they will. 5hey certainly showed a
generous desire to do so when they emancipated us. 5he 6ewish
@uestion e=ists wherever 6ews live in perceptible numbers. Where it
does not e=ist it is carried by 6ews in the course o! their migrations.
We naturally move to those places where we are not persecuted and
there our presence produces persecution. 5his is the case in every
-10
country and will remain so even in those highly civiliDed J !or instance
$rance J until the 6ewish @uestion !inds a solution on a political basis.
5he un!ortunate 6ews are now carrying the seeds o! Anti,)emitism into
4nglandK they have already introduced it into America.
( believe that ( understand Anti,)emitism which is really a highly
comple= movement. ( consider it !rom a 6ewish standpoint yet without
!ear or hatred. ( believe that ( can see what elements there are in it o!
vulgar sport o! common trade <ealousy o! inherited pre<udice o!
religious intolerance and also o! pretended sel!,de!ense. ( thin9 the
6ewish @uestion is no more a social than a religious one
notwithstanding that it sometimes ta9es these and other !orms. (t is a
national @uestion which can only be solved by ma9ing it a political
world,@uestion to be discussed and settled by the civiliDed nations o!
the world in council.
We are a people J one people.
We have honestly endeavored everywhere to merge ourselves in the
social li!e o! surrounding communities and to preserve the !aith o! our
!athers. We are not permitted to do so. (n vain are we loyal patriots our
loyalty in some places running to e=tremesK in vain do we ma9e the
same sacri!ices o! li!e and property as our !ellow,citiDensK in vain do we
strive to increase the !ame o! our native land in science and art or her
wealth by trade and commerce. (n countries where we have lived !or
centuries we are still cried down as strangers and o!ten by those
whose ancestors were not yet domiciled in the land where 6ews had
already had e=perience o! su!!ering. 5he ma<ority may decide which are
the strangersK !or this as indeed every point which arises in the
relations between nations is a @uestion o! might. ( do not here
surrender any portion o! our prescriptive right when ( ma9e this
statement merely in my own name as an individual. (n the world as it
now is and !or an inde!inite period will probably remain might precedes
right. (t is useless there!ore !or us to be loyal patriots as were the
Huguenots who were !orced to emigrate. (! we could only be le!t in
peace. . . .
*ut ( thin9 we shall not be le!t in peace.
&ppression and persecution cannot e=terminate us. +o nation on earth
has survived such struggles and su!!erings as we have gone through.
6ew,baiting has merely stripped o!! our wea9lingsK the strong among us
were invariably true to their race when persecution bro9e out against
-1%
them. 5his attitude was most clearly apparent in the period immediately
!ollowing the emancipation o! the 6ews. 5hose 6ews who were
advanced intellectually and materially entirely lost the !eeling o!
belonging to their race. Wherever our political well,being has lasted !or
any length o! time we have assimilated with our surroundings. ( thin9
this is not discreditable. Hence the statesman who would wish to see a
6ewish strain in his nation would have to provide !or the duration o! our
political well,beingK and even a *ismarc9 could not do that.
$or old pre<udices against us still lie deep in the hearts o! the people.
He who would have proo!s o! this need only listen to the people where
they spea9 with !ran9ness and simplicity. proverb and !airy,tale are
both Anti,)emitic. A nation is everywhere a great child which can
certainly be educatedK but its education would even in most !avorable
circumstances occupy such a vast amount o! time that we could as
already mentioned remove our own di!!iculties by other means long
be!ore the process was accomplished.
Assimilation by which ( understood not only e=ternal con!ormity in
dress habits customs and language but also identity o! !eeling and
manner J assimilation o! 6ews could be e!!ected only by intermarriage.
*ut the need !or mi=ed marriages would have to be !elt by the ma<orityK
their mere recognition by law would certainly not su!!ice.
5he Hungarian Liberals who have <ust given legal sanction to mi=ed
marriages have made a remar9able mista9e which one o! the earliest
cases clearly illustratesK a baptiDed 6ew married a 6ewess. At the same
time the struggle to obtain the present !orm o! marriage accentuated
distinctions between 6ews and Christians thus hindering rather than
aiding the !usion o! races.
5hose who really wished to see the 6ews disappear through
intermi=ture with other nations can only hope to see it come about in
one way. 5he 6ews must previously ac@uire economic power
su!!iciently great to overcome the old social pre<udice against them.
5he aristocracy may serve as an e=ample o! this !or in its ran9s occur
the proportionately largest numbers o! mi=ed marriages. 6ewish
!amilies which regaled the old nobility with money become gradually
absorbed. *ut what !orm would this phenomenon assume in the middle
classes where "the 6ews being a bourgeois people# the 6ewish
@uestion is mainly concentrated7 A previous ac@uisition o! power could
be synonymous with that economic supremacy which 6ews are already
erroneously declared to possess. And i! the power they now possess
-1/
creates rage and indignation among the Anti,)emites what outbrea9s
would such an increase o! power create7 Hence the !irst step towards
absorption will never be ta9en because this step would involve the
sub<ection o! the ma<ority to a hitherto scorned minority possessing
neither military nor administrative power o! its own. ( thin9 there!ore
that the absorption o! 6ews by means o! their prosperity is unli9ely to
occur. (n countries which now are Anti,)emitic my view will be
approved. (n others where 6ews now !eel com!ortable it will probably
be violently disputed by them. ;y happier coreligionists will not believe
me till 6ew,baiting teaches them the truthK !or the longer Anti,)emitism
lies in abeyance the more !iercely will it brea9 out. 5he in!iltration o!
immigrating 6ews attracted to a land by apparent security and the
ascent in the social scale o! native 6ews combine power!ully to bring
about a revolution. +othing is plainer than this rational conclusion.
*ecause ( have drawn this conclusion with complete indi!!erence to
everything but the @uest o! truth ( shall probably be contradicted and
opposed by 6ews who are in easy circumstances. (nso!ar as private
interests alone are held by their an=ious or timid possessors to be in
danger they can sa!ely be ignored !or the concerns o! the poor and
oppressed are o! greater importance than theirs. *ut ( wish !rom the
outset to prevent any misconception !rom arising particularly the
mista9en notion that my pro<ect i! realiDed would in the least degree
in<ure property now held by 6ews. ( shall there!ore e=plain everything
connected with rights o! property very !ully. Whereas i! my plan never
becomes anything more than a piece o! literature things will merely
remain as they are. (t might more reasonably be ob<ected that ( am
giving a handle to anti,)emitism when ( say we are a people J one
peopleK that ( am hindering the assimilation o! 6ews where it is about to
be consummated and endangering it where it is an accomplished !act
inso!ar as it is possible !or a solitary writer to hinder or endanger
anything. 5his ob<ection will be especially brought !orward in $rance. (t
will probably also be made in other countries but ( shall answer only
the $rench 6ews be!orehand because these a!!ord the most stri9ing
e=ample o! my point.
However much ( may worship personality J power!ul individual
personality in statesmen inventors artists philosophers or leaders as
well as the collective personality o! a historic group o! human beings
which we call a nation J however much ( may worship personality ( do
not regret its disappearance. Whoever can will and must perish let
him perish. *ut the distinctive nationality o! 6ews neither can will nor
-30
must be destroyed. (t cannot be destroyed because e=ternal enemies
consolidate it. (t will not be destroyedK this is shown during two
thousand years o! appalling su!!ering. (t must not be destroyed and
that as a descendant o! numberless 6ews who re!used to despair ( am
trying once more to prove in this pamphlet. Whole branches o! 6udaism
may wither and !all but the trun9 will remain.
Hence i! all or any o! the $rench 6ews protest against this scheme on
account o! their own OassimilationO my answer is simple. 5he whole
thing does not concern them at all. 5hey are 6ewish $renchmen well
and goodQ 5his is a private a!!air !or the 6ews alone. 5he movement
towards the organiDation o! the )tate ( am proposing would o! course
harm 6ewish $renchmen no more than it would harm the OassimilatedO
o! other countries. (t would on the contrary be distinctly to their
advantage. $or they would no longer be disturbed in their Ochromatic
!unctionO as :arwin puts it but would be able to assimilate in peace
because the present Anti,)emitism would have been stopped !or ever.
5hey would certainly be credited with being assimilated to the very
depths o! their souls i! they stayed where they were a!ter the new
6ewish )tate with its superior institutions had become a reality. 5he
OassimilatedO would pro!it even more than Christian citiDens by the
departure o! !aith!ul 6ewsK !or they would be rid o! the dis@uieting
incalculable and unavoidable rivalry o! a 6ewish proletariat driven by
poverty and political pressure !rom place to place !rom land to land.
5his !loating proletariat would become stationary. ;any Christian
citiDens J whom we call Anti,)emites J now o!!er determined
resistance to the immigration o! !oreign 6ews. 6ewish citiDens cannot
do this although it a!!ects them !ar more directlyK !or on them they !eel
!irst o! all the 9een competition o! individuals carrying on similar
branches o! industry who in addition either introduce Anti,)emitism
where it does not e=ist or intensi!y it where it does. 5he OassimilatedO
give e=pression to this secret grievance in OphilanthropicO underta9ings.
5hey organiDe emigration societies !or wandering 6ews. 5here is a
reverse to the picture which would be comic i! it did not deal with
human beings. $or some o! these charitable institutions are created not
!or but against persecuted 6ewsK they are created to despatch these
poor creatures <ust as !ast and !ar as possible. And thus many an
apparent !riend o! the 6ews turns out on care!ul inspection to be
nothing more than an Anti,)emite o! 6ewish origin disguised as a
philanthropist.
*ut the attempts at coloniDation made even by really benevolent men
-31
interesting attempts though they were have so !ar been unsuccess!ul. (
do not thin9 that this or that man too9 up the matter merely as an
amusement that they engaged in the emigration o! poor 6ews as one
indulges in the racing o! horses. 5he matter was too grave and tragic
!or such treatment. 5hese attempts were interesting in that they
represented on a small scale the practical !ore,runners o! the idea o! a
6ewish )tate. 5hey were even use!ul !or out o! their mista9es may be
gathered e=perience !or carrying the idea out success!ully on a larger
scale. 5hey have o! course done harm also. 5he transportation o!
Anti,)emitism to new districts which is the inevitable conse@uence o!
such arti!icial in!iltration seems to me to be the least o! these evils. $ar
worse is the circumstance that unsatis!actory results tend to cast
doubts on intelligent men. What is impractical or impossible to simple
argument will remove this doubt !rom the minds o! intelligent men.
What is unpractical or impossible to accomplish on a small scale need
not necessarily be so on a larger one. A small enterprise may result in
loss under the same conditions which would ma9e a large one pay. A
rivulet cannot even be navigated by boats the river into which it !lows
carries stately iron vessels.
+o human being is wealthy or power!ul enough to transplant a nation
!rom one habitation to another. An idea alone can achieve that and this
idea o! a )tate may have the re@uisite power to do so. 5he 6ews have
dreamt this 9ingly dream all through the long nights o! their history.
O+e=t year in 6erusalemO is our old phrase. (t is now a @uestion o!
showing that the dream can be converted into a living reality.
$or this many old outgrown con!used and limited notions must !irst be
entirely erased !rom the minds o! men. :ull brains might !or instance
imagine that this e=odus would be !rom civiliDed regions into the desert.
5hat is not the case. (t will be carried out in the midst o! civiliDation. We
shall not revert to a lower stage we shall rise to a higher one. We shall
not dwell in mud hutsK we shall build new more beauti!ul and more
modern houses and possess them in sa!ety. We shall not lose our
ac@uired possessions we shall realiDe them. We shall surrender our
well earned rights only !or better ones. We shall not sacri!ice our
beloved customsK we shall !ind them again. We shall nor leave our old
home be!ore the new one is prepared !or us. 5hose only will depart
who are sure thereby to improve their positionK those who are now
desperate will go !irst a!ter them the poorK ne=t the prosperous and
last o! all the wealthy. 5hose who go in advance will raise themselves
to a higher grade e@ual to those whose representatives will shortly
-32
!ollow. 5hus the e=odus will be at the same time an ascent o! the class.
5he departure o! the 6ews will involve no economic disturbances no
crises no persecutionsK in !act the countries they abandon will revive
to a new period o! prosperity. 5here will be an inner migration o!
Christian citiDens into the positions evacuated by 6ews. 5he outgoing
current will be gradual without any disturbance and its initial
movement will put an end to Anti,)emitism. 5he 6ews will leave as
honored !riends and i! some o! them return they will receive the same
!avorable welcome and treatment at the hands o! civiliDed nations as is
accorded to all !oreign visitors. 5heir e=odus will have no resemblance
to a !light !or it will be a well,regulated movement under control o!
public opinion. 5he movement will not only be inaugurated with
absolute con!ormity to law but it cannot even be carried out without the
!riendly cooperation o! interested Aovernments who would derive
considerable bene!its !rom it.
)ecurity !or the integrity o! the idea and the vigor o! its e=ecution will be
!ound in the creation o! a body corporate or corporation. 5his
corporation will be called O5he )ociety o! 6ews.O (n addition to it there
will be a 6ewish company an economically productive body.
An individual who attempted even to underta9e this huge tas9 alone
would be either an impostor or a madman. 5he personal character o!
the members o! the corporation will guarantee its integrity and the
ade@uate capital o! the Company will prove its stability.
5hese pre!atory remar9s are merely intended as a hasty reply to the
mass o! ob<ections which the very words O6ewish )tateO are certain to
arouse. Hence!orth we shall proceed more slowly to meet !urther
ob<ections and to e=plain in detail what has been as yet only indicatedK
and we shall try in the interests o! this pamphlet to avoid ma9ing it a
dull e=position. )hort aphoristic chapters will there!ore best answer the
purpose.
(! ( wish to substitute a new building !or an old one ( must demolish
be!ore ( construct. ( shall there!ore 9eep to this natural se@uence. (n the
!irst and general part ( shall e=plain my ideas remove all pre<udices
determine essential political and economic conditions and develop the
plan.
(n the special part which is divided into three principal sections ( shall
describe its e=ecution. 5hese three sections are. 5he 6ewish Company
Local Aroups and the )ociety o! 6ews. 5he )ociety is to be created
-3-
!irst the Company lastK but in this e=position the reverse order is
pre!erable because it is the !inancial soundness o! the enterprise
which will chie!ly be called into @uestion and doubts on this score must
be removed !irst.
(n the conclusion ( shall try to meet every !urther ob<ection that could
possibly be made. ;y 6ewish readers will ( hope !ollow me patiently to
the end. )ome will naturally ma9e their ob<ections in an order o!
succession other than that chosen !or their re!utation. *ut whoever
!inds his doubts dispelled should give allegiance to the cause.
Although ( spea9 o! reason ( am !ully aware that reason alone will not
su!!ice. &ld prisoners do not willingly leave their cells. We shall see
whether the youth whom we need are at our command J the youth
who irresistibly draw on the old carry them !orward on strong arms
and trans!orm rational motives into enthusiasm.
-31
Source 1 A
Aristotle
Politics
%oo" 'II. Part <III
8eturning to the constitution itsel! let us see9 to determine out o! what
and what sort o! elements the state which is to be happy and well,
governed should be composed. 5here are two things in which all well,
being consists. one o! them is the choice o! a right end and aim o!
action and the other the discovery o! the actions which are means
towards itK !or the means and the end may agree or disagree.
)ometimes the right end is set be!ore men but in practice they !ail to
attain itK in other cases they are success!ul in all the means but they
propose to themselves a bad endK and sometimes they !ail in both.
5a9e !or e=ample the art o! medicineK physicians do not always
understand the nature o! health and also the means which they use
may not e!!ect the desired end. (n all arts and sciences both the end
and the means should be e@ually within our control.
5he happiness and well,being which all men mani!estly desire some
have the power o! attaining but to others !rom some accident or de!ect
o! nature the attainment o! them is not grantedK !or a good li!e re@uires
a supply o! e=ternal goods in a less degree when men are in a good
state in a greater degree when they are in a lower state. &thers again
who possess the conditions o! happiness go utterly wrong !rom the
!irst in the pursuit o! it. *ut since our ob<ect is to discover the best !orm
o! government that namely under which a city will be best governed
and since the city is best governed which has the greatest opportunity
o! obtaining happiness it is evident that we must clearly ascertain the
nature o! happiness.
We maintain and have said in the 4thics i! the arguments there
adduced are o! any value that happiness is the realiDation and per!ect
e=ercise o! virtue and this not conditional but absolute. And ( used the
term FconditionalF to e=press that which is indispensable and FabsoluteF
to e=press that which is good in itsel!. 5a9e the case o! <ust actionsK <ust
punishments and chastisements do indeed spring !rom a good
principle but they are good only because we cannot do without them J
-33
it would be better that neither individuals nor states should need
anything o! the sort J but actions which aim at honor and advantage
are absolutely the best. 5he conditional action is only the choice o! a
lesser evilK whereas these are the !oundation and creation o! good. A
good man may ma9e the best even o! poverty and disease and the
other ills o! li!eK but he can only attain happiness under the opposite
conditions "!or this also has been determined in accordance with ethical
arguments that the good man is he !or whom because he is virtuous
the things that are absolutely good are goodK it is also plain that his use
o! these goods must be virtuous and in the absolute sense good#. 5his
ma9es men !ancy that e=ternal goods are the cause o! happiness yet
we might as well say that a brilliant per!ormance on the lyre was to be
attributed to the instrument and not to the s9ill o! the per!ormer.
(t !ollows then !rom what has been said that some things the legislator
must !ind ready to his hand in a state others he must provide. And
there!ore we can only say. ;ay our state be constituted in such a
manner as to be blessed with the goods o! which !ortune disposes "!or
we ac9nowledge her power#. whereas virtue and goodness in the state
are not a matter o! chance but the result o! 9nowledge and purpose. A
city can be virtuous only when the citiDens who have a share in the
government are virtuous and in our state all the citiDens share in the
governmentK let us then in@uire how a man becomes virtuous. $or even
i! we could suppose the citiDen body to be virtuous without each o!
them being so yet the latter would be better !or in the virtue o! each
the virtue o! all is involved.
5here are three things which ma9e men good and virtuousK these are
nature habit rational principle. (n the !irst place every one must be
born a man and not some other animalK so too he must have a certain
character both o! body and soul. *ut some @ualities there is no use in
having at birth !or they are altered by habit and there are some gi!ts
which by nature are made to be turned by habit to good or bad.
Animals lead !or the most part a li!e o! nature although in lesser
particulars some are in!luenced by habit as well. ;an has rational
principle in addition and man only. Where!ore nature habit rational
principle must be in harmony with one anotherK !or they do not always
agreeK men do many things against habit and nature i! rational
principle persuades them that they ought. We have already determined
what natures are li9ely to be most easily molded by the hands o! the
legislator. All else is the wor9 o! educationK we learn some things by
-32
habit and some by instruction.
-30
Source 1 %
Ada! 7erguson
An )ssay on the History of Ci#il Society5
Part I5 Sections I<. <5 6f National 7elicity
&! +ational $elicity
;an is by nature the member o! a communityK and when considered
in this capacity the individual appears to be no longer made !or
himsel!. He must !orego his happiness and his !reedom where these
inter!ere with the good o! society. He is only part o! a wholeK and the
praise we thin9 due to his virtue is but a branch o! that more general
commendation we bestow on the member o! a body on the part o! a
!abric or engine !or being well !itted to occupy its place and to produce
its e!!ect.
(! this !ollow !rom the relation o! a part to its whole and i! the public
good be the principal ob<ect with individuals it is li9ewise true that the
happiness o! individuals is the great end o! civil society. !or in what
sense can a public en<oy any good i! its members considered apart
be unhappy7

5he interests o! society however and o! its members are easily
reconciled. (! the individual owe every degree o! consideration to the
public he receives in paying that very consideration the greatest
happiness o! which his nature is capableK and the greatest blessing that
the public can bestow on its members is to 9eep them attached to
itsel!. 5hat is the most happy state which is most beloved by its
sub<ectsK and they are the most happy men whose hearts are engaged
to a community in which they !ind every ob<ect o! generosity and Deal
and a scope to the e=ercise o! every talent and o! every virtuous
disposition.

A!ter we have thus !ound general ma=ims the greater part o! our
trouble remains their <ust application to particular cases. +ations are
di!!erent in respect to their e=tent numbers o! people and wealthK in
respect to the arts they practise and the accommodations they have
procured. 5hese circumstances may not only a!!ect the manners o!
-3%
menK they even in our esteem come into competition with the article o!
manners itsel!K are supposed to constitute a national !elicity
independent o! virtueK and give a title upon which we indulge our own
vanity and that o! other nations as we do that o! private men on the
score o! their !ortunes and honours.

*ut i! this way o! measuring happiness when applied to private men
be ruinous and !alse it is so no less when applied to nations. Wealth
commerce e=tent o! territory and the 9nowledge o! arts are when
properly employed the means o! preservation and the !oundations o!
power. (! they !ail in part the nation is wea9enedK i! they were entirely
withheld the race would perish. their tendency is to maintain numbers
o! men but not to constitute happiness. 5hey will accordingly maintain
the wretched as well as the happy. 5hey answer one purpose but are
not there!ore su!!icient !or allK and are o! little signi!icance when only
employed to maintain a timid de<ected and servile people.

Areat and power!ul states are able to overcome and subdue the wea9K
polished and commercial nations have more wealth and practise a
greater variety o! arts than the rude. but the happiness o! men in all
cases ali9e consists in the blessings o! a candid an active and
strenuous mind. And i! we consider the state o! society merely as that
into which man9ind are led by their propensities as a state to be
valued !rom its e!!ect in preserving the species in ripening their talents
and e=citing their virtues we need not enlarge our communities in
order to en<oy these advantages. We !re@uently obtain them in the
most remar9able degree where nations remain independent and are
o! a small e=tent.

5o increase the numbers o! man9ind may be admitted as a great and
important ob<ect. but to e=tend the limits o! any particular state is not
perhaps the way to obtain itK while we desire that our !ellow,creatures
should multiply it does not !ollow that the whole should i! possible be
united under one head. We are apt to admire the empire o! the
8omans as a model o! national greatness and splendour. but the
greatness we admire in this case was ruinous to the virtue and the
happiness o! man9indK it was !ound to be inconsistent with all the
advantages which that con@uering people had !ormerly en<oyed in the
articles o! government and manners.

5he emulation o! nations proceeds !rom their division. A cluster o!
-3/
states li9e a company o! men !ind the e=ercise o! their reason and the
test o! their virtues in the a!!airs they transact upon a !oot o! e@uality
and o! separate interest. 5he measures ta9en !or sa!ety including great
part o! the national policy are relative in every state to what is
apprehended !rom abroad. Athens was necessary to )parta in the
e=ercise o! her virtue as steel is to !lint in the production o! !ireK and i!
the cities o! Areece had been united under one head we should never
have heard o! 4paminondas or 5hrasybulus o! Lycurgus or )olon.
When we reason in behal! o! our species there!ore although we may
lament the abuses which sometimes arise !rom independence and
opposition o! interestK yet whilst any degrees o! virtue remain with
man9ind we cannot wish to croud under one establishment numbers
o! men who may serve to constitute severalK or to commit a!!airs to the
conduct o! one senate one legislative or e=ecutive power which upon
a distinct and separate !ooting might !urnish an e=ercise o! ability and
a theatre o! glory to many.

5his may be a sub<ect upon which no determinate rule can be given
but the admiration o! boundless dominion is a ruinous errorK and in no
instance perhaps is the real interest o! man9ind more entirely
mista9en.

5he measure o! enlargement to be wished !or any particular state is
o!ten to be ta9en !rom the condition o! its neighbours. Where a number
o! states are contiguous they should be near an e@uality in order that
they may be mutually ob<ects o! respect and consideration and in order
that they may possess that independence in which the political li!e o! a
nation consists.

When the 9ingdoms o! )pain were united when the great !ie!s in
$rance were anne=ed to the crown it was no longer e=pedient !or the
nations o! Areat *ritain to continue dis<oined.

5he small republics o! Areece indeed by their subdivisions and the
balance o! their power !ound almost in every village the ob<ect o!
nations. 4very little district was a nursery o! e=cellent men and what is
now the wretched corner o! a great empire was the !ield on which
man9ind have reaped their principal honours. *ut in modern 4urope
republics o! a similar e=tent are li9e shrubs under the shade o! a taller
wood cho9ed by the neighbourhood o! more power!ul states. (n their
-20
case a certain disproportion o! !orce !rustrates in a great measure the
advantage o! separation. 5hey are li9e the trader in 'oland who is the
more despicable and the less secure that he is neither master nor
slave.
(ndependent communities in the mean time however wea9 are averse
to a coalition not only where it comes with an air o! imposition or
une@ual treaty but even where it implies no more than the admission o!
new members to an e@ual share o! consideration with the old. 5he
citiDen has no interest in the anne=ation o! 9ingdomsK he must !ind his
importance diminished as the state is enlarged. but ambitious men
under the enlargement o! territory !ind a more plenti!ul harvest o!
power and o! wealth while government itsel! is an easier tas9. Hence
the ruinous progress o! empireK and hence !ree nations under the
shew o! ac@uiring dominion su!!er themselves in the end to be yo9ed
with the slaves they had con@uered.

&ur desire to augment the !orce o! a nation is the only prete=t !or
enlarging its territoryK but this measure when pursued to e=tremes
seldom !ails to !rustrate itsel!.

+otwithstanding the advantage o! numbers and superior resources in
war the strength o! a nation is derived !rom the character not !rom the
wealth nor !rom the multitude o! its people. (! the treasure o! a state
can hire numbers o! men erect ramparts and !urnish the implements
o! warK the possessions o! the !ear!ul are easily seiDedK a timorous
multitude !alls into rout o! itsel!K ramparts may be scaled where they are
not de!ended by valourK and arms are o! conse@uence only in the
hands o! the brave. 5he band to which Agesilaus pointed as the wall o!
his city made a de!ence !or their country more permanent and more
e!!ectual than the roc9 and the cement with which other cities were
!orti!ied.

We should owe little to that statesman who were to contrive a de!ence
that might supersede the e=ternal uses o! virtue. (t is wisely ordered !or
man as a rational being that the employment o! reason is necessary
to his preservation. it is !ortunate !or him in the pursuit o! distinction
that his personal consideration depends on his characterK and it is
!ortunate !or nations that in order to be power!ul and sa!e they must
strive to maintain the courage and cultivate the virtues o! their people.
*y the use o! such means they at once gain their e=ternal ends and
-21
are happy.

'eace and unanimity are commonly considered as the principal
!oundations o! public !elicityK yet the rivalship o! separate communities
and the agitations o! a !ree people are the principles o! political li!e
and the school o! men. How shall we reconcile these <arring and
opposite tenets7 (t is perhaps not necessary to reconcile them F5he
paci!ic may do what they can to allay the animosities and to reconcile
the opinions o! menK and it will be happy i! they can succeed in
repressing their crimes and in calming the worst o! their passions.
+othing in the mean time but corruption or slavery can suppress the
debates that subsist among men o! integrity who bear an e@ual part in
the administration o! state.

A per!ect agreement in matters o! opinion is not to be obtained in the
most select companyK and i! it were what would become o! society7
F5he )partan legislatorF says 'lutarch Fappears to have sown the
seeds o! variance and dissension among his countrymen.F he meant
that good citiDens should be led to disputeK he considered emulation as
the brand by which their virtues were 9indledK and seemed to
apprehend that a complaisance by which men submit their opinions
without e=amination is a principal source o! corruption.

$orms o! government are supposed to decide o! the happiness or
misery o! man9ind. *ut !orms o! government must be varied in order to
suit the e=tent the way o! subsistence the character and the manners
o! di!!erent nations. (n some cases the multitude may be su!!ered to
govern themselvesK in others they must be severely restrained. 5he
inhabitants o! a village in some primitive age may have been sa!ely
intrusted to the conduct o! reason and to the suggestion o! their
innocent viewsK but the tenants o! +ewgate can scarcely be trusted
with chains loc9ed to their bodies and bars o! iron !i=ed to their legs.
How is it possible there!ore to !ind any single !orm o! government that
would suit man9ind in every condition7

We proceed however in the !ollowing section to point out the
distinctions and to e=plain the language which occurs in this place on
the head o! di!!erent models !or subordination and government.
-22
)ection >
5he same sub<ect continued
(t is a common observation that man9ind were originally e@ual. 5hey
have indeed by nature e@ual rights to their preservation and to the use
o! their talentsK but they are !itted !or di!!erent stationsK and when they
are classed by a rule ta9en !rom this circumstance they su!!er no
in<ustice on the side o! their natural rights. (t is obvious that some
mode o! subordination is as necessary to men as society itsel!K and
this not only to attain the ends o! government but to comply with an
order established by nature.

'rior to any political institution whatever men are @uali!ied by a great
diversity o! talents by a di!!erent tone o! the soul and ardour o! the
passions to act a variety o! parts. *ring them together each will !ind
his place. 5hey censure or applaud in a bodyK they consult and
deliberate in more select partiesK they ta9e or give an ascendant as
individualsK and numbers are by this means !itted to act in company
and to preserve their communities be!ore any !ormal distribution o!
o!!ice is made.

We are !ormed to act in this mannerK and i! we have any doubts with
relation to the rights o! government in general we owe our perple=ity
more to the subtilties o! the speculative than to any uncertainty in the
!eelings o! the heart. (nvolved in the resolutions o! our company we
move with the croud be!ore we have determined the rule by which its
will is collected. We !ollow a leader be!ore we have settled the ground
o! his pretensions or ad<usted the !orm o! his election. and it is not till
a!ter man9ind have committed many errors in the capacities o!
magistrate and sub<ect that they thin9 o! ma9ing government itsel! a
sub<ect o! rules.

(! there!ore in considering the variety o! !orms under which societies
subsist the casuist is pleased to in@uire What title one man or any
number o! men have to controul his actions7 He may be answered
+one at all provided that his actions have no e!!ect to the pre<udice o!
his !ellow,creaturesK but i! they have the rights o! de!ence and the
obligation to repress the commission o! wrongs belong to collective
bodies as well as to individuals. ;any rude nations having no !ormal
tribunals !or the <udgement o! crimes assemble when alarmed by any
-2-
!lagrant o!!ence and ta9e their measures with the criminal as they
would with an enemy.

*ut will this consideration which con!irms the title to sovereignty
where it is e=ercised by the society in its collective capacity or by those
to whom the powers o! the whole are committed li9ewise support the
claim to dominion wherever it is casually lodged or even where it is
only maintained by !orce7
5his @uestion may be su!!iciently answered by observing that a right
to do <ustice and to do good is competent to every individual or order
o! men and that the e=ercise o! this right has no limits but in the de!ect
o! power. *ut a right to do wrong and commit in<ustice is an abuse o!
language and a contradiction in terms. (t is no more competent to the
collective body o! a people than it is to any single usurper. When we
admit such a prerogative in the case o! any sovereign we can only
mean to e=press the e=tent o! his power and the !orce with which he is
enabled to e=ecute his pleasure. )uch a prerogative is assumed by the
leader o! banditti at the head o! his gang or by a despotic prince at the
head o! his troops. When the sword is presented by either the traveller
or the inhabitant may submit !rom a sense o! necessity or !earK but he
lies under no obligation !rom a motive o! duty or <ustice.

5he multiplicity o! !orms in the mean time which di!!erent societies
o!!er to our view is almost in!inite. 5he classes into which they
distribute their members the manner in which they establish the
legislative and e=ecutive powers the imperceptible circumstances by
which they are led to have di!!erent customs and to con!er on their
governors une@ual measures o! power and authority give rise to
perpetual distinctions between constitutions the most nearly resembling
one another and give to human a!!airs a variety in detail which in its
!ull e=tent no understanding can comprehend and no memory retain.

(n order to have a general and comprehensive 9nowledge o! the whole
we must be determined on this as on every other sub<ect to overloo9
many particulars and singularities distinguishing di!!erent
governmentsK to !i= our attention on certain points in which many
agreeK and thereby establish a !ew general heads under which the
sub<ect may be distinctly considered. When we have mar9ed the
characteristics which !orm the general points o! coincidenceK when we
have pursued them to their conse@uences in the several modes o!
-21
legislation e=ecution and <udicature in the establishments which
relate to police commerce religion or domestic li!eK we have made an
ac@uisition o! 9nowledge which though it does not supersede the
necessity o! e=perience may serve to direct our in@uiries and in the
midst o! a!!airs to give an order and a method !or the arrangement o!
particulars that occur to our observation.

When ( recollect what the 'resident ;ontes@uieu has written ( am at a
loss to tell why ( should treat o! human a!!airs. but ( too am instigated
by my re!lections and my sentimentsK and ( may utter them more to the
comprehension o! ordinary capacities because ( am more on the level
o! ordinary men. (! it be necessary to pave the way !or what !ollows on
the general history o! nations by giving some account o! the heads
under which various !orms o! government may be conveniently ranged
the reader should perhaps be re!erred to what has been already
delivered on the sub<ect by this pro!ound politician and amiable
moralist. (n his writings will be !ound not only the original o! what ( am
now !or the sa9e o! order to copy !rom him but li9ewise probably the
source o! many observations which in di!!erent places ( may under
the belie! o! invention have repeated without @uoting their author.

5he ancient philosophers treated o! government commonly under three
headsK the :emocratic the Aristocratic and the :espotic. 5heir
attention was chie!ly occupied with the varieties o! republican
governmentK and they paid little regard to a very important distinction
which ;r ;ontes@uieu has made between despotism and monarchy.
He too has considered government as reducible to three general !ormsK
and Fto understand the nature o! eachF he observes Fit is su!!icient to
recall ideas which are !amiliar with men o! the least re!lection who
admit three de!initions or rather three !acts. 5hat a republic is a state in
which the people in a collective body or a part o! the people possess
the sovereign power. 5hat monarchy is that in which one man governs
according to !i=ed and determinate laws. And a despotism is that in
which one man without law or rule o! administration by the mere
impulse o! will or caprice decides and carries every thing be!ore him.F

8epublics admit o! a very material distinction which is pointed out in
the general de!initionK that between democracy and aristocracy. (n the
!irst supreme power remains in the hands o! the collective body. 4very
o!!ice o! magistracy at the nomination o! this sovereign is open to
every citiDenK who in the discharge o! his duty becomes the minister o!
-23
the people and accountable to them !or every ob<ect o! his trust.
(n the second the sovereignty is lodged in a particular class or order o!
menK who being once named continue !or li!eK or by the hereditary
distinctions o! birth and !ortune are advanced to a station o! permanent
superiority. $rom this order and by their nomination all the o!!ices o!
magistracy are !illedK and in the di!!erent assemblies which they
constitute whatever relates to the legislation the e=ecution or
<urisdiction is !inally determined.

;r ;ontes@uieu has pointed out the sentiments or ma=ims !rom which
men must be supposed to act under these di!!erent governments.

(n democracy they must love e@ualityK they must respect the rights o!
their !ellow,citiDensK they must unite by the common ties o! a!!ection to
the state. (n !orming personal pretensions they must be satis!ied with
that degree o! consideration they can procure by their abilities !airly
measured with those o! an opponentK they must labour !or the public
without hope o! pro!itK they must re<ect every attempt to create a
personal dependence. Candour !orce and elevation o! mind in short
are the props o! democracyK and virtue is the principle o! conduct
re@uired to its preservation.
How beauti!ul a pre,eminence on the side o! popular governmentQ and
how ardently should man9ind wish !or the !orm i! it tended to establish
the principle or were in every instance a sure indication o! its
presenceQ

*ut perhaps we must have possessed the principle in order with any
hopes o! advantage to receive the !ormK and where the !irst is entirely
e=tinguished the other may be !raught with evil i! any additional evil
deserves to be shunned where men are already unhappy.

At Constantinople or Algiers it is a miserable spectacle when men
pretend to act on a !oot o! e@uality. they only mean to sha9e o!! the
restraints o! government and to seiDe as much as they can o! that
spoil which in ordinary times is ingrossed by the master they serve.

(t is one advantage o! democracy that the principal ground o!
distinction being personal @ualities men are classed according to their
abilities and to the merit o! their actions. 5hough all have e@ual
-22
pretensions to power yet the state is actually governed by a !ew. 5he
ma<ority o! the people even in their capacity o! sovereign only pretend
to employ their sensesK to !eel when pressed by national
inconveniencies or threatened by public dangersK and with the ardour
which is apt to arise in crouded assemblies to urge the pursuits in
which they are engaged or to repel the attac9s with which they are
menaced.

5he most per!ect e@uality o! rights can never e=clude the ascendant o!
superior minds nor the assemblies o! a collective body govern without
the direction o! select councils. &n this account popular government
may be con!ounded with aristocracy. *ut this alone does not constitute
the character o! aristocratical government. Here the members o! the
state are divided at least into two classesK o! which one is destined to
command the other to obey. +o merits or de!ects can raise or sin9 a
person !rom one class to the other. 5he only e!!ect o! personal
character is to procure the individual a suitable degree o! consideration
with his own order not to vary his ran9. (n one situation he is taught to
assume in another to yield the pre,eminence. He occupies the station
o! patron or client and is either the sovereign or the sub<ect o! his
country. 5he whole citiDens may unite in e=ecuting the plans o! state
but never in deliberating on its measures or enacting its laws. What
belongs to the whole people under democracy is here con!ined to a
part. ;embers o! the superior order are among themselves possibly
classed according to their abilities but retain a perpetual ascendant
over those o! in!erior station. 5hey are at once the servants and the
masters o! the state and pay with their personal attendance and their
blood !or the civil or military honours they en<oy.

5o maintain !or himsel! and to admit in his !ellow,citiDen a per!ect
e@uality o! privilege and station is no longer the leading ma=im o! the
member o! such a community. 5he rights o! men are modi!ied by their
condition. &ne order claims more than it is willing to yieldK the other
must be ready to yield what it does not assume to itsel!. and it is with
good reason that ;r ;ontes@uieu gives to the principle o! such
governments the name o! moderation not o! virtue.

5he elevation o! one class is a moderated arroganceK the submission o!
the other a limited de!erence. 5he !irst must be care!ul by concealing
the invidious part o! their distinction to palliate what is grievous in the
public arrangement and by their education their cultivated manners
-20
and improved talents to appear @uali!ied !or the stations they occupy.
5he other must be taught to yield !rom respect and personal
attachment what could not otherwise be e=torted by !orce. When this
moderation !ails on either side the constitution totters. A populace
enraged to mutiny may claim the right o! e@uality to which they are
admitted in democratical statesK or a nobility bent on dominion may
chuse among themselves or !ind already pointed out to them a
sovereign who by advantages o! !ortune popularity or abilities is
ready to seiDe !or his own !amily that envied power which has already
carried his order beyond the limits o! moderation and in!ected
particular men with a boundless ambition.

;onarchies have accordingly been !ound with the recent mar9s o!
aristocracy. 5here however the monarch is only the !irst among the
noblesK he must be satis!ied with a limited powerK his sub<ects are
ranged into classesK he !inds on every @uarter a pretence to privilege
that circumscribes his authorityK and he !inds a !orce su!!icient to
con!ine his administration within certain bounds o! e@uity and
determinate laws.

Hnder such governments however the love o! e@uality is
preposterous and moderation itsel! is unnecessary. 5he ob<ect o!
every ran9 is precedency and every order may display its advantages
to their !ull e=tent. 5he sovereign himsel! owes great part o! his
authority to the sounding titles and the daDDling e@uipage which he
e=hibits in public. 5he subordinate ran9s lay claim to importance by a
li9e e=hibition and !or that purpose carry in every instant the ensigns o!
their birth or the ornaments o! their !ortune. What else could mar9 out
to the individual the relation in which he stands to his !ellow,sub<ects or
distinguish the numberless ran9s that !ill up the interval between the
state o! the sovereign and that o! the peasant7 &r what else could in
states o! a great e=tent preserve any appearance o! order among
members disunited by ambition and interest and destined to !orm a
community without the sense o! any common concern7
;onarchies are generally !ound where the state is enlarged in
population and in territory beyond the numbers and dimensions that
are consistent with republican government. 5ogether with these
circumstances great ine@ualities arise in the distribution o! propertyK
and the desire o! pre,eminence becomes the predominant passion.
4very ran9 would e=ercise its prerogative and the sovereign is
-2%
perpetually tempted to enlarge his ownK i! sub<ects who despair o!
precedence plead !or e@uality he is willing to !avour their claims and
to aid them in procuring what must wea9en a !orce with which he
himsel! is on many occasions obliged to contend. (n the event o! such
a policy many invidious distinctions and grievances peculiar to
monarchical government may in appearance be removedK but the
state o! e@uality to which the sub<ects approach is that o! slaves
e@ually dependent on the will o! a master not that o! !reemen in a
condition to maintain their own.

5he principle o! monarchy according to ;ontes@uieu is honour. ;en
may possess good @ualities elevation o! mind and !ortitudeK but the
sense o! e@uality that will bear no incroachment on the personal rights
o! the meanest citiDenK the indignant spirit that will not court a
protection nor accept as a !avour what is due as a rightK the public
a!!ection which is !ounded on the neglect o! personal considerations
are neither consistent with the preservation o! the constitution nor
agreeable to the habits ac@uired in any station assigned to its
members. 4very condition is possessed o! peculiar dignity and points
out a propriety o! conduct which men o! station are obliged to maintain.
(n the commerce o! superiors and in!eriors it is the ob<ect o! ambition
and o! vanity to re!ine on the advantages o! ran9K while to !acilitate the
intercourse o! polite society it is the aim o! good breeding to disguise
or re<ect them.

5hough the ob<ects o! consideration are rather the dignities o! station
than personal @ualitiesK though !riendship cannot be !ormed by mere
inclination nor alliances by the mere choice o! the heartK yet men so
united and even without changing their order are highly susceptible o!
moral e=cellence or liable to many di!!erent degrees o! corruption.
5hey may act a vigorous part as members o! the state an amiable one
in the commerce o! private societyK or they may yield up their dignity as
citiDens even while they raise their arrogance and presumption as
private parties.

(n monarchy all orders o! men derive their honours !rom the crownK but
they continue to hold them as a right and they e=ercise a subordinate
power in the state !ounded on the permanent ran9 they en<oy and on
the attachment o! those whom they are appointed to lead and protect.
5hough they do not !orce themselves into national councils and public
assemblies and though the name o! senate is un9nownK yet the
-2/
sentiments they adopt must have weight with the sovereignK and every
individual in his separate capacity in some measure deliberates !or
his country. (n whatever does not derogate !rom his ran9 he has an
arm ready to serve the communityK in whatever alarms his sense o!
honour he has aversions and disli9es which amount to a negative on
the will o! his prince.
(ntangled together by the reciprocal ties o! dependence and protection
though not combined by the sense o! a common interest the sub<ects
o! monarchy li9e those o! republics !ind themselves occupied as the
members o! an active society and engaged to treat with their !ellow,
creatures on a liberal !ooting. (! those principles o! honour which save
the individual !rom servility in his own person or !rom becoming an
engine o! oppression in the hands o! another should !ailK i! they should
give way to the ma=ims o! commerce to the re!inements o! a supposed
philosophy or to the misplaced ardours o! a republican spiritK i! they are
betrayed by the cowardice o! sub<ects or subdued by the ambition o!
princesK what must become o! the nations o! 4urope7

:espotism is monarchy corrupted in which a court and a prince in
appearance remain but in which every subordinate ran9 is destroyedK
in which the sub<ect is told that he has no rightsK that he cannot
possess any property nor !ill any station independent o! the
momentary will o! his prince. 5hese doctrines are !ounded on the
ma=ims o! con@uestK they must be inculcated with the whip and the
swordK and are best received under the terror o! chains and
imprisonment. $ear there!ore is the principle which @uali!ies the
sub<ect to occupy his station. and the sovereign who holds out the
ensigns o! terror so !reely to others has abundant reason to give this
passion a principal place with himsel!. 5hat tenure which he has
devised !or the rights o! others is soon applied to his ownK and !rom his
eager desire to secure or to e=tend his power he !inds it become li9e
the !ortunes o! his people a creature o! mere imagination and unsettled
caprice.

Whilst we thus with so much accuracy can assign the ideal limits that
may distinguish constitutions o! government we !ind them in reality
both in respect to the principle and the !orm variously blended
together. (n what society are not men classed by e=ternal distinctions
as well as personal @ualities7 (n what state are they not actuated by a
variety o! principlesK <ustice honour moderation and !ear7 (t is the
-00
purpose o! science not to disguise this con!usion in its ob<ect but in
the multiplicity and combination o! particulars to !ind the principal
points which deserve our attention and which being well understood
save us !rom the embarrassment which the varieties o! singular cases
might otherwise create. (n the same degree in which governments
re@uire men to act !rom principles o! virtue o! honour or o! !ear they
are more or less !ully comprised under the heads o! republic
monarchy or despotism and the general theory is more or less
applicable to their particular case.

$orms o! government in !act mutually approach or recede by many
and o!ten insensible gradations. :emocracy by admitting certain
ine@ualities o! ran9 approaches to aristocracy. (n popular as well as
aristocratical governments particular men by their personal authority
and sometimes by the credit o! their !amily have maintained a species
o! monarchical power. 5he monarch is limited in di!!erent degrees.
even the despotic prince is only that monarch whose sub<ects claim the
!ewest privileges or who is himsel! best prepared to subdue them by
!orce. All these varieties are but steps in the history o! man9ind and
mar9 the !leeting and transient situations through which they have
passed while supported by virtue or depressed by vice.

'er!ect democracy and despotism appear to be the opposite e=tremes
to which constitutions o! government are sometimes carried. Hnder the
!irst a per!ect virtue is re@uiredK under the second a total corruption is
supposed. yet in point o! mere !orm there being nothing !i=ed in the
ran9s and distinctions o! men beyond the casual and temporary
possession o! power societies easily pass !rom a condition in which
every individual has an e@ual title to reign into one in which they are
e@ually destined to serve. 5he same @ualities in both courage
popularity address and military conduct raise the ambitious to
eminence. With these @ualities the citiDen or the slave easily passes
!rom the ran9s to the command o! an army !rom an obscure to an
illustrious station. (n either a single person may rule with unlimited
swayK and in both the populace may brea9 down every barrier o! order
and restraint o! law.

(! we suppose that the e@uality established among the sub<ects o! a
despotic state has inspired its members with con!idence intrepidity
and the love o! <usticeK the despotic prince having ceased to be an
ob<ect o! !ear must sin9 among the croud. (! on the contrary the
-01
personal e@uality which is en<oyed by the members o! a democratical
state should be valued merely as an e@ual pretension to the ob<ects o!
avarice and ambition the monarch may start up anew and be
supported by those who mean to share in his pro!its. When the
covetous and mercenary assemble in parties it is o! no conse@uence
under what leader they inlist whether Caesar or 'ompeyK the hopes o!
rapine or power are the only motives !rom which they become attached
to either.

(n the disorder o! corrupted societies the scene has been !re@uently
changed !rom democracy to despotism and !rom the last too in its
turn to the !irst. $rom amidst the democracy o! corrupt men and !rom
a scene o! lawless con!usion the tyrant ascends a throne with arms
ree9ing in blood. *ut his abuses or his wea9nesses in the station
which he has gained in their turn awa9en and give way to the spirit o!
mutiny and revenge. 5he cries o! murder and desolation which in the
ordinary course o! military government terri!ied the sub<ect in his private
retreat are carried through the vaults and made to pierce the grates
and iron doors o! the seraglio. :emocracy seems to revive in a scene
o! wild disorder and tumult. but both the e=tremes are but the transient
!its o! paro=ysm or languor in a distempered state.

(! men be anywhere arrived at this measure o! depravity there appears
no immediate hope o! redress. +either the ascendency o! the
multitude nor that o! the tyrant will secure the administration o! <ustice.
neither the licence o! mere tumult nor the calm o! de<ection and
servitude will teach the citiDen that he was born !or candour and
a!!ection to his !ellow,creatures. And i! the speculative would !ind that
habitual state o! war which they are sometimes pleased to honour with
the name o! the state o! nature they will !ind it in the contest that
subsists between the despotical prince and his sub<ects not in the !irst
approaches o! a rude and simple tribe to the condition and the
domestic arrangement o! nations.
-02
Source 1 C
,ere!y %entha!
Introduction to the Principles of *orals and Legislation
Chapter +5 6f the Principle of Dtility
(. +ature has placed man9ind under the governance o! two sovereign
masters pain and pleasure. (t is !or them alone to point out what we
ought to do as well as to determine what we shall do. &n the one hand
the standard o! right and wrong on the other the chain o! causes and
e!!ects are !astened to their throne. 5hey govern us in all we do in all
we say in all we thin9. every e!!ort we can ma9e to throw o!! our
sub<ection will serve but to demonstrate and con!irm it. (n words a man
may pretend to ab<ure their empire. but in reality he will remain sub<ect
to it all the while. 5he principle o! utility recogniDes this sub<ection and
assumes it !or the !oundation o! that system the ob<ect o! which is to
rear the !abric o! !elicity by the hands o! reason and o! law. )ystems
which attempt to @uestion it deal in sounds instead o! sense in caprice
instead o! reason in dar9ness instead o! light.
*ut enough o! metaphor and declamation. it is not by such means that
moral science is to be improved.
((. 5he principle o! utility is the !oundation o! the present wor9. it will be
proper there!ore at the outset to give an e=plicit and determinate
account o! what is meant by it. *y the principle o! utility is meant that
principle which approves or disapproves o! every action whatsoever
according to the tendency it appears to have to augment or diminish
the happiness o! the party whose interest is in @uestion. or what is the
same thing in other words to promote or to oppose that happiness. (
say o! every action whatsoever and there!ore not only o! every action
o! a private individual but o! every measure o! government.
(((. *y utility is meant that property in any ob<ect whereby it tends to
produce bene!it advantage pleasure good or happiness "all this in
the present case comes to the same thing# or "what comes again to the
same thing# to prevent the happening o! mischie! pain evil or
unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered. i! that party be
the community in general then the happiness o! the community. i! a
particular individual then the happiness o! that individual.
-0-
(?. 5he interest o! the community is one o! the most general
e=pressions that can occur in the phraseology o! morals. no wonder
that the meaning o! it is o!ten lost. When it has a meaning it is this. 5he
community is a !ictitious body composed o! the individual persons who
are considered as constituting as it were its members. 5he interest o!
the community then is what is it7 J the sum o! the interests o! the
several members who compose it.
?. (t is in vain to tal9 o! the interest o! the community without
understanding what is the interest o! the individual. A thing is said to
promote the interest or to be !or the interest o! an individual when it
tends to add to the sum total o! his pleasures. or what comes to the
same thing to diminish the sum total o! his pains.
?(. An action then may be said to be con!ormable to the principle o!
utility or !or shortness sa9e to utility "meaning with respect to the
community at large# when the tendency it has to augment the
happiness o! the community is greater than any it has to diminish it.
?((. A measure o! government "which is but a particular 9ind o! action
per!ormed by a particular person or persons# may be said to be
con!ormable to or dictated by the principle o! utility when in li9e
manner the tendency which it has to augment the happiness o! the
community is greater than any which it has to diminish it.
?(((. When an action or in particular a measure o! government is
supposed by a man to be con!ormable to the principle o! utility it may
be convenient !or the purposes o! discourse to imagine a 9ind o! law
or dictate called a law or dictate o! utility. and to spea9 o! the action in
@uestion as being con!ormable to such law or dictate.
(>. A man may be said to be a partiDan o! the principle o! utility when
the approbation or disapprobation he anne=es to any action or to any
measure is determined by and proportioned to the tendency which he
conceives it to have to augment or to diminish the happiness o! the
community. or in other words to its con!ormity or uncon!ormity to the
laws or dictates o! utility.
>. &! an action that is con!ormable to the principle o! utility one may
always say either that it is one that ought to be done or at least that it
is not one that ought not to be done. &ne may say also that it is right it
should be doneK at least that it is not wrong it should be done. that it is
a right actionK at least that it is not a wrong action. When thus
interpreted the words ought and right and wrong and others o! that
-01
stamp have a meaning. when otherwise they have none.
>(. Has the rectitude o! this principle been ever !ormally contested7 (t
should seem that it had by those who have not 9nown what they have
been meaning. (s it susceptible o! any direct proo!7 (t should seem not.
!or that which is used to prove everything else cannot itsel! be proved.
a chain o! proo!s must have their commencement somewhere. 5o give
such proo! is as impossible as it is needless.
>((. +ot that there is or ever has been that human creature at
breathing however stupid or perverse who has not on many perhaps
on most occasions o! his li!e de!erred to it. *y the natural constitution
o! the human !rame on most occasions o! their lives men in general
embrace this principle without thin9ing o! it. i! not !or the ordering o!
their own actions yet !or the trying o! their own actions as well as o!
those o! other men. 5here have been at the same time not many
perhaps even o! the most intelligent who have been disposed to
embrace it purely and without reserve. 5here are even !ew who have
not ta9en some occasion or other to @uarrel with it either on account o!
their not understanding always how to apply it or on account o! some
pre<udice or other which they were a!raid to e=amine into or could not
bear to part with. $or such is the stu!! that man is made o!. in principle
and in practice in a right trac9 and in a wrong one the rarest o! all
human @ualities is consistency.
>(((. When a man attempts to combat the principle o! utility it is with
reasons drawn without his being aware o! it !rom that very principle
itsel!. His arguments i! they prove any thing prove not that the
principle is wrong, but that according to the applications he supposes
to be made o! it it is misapplied. (s it possible !or a man to move the
earth7 GesK but he must !irst !ind out another earth to stand upon.
>(?. 5o disprove the propriety o! it by arguments is impossibleK but
!rom the causes that have been mentioned or !rom some con!used or
partial view o! it a man may happen to be disposed not to relish it.
Where this is the case i! he thin9s the settling o! his opinions on such a
sub<ect worth the trouble let him ta9e the !ollowing steps and at
length perhaps he may come to reconcile himsel! to it.
-03
Source EA
Tho!as Hobbes
e Ci#e
Philosophicall )le!ents of a true Citi&en5
Liberty
Chapter I5
6f the state of !en $ithout Ci#ill Society
(. 5he !aculties o! Humane nature may be reducFd unto !our 9indsK
*odily strength 4=perience 8eason 'assion. 5a9ing the beginning o!
this !ollowing :octrine !rom these we will declare in the !irst place what
manner o! inclinations men who are endued with these !aculties bare
towards each other and whether and by what !aculty they are born
apt !or )ociety and so preserve themselves against mutuall violenceK
then proceeding we will shew what advice was necessary to be ta9en
!or this businesse and what are the conditions o! )ociety or o!
Humane 'eaceK that is to say "changing the words onely# what are the
!undamentall -awes of /ature.
((. 5he greatest part o! those men who have written ought concerning
Commonwealths either suppose or re@uire us or beg o! us to believe
5hat ;an is a Creature born !it !or )ociety. 5he Aree9s call him Hoon
politikon and on this !oundation they so build up the :octrine o! Civill
)ociety as i! !or the preservation o! 'eace and the Aovernment o!
;an,9ind there were nothing else necessary than that ;en should
agree to ma9e certaine Covenants and Conditions together which
themselves should then call Lawes. Which A=iom though received by
most is yet certainly $alse and an 4rrour proceeding !rom our too
slight contemplation o! Humane +atureK !or they who shall more
narrowly loo9 into the Causes !or which ;en come together and
delight in each others company shall easily !ind that this happens not
because naturally it could happen no otherwise but by Accident. $or i!
by nature one ;an should Love another "that is# as ;an there could
no reason be returnFd why every ;an should not e@ually Love every
;an as being e@ually ;an or why he should rather !re@uent those
-02
whose )ociety a!!ords him Honour or 'ro!it. We doe not there!ore by
nature see9 )ociety !or its own sa9e but that we may receive some
Honour or 'ro!it !rom itK these we desire 'rimarily that )econdarily.
How by what advice ;en doe meet will be best 9nown by observing
those things which they doe when they are met. $or i! they meet !or
5ra!!i@ue itFs plaine every man regards not his $ellow but his
*usinesseK i! to discharge some &!!ice a certain ;ar9et,!riendship is
begotten which hath more o! 6ealousie in it than 5rue love and
whence $actions sometimes may arise but Aood will neverK i! !or
'leasure and 8ecreation o! mind every man is wont to please himsel!
most with those things which stirre up laughter whence he may
"according to the nature o! that which is 8idiculous# by comparison o!
another mans :e!ects and (n!irmities passe the more currant in his
owne opinionK and although this be sometimes innocent and without
o!!enceK yet it is mani!est they are not so much delighted with the
)ociety as their own ?ain glory. *ut !or the most part in these 9ind o!
meetings we wound the absentK their whole li!e sayings actions are
e=aminFd <udgFd condemnFdK nay it is very rare but some present
receive a !ling be!ore they part so as his reason was not ill who was
wont alwayes at parting to goe out last. And these are indeed the true
delights o! )ociety unto which we are carryed by nature "i.e.# by those
passions which are incident to all Creatures untill either by sad
e=perience or good precepts it so !all out "which in many never
happens# that the Appetite o! present matters be dulFd with the
memory o! things past without which the discourse o! most @uic9 and
nimble men on this sub<ect is but cold and hungry.
*ut i! it so happen that being met they passe their time in relating
some )tories and one o! them begins to tell one which concernes
himsel!eK instantly every one o! the rest most greedily desires to spea9
o! himsel! tooK i! one relate some wonder the rest will tell you miracles
i! they have them i! not theyFl !ein them. Lastly that ( may say
somewhat o! them who pretend to be wiser than othersK i! they meet to
tal9 o! 'hilosophy loo9 how many men so many would be esteemFd
;asters or else they not only love not their !ellowes but even
persecute them with hatred. )o clear is it by e=perience to all men who
a little more narrowly consider Humane a!!aires that all !ree congress
ariseth either !rom mutual poverty or !rom vain glory whence the
parties met endeavour to carry with them either some bene!it or to
leave behind them that same eudokimein some esteem and honour
with those with whom they have been conversant. 5he same is also
-00
collected by reason out o! the de!initions themselves o! ;ill, (ood,
1onour, +rofitable. $or when we voluntarily contract )ociety in all
manner o! )ociety we loo9 a!ter the ob<ect o! the Will i.e. that which
every one o! those who gather together propounds to himsel!e !or
goodK now whatsoever seemes good is pleasant and relates either to
the senses or the mind but all the mindes pleasure is either Alory "or
to have a good opinion o! ones sel!e# or re!erres to Alory in the endK
the rest are )ensuall or conducing to sensuality which may be all
comprehended under the word ,onveniencies. All )ociety there!ore is
either !or Aain or !or AloryK "i.e.# not so much !or love o! our $ellowes
as !or love o! our )elves. but no society can be great or lasting which
begins !rom ?ain AloryK because that Alory is li9e Honour i! all men
have it no man hath it !or they consist in comparison and precellenceK
neither doth the society o! others advance any whit the cause o! my
glorying in my sel!eK !or every man must account himsel! such as he
can ma9e himsel!e without the help o! others. *ut though the bene!its
o! this li!e may be much !arthered by mutuall help since yet those may
be better attainFd to by :ominion than by the society o! others. ( hope
no body will doubt but that men would much more greedily be carryed
by +ature i! all !ear were removed to obtain :ominion than to gaine
)ociety. We must there!ore resolve that the &riginall o! all great and
lasting )ocieties consisted not in the mutuall good will men had
towards each other but in the mutuall !ear they had o! each other.
%orn fit
)ince we now see actually a constituted )ociety among men and none
living out o! it since we discern all desirous o! congresse and mutuall
correspondence it may seeme a wonder!ull 9ind o! stupidity to lay in
the very threshold o! this :octrine such a stumbling bloc9 be!ore the
8eaders as to deny ;an to be born !it !or )ociety. 5here!ore ( must
more plainly say 5hat it is true indeed that to ;an by nature or as
;an that is as soone as he is born )olitude is an enemyK !or (n!ants
have need o! others to help them to live and those o! riper years to
help them to live well where!ore ( deny not that men "even nature
compelling# desire to come together. *ut civill )ocieties are not meer
;eetings but *onds to the ma9ing whereo! $aith and Compacts are
necessary. 5he ?ertue whereo! to Children and $ooles and the pro!it
whereo! to those who have not yet tasted the miseries which
accompany its de!ects is altogether un9nownK whence it happens that
those because they 9now not what )ociety is cannot enter into itK
-0%
these because ignorant o! the bene!it it brings care not !or it. ;ani!est
there!ore it is that all men because they are born in (n!ancy are born
unapt !or )ociety. ;any also "perhaps most men# either through de!ect
o! minde or want o! education remain un!it during the whole course o!
their livesK yet have (n!ants as well as those o! riper years an humane
natureK where!ore ;an is made !it !or )ociety not by +ature but by
4ducation. !urthermore although ;an were born in such a condition as
to desire it it !ollowes not that he there!ore were *orn !it to enter into itK
!or it is one thing to desire another to be in capacity !it !or what we
desireK !or even they who through their pride will not stoop to e@uall
conditions without which there can be no )ociety do yet desire it.
The !utuall fear
(t is ob<ected. (t is so improbable that men should grow into civill
)ocieties out o! !ear that i! they had been a!raid they would not have
endurFd each others loo9s. 5hey 'resume ( believe that to !ear is
nothing else then to be a!!righted. ( comprehend in this word $ear a
certain !oresight o! !uture evillK neither doe ( conceive !light the sole
property o! !ear but to distrust suspect ta9e heed provide so that they
may not !ear is also incident to the !ear!ull. 5hey who go to )leep shut
their :oresK they who 5ravell carry their )words with them because
they !ear 5heives. Cingdomes guard their Coasts and $rontiers with
$orts and CastlesK Cities are compast with Walls and all !or !ear o!
neighbouring Cingdomes and 5ownesK even the strongest Armies and
most accomplisht !or $ight yet sometimes 'arly !or 'eace as !earing
each others 'ower and lest they might be overcome. (t is through !ear
that men secure themselves by !light indeed and in corners i! they
thin9 they cannot escape otherwise but !or the most part by Armes
and :e!ensive WeaponsK whence it happens that daring to come !orth
they 9now each others )piritsK but then i! they !ight Civill )ociety
ariseth !rom the ?ictory i! they agree !rom their Agreement.
(((. 5he cause o! mutuall !ear consists partly in the naturall e@uality o!
men partly in their mutuall will o! hurting. whence it comes to passe
that we can neither e=pect !rom others nor promise to our selves the
least security. $or i! we loo9 on men !ullgrown and consider how brittle
the !rame o! our humane body is "which perishing all its strength
vigour and wisdome it sel!e perisheth with it# and how easie a matter it
is even !or the wea9est man to 9ill the strongest there is no reason
why any man trusting to his own strength should conceive himsel!
-0/
made by nature above others. they are e@ualls who can doe e@uall
things one against the otherK but they who can do the greatest things
"namely 9ill# can doe e@uall things. All men there!ore among
themselves are by nature e@uallK the ine@uality we now discern hath its
spring !rom the Civill Law.
(?. All men in the )tate o! nature have a desire and will to hurt but not
proceeding !rom the same cause neither e@ually to be condemnFdK !or
one man according to that naturall e@uality which is among us permits
as much to others as he assumes to himsel! "which is an argument o!
a temperate man and one that rightly values his power#K another
supposing himsel!e above others will have a License to doe what he
lists and challenges 8espect and Honour as due to him be!ore
others "which is an Argument o! a !iery spirit.# 5his mans will to hurt
ariseth !rom ?ain glory and the !alse esteeme he hath o! his owne
strengthK the otherFs !rom the necessity o! de!ending himsel!e his
liberty and his goods against this mans violence.
?. $urthermore since the combate o! Wits is the !iercest the greatest
discords which are must necessarily arise !rom this ContentionK !or in
this case it is not only odious to contend against but also not to
consentK !or not to approve o! what a man saith is no lesse than tacitely
to accuse him o! an 4rrour in that thing which he spea9ethK as in very
many things to dissent is as much as i! you accounted him a !ool
whom you dissent !romK which may appear hence that there are no
Warres so sharply wagFd as between )ects o! the same 8eligion and
$actions o! the same Commonweale where the Contestation is 4ither
concerning :octrines or 'oliti@ue 'rudence. And since all the
pleasure and <ollity o! the mind consists in thisK even to get some with
whom comparing it may !ind somewhat wherein to 5ryumph and
?aunt it sel!K its impossible but men must declare sometimes some
mutuall scorn and contempt either by Laughter or by Words or by
Aesture or some signe or otherK than which there is no greater
ve=ation o! mindK and than !rom which there cannot possibly arise a
greater desire to doe hurt.
?(. *ut the most !re@uent reason why men desire to hurt each other
ariseth hence that many men at the same time have an Appetite to the
same thingK which yet very o!ten they can neither en<oy in common nor
yet divide itK whence it !ollowes that the strongest must have it and
who is strongest must be decided by the )word.
?((. Among so many dangers there!ore as the naturall lusts o! men do
-%0
daily threaten each other withall to have a care o! ones sel!e is not a
matter so scorn!ully to be loo9t upon as i! so be there had not been a
power and will le!t in one to have done otherwiseK !or every man is
desirous o! what is good !or him and shuns what is evill but chie!ly the
chie!est o! naturall evills which is :eathK and this he doth by a certain
impulsion o! nature no lesse than that whereby a )tone moves
downward. (t is there!ore neither absurd nor reprehensibleK neither
against the dictates o! true reason !or a man to use all his endeavours
to preserve and de!end his *ody and the ;embers thereo! !rom death
and sorrowesK but that which is not contrary to right reason that all
men account to be done <ustly and with rightK +either by the word
%ight is any thing else signi!ied than that liberty which every man hath
to ma9e use o! his naturall !aculties according to right reason.
5here!ore the !irst !oundation o! naturall 8ight is this 5hat every man
as much as in him lies endeavour to protect his life and members.
?(((. *ut because it is in vaine !or a man to have a 8ight to the end i!
the 8ight to the necessary meanes be denyFd himK it !ollowes that
since every man hath a 8ight to preserve himsel! he must also be
allowed a 8ight to use all the means, and do all the actions, without
which 1e cannot +reserve himself.
(>. +ow whether the means which he is about to use and the action he
is per!orming be necessary to the preservation o! his Li!e and
;embers or not he Himsel! by the right o! nature must be <udgK !or
say another man <udg that it is contrary to right reason that ( should
<udg o! mine own perill. why now because he <udgeth o! what concerns
me by the same reason because we are e@uall by nature will ( <udge
also o! things which doe belong to himK there!ore it agrees with right
reason "that is# it is the right o! nature that ( <udge o! his opinion "i.e.#
whether it conduce to my preservation or not.
>. +ature hath given to every one a right to all. 5hat is it was law!ull !or
every man in the bare state o! nature or be!ore such time as men had
engagFd themselves by any Covenants or *onds to doe what hee
would and against whom he thought !it and to possesse use and
en<oy all what he would or could get. +ow because whatsoever a man
would it there!ore seems good to him because he wills it and either it
really doth or at least seems to him to contribute toward his
preservation "but we have already allowed him to be <udge in the
!oregoing Article whether it doth or not in so much as we are to hold all
!or necessary whatsoever he shall esteeme so# and by the 0. Article it
-%1
appeares that by the right o! +ature those things may be done and
must be had which necessarily conduce to the protection o! li!e and
members it !ollowes that in the state o! nature 5o have all and do all
is law!ull !or all. And this is that which is meant by that common saying
/ature hath given all to all !rom whence we understand li9ewise that
in the state o! nature 'ro!it is the measure o! 8ight.
In the !eere state of Nature
5his is thus to be understood. What any man does in the bare state o!
+ature is in<urious to no manK not that in such a )tate he cannot o!!end
Aod or brea9 the Lawes o! +atureK !or (n<ustice against men
presupposeth Humane Lawes such as in the )tate o! +ature there are
none. +ow the truth o! this proposition thus conceived is su!!iciently
demonstrated to the mind!ull 8eader in the Articles immediately
!oregoingK but because in certaine cases the di!!iculty o! the conclusion
ma9es us !orget the premises ( will contract this Argument and ma9e it
most evident to a single viewK every man hath right to protect himsel!
as appears by the seventh Article. 5he same man there!ore hath a right
to use all the means which necessarily conduce to this end by the eight
Article. *ut those are the necessary means which he shall <udge to be
such by the ninth Article. He there!ore hath a right to ma9e use o! and
to doe all whatsoever he shall <udge re@uisite !or his preservation.
where!ore by the <udgement o! him that doth it the thing done is either
right or wrongK and there!ore right. 5rue it is there!ore in the bare )tate
o! +ature Yc but i! any man pretend somewhat to tend necessarily to
his preservation which yet he himsel! doth not con!idently believe so
he may o!!end against the Lawes o! +ature as in the third Chapter o!
this *oo9 is more at large declarFd. (t hath been ob<ected by some. (! a
)onne 9ill his $ather doth he him no in<ury7 ( have answered 5hat a
)onne cannot be understood to be at any time in the )tate o! +ature
as being under the 'ower and command o! them to whom he ownes
his protection as soon as ever he is born namely either his $athers or
his ;others or his that nourisht him as is demonstrated in the ninth
Chapter.
>(. *ut it was the least bene!it !or men thus to have a common 8ight to
all thingsK !or the e!!ects o! this 8ight are the same almost as i! there
had been no 8ight at allK !or although any man might say o! every thing
9his is mine yet could he not en<oy it by reason o! his +eighbour who
having e@uall 8ight and e@uall power would pretend the same thing to
-%2
be his.
>((. (! now to this naturall proclivity o! men to hurt each other which
they derive !rom their 'assions but chie!ly !rom a vain esteeme o!
themselves. Gou adde the right o! all to all wherewith one by right
invades the other by right resists and whence arise perpetuall
<ealousies and suspicions on all hands and how hard a thing it is to
provide against an enemy invading us with an intention to oppresse
and ruine though he come with a small +umber and no great
'rovisionK it cannot be denyFd but that the naturall state o! men be!ore
they entrFd into )ociety was a meer War and that not simply but a
War o! all men against all menK !or what is WA8 but that same time in
which the will o! contesting by !orce is !ully declarFd either by Words or
:eeds7 5he time remaining is termed '4AC4.
>(((. *ut it is easily <udgFd how disagreeable a thing to the preservation
either o! ;an,9ind or o! each single ;an a perpetuall War is. *ut it is
perpetuall in its own nature because in regard o! the e@uality o! those
that strive it cannot be ended by ?ictoryK !or in this state the
Con@uerour is sub<ect to so much danger as it were to be accounted a
;iracle i! any even the most strong should close up his li!e with many
years and old age. 5hey o! America are 4=amples hereo! even in this
present Age. &ther +ations have been in !ormer Ages which now
indeed are become Civill and $lourishing but were then !ew !ierce
short,lived poor nasty and destroyFd o! all that 'leasure and *eauty
o! li!e which 'eace and )ociety are wont to bring with them.
Whosoever there!ore holds that it had been best to have continued in
that state in which all things were law!ull !or all men he contradicts
himsel!K !or every man by naturall necessity desires that which is good
!or him. nor is there any that esteemes a war o! all against all which
necessarily adheres to such a )tate to be good !or him. And so it
happens that through !eare o! each other we thin9 it !it to rid our selves
o! this condition and to get some !ellowesK that i! there needs must be
war it may not yet be against all men nor without some helps.
>(?. $ellowes are gotten either by constraint or by consentK *y
Constraint when a!ter !ight the Con@ueror ma9es the con@uered serve
him either through !eare o! death or by laying !etters on him. *y
consent when men enter into society to helpe each other both parties
consenting without any constraint. *ut the Con@ueror may by right
compell the Con@uered or the strongest the wea9er "as a man in
health may one that is sic9 or he that is o! riper yeares a childe#
-%-
unlesse he will choose to die to give caution o! his !uture obedience.
$or since the right o! protecting our selves according to our owne wills
proceeded !rom our danger and our danger !rom our e@uality its more
consonant to reason and more certaine !or our conservation using the
present advantage to secure our selves by ta9ing cautionK then when
they shall be !ull growne and strong and got out o! our power to
endeavour to recover that power againe by doubt!ull !ight. And on the
other side nothing can be thought more absurd than by discharging
whom you already have wea9 in your power to ma9e him at once both
an enemy and a strong one. $rom whence we may understand
li9ewise as a Corollarie in the naturall state o! men 9hat a sure and
irresistible +ower confers the right of 'ominion, and ruling over those
who cannot resistK insomuch as the right o! all things that can be
done adheres essentially and immediately unto this omnipotence
hence arising.
>?. Get cannot men e=pect any lasting preservation continuing thus in
the state o! nature "i.e.# o! War by reason o! that e@uality o! power and
other humane !aculties they are endued withall. Where!ore to see9
'eace where there is any hopes o! obtaining it and where there is
none to en@uire out !or Au=iliaries o! War is the dictate o! right
8easonK that is the Law o! +ature as shall be shewed in the ne=t
Chapter.
o!inion
Chapter '5
6f the causes. and first begining of ci#ill ?o#ern!ent
(. (t is o! it sel!e mani!est that the actions o! men proceed !rom the will
and the will !rom hope and !eare insomuch as when they shall see a
greater good or lesse evill li9ely to happen to them by the breach
than observation o! the Lawes theyFl wittingly violate them. 5he hope
there!ore which each man hath o! his security and sel!,preservation
consists in this that by !orce or cra!t he may disappoint his neighbour
either openly or by stratagem. Whence we may understand that the
naturall lawes though well understood doe not instantly secure any
man in their practise and conse@uently that as long as there is no
caution had !rom the invasion o! others there remains to every man
-%1
that same primitive 8ight o! sel!e,de!ence by such means as either he
can or will ma9e use o! "that is# a 8ight to all things or the 8ight o!
warreK and it is su!!icient !or the !ul!iling o! the naturall law that a man
be prepared in mind to embrace 'eace when it may be had.
((. (t is an old saying 5hat all lawes are silent in the time o! warre and it
is a true one not onely i! we spea9 o! the civill but also o! the naturall
lawes provided they be re!errFd not to the mind but to the actions o!
men by the third Chapter Art. 2/. And we mean such a war as is o! all
men against all menK such as is the meer state o! natureK although in
the warre o! nation against nation a certain mean was wont to be
observed. And there!ore in old time there was a manner o! living and
as it were a certain oeconomy which they called leotrikon living by
8apine which was neither against the law o! nature "things then so
standing# nor voyd o! glory to those who e=ercised it with valour not
with cruelty. 5heir custome was ta9ing away the rest to spare li!e and
abstain !rom &=en !it !or plough and every instrument serviceable to
husbandry which yet is not so to be ta9en as i! they were bound to
doe thus by the law o! nature but that they had regard to their own
glory herein lest by too much cruelty they might be suspected guilty o!
!eare.
(((. )ince there!ore the e=ercise o! the naturall law is necessary !or the
preservation o! 'eace and that !or the e=ercise o! the naturall law
security is no lesse necessary it is worth the considering what that is
which a!!ords such a security. !or this matter nothing else can be
imagined but that each man provide himsel!e o! such meet helps as
the invasion o! one on the other may bee rendered so dangerous as
either o! them may thin9 it better to re!rain than to meddle. *ut !irst it is
plain that the consent o! two or three cannot ma9e good such a
securityK because that the addition but o! one or some !ew on the other
side is su!!icient to ma9e the victory undoubtedly sure and hartens the
enemy to attac@ue us. (t is there!ore necessary to the end the security
sought !or may be obtained that the number o! them who conspire in a
mutuall assistance be so great that the accession o! some !ew to the
enemies party may not prove to them a matter o! moment su!!icient to
assure the victory.
(?. $urthermore how great soever the number o! them is who meet on
sel!e,de!ence i! yet they agree not among themselves o! some
e=cellent means whereby to compasse this but every man a!ter his
own manner shall ma9e use o! his endeavours nothing will be doneK
-%3
because that divided in their opinions they will be an hinderance to
each other or i! they agree well enough to some one action through
hope o! victory spoyle or revenge yet a!terward through diversity o!
wits and Counsels or emulation and envy with which men naturally
contend they will be so torne and rent as they will neither give mutuall
help nor desire peace e=cept they be constrained to it by some
common !eare. Whence it !ollowes that the consent o! many "which
consists in this onely as we have already de!ined in the !oregoing
section that they direct all their actions to the same end and the
common good# that is to say that the society proceeding !rom mutuall
help onely yeelds not that security which they see9 !or who meet and
agree in the e=ercise o! the above,named lawes o! natureK but that
somewhat else must be done that those who have once consented !or
the common good to peace and mutuall help may by !ear be
restrained lest a!terward they again dissent when their private (nterest
shall appear discrepant !rom the common good.
?. Aristotle rec9ons among those animals which he calls 'oliti@ue not
man only but divers othersK as the Ant the *ee Yc. which though they
be destitute o! reason by which they may contract and submit to
government notwithstanding by consenting "that is to say# ensuing or
eschewing the same things they so direct their actions to a common
end that their meetings are not obno=ious unto any seditions. Get is
not their gathering together a civill government and there!ore those
animals not to be termed politicall because their government is onely a
consent or many wills concurring in one ob<ect not "as is necessary in
civill government# one will. (t is very true that in those creatures living
only by sense and appetite their consent o! minds is so durable as
there is no need o! any thing more to secure it and "by conse@uence#
to preserve peace among them than barely their naturall inclination.
*ut among men the case is otherwise. $or !irst among them there is a
contestation o! honour and pre!ermentK among beasts there is none.
whence hatred and envy out o! which arise sedition and warre is
among menK among beasts no such matter. +e=t the naturall appetite
o! *ees and the li9e creatures is con!ormable and they desire the
common good which among them di!!ers not !rom their privateK but man
scarce esteems any thing good which hath not somewhat o! eminence
in the en<oyment more than that which others doe possesse. 5hirdly
those creatures which are voyd o! reason see no de!ect or thin9 they
see none in the administration o! their Common,wealesK but in a
multitude o! men there are many who supposing themselves wiser than
-%2
others endeavour to innovate and divers (nnovators innovate divers
wayes which is a meer distraction and civill warre. $ourthly these
brute creatures howsoever they may have the use o! their voyce to
signi!y their a!!ections to each other yet want they that same art o!
words which is necessarily re@uired to those motions in the mind
whereby good is represented to it as being better and evill as worse
than in truth it isK *ut the tongue o! man is a trumpet o! warre and
seditionK and it is reported o! 'ericles that he sometimes by his elegant
speeches thundered and lightened and con!ounded whole Areece it
sel!e. $i!tly they cannot distinguish between in$ury and harmeK 5hence
it happens that as long as it is well with them they blame not their
!ellowes. *ut those men are o! most trouble to the 8epubli@ue who
have most leasure to be idleK !or they use not to contend !or publi@ue
places be!ore they have gotten the victory over hunger and cold. Last
o! all the consent o! those brutall creatures is naturall that o! men by
compact onely "that is to say# arti!iciallK it is there!ore no matter o!
wonder i! somewhat more be need!ull !or men to the end they may live
in peace. Where!ore consent or contracted society without some
common power whereby particular men may be ruled through !eare o!
punishment doth not su!!ice to ma9e up that security which is re@uisite
to the e=ercise o! naturall <ustice.
?(. )ince there!ore the conspiring o! many wills to the same end doth
not su!!ice to preserve peace and to ma9e a lasting de!ence it is
re@uisite that in those necessary matters which concern 'eace and
sel!e,de!ence there be but one will o! all men. *ut this cannot be done
unlesse every man will so sub<ect his will to some other one to wit
either ;an or Counsell that whatsoever his will is in those things which
are necessary to the common peace it be received !or the wills o! all
men in generall and o! every one in particular. +ow the gathering
together o! many men who deliberate o! what is to be done or not to be
done !or the common good o! all men is that which ( call a
C&H+)4LL.
?((. 5his submission o! the wills o! all those men to the will o! one man
or one Counsell is then made when each one o! them obligeth himsel!
by contract to every one o! the rest not to resist the will o! that one
man or counsell to which he hath submitted himsel!eK that is that he
re!use him not the use o! his wealth and strength against any others
whatsoever "!or he is supposed still to retain a 8ight o! de!ending
himsel!e against violence# and this is called H+(&+. *ut we understand
that to be the will o! the counsell which is the will o! the ma<or part o!
-%0
those men o! whom the Counsell consists.
?(((. *ut though the will it sel! be not voluntary but only the beginning
o! voluntary actions "!or we will not to will but to act# and there!ore !alls
least o! all under deliberation and compactK yet he who submits his will
to the will o! an other conveighs to that other the 8ight o! his strength
and !acultiesK insomuch as when the rest have done the same he to
whom they have submitted hath so much power as by the terrour o! it
hee can con!orme the wills o! particular men unto unity and concord.
(>. +ow union thus made is called a City or civill society and also a
civill 'ersonK !or when there is one will o! all men it is to be esteemed
!or one 'erson and by the word "one# it is to be 9nowne and
distinguished !rom all particular men as having its own 8ights and
propertiesK insomuch as neither any one CitiDen nor all o! them
together "i! we e=cept him whose will stands !or the will o! all# is to be
accounted the City. A C(5G there!ore "that we may de!ine it# is one
+erson whose will by the compact o! many men is to be received !or
the will o! them allK so as he may use all the power and !aculties o!
each particular person to the maintenance o! peace and !or common
de!ence.
>. *ut although every City be a civill 'erson yet every civill 'erson is
not a CityK !or it may happen that many CitiDens by the permission o!
the City may <oyne together in one 'erson !or the doing o! certain
things. 5hese now will be civill 'ersons as the companies o!
;erchants and many other ConventsK but Cities they are not because
they have not submitted themselves to the will o! the company simply
and in all things but in certain things onely determined by the CityK and
on such termes as it is law!ull !or any one o! them to contend in
<udgement against the body it sel!e o! the sodalityK which is by no
means allowable to a CitiDen against the CityK such li9e societies
there!ore are civill 'ersons subordinate to the City.
>(. (n every city 5hat ;an or Counsell to whose will each particular
man hath sub<ected his will "so as hath been declared# is said to have
the )H'84;4 '&W48 or CH(4$4 C&;;A+: or :&;(+(&+K which
'ower and 8ight o! commanding consists in this that each CitiDen
hath conveighed all his strength and power to that man or CounsellK
which to have done "because no man can trans!erre his power in a
naturall manner# is nothing else than to have parted with his 8ight o!
resisting. 4ach CitiDen as also every subordinate civill 'erson is called
the )H*64C5 o! him who hath the chie!e command.
-%%
>((. *y what hath been sayed it is su!!iciently shewed in what manner
and by what degrees many naturall 'ersons through desire o!
preserving themselves and by mutuall !eare have growne together
into a civill 'erson whom we have called a ,ity. *ut they who submit
themselves to another !or !eare either submit to him whom they !eare
or some other whom they con!ide in !or protectionK 5hey act according
to the !irst manner who are van@uished in warre that they may not be
slainK they according to the second who are not yet overcome that
they may not be overcome. 5he !irst manner receives its beginning
!rom naturall 'ower and may be called the naturall beginning o! a CityK
the latter !rom the Counsell and constitution o! those who meet
together which is a beginning by institution. Hence it is that there are
two 9inds o! Cities the one naturall such as is the paternall and
despoticallK the other institutive which may be also called politicall. (n
the !irst the Lord ac@uires to himsel!e such CitiDens as he willK in the
other the CitiDens by their own wills appoint a Lord over themselves
whether he be one man or one company o! men endued with the
command in chie!e. *ut we will spea9 in the !irst place o! a City
politicall or by institution and ne=t o! a City naturall.
-%/
Source E %
,ohn Loc"e
The Second Treatise of Ci#il ?o#ern!ent
Chapter 'III5 6f the %eginning of Political Societies5
)ect. /3. ;4+ being as has been said by nature all !ree e@ual and
independent no one can be put out o! this estate and sub<ected to the
political power o! another without his own consent. 5he only way
whereby any one divests himsel! o! his natural liberty and puts on the
bonds of civil society, is by agreeing with other men to <oin and unite
into a community !or their com!ortable sa!e and peaceable living one
amongst another in a secure en<oyment o! their properties and a
greater security against any that are not o! it. 5his any number o! men
may do because it in<ures not the !reedom o! the restK they are le!t as
they were in the liberty o! the state o! nature. When any number o! men
have so consented to make one community or government, they are
thereby presently incorporated and ma9e one body politic, wherein the
ma$ority have a right to act and conclude the rest.
)ect. /2. $or when any number o! men have by the consent o! every
individual made a community, they have thereby made that community
one body with a power to act as one body which is only by the will and
determination o! the ma$ority> !or that which acts any community being
only the consent o! the individuals o! it and it being necessary to that
which is one body to move one wayK it is necessary the body should
move that way whither the greater !orce carries it which is the consent
of the ma$ority> or else it is impossible it should act or continue one
body one community, which the consent o! every individual that united
into it agreed that it shouldK and so every one is bound by that consent
to be concluded by the ma$ority. And there!ore we see that in
assemblies impowered to act by positive laws where no number is set
by that positive law which impowers them the act of the ma$ority
passes !or the act o! the whole and o! course determines as having
by the law o! nature and reason the power o! the whole.
)ect. /0. And thus every man by consenting with others to ma9e one
body politic under one government puts himsel! under an obligation to
every one o! that society to submit to the determination o! the ma$ority,
and to be concluded by itK or else this original compact, whereby he
-/0
with others incorporates into one society, would signi!y nothing and be
no compact i! he be le!t !ree and under no other ties than he was in
be!ore in the state o! nature. $or what appearance would there be o!
any compact7 what new engagement i! he were no !arther tied by any
decrees o! the society than he himsel! thought !it and did actually
consent to7 5his would be still as great a liberty as he himsel! had
be!ore his compact or any one else in the state o! nature hath who
may submit himsel! and consent to any acts o! it i! he thin9s !it.
)ect. /%. $or i! the consent of the ma$ority shall not in reason be
received as the act of the whole, and conclude every individualK nothing
but the consent o! every individual can ma9e any thing to be the act o!
the whole. but such a consent is ne=t to impossible ever to be had i!
we consider the in!irmities o! health and avocations o! business which
in a number though much less than that o! a common,wealth will
necessarily 9eep many away !rom the public assembly. 5o which i! we
add the variety o! opinions and contrariety o! interests which
unavoidably happen in all collections o! men the coming into society
upon such terms would be only li9e ,ato's coming into the theatre only
to go out again. )uch a constitution as this would ma9e the mighty
-eviathan o! a shorter duration than the !eeblest creatures and not let
it outlast the day it was born in. which cannot be supposed till we can
thin9 that rational creatures should desire and constitute societies only
to be dissolved. !or where the ma$ority cannot conclude the rest there
they cannot act as one body and conse@uently will be immediately
dissolved again.
)ect. //. Whosoever there!ore out o! a state o! nature unite into a
community, must be understood to give up all the power necessary to
the ends !or which they unite into society to the ma$ority o! the
community unless they e=presly agreed in any number greater than
the ma<ority. And this is done by barely agreeing to unite into one
political society, which is all the compact that is or needs be between
the individuals that enter into or ma9e up a common4wealth. And thus
that which begins and actually constitutes any political society, is
nothing but the consent o! any number o! !reemen capable o! a ma<ority
to unite and incorporate into such a society. And this is that and that
only which did or could give beginning to any lawful government in the
world.
)ect. 100. 5o this ( !ind two ob<ections made.
$irst 9hat there are no instances to be found in story, of a company of
-/1
men independent, and equal one amongst another, that met together,
and in this way began and set up a government.
)econdly It is impossible of right, that men should do so, because all
men being born under government, they are to submit to that, and are
not at liberty to begin a new one.
)ect. 101. 5o the !irst there is this to answer 5hat it is not at all to be
wondered that history gives us but a very little account o! men, that
lived together in the state of nature. 5he inconveniences o! that
condition and the love and want o! society no sooner brought any
number o! them together but they presently united and incorporated i!
they designed to continue together. And i! we may not suppose men
ever to have been in the state of nature, because we hear not much o!
them in such a state we may as well suppose the armies o!
&almanasser or Ierxes were never children because we hear little o!
them till they were men and imbodied in armies. Aovernment is
everywhere antecedent to records and letters seldom come in
amongst a people till a long continuation o! civil society has by other
more necessary arts provided !or their sa!ety ease and plenty. and
then they begin to loo9 a!ter the history o! their !ounders and search
into their original, when they have outlived the memory o! it. !or it is with
common4wealths as with particular persons they are commonly
ignorant of their own births and infancies> and i! they 9now any thing o!
their original, they are beholden !or it to the accidental records that
others have 9ept o! it. And those that we have o! the beginning o! any
polities in the world e=cepting that o! the .ews, where Aod himsel!
immediately interposed and which !avours not at all paternal dominion
are all either plain instances o! such a beginning as ( have mentioned
or at least have mani!est !ootsteps o! it.
)ect. 102. He must shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter o!
!act when it agrees not with his hypothesis who will not allow that
shew a strange inclination to deny evident matter o! !act when it
agrees not with his hypothesis who will not allow that the beginning of
%ome and <enice were by the uniting together o! several men !ree and
independent one o! another amongst whom there was no natural
superiority or sub<ection. And i! .osephus 2costa's word may be ta9en
he tells us that in many parts o! 2merica there was no government at
all. 9here are great and apparent con$ectures, says he that these men,
spea9ing o! those o! 'eru for a long time had neither kings nor
common4wealths, but lived in troops, as they do this day in $lorida the
-/2
Cheri@uanas those of *raDil and many other nations, which have no
certain kings, but as occasion is offered, in peace or war, they choose
their captains as they please, 1. i. c. 23. (! it be said that every man
there was born sub<ect to his !ather or the head o! his !amilyK that the
sub<ection due !rom a child to a !ather too9 not away his !reedom o!
uniting into what political society he thought !it has been already
proved. *ut be that as it will these men it is evident were actually
free: and whatever superiority some politicians now would place in any
o! them they themselves claimed it not but by consent were all equal,
till by the same consent they set rulers over themselves. )o that their
politic societies all began !rom a voluntary union and the mutual
agreement o! men !reely acting in the choice o! their governors and
!orms o! government.
)ect. 10-. And ( hope those who went away !rom &parta with +alantus,
mentioned by .ustin, 1. iii. c. 1. will be allowed to have been freemen
independent one o! another and to have set up a government over
themselves by their own consent. 5hus ( have given several e=amples
out o! history o! people free and in the state of nature, that being met
together incorporated and began a common4wealth. And i! the want o!
such instances be an argument to prove that government were not nor
could not be so begun, ( suppose the contenders !or paternal empire
were better let it alone than urge it against natural liberty. !or i! they
can give so many instances out o! history o! governments begun upon
paternal right ( thin9 "though at best an argument !rom what has been
to what should o! right be has no great !orce# one might without any
great danger yield them the cause. *ut i! ( might advise them in the
case they would do well not to search too much into the original of
governments, as they have begun de facto, lest they should !ind at the
!oundation o! most o! them something very little !avourable to the
design they promote and such a power as they contend !or.
)ect. 101. *ut to conclude reason being plain on our side that men
are naturally !ree and the e=amples o! history shewing that the
governments o! the world that were begun in peace had their
beginning laid on that !oundation and were made by the consent of the
people: there can be little room !or doubt either where the right is or
what has been the opinion or practice o! man9ind about the first
erecting of governments.
)ect. 103. ( will not deny that i! we loo9 bac9 as !ar as history will direct
us towards the original of common4wealths, we shall generally !ind
-/-
them under the government and administration o! one man. And ( am
also apt to believe that where a !amily was numerous enough to
subsist by itsel! and continued entire together without mi=ing with
others as it o!ten happens where there is much land and !ew people
the government commonly began in the !ather. !or the !ather having by
the law o! nature the same power with every man else to punish as he
thought !it any o!!ences against that law might thereby punish his
transgressing children even when they were men and out o! their
pupilageK and they were very li9ely to submit to his punishment and all
<oin with him against the o!!ender in their turns giving him thereby
power to e=ecute his sentence against any transgression and so in
e!!ect ma9e him the law,ma9er and governor over all that remained in
con<unction with his !amily. He was !ittest to be trustedK paternal
a!!ection secured their property and interest under his careK and the
custom o! obeying him in their childhood made it easier to submit to
him rather than to any other. (! there!ore they must have one to rule
them as government is hardly to be avoided amongst men that live
togetherK who so li9ely to be the man as he that was their common
!atherK unless negligence cruelty or any other de!ect o! mind or body
made him un!it !or it7 *ut when either the !ather died and le!t his ne=t
heir !or want o! age wisdom courage or any other @ualities less !it !or
ruleK or where several !amilies met and consented to continue
togetherK there it is not to be doubted but they used their natural
!reedom to set up him whom they <udged the ablest and most li9ely
to rule well over them. Con!ormable hereunto we !ind the people o!
2merica, who "living out o! the reach o! the con@uering swords and
spreading domination o! the two great empires o! +eru and 0exico#
en<oyed their own natural !reedom though ceteris paribus, they
commonly pre!er the heir o! their deceased 9ingK yet i! they !ind him any
way wea9 or uncapable they pass him by and set up the stoutest and
bravest man !or their ruler.
)ect. 102. 5hus though loo9ing bac9 as !ar as records give us any
account o! peopling the world and the history o! nations we commonly
!ind the government to be in one handK yet it destroys not that which (
a!!irm viz. that the beginning of politic society depends upon the
consent o! the individuals to <oin into and ma9e one societyK who
when they are thus incorporated might set up what !orm o! government
they thought !it. *ut this having given occasion to men to mista9e and
thin9 that by nature government was monarchical and belonged to the
!ather it may not be amiss here to consider why people in the
-/1
beginning generally pitched upon this !orm which though perhaps the
!atherFs pre,eminency might in the !irst institution o! some common,
wealths give a rise to and place in the beginning the power in one
handK yet it is plain that the reason that continued the !orm o!
government in a single person, was not any regard or respect to
paternal authorityK since all petty monarchies, that is almost all
monarchies near their original have been commonly at least upon
occasion elective.
)ect. 100. $irst then in the beginning o! things the !atherFs government
o! the childhood o! those sprung !rom him having accustomed them to
the rule of one man, and taught them that where it was e=ercised with
care and s9ill with a!!ection and love to those under it it was su!!icient
to procure and preserve to men all the political happiness they sought
!or in society. (t was no wonder that they should pitch upon and
naturally run into that !orm o! government which !rom their in!ancy they
had been all accustomed toK and which by e=perience they had !ound
both easy and sa!e. 5o which i! we add that monarchy being simple
and most obvious to men whom neither e=perience had instructed in
!orms o! government nor the ambition or insolence o! empire had
taught to beware o! the encroachments o! prerogative or the
inconveniences o! absolute power which monarchy in succession was
apt to lay claim to and bring upon them it was not at all strange that
they should not much trouble themselves to thin9 o! methods o!
restraining any e=orbitances o! those to whom they had given the
authority over them and o! balancing the power o! government by
placing several parts o! it in di!!erent hands. 5hey had neither !elt the
oppression o! tyrannical dominion nor did the !ashion o! the age nor
their possessions or way o! living "which a!!orded little matter !or
covetousness or ambition# give them any reason to apprehend or
provide against itK and there!ore it is no wonder they put themselves
into such a frame of government, as was not only as ( said most
obvious and simple but also best suited to their present state and
conditionK which stood more in need o! de!ence against !oreign
invasions and in<uries than o! multiplicity o! laws. 5he e@uality o! a
simple poor way o! living con!ining their desires within the narrow
bounds o! each manFs small property made !ew controversies and so
no need o! many laws to decide them or variety o! o!!icers to
superintend the process or loo9 a!ter the e=ecution o! <ustice where
there were but !ew trespasses and !ew o!!enders. )ince then those
who li9e one another so well as to <oin into society cannot but be
-/3
supposed to have some ac@uaintance and !riendship together and
some trust one in anotherK they could not but have greater
apprehensions o! others than o! one another. and there!ore their !irst
care and thought cannot but be supposed to be how to secure
themselves against !oreign !orce. (t was natural !or them to put
themselves under a frame of government which might best serve to
that end and chuse the wisest and bravest man to conduct them in
their wars and lead them out against their enemies and in this chie!ly
be their ruler.
)ect. 10%. 5hus we see that the kings of the Indians in 2merica, which
is still a pattern o! the !irst ages in Asia and 4urope whilst the
inhabitants were too !ew !or the country and want o! people and
money gave men no temptation to enlarge their possessions o! land or
contest !or wider e=tent o! ground are little more than generals of their
armies: and though they command absolutely in war yet at home and
in time o! peace they e=ercise very little dominion and have but a very
moderate sovereignty the resolutions o! peace and war being
ordinarily either in the people or in a council. 5hoF the war itsel! which
admits not o! plurality o! governors naturally devolves the command
into the king's sole authority.
)ect. 10/. And thus in Israel itsel! the chief business of their $udges,
and first kings, seems to have been to be captains in war, and leaders
o! their armiesK which "besides what is signi!ied by going out and in
before the people, which was to march !orth to war and home again in
the heads o! their !orces# appears plainly in the story o! .ephtha. 5he
2mmonites ma9ing war upon Israel, the (ileadites in !ear send to
.ephtha, a bastard o! their !amily whom they had cast o!! and article
with him i! he will assist them against the 2mmonites, to ma9e him
their rulerK which they do in these words 2nd the people made him
head and captain over them, 6udg. =i ii. which was as it seems all
one as to be $udge. 2nd he $udged Israel, <udg. =ii. 0. that is was their
captain4general six years. )o when .otham upbraids the &hechemites
with the obligation they had to (ideon, who had been their $udge and
ruler he tells them 1e fought for you, and adventured his life far, and
delivered you out of the hands of 0idian, 6udg. i=. 10. +othing
mentioned o! him but what he did as a general> and indeed that is all is
!ound in his history or in any o! the rest o! the <udges. And 2bimelech
particularly is called king, though at most he was but their general. And
when being weary o! the ill conduct o! &amuel's sons, the children o!
Israel desired a king, like all the nations to $udge them, and to go out
-/2
before them, and to fight their battles, (. )am viii. 20. Aod granting their
desire says to &amuel, I will send thee a man, and thou shalt anoint
him to be captain over my people Israel, that he may save my people
out of the hands of the +hilistines, i=. 12. As i! the only business of a
king had been to lead out their armies and !ight in their de!enceK and
accordingly at his inauguration pouring a vial o! oil upon him declares
to &aul, that the -ord had anointed him to be captain over his
inheritance, =. 1. And there!ore those who a!ter )aulFs being solemnly
chosen and saluted king by the tribes at 0ispah, were unwilling to have
him their 9ing made no other ob<ection but this 1ow shall this man
save us= v. 20. as i! they should have said this man is un!it to be our
king, not having s9ill and conduct enough in war to be able to de!end
us. And when Aod resolved to trans!er the government to 'avid, it is in
these words )ut now thy kingdom shall not continue> the -ord hath
sought him a man after his own heart, and the -ord hath commanded
him to be captain over his people, =iii. 11. As i! the whole kingly
authority were nothing else but to be their general> and there!ore the
tribes who had stuc9 to &aul's !amily and opposed 'avid's reign when
they came to 1ebron with terms o! submission to him they tell him
amongst other arguments they had to submit to him as to their 9ing
that he was in e!!ect their king in &aul's time and there!ore they had no
reason but to receive him as their king now. 2lso "say they# in time
past, when &aul was king over us, thou wast he that reddest out and
broughtest in Israel, and the -ord said unto thee, 9hou shalt feed my
people Israel, and thou shalt be a captain over Israel.
)ect. 110. 5hus whether a family by degrees grew up into a common4
wealth, and the !atherly authority being continued on to the elder son
every one in his turn growing up under it tacitly submitted to it and the
easiness and e@uality o! it not o!!ending any one every one
ac@uiesced till time seemed to have con!irmed it and settled a right o!
succession by prescription. or whether several !amilies or the
descendants o! several !amilies whom chance neighbourhood or
business brought together uniting into society the need o! a general
whose conduct might de!end them against their enemies in war and
the great con!idence the innocence and sincerity o! that poor but
virtuous age "such as are almost all those which begin governments
that ever come to last in the world# gave men one o! another made the
!irst beginners o! common,wealths generally put the rule into one manFs
hand without any other e=press limitation or restraint but what the
nature o! the thing and the end o! government re@uired. which ever o!
-/0
those it was that at !irst put the rule into the hands o! a single person
certain it is no body was intrusted with it but !or the public good and
sa!ety and to those ends in the in!ancies o! common,wealths those
who had it commonly used it. And unless they had done so young
societies could not have subsistedK without such nursing !athers tender
and care!ul o! the public weal all governments would have sun9 under
the wea9ness and in!irmities o! their in!ancy and the prince and the
people had soon perished together.
)ect. 111. *ut though the golden age "be!ore vain ambition and amor
sceleratus habendi, evil concupiscence had corrupted menFs minds
into a mista9e o! true power and honour# had more virtue and
conse@uently better governors as well as less vicious sub<ects and
there was then no stretching prerogative on the one side to oppress
the peopleK nor conse@uently on the other any dispute about privilege,
to lessen or restrain the power o! the magistrate and so no contest
betwi=t rulers and people about governors or government. yet when
ambition and lu=ury in !uture ages
1
would retain and increase the
power without doing the business !or which it was givenK and aided by
!lattery taught princes to have distinct and separate interests !rom their
people men !ound it necessary to e=amine more care!ully the original
and rights of government: and to !ind out ways to restrain the
exorbitances, and prevent the abuses o! that power which they having
intrusted in anotherFs hands only !or their own good they !ound was
made use o! to hurt them.
)ect. 112. 5hus we may see how probable it is that people that were
naturally !ree and by their own consent either submitted to the
government o! their !ather or united together out o! di!!erent !amilies to
ma9e a government should generally put the rule into one man's
hands, and chuse to be under the conduct o! a single person, without
so much as by e=press conditions limiting or regulating his power
which they thought sa!e enough in his honesty and prudenceK though
they never dreamed o! monarchy being .ure 'ivino, which we never
heard o! among man9ind till it was revealed to us by the divinity o! this
last ageK nor ever allowed paternal power to have a right to dominion
or to be the !oundation o! all government. And thus much may su!!ice to
shew that as !ar as we have any light !rom history we have reason to
conclude that all peace!ul beginnings o! government have been laid in
the consent of the people. ( say peaceful, because ( shall have
occasion in another place to spea9 o! con@uest which some esteem a
way o! beginning o! governments.
-/%
9he other ob$ection I find urged against the beginning of polities, in the
way I have mentioned, is this, viD.
)ect. 11-. 9hat all men being born under government, some or other, it
is impossible any of them should ever be free, and at liberty to unite
together, and begin a new one, or ever be able to erect a lawful
government.
(! this argument be goodK ( as9 how came so many law!ul monarchies
into the world7 !or i! any body upon this supposition can shew me any
one man in any age o! the world free to begin a law!ul monarchy ( will
be bound to shew him ten other free men at liberty at the same time to
unite and begin a new government under a regal or any other !ormK it
being demonstration that i! any one born under the dominion o!
another may be so free as to have a right to command others in a new
and distinct empire every one that is born under the dominion o!
another may be so !ree too and may become a ruler or sub<ect o! a
distinct separate government. And so by this their own principle either
all men however born, are free, or else there is but one law!ul prince
one law!ul government in the world. And then they have nothing to do
but barely to shew us which that isK which when they have done (
doubt not but all man9ind will easily agree to pay obedience to him.
)ect. 111. 5hough it be a su!!icient answer to their ob<ection to shew
that it involves them in the same di!!iculties that it doth those they use it
againstK yet ( shall endeavour to discover the wea9ness o! this
argument a little !arther.
2ll men, say they, are born under government, and therefore they
cannot be at liberty to begin a new one. @very one is born a sub$ect to
his father, or his prince, and is therefore under the perpetual tie of
sub$ection and allegiance. (t is plain man9ind never owned nor
considered any such natural sub<ection that they were born in to one
or to the other that tied them without their own consents to a
sub<ection to them and their heirs.
)ect. 113. $or there are no e=amples so !re@uent in history both
sacred and pro!ane as those o! men withdrawing themselves and their
obedience !rom the <urisdiction they were born under and the !amily or
community they were bred up in and setting up new governments in
other placesK !rom whence sprang all that number o! petty common,
wealths in the beginning o! ages and which always multiplied as long
as there was room enough till the stronger or more !ortunate
-//
swallowed the wea9erK and those great ones again brea9ing to pieces
dissolved into lesser dominions. All which are so many testimonies
against paternal sovereignty and plainly prove that it was not the
natural right o! the father descending to his heirs that made
governments in the beginning since it was impossible upon that
ground there should have been so many little 9ingdomsK all must have
been but only one universal monarchy i! men had not been at liberty to
separate themselves !rom their !amilies and the government be it
what it will that was set up in it and go and ma9e distinct common,
wealths and other governments as they thought !it.
)ect. 112. 5his has been the practice o! the world !rom its !irst
beginning to this dayK nor is it now any more hindrance to the !reedom
o! man9ind that they are born under constituted and ancient polities,
that have established laws and set !orms o! government than i! they
were born in the woods amongst the uncon!ined inhabitants that run
loose in them. !or those who would persuade us that by being born
under any government, we are naturally sub$ects to it, and have no
more any title or pretence to the !reedom o! the state o! nature have no
other reason "bating that o! paternal power which we have already
answered# to produce !or it but only because our !athers or
progenitors passed away their natural liberty and thereby bound up
themselves and their posterity to a perpetual sub<ection to the
government which they themselves submitted to. (t is true that
whatever engagements or promises any one has made !or himsel! he
is under the obligation o! them but cannot, by any compact
whatsoever bind his children or posterity> !or his son when a man
being altogether as !ree as the !ather any act of the father can no more
give away the liberty of the son, than it can o! any body else. he may
indeed anne= such conditions to the land he en<oyed as a sub<ect o!
any common,wealth as may oblige his son to be o! that community i!
he will en<oy those possessions which were his !atherFsK because that
estate being his !atherFs property he may dispose or settle it as he
pleases.
)ect. 110. And this has generally given the occasion to mista9e in this
matterK because common,wealths not permitting any part o! their
dominions to be dismembered nor to be en<oyed by any but those o!
their community the son cannot ordinarily en<oy the possessions o! his
!ather but under the same terms his !ather did by becoming a member
o! the societyK whereby he puts himsel! presently under the government
he !inds there established as much as any other sub<ect o! that
100
common,wealth. And thus the consent of freemen, born under
government, which only makes them members of it, being given
separately in their turns as each comes to be o! age and not in a
multitude togetherK people ta9e no notice o! it and thin9ing it not done
at all or not necessary conclude they are naturally sub<ects as they
are men.
)ect. 11%. *ut it is plain governments themselves understand it
otherwiseK they claim no power over the son, because of that they had
over the father: nor loo9 on children as being their sub<ects by their
!athers being so. (! a sub<ect o! @ngland have a child by an @nglish
woman in 5rance, whose sub<ect is he7 +ot the 9ing o! @ngland's: !or
he must have leave to be admitted to the privileges o! it. nor the 9ing o!
5rance's: !or how then has his !ather a liberty to bring him away and
breed him as he pleases7 and who ever was <udged as a traytor or
deserter, i! he le!t or warred against a country !or being barely born in
it o! parents that were aliens there7 (t is plain then by the practice o!
governments themselves as well as by the law o! right reason that a
child is born a sub$ect of no country or government. He is under his
!atherFs tuition and authority till he comes to age o! discretionK and then
he is a !reeman at liberty what government he will put himsel! under
what body politic he will unite himsel! to. !or i! an @nglishman's son
born in 5rance, be at liberty and may do so it is evident there is no tie
upon him by his !atherFs being a sub<ect o! this 9ingdomK nor is he
bound up by any compact o! his ancestors. And why then hath not his
son by the same reason the same liberty though he be born any
where else7 )ince the power that a !ather hath naturally over his
children is the same wherever they be born and the ties o! natural
obligations are not bounded by the positive limits o! 9ingdoms and
common,wealths.
)ect. 11/. @very man being as has been shewed naturally free, and
nothing being able to put him into sub<ection to any earthly power but
only his own consent: it is to be considered what shall be understood
to be a sufficient declaration o! a manFs consent, to make him sub$ect to
the laws o! any government. 5here is a common distinction o! an
e=press and a tacit consent which will concern our present case. +o
body doubts but an e=press consent, o! any man entering into any
society ma9es him a per!ect member o! that society a sub<ect o! that
government. 5he di!!iculty is what ought to be loo9ed upon as a tacit
consent, and how !ar it binds i.e. how !ar any one shall be loo9ed on to
have consented and thereby submitted to any government where he
101
has made no e=pressions o! it at all. And to this ( say that every man
that hath any possessions or en<oyment o! any part o! the dominions
o! any government doth thereby give his tacit consent, and is as !ar
!orth obliged to obedience to the laws o! that government during such
en<oyment as any one under itK whether this his possession be o! land
to him and his heirs !or ever or a lodging only !or a wee9K or whether it
be barely travelling !reely on the highwayK and in e!!ect it reaches as
!ar as the very being o! any one within the territories o! that
government.
)ect. 120. 5o understand this the better it is !it to consider that every
man when he at !irst incorporates himsel! into any commonwealth he
by his uniting himsel! thereunto anne=ed also and submits to the
community those possessions which he has or shall ac@uire that do
not already belong to any other government. !or it would be a direct
contradiction !or any one to enter into society with others !or the
securing and regulating o! propertyK and yet to suppose his land whose
property is to be regulated by the laws o! the society should be e=empt
!rom the <urisdiction o! that government to which he himsel! the
proprietor o! the land is a sub<ect. *y the same act there!ore whereby
any one unites his person which was be!ore !ree to any common,
wealth by the same he unites his possessions which were be!ore !ree
to it alsoK and they become both o! them person and possession
sub<ect to the government and dominion o! that common,wealth as
long as it hath a being. Whoever there!ore !rom thence!orth by
inheritance purchase permission or otherways en$oys any part of the
land so anne=ed to and under the government o! that common,
wealth must ta9e it with the condition it is underK that is of submitting
to the government of the common4wealth, under whose <urisdiction it is
as !ar !orth as any sub<ect o! it.
)ect. 121. *ut since the government has a direct <urisdiction only over
the land and reaches the possessor o! it "be!ore he has actually
incorporated himsel! in the society# only as he dwells upon and en<oys
thatK the obligation any one is under by virtue o! such en<oyment to
submit to the government, begins and ends with the en$oyment: so that
whenever the owner who has given nothing but such a tacit consent to
the government will by donation sale or otherwise @uit the said
possession he is at liberty to go and incorporate himsel! into any other
common,wealthK or to agree with others to begin a new one in vacuis
locis, in any part o! the world they can !ind !ree and unpossessed.
whereas he that has once by actual agreement and any express
102
declaration given his consent to be o! any common,wealth is
perpetually and indispensably obliged to be and remain unalterably a
sub<ect to it and can never be again in the liberty o! the state o! natureK
unless by any calamity the government he was under comes to be
dissolvedK or else by some public act cuts him o!! !rom being any longer
a member o! it.
)ect. 122. *ut submitting to the laws o! any country living @uietly and
en<oying privileges and protection under them makes not a man a
member of that society> this is only a local protection and homage due
to and !rom all those who not being in a state o! war come within the
territories belonging to any government to all parts whereo! the !orce o!
its laws e=tends. *ut this no more makes a man a member of that
society, a perpetual sub<ect o! that common,wealth than it would ma9e
a man a sub<ect to another in whose !amily he !ound it convenient to
abide !or some timeK though whilst he continued in it he were obliged
to comply with the laws and submit to the government he !ound there.
And thus we see that foreigners, by living all their lives under another
government and en<oying the privileges and protection o! it though
they are bound even in conscience to submit to its administration as
!ar !orth as any denisonK yet do not thereby come to be sub$ects or
members of that common4wealth. +othing can ma9e any man so but
his actually entering into it by positive engagement and e=press
promise and compact. 5his is that which ( thin9 concerning the
beginning o! political societies and that consent which makes any one
a member of any common4wealth.
Notes:
1
At !irst when some certain 9ind o! regiment was once approved it
may be nothing was then !arther thought upon !or the manner o!
governing but all permitted unto their wisdom and discretion which
were to rule till by e=perience they !ound this !or all parts very
inconvenient so as the thing which they had devised !or a remedy did
indeed but increase the sore which it should have cured. 5hey saw
that to live by one manFs will became the cause o! all menFs misery.
5his constrained them to come unto laws wherein all men might see
their duty be!ore hand and 9now the penalties o! transgressing them.
Hoo9erFs 4ccl. 'ol. l. i. sect. 10.
10-
Source E C
,ean2,ac>ues (ousseau
Social Contract
35 The Social Co!pact
( )H''&)4 men to have reached the point at which the obstacles in
the way o! their preservation in the state o! nature show their power o!
resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal o! each
individual !or his maintenance in that state. 5hat primitive condition can
then subsist no longerK and the human race would perish unless it
changed its manner o! e=istence.
*ut as men cannot engender new !orces but only unite and direct
e=isting ones they have no other means o! preserving themselves than
the !ormation by aggregation o! a sum o! !orces great enough to
overcome the resistance. 5hese they have to bring into play by means
o! a single motive power and cause to act in concert.
5his sum o! !orces can arise only where several persons come
together. but as the !orce and liberty o! each man are the chie!
instruments o! his sel!,preservation how can he pledge them without
harming his own interests and neglecting the care he owes to himsel!7
5his di!!iculty in its bearing on my present sub<ect may be stated in the
!ollowing terms.
*9he problem is to find a form of association which will defend and
protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each
associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still
obey himself alone, and remain as free as before.* 5his is the
!undamental problem o! which the &ocial ,ontract provides the
solution.
5he clauses o! this contract are so determined by the nature o! the act
that the slightest modi!ication would ma9e them vain and ine!!ectiveK so
that although they have perhaps never been !ormally set !orth they
are everywhere the same and everywhere tacitly admitted and
recognised until on the violation o! the social compact each regains
his original rights and resumes his natural liberty while losing the
conventional liberty in !avour o! which he renounced it.
101
5hese clauses properly understood may be reduced to one J the total
alienation o! each associate together with all his rights to the whole
communityK !or in the !irst place as each gives himsel! absolutely the
conditions are the same !or allK and this being so no one has any
interest in ma9ing them burdensome to others.
;oreover the alienation being without reserve the union is as per!ect
as it can be and no associate has anything more to demand. !or i! the
individuals retained certain rights as there would be no common
superior to decide between them and the public each being on one
point his own <udge would as9 to be so on allK the state o! nature would
thus continue and the association would necessarily become
inoperative or tyrannical.
$inally each man in giving himsel! to all gives himsel! to nobodyK and
as there is no associate over whom he does not ac@uire the same right
as he yields others over himsel! he gains an e@uivalent !or everything
he loses and an increase o! !orce !or the preservation o! what he has.
(! then we discard !rom the social compact what is not o! its essence
we shall !ind that it reduces itsel! to the !ollowing terms.
*@ach of us puts his person and all his power in common under the
supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we
receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole.*
At once in place o! the individual personality o! each contracting party
this act o! association creates a moral and collective body composed
o! as many members as the assembly contains votes and receiving
!rom this act its unity its common identity its li!e and its will. 5his public
person so !ormed by the union o! all other persons !ormerly too9 the
name o! city and now ta9es that o! %epublic or body politicK it is called
by its members &tate when passive. &overeign when active and
+ower when compared with others li9e itsel!. 5hose who are
associated in it ta9e collectively the name o! people and severally are
called citizens as sharing in the sovereign power and sub$ects as
being under the laws o! the )tate. *ut these terms are o!ten con!used
and ta9en one !or another. it is enough to 9now how to distinguish them
when they are being used with precision.
103
Source E
a#id Hu!e
6f The 6riginal Contract
As no party in the present age can well support itsel! without a
philosophical or speculative system o! principles anne=ed to its political
or practical one we accordingly !ind that each o! the !actions into
which this nation is divided has reared up a !abric o! the !ormer 9ind in
order to protect and cover that scheme o! actions which it pursues. 5he
people being commonly very rude builders especially in this
speculative way and more especially still when actuated by party,Deal
it is natural to imagine that their wor9manship must be a little
unshapely and discover evident mar9s o! that violence and hurry in
which it was raised. 5he one party by tracing up government to the
:eity endeavoured to render it so sacred and inviolate that it must be
little less than sacrilege however tyrannical it may become to touch or
invade it in the smallest article. 5he other party by !ounding
government altogether on the consent o! the people suppose that
there is a 9ind o! original contract, by which the sub<ects have tacitly
reserved the power o! resisting their sovereign whenever they !ind
themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have !or
certain purposes voluntarily intrusted him. 5hese are the speculative
principles o! the two parties and these too are the practical
conse@uences deduced !rom them.
( shall venture to a!!irm 9hat both these systems of speculative
principles are $ust: though not in the sense intended by the parties> and
9hat both the schemes of practical consequences are prudent: though
not in the extremes to which each party, in opposition to the other, has
commonly endeavoured to carry them.
5hat the :eity is the ultimate author o! all government will never be
denied by any who admit a general providence and allow that all
events in the universe are conducted by an uni!orm plan and directed
to wise purposes. As it is impossible !or the human race to subsist at
least in any com!ortable or secure state without the protection o!
government this institution must certainly have been intended by that
bene!icent *eing who means the good o! all his creatures. and as it
has universally in !act ta9en place in all countries and all ages we
102
may conclude with still greater certainty that it was intended by that
omniscient *eing who can never be deceived by any event or
operation. *ut since he gave rise to it not by any particular or
miraculous interposition but by his concealed and universal e!!icacy a
sovereign cannot properly spea9ing be called his vicegerent in any
other sense than every power or !orce being derived !rom him may be
said to act by his commission. Whatever actually happens is
comprehended in the general plan or intention o! 'rovidenceK nor has
the greatest and most law!ul prince any more reason upon that
account to plead a peculiar sacredness or inviolable authority than an
in!erior magistrate or even an usurper or even a robber and a pirate.
5he same :ivine )uperintendent who !or wise purposes invested a
5itus or a 5ra<an with authority did also !or purposes no doubt e@ually
wise though un9nown bestow power on a *orgia or an Angria. 5he
same causes which gave rise to the sovereign power in every state
established li9ewise every petty <urisdiction in it and every limited
authority. A constable there!ore no less than a 9ing acts by a divine
commission and possesses an inde!easible right.
When we consider how nearly e@ual all men are in their bodily !orce
and even in their mental powers and !aculties till cultivated by
education we must necessarily allow that nothing but their own
consent could at !irst associate them together and sub<ect them to
any authority. 5he people i! we trace government to its !irst origin in
the woods and deserts are the source o! all power and <urisdiction and
voluntarily !or the sa9e o! peace and order abandoned their native
liberty and received laws !rom their e@ual and companion. 5he
conditions upon which they were willing to submit were either
e=pressed or were so clear and obvious that it might well be
esteemed super!luous to e=press them. (! this then be meant by the
original contract, it cannot be denied that all government is at !irst
!ounded on a contract and that the most ancient rude combinations o!
man9ind were !ormed chie!ly by that principle. (n vain are we as9ed in
what records this charter o! our liberties is registered. (t was not written
on parchment nor yet on leaves or bar9s o! trees. (t preceded the use
o! writing and all the other civiliDed arts o! li!e. *ut we trace it plainly in
the nature o! man and in the e@uality or something approaching
e@uality which we !ind in all the individuals o! that species. 5he !orce
which now prevails and which is !ounded on !leets and armies is
plainly political and derived !rom authority the e!!ect o! established
government. A manFs natural !orce consists only in the vigour o! his
100
limbs and the !irmness o! his courageK which could never sub<ect
multitudes to the command o! one. +othing but their own consent and
their sense o! the advantages resulting !rom peace and order could
have had that in!luence.
Get even this consent was long very imper!ect and could not be the
basis o! a regular administration. 5he chie!tain who had probably
ac@uired his in!luence during the continuance o! war ruled more by
persuasion than commandK and till he could employ !orce to reduce the
re!ractory and disobedient the society could scarcely be said to have
attained a state o! civil government. +o compact or agreement it is
evident was e=pressly !ormed !or general submissionK an idea !ar
beyond the comprehension o! savages. each e=ertion o! authority in
the chie!tain must have been particular and called !orth by the present
e=igencies o! the case. the sensible utility resulting !rom his
interposition made these e=ertions become daily more !re@uentK and
their !re@uency gradually produced an habitual and i! you please to
call it so a voluntary and there!ore precarious ac@uiescence in the
people.
*ut philosophers who have embraced a party "i! that be not a
contradiction in terms# are not contented with these concessions. 5hey
assert not only that government in its earliest in!ancy arose !rom
consent or rather the voluntary ac@uiescence o! the peopleK but also
that even at present when it has attained its !ull maturity it rests on no
other !oundation. 5hey a!!irm that all men are still born e@ual and owe
allegiance to no prince or government unless bound by the obligation
and sanction o! a promise. And as no man without some e@uivalent
would !orego the advantages o! his native liberty and sub<ect himsel! to
the will o! another this promise is always understood to be conditional
and imposes on him no obligation unless he meet with <ustice and
protection !rom his sovereign. 5hese advantages the sovereign
promises him in returnK and i! he !ail in the e=ecution he has bro9en
on his part the articles o! engagement and has thereby !reed his
sub<ect !rom all obligations to allegiance. )uch according to these
philosophers is the !oundation o! authority in every government and
such the right o! resistance possessed by every sub<ect.
*ut would these reasoners loo9 abroad into the world they would meet
with nothing that in the least corresponds to their ideas or can
warrant so re!ined and philosophical a system. &n the contrary we !ind
everywhere princes who claim their sub<ects as their property and
10%
assert their independent right o! sovereignty !rom con@uest or
succession. We !ind also everywhere sub<ects who ac9nowledge this
right in their prince and suppose themselves born under obligations o!
obedience to a certain sovereign as much as under the ties o!
reverence and duty to certain parents. 5hese conne=ions are always
conceived to be e@ually independent o! our consent in 'ersia and
ChinaK in $rance and )painK and even in Holland and 4ngland
wherever the doctrines above,mentioned have not been care!ully
inculcated. &bedience or sub<ection becomes so !amiliar that most
men never ma9e any in@uiry about its origin or cause more than about
the principle o! gravity resistance or the most universal laws o! nature.
&r i! curiosity ever move them as soon as they learn that they
themselves and their ancestors have !or several ages or !rom time
immemorial been sub<ect to such a !orm o! government or such a
!amily they immediately ac@uiesce and ac9nowledge their obligation
to allegiance. Were you to preach in most parts o! the world that
political conne=ions are !ounded altogether on voluntary consent or a
mutual promise the magistrate would soon imprison you as seditious
!or loosening the ties o! obedienceK i! your !riends did not be!ore shut
you up as delirious !or advancing such absurdities. (t is strange that an
act o! the mind which every individual is supposed to have !ormed and
a!ter he came to the use o! reason too otherwise it could have no
authorityK that this act ( say should be so much un9nown to all o!
them that over the !ace o! the whole earth there scarcely remain any
traces or memory o! it.
*ut the contract on which government is !ounded is said to be the
original contract: and conse@uently may be supposed too old to !all
under the 9nowledge o! the present generation. (! the agreement by
which savage men !irst associated and con<oined their !orce be here
meant this is ac9nowledged to be realK but being so ancient and being
obliterated by a thousand changes o! government and princes it
cannot now be supposed to retain any authority. (! we would say any
thing to the purpose we must assert that every particular government
which is law!ul and which imposes any duty o! allegiance on the
sub<ect was at !irst !ounded on consent and a voluntary compact. *ut
besides that this supposes the consent o! the !athers to bind the
children even to the most remote generations "which republican writers
will never allow# besides this ( say it is not <usti!ied by history or
e=perience in any age or country o! the world.
Almost all the governments which e=ist at present or o! which there
10/
remains any record in story have been !ounded originally either on
usurpation or con@uest or both without any presence o! a !air consent
or voluntary sub<ection o! the people. When an art!ul and bold man is
placed at the head o! an army or !action it is o!ten easy !or him by
employing sometimes violence sometimes !alse presences to
establish his dominion over a people a hundred times more numerous
than his partisans. He allows no such open communication that his
enemies can 9now with certainty their number or !orce. He gives them
no leisure to assemble together in a body to oppose him. 4ven all
those who are the instruments o! his usurpation may wish his !allK but
their ignorance o! each otherFs intention 9eeps them in awe and is the
sole cause o! his security. *y such arts as these many governments
have been establishedK and this is all the original contract which they
have to boast o!.
5he !ace o! the earth is continually changing by the increase o! small
9ingdoms into great empires by the dissolution o! great empires into
smaller 9ingdoms by the planting o! colonies by the migration o!
tribes. (s there anything discoverable in all these events but !orce and
violence7 Where is the mutual agreement or voluntary association so
much tal9ed o!7
4ven the smoothest way by which a nation may receive a !oreign
master by marriage or a will is not e=tremely honourable !or the
peopleK but supposes them to be disposed o! li9e a dowry or a legacy
according to the pleasure or interest o! their rulers.
*ut where no !orce interposes and election ta9es placeK what is this
election so highly vaunted7 (t is either the combination o! a !ew great
men who decide !or the whole and will allow o! no oppositionK or it is
the !ury o! a multitude that !ollow a seditious ringleader who is not
9nown perhaps to a doDen among them and who owes his
advancement merely to his own impudence or to the momentary
caprice o! his !ellows.
Are these disorderly elections which are rare too o! such mighty
authority as to be the only law!ul !oundation o! all government and
allegiance7
(n reality there is not a more terrible event than a total dissolution o!
government which gives liberty to the multitude and ma9es the
determination or choice o! a new establishment depend upon a
number which nearly approaches to that o! the body o! the people. !or
110
it never comes entirely to the whole body o! them. 4very wise man then
wishes to see at the head o! a power!ul and obedient army a general
who may speedily seiDe the priDe and give to the people a master
which they are so un!it to choose !or themselves. )o little
correspondent is !act and reality to those philosophical notions.
Let not the establishment at the %evolution deceive us or ma9e us so
much in love with a philosophical origin to government as to imagine
all others monstrous and irregular. 4ven that event was !ar !rom
corresponding to these re!ined ideas. (t was only the succession and
that only in the regal part o! the government which was then changed.
and it was only the ma<ority o! seven hundred who determined that
change !or near ten millions. ( doubt not indeed but the bul9 o! those
ten millions ac@uiesced willingly in the determination. but was the
matter le!t in the least to their choice7 Was it not <ustly supposed to
be !rom that moment decided and every man punished who re!used
to submit to the new sovereign7 How otherwise could the matter have
ever been brought to any issue or conclusion7
5he republic o! Athens was ( believe the most e=tensive democracy
that we read o! in history. yet i! we ma9e the re@uisite allowances !or
the women the slaves and the strangers we shall !ind that that
establishment was not at !irst made nor any law ever voted by a tenth
part o! those who were bound to pay obedience to itK not to mention the
islands and !oreign dominions which the Athenians claimed as theirs
by right o! con@uest. And as it is well 9nown that popular assemblies in
that city were always !ull o! license and disorder not withstanding the
institutions and laws by which they were chec9edK how much more
disorderly must they prove where they !orm not the established
constitution but meet tumultuously on the dissolution o! the ancient
government in order to give rise to a new one7 How chimerical must it
be to tal9 o! a choice in such circumstances7
5he Achbans en<oyed the !reest and most per!ect democracy o! all
anti@uityK yet they employed !orce to oblige some cities to enter into
their league as we learn !rom 'olybius.
Harry the (?th and Harry the ?((th o! 4ngland had really no title to the
throne but a parliamentary electionK yet they never would ac9nowledge
it lest they should thereby wea9en their authority. )trange i! the only
real !oundation o! all authority be consent and promise7
(t is in vain to say that all governments are or should be at !irst
111
!ounded on popular consent as much as the necessity o! human a!!airs
will admit. 5his !avours entirely my pretension. ( maintain that human
a!!airs will never admit o! this consent seldom o! the appearance o! itK
but that con@uest or usurpation that is in plain terms !orce by
dissolving the ancient governments is the origin o! almost all the new
ones which were ever established in the world. And that in the !ew
cases where consent may seem to have ta9en place it was commonly
so irregular so con!ined or so much intermi=ed either with !raud or
violence that it cannot have any great authority.
;y intention here is not to e=clude the consent o! the people !rom
being one <ust !oundation o! government where it has place. (t is surely
the best and most sacred o! any. ( only pretend that it has very seldom
had place in any degree and never almost in its !ull e=tentK and that
there!ore some other !oundation o! government must also be admitted.
Were all men possessed o! so in!le=ible a regard to <ustice that o!
themselves they would totally abstain !rom the properties o! othersK
they had !or ever remained in a state o! absolute liberty without
sub<ection to any magistrate or political society. but this is a state o!
per!ection o! which human nature is <ustly deemed incapable. Again
were all men possessed o! so per!ect an understanding as always to
9now their own interests no !orm o! government had ever been
submitted to but what was established on consent and was !ully
canvassed by every member o! the society. but this state o! per!ection
is li9ewise much superior to human nature. 8eason history and
e=perience shew us that all political societies have had an origin much
less accurate and regularK and were one to choose a period o! time
when the peopleFs consent was the least regarded in public
transactions it would be precisely on the establishment o! a new
government. (n a settled constitution their inclinations are o!ten
consultedK but during the !ury o! revolutions con@uests and public
convulsions military !orce or political cra!t usually decides the
controversy.
When a new government is established by whatever means the
people are commonly dissatis!ied with it and pay obedience more !rom
!ear and necessity than !rom any idea o! allegiance or o! moral
obligation. 5he prince is watch!ul and <ealous and must care!ully guard
against every beginning or appearance o! insurrection. 5ime by
degrees removes all these di!!iculties and accustoms the nation to
regard as their law!ul or native princes that !amily which at !irst they
112
considered as usurpers or !oreign con@uerors. (n order to !ound this
opinion they have no recourse to any notion o! voluntary consent or
promise which they 9now never was in this case either e=pected or
demanded. 5he original establishment was !ormed by violence and
submitted to !rom necessity. 5he subse@uent administration is also
supported by power and ac@uiesced in by the people not as a matter
o! choice but o! obligation. 5hey imagine not that their consent gives
their prince a title. but they willingly consent because they thin9 that
!rom long possession he has ac@uired a title independent o! their
choice or inclination.
)hould it be said that by living under the dominion o! a prince which
one might leave every individual has given a tacit consent to his
authority and promised him obedienceK it may be answered that such
an implied consent can only have place where a man imagines that the
matter depends on his choice. *ut where he thin9s "as all man9ind do
who are born under established governments# that by his birth he
owes allegiance to a certain prince or certain !orm o! governmentK it
would be absurd to in!er a consent or choice which he e=pressly in
this case renounces and disclaims.
Can we seriously say that a poor peasant or artisan has a !ree choice
to leave his country when he 9nows no !oreign language or manners
and lives !rom day to day by the small wages which he ac@uires7 We
may as well assert that a man by remaining in a vessel !reely
consents to the dominion o! the masterK though he was carried on
board while asleep and must leap into the ocean and perish the
moment he leaves her.
What i! the prince !orbid his sub<ects to @uit his dominionsK as in
5iberiusFs time it was regarded as a crime in a 8oman 9night that he
had attempted to !ly to the 'arthians in order to escape the tyranny o!
that emperor7
1
&r as the ancient ;uscovites prohibited all travelling
under pain o! death7 And did a prince observe that many o! his
sub<ects were seiDed with the !renDy o! migrating to !oreign countries
he would doubtless with great reason and <ustice restrain them in
order to prevent the depopulation o! his own 9ingdom. Would he !or!eit
the allegiance o! all his sub<ects by so wise and reasonable a law7 Get
the !reedom o! their choice is surely in that case ravished !rom them.
A company o! men who should leave their native country in order to
people some uninhabited region might dream o! recovering their native
!reedomK but they would soon !ind that their prince still laid claim to
11-
them and called them his sub<ects even in their new settlement. And
in this he would but act con!ormably to the common ideas o! man9ind.
5he truest tacit consent o! this 9ind that is ever observed is when a
!oreigner settles in any country and is be!orehand ac@uainted with the
prince and government and laws to which he must submit. yet is his
allegiance though more voluntary much less e=pected or depended
on than that o! a natural born sub<ect. &n the contrary his native
prince still asserts a claim to him. And i! he punish not the renegade
where he seiDes him in war with his new princeFs commissionK this
clemency is not !ounded on the municipal law which in all countries
condemns the prisonerK but on the consent o! princes who have
agreed to this indulgence in order to prevent reprisals.
:id one generation o! men go o!! the stage at once and another
succeed as is the case with sil9worms and butter!lies the new race i!
they had sense enough to choose their government which surely is
never the case with men might voluntarily and by general consent
establish their own !orm o! civil polity without any regard to the laws or
precedents which prevailed among their ancestors. *ut as human
society is in perpetual !lu= one man every hour going out o! the world
another coming into it it is necessary in order to preserve stability in
government that the new brood should con!orm themselves to the
established constitution and nearly !ollow the path which their !athers
treading in the !ootsteps o! theirs had mar9ed out to them. )ome
innovations must necessarily have place in every human institutionK
and it is happy where the enlightened genius o! the age give these a
direction to the side o! reason liberty and <ustice. but violent
innovations no individual is entitled to ma9e. they are even dangerous
to be attempted by the legislature. more ill than good is ever to be
e=pected !rom them. and i! history a!!ords e=amples to the contrary
they are not to be drawn into precedent and are only to be regarded as
proo!s that the science o! politics a!!ords !ew rules which will not admit
o! some e=ception and which may not sometimes be controlled by
!ortune and accident. 5he violent innovations in the reign o! Henry ?(((.
proceeded !rom an imperious monarch seconded by the appearance
o! legislative authority. those in the reign o! Charles (. were derived
!rom !action and !anaticismK and both o! them have proved happy in the
issue. *ut even the !ormer were long the source o! many disorders
and still more dangersK and i! the measures o! allegiance were to be
ta9en !rom the latter a total anarchy must have place in human society
and a !inal period at once be put to every government.
111
)uppose that an usurper a!ter having banished his law!ul prince and
royal !amily should establish his dominion !or ten or a doDen years in
any country and should preserve so e=act a discipline in his troops
and so regular a disposition in his garrisons that no insurrection had
ever been raised or even murmur heard against his administration. can
it be asserted that the people who in their hearts abhor his treason
have tacitly consented to his authority and promised him allegiance
merely because !rom necessity they live under his dominion7
)uppose again their native prince restored by means o! an army
which he levies in !oreign countries. they receive him with <oy and
e=ultation and shew plainly with what reluctance they had submitted to
any other yo9e. ( may now as9 upon what !oundation the princeFs title
stands7 +ot on popular consent surely. !or though the people willingly
ac@uiesce in his authority they never imagine that their consent made
him sovereign. 5hey consentK because they apprehend him to be
already by birth their law!ul sovereign. And as to that tacit consent
which may now be in!erred !rom their living under his dominion this is
no more than what they !ormerly gave to the tyrant and usurper.
When we assert that all law!ul government arises !rom the consent o!
the people we certainly do them a great deal more honour than they
deserve or even e=pect and desire !rom us. A!ter the 8oman
dominions became too unwieldy !or the republic to govern them the
people over the whole 9nown world were e=tremely grate!ul to
Augustus !or that authority which by violence he had established over
themK and they shewed an e@ual disposition to submit to the successor
whom he le!t them by his last will and testament. (t was a!terwards their
mis!ortune that there never was in one !amily any long regular
successionK but that their line o! princes was continually bro9en either
by private assassinations or public rebellions. 5he prJtorian bands on
the !ailure o! every !amily set up one emperorK the legions in the 4ast a
secondK those in Aermany perhaps a thirdK and the sword alone could
decide the controversy. 5he condition o! the people in that mighty
monarchy was to be lamented not because the choice o! the emperor
was never le!t to them !or that was impracticable but because they
never !ell under any succession o! masters who might regularly !ollow
each other. As to the violence and wars and bloodshed occasioned
by every new settlement these were not blameable because they were
inevitable.
5he house o! Lancaster ruled in this island about si=ty yearsK yet the
partisans o! the white rose seemed daily to multiply in 4ngland. 5he
113
present establishment has ta9en place during a still longer period.
Have all views o! right in another !amily been utterly e=tinguished even
though scarce any man now alive had arrived at the years o! discretion
when it was e=pelled or could have consented to its dominion or have
promised it allegiance7 J a su!!icient indication surely o! the general
sentiment o! man9ind on this head. $or we blame not the partisans o!
the abdicated !amily merely on account o! the long time during which
they have preserved their imaginary loyalty. We blame them !or
adhering to a !amily which we a!!irm has been <ustly e=pelled and
which !rom the moment the new settlement too9 place had !or!eited all
title to authority.
*ut would we have a more regular at least a more philosophical
re!utation o! this principle o! an original contract or popular consent
perhaps the !ollowing observations may su!!ice.
All moral duties may be divided into two 9inds. 5he first are those to
which men are impelled by a natural instinct or immediate propensity
which operates on them independent o! all ideas o! obligation and o!
all views either to public or private utility. &! this nature are love o!
children gratitude to bene!actors pity to the un!ortunate. When we
re!lect on the advantage which results to society !rom such humane
instincts we pay them the <ust tribute o! moral approbation and esteem.
but the person actuated by them !eels their power and in!luence
antecedent to any such re!lection.
5he second 9ind o! moral duties are such as are not supported by any
original instinct o! nature but are per!ormed entirely !rom a sense o!
obligation when we consider the necessities o! human society and the
impossibility o! supporting it i! these duties were neglected. (t is thus
$ustice, or a regard to the property o! others fidelity, or the observance
o! promises become obligatory and ac@uire an authority over
man9ind. $or as it is evident that every man loves himsel! better than
any other person he is naturally impelled to e=tend his ac@uisitions as
much as possibleK and nothing can restrain him in this propensity but
re!lection and e=perience by which he learns the pernicious e!!ects o!
that license and the total dissolution o! society which must ensue !rom
it. His original inclination there!ore or instinct is here chec9ed and
restrained by a subse@uent <udgment or observation.
5he case is precisely the same with the political or civil duty o!
allegiance as with the natural duties o! <ustice and !idelity. &ur primary
instincts lead us either to indulge ourselves in unlimited !reedom or to
112
see9 dominion over othersK and it is re!lection only which engages us to
sacri!ice such strong passions to the interests o! peace and public
order. A small degree o! e=perience and observation su!!ices to teach
us that society cannot possibly be maintained without the authority o!
magistrates and that this authority must soon !all into contempt where
e=act obedience is not paid to it. 5he observation o! these general and
obvious interests is the source o! all allegiance and o! that moral
obligation which we attribute to it.
What necessity there!ore is there to !ound the duty o! allegiance or
obedience to magistrates on that o! fidelity or a regard to promises and
to suppose that it is the consent o! each individual which sub<ects him
to government when it appears that both allegiance and !idelity stand
precisely on the same !oundation and are both submitted to by
man9ind on account o! the apparent interests and necessities o!
human society7 We are bound to obey our sovereign it is said
because we have given a tacit promise to that purpose. *ut why are we
bound to observe our promise7 (t must here be asserted that the
commerce and intercourse o! man9ind which are o! such mighty
advantage can have no security where men pay no regard to their
engagements. (n li9e manner may it be said that men could not live at
all in society at least in a civiliDed society without laws and
magistrates and <udges to prevent the encroachments o! the strong
upon the wea9 o! the violent upon the <ust and e@uitable. 5he
obligation to allegiance being o! li9e !orce and authority with the
obligation to !idelity we gain nothing by resolving the one into the
other. 5he general interests or necessities o! society are su!!icient to
establish both.
(! the reason be as9ed o! that obedience which we are bound to pay to
government ( readily answer )ecause society could not otherwise
subsist: and this answer is clear and intelligible to all man9ind. Gour
answer is )ecause we should keep our word. *ut besides that no
body till trained in a philosophical system can either comprehend or
relish this answerK besides this ( say you !ind yoursel! embarrassed
when it is as9ed ;hy we are bound to keep our word= +or can you
give any answer but what would immediately without any circuit have
accounted !or our obligation to allegiance.
*ut to whom is allegiance due= 2nd who is our lawful sovereign= 5his
@uestion is o!ten the most di!!icult o! any and liable to in!inite
discussions. When people are so happy that they can answer 8ur
110
present sovereign, who inherits, in a direct line, from ancestors that
have governed us for many ages, this answer admits o! no reply even
though historians in tracing up to the remotest anti@uity the origin o!
that royal !amily may !ind as commonly happens that its !irst authority
was derived !rom usurpation and violence. (t is con!essed that private
<ustice or the abstinence !rom the properties o! others is a most
cardinal virtue. Get reason tells us that there is no property in durable
ob<ects such as lands or houses when care!ully e=amined in passing
!rom hand to hand but must in some period have been !ounded on
!raud and in<ustice. 5he necessities o! human society neither in private
nor public li!e will allow o! such an accurate in@uiryK and there is no
virtue or moral duty but what may with !acility be re!ined away i! we
indulge a !alse philosophy in si!ting and scrutiniDing it by every
captious rule o! logic in every light or position in which it may be
placed.
5he @uestions with regard to private property have !illed in!inite
volumes o! law and philosophy i! in both we add the commentators to
the original te=tK and in the end we may sa!ely pronounce that many o!
the rules there established are uncertain ambiguous and arbitrary.
5he li9e opinion may be !ormed with regard to the succession and
rights o! princes and !orms o! government. )everal cases no doubt
occur especially in the in!ancy o! any constitution which admit o! no
determination !rom the laws o! <ustice and e@uityK and our historian
8apin pretends that the controversy between 4dward the 5hird and
'hilip de ?alois was o! this nature and could be decided only by an
appeal to heaven that is by war and violence.
Who shall tell me whether Aermanicus or :rusus ought to have
succeeded to 5iberius had he died while they were both alive without
naming any o! them !or his successor7 &ught the right o! adoption to
be received as e@uivalent to that o! blood in a nation where it had the
same e!!ect in private !amilies and had already in two instances ta9en
place in the public7 &ught Aermanicus to be esteemed the elder son
because he was born be!ore :rususK or the younger because he was
adopted a!ter the birth o! his brother7 &ught the right o! the elder to be
regarded in a nation where he had no advantage in the succession o!
private !amilies7 &ught the 8oman empire at that time to be deemed
hereditary because o! two e=amplesK or ought it even so early to be
regarded as belonging to the stronger or to the present possessor as
being !ounded on so recent an usurpation7
11%
Commodus mounted the throne a!ter a pretty long succession o!
e=cellent emperors who had ac@uired their title not by birth or public
election but by the !ictitious rite o! adoption. 5hat bloody debauchee
being murdered by a conspiracy suddenly !ormed between his wench
and her gallant who happened at that time to be +rJtorian +rJfect:
these immediately deliberated about choosing a master to human 9ind
to spea9 in the style o! those agesK and they cast their eyes on
'ertina=. *e!ore the tyrantFs death was 9nown the +rJfect went
secretly to that senator who on the appearance o! the soldiers
imagined that his e=ecution had been ordered by Commodus. He was
immediately saluted emperor by the o!!icer and his attendants
cheer!ully proclaimed by the populace unwillingly submitted to by the
guards !ormally recogniDed by the senate and passively received by
the provinces and armies o! the empire.
5he discontent o! the +rJtorian bands bro9e out in a sudden sedition
which occasioned the murder o! that e=cellent princeK and the world
being now without a master and without government the guards
thought proper to set the empire !ormally to sale. 6ulian the purchaser
was proclaimed by the soldiers recogniDed by the senate and
submitted to by the peopleK and must also have been submitted to by
the provinces had not the envy o! the legions begotten opposition and
resistance. 'escennius +iger in )yria elected himsel! emperor gained
the tumultuary consent o! his army and was attended with the secret
good,will o! the senate and people o! 8ome. Albinus in *ritain !ound an
e@ual right to set up his claimK but )everus who governed 'annonia
prevailed in the end above both o! them. 5hat able politician and
warrior !inding his own birth and dignity too much in!erior to the
imperial crown pro!essed at !irst an intention only o! revenging the
death o! 'ertina=. He marched as general into (taly de!eated 6ulian
and without our being able to !i= any precise commencement even o!
the soldiersF consent he was !rom necessity ac9nowledged emperor by
the senate and people and !ully established in his violent authority by
subduing +iger and Albinus.
Inter hJc (ordianus ,Jsar "says Capitolinus spea9ing o! another
period# sublatus a militibus. (mperator est appellatus, quia non erat
alius in prJsenti. (t is to be remar9ed that Aordian was a boy o!
!ourteen years o! age.
$re@uent instances o! a li9e nature occur in the history o! the emperorsK
in that o! Ale=anderFs successorsK and o! many other countries. nor can
11/
anything be more unhappy than a despotic government o! this 9indK
where the succession is dis<ointed and irregular and must be
determined on every vacancy by !orce or election. (n a !ree
government the matter is o!ten unavoidable and is also much less
dangerous. 5he interests o! liberty may there !re@uently lead the
people in their own de!ence to alter the succession o! the crown. And
the constitution being compounded o! parts may still maintain a
su!!icient stability by resting on the aristocratical or democratical
members though the monarchical be altered !rom time to time in
order to accommodate it to the !ormer.
(n an absolute government when there is no legal prince who has a
title to the throne it may sa!ely be determined to belong to the !irst
occupant. (nstances o! this 9ind are but too !re@uent especially in the
eastern monarchies. When any race o! princes e=pires the will or
destination o! the last sovereign will be regarded as a title. 5hus the
edict o! Louis the >(?th who called the bastard princes to the
succession in case o! the !ailure o! all the legitimate princes would in
such an event have some authority.
2
5hus the will o! Charles the
)econd disposed o! the whole )panish monarchy. 5he cession o! the
ancient proprietor especially when <oined to con@uest is li9ewise
deemed a good title. 5he general obligation which binds us to
government is the interest and necessities o! societyK and this
obligation is very strong. 5he determination o! it to this or that particular
prince or !orm o! government is !re@uently more uncertain and
dubious. 'resent possession has considerable authority in these
cases and greater than in private propertyK because o! the disorders
which attend all revolutions and changes o! government.
We shall only observe be!ore we conclude that though an appeal to
general opinion may <ustly in the speculative sciences o! metaphysics
natural philosophy or astronomy be deemed un!air and inconclusive
yet in all @uestions with regard to morals as well as criticism there is
really no other standard by which any controversy can ever be
decided. And nothing is a clearer proo! that a theory o! this 9ind is
erroneous than to !ind that it leads to parado=es repugnant to the
common sentiments o! man9ind and to the practice and opinion o! all
nations and all ages. 5he doctrine which !ounds all law!ul government
on an original contract, or consent o! the people is plainly o! this 9indK
nor has the most noted o! its partisans in prosecution o! it scrupled to
a!!irm that absolute monarchy is inconsistent with civil society, and so
can be no form of civil government at all:
-
and that the supreme power
120
in a state cannot take from any man, by taxes and impositions, any part
of his property, without his own consent or that of his representatives.
1
What authority any moral reasoning can have which leads into
opinions so wide o! the general practice o! man9ind in every place but
this single 9ingdom it is easy to determine.
5he only passage ( meet with in anti@uity where the obligation o!
obedience to government is ascribed to a promise is in 'latoFs ,rito:
where )ocrates re!uses to escape !rom prison because he had tacitly
promised to obey the laws. 5hus he builds a 9ory conse@uence o!
passive obedience on a ;hig !oundation o! the original contract.
+ew discoveries are not to be e=pected in these matters. (! scarce any
man till very lately ever imagined that government was !ounded on
compact it is certain that it cannot in general have any such
!oundation.
5he crime o! rebellion among the ancients was commonly e=pressed
by the terms neoteriDein novas res moliri.
Notes:
1
5acit. 2nn. vi. Cap. 11.
2
(t is remar9able that in the remonstrance o! the :u9e o! *ourbon and
the legitimate princes against this destination o! Louis the >(?th the
doctrine o! the original contract is insisted on even in that absolute
government. 5he $rench nation say they choosing Hugh Capet and
his posterity to rule over them and their posterity where the !ormer line
!ails there is a tacit right reserved to choose a new royal !amilyK and
this right is invaded by calling the bastard princes to the throne without
the consent o! the nation. *ut the Comte de *oulainvilliers who wrote
in de!ence o! the bastard princes ridicules this notion o! an original
contract especially when applied to Hugh CapetK who mounted the
throne says he by the same arts which have ever been employed by
all con@uerors and usurpers. He got his title indeed recogniDed by the
states a!ter he had put himsel! in possession. but is this a choice or
contract7 5he Comte de *oulainvilliers we may observe was a noted
republicanK but being a man o! learning and very conversant in history
he 9new that the people were almost never consulted in these
revolutions and new establishments and that time alone bestowed
right and authority on what was commonly at !irst !ounded on !orce and
121
violence. )ee @tat de la 5rance, vol. iii.
-
)ee Loc9e on Aovernment chap. vii. 3 /0.
1
(bid. chap. =i. 33 1-% 1-/ 110.
122
Source +F A
Aristotle
Politics
%oo" 'II. Part 'III
As in other natural compounds the conditions o! a composite whole are
not necessarily organic parts o! it so in a state or in any other
combination !orming a unity not everything is a part which is a
necessary condition. 5he members o! an association have necessarily
some one thing the same and common to all in which they share
e@ually or une@ually !or e=ample !ood or land or any other thing. *ut
where there are two things o! which one is a means and the other an
end they have nothing in common e=cept that the one receives what
the other produces. )uch !or e=ample is the relation which wor9men
and tools stand to their wor9K the house and the builder have nothing in
common but the art o! the builder is !or the sa9e o! the house. And so
states re@uire property but property even though living beings are
included in it is no part o! a stateK !or a state is not a community o!
living beings only but a community o! e@uals aiming at the best li!e
possible. +ow whereas happiness is the highest good being a
realiDation and per!ect practice o! virtue which some can attain while
others have little or none o! it the various @ualities o! men are clearly
the reason why there are various 9inds o! states and many !orms o!
governmentK !or di!!erent men see9 a!ter happiness in di!!erent ways
and by di!!erent means and so ma9e !or themselves di!!erent modes o!
li!e and !orms o! government. We must see also how many things are
indispensable to the e=istence o! a state !or what we call the parts o! a
state will be !ound among the indispensables. Let us then enumerate
the !unctions o! a state and we shall easily elicit what we want.
$irst there must be !oodK secondly arts !or li!e re@uires many
instrumentsK thirdly there must be arms !or the members o! a
community have need o! them and in their own hands too in order to
maintain authority both against disobedient sub<ects and against
e=ternal assailantsK !ourthly there must be a certain amount o!
revenue both !or internal needs and !or the purposes o! warK !i!thly or
rather !irst there must be a care o! religion which is commonly called
worshipK si=thly and most necessary o! all there must be a power o!
12-
deciding what is !or the public interest and what is <ust in menFs
dealings with one another.
5hese are the services which every state may be said to need. $or a
state is not a mere aggregate o! persons but a union o! them su!!icing
!or the purposes o! li!eK and i! any o! these things be wanting it is as we
maintain impossible that the community can be absolutely sel!,
su!!icing. A state then should be !ramed with a view to the !ul!illment o!
these !unctions. 5here must be husbandmen to procure !ood and
artisans and a warli9e and a wealthy class and priests and <udges to
decide what is necessary and e=pedient.
121
Source +F %
I!!anuel =ant
The Natural Principle of the Political 6rder
Whatever metaphysical theory may be !ormed regarding the 5reedom
of the ;ill, it holds e@ually true that the manifestations of the ;ill in
human actions are determined li9e all other e=ternal events by
universal natural laws. +ow History is occupied with the narration o!
these mani!estations as !acts however deeply their causes may lie
concealed. Hence in view o! this natural principle o! regulation it may
be hoped that when the play o! the !reedom o! the human Will is
e=amined on the great scale o! universal history a regular march will
be discovered in its movementsK and that in this way what appears to
be tangled and unregulated in the case o! individuals will be
recognised in the history o! the whole species as a continually
advancing though slow development o! its original capacities and
endowments. 5hus marriages births and deaths appear to be
incapable o! being reduced to any rule by which their numbers might be
calculated be!orehand on account o! the great in!luence which the !ree
will o! man e=ercises upon themK and yet the annual )tatistics o! great
countries prove that these events ta9e place according to constant
natural laws. (n this respect they may be compared with the very
inconstant changes o! the weather which cannot be determined
be!orehand in detail but which yet on the whole do not !ail to maintain
the growth o! plants the !low o! rivers and other natural processes in
a uni!orm uninterrupted course. (ndividual men and even whole
nations little thin9 while they are pursuing their own purposes J each
in his own way and o!ten one in direct opposition to another J that they
are advancing unconsciously under the guidance o! a 'urpose o!
+ature which is un9nown to them and that they are toiling !or the
realisation o! an 4nd which even i! it were 9nown to them might be
regarded as o! little importance.
;en viewed as a whole are not guided in their e!!orts merely by
instinct li9e the lower animalsK nor do they proceed in their actions li9e
the citiDens o! a purely rational world according to a preconcerted plan.
And so it appears as i! no regular systematic History o! man9ind would
be possible as in the case !or instance o! bees and beavers. +or can
one help !eeling a certain repugnance in loo9ing at the conduct o! men
123
as it is e=hibited on the great stage o! the World. With glimpses o!
wisdom appearing in individuals here and there it seems on
e=amining it e=ternally as i! the whole web o! human history were
woven out o! !olly and childish vanity and the !renDy o! destruction so
that at the end one hardly 9nows what idea to !orm o! our race albeit
so proud o! its prerogatives. (n such circumstances there is no
resource !or the 'hilosopher but while recognising the !act that a
rational conscious purpose cannot be supposed to determine man9ind
in the play o! their actions as a whole to try whether he cannot
discover a universal purpose of /ature in this parado=ical movement o!
human things and whether in view o! this purpose a history o!
creatures who proceed without a plan o! their own may nevertheless
be possible according to a determinate plan o! +ature. J We will
accordingly see whether we can succeed in !inding a clue to such a
HistoryK and in the event o! doing so we shall then leave it to nature to
bring !orth the man who will be !it to compose it. 5hus did she bring
!orth a Cepler who in an une=pected way reduced the eccentric paths
o! the planets to de!inite LawsK and then she brought !orth a +ewton
who e=plained those Laws by a universal natural Cause.
$(8)5 '8&'&)(5(&+.
All the capacities implanted in a Creature by nature are destined to
un!old themselves completely and con!ormably to their 4nd in the
course o! time.
5his 'roposition is established by &bservation e=ternal as well as
internal or anatomical in the case o! all animals. An organ which is not
to be used or an arrangement which does not attain its 4nd is a
contradiction in the teleological science o! +ature. $or i! we turn away
!rom that !undamental principle we have then be!ore us a +ature
moving without a purpose and no longer con!ormable to lawK and the
cheerless gloom o! chance ta9es the place o! the guiding light o!
8eason.
)4C&+: '8&'&)(5(&+.
(n ;an as the only rational creature on earth those natural capacities
which are directed towards the use o! his 8eason could be completely
developed only in the species and not in the individual.
8eason in a creature is a !aculty o! which it is characteristic to e=tend
122
the laws and purposes involved in the use o! all its powers !ar beyond
the sphere o! natural instinct and it 9nows no limit in its e!!orts.
8eason however does not itsel! wor9 by instinct but re@uires
e=periments e=ercise and instruction in order to advance gradually
!rom one stage o! insight to another. Hence each individual man would
necessarily have to live an enormous length o! time in order to learn by
himsel! how to ma9e a complete use o! all his natural 4ndowments.
&therwise i! +ature should have given him but a short lease o! li!e J as
is actually the case J 8eason would then re@uire the production o! an
almost inconceivable series o! generations the one handing down its
enlightenment to the other in order that her germs as implanted in our
species may be at last un!olded to that stage o! development which is
completely con!ormable to her inherent design. And the point o! time at
which this is to be reached must at least in (dea !orm the goal and
aim o! manXs endeavours because his natural capacities would
otherwise have to be regarded as !or the most part purposeless and
bestowed in vain. *ut such a view would abolish all our practical
principles and thereby also throw on +ature the suspicion o! practising
a childish play in the case o! man alone while her wisdom must
otherwise be recognised as a !undamental principle in <udging o! all
other arrangements.
5H(8: '8&'&)(5(&+.
+ature has willed that ;an shall produce wholly out o! himsel! all that
goes beyond the mechanical structure and arrangement o! his animal
e=istence and that he shall participate in no other happiness or
per!ection but what he has procured !or himsel! apart !rom (nstinct by
his own 8eason.
+ature according to this view does nothing that is super!luous and is
not prodigal in the use o! means !or her 4nds. As she gave man
8eason and !reedom o! Will on the basis o! reason this was at once a
clear indication o! her purpose in respect o! his endowments. With such
e@uipment he was not to be guided by instinct nor !urnished and
instructed by innate 9nowledgeK much rather must he produce
everything out o! himsel!. 5he invention o! his own covering and shelter
!rom the elements and the means o! providing !or his e=ternal security
and de!ence J !or which nature gave him neither the horns o! the bull
nor the claws o! the lion nor the !angs o! the dog J as well as all the
sources o! delight which could ma9e li!e agreeable his very insight and
120
prudence and even the goodness o! his Will all these were to be
entirely his own wor9. +ature seems to have ta9en pleasure in
e=ercising her utmost parsimony in this case and to have measured her
animal e@uipments very sparingly. )he seems to have e=actly !itted
them to the most necessitous re@uirements o! the mere beginning o! an
e=istence as i! it had been her will that ;an when he had at last
struggled up !rom the greatest crudeness o! li!e to the highest capability
and to internal per!ection in his habit o! thought and thereby also J so
!ar as it is possible on earth J to happiness should claim the merit o! it
as all his own and owe it only to himsel!. (t thus loo9s as i! +ature had
laid more upon his rational self4esteem than upon his mere well,being.
$or in this movement o! human li!e a great host o! toils and troubles
wait upon man. (t appears however that the purpose o! nature was not
so much that he should have an agreeable li!e but that he should carry
!orward his own sel!,culture until he made himsel! worthy o! li!e and
well,being. (n this connection it is always a sub<ect o! wonder that the
older generations appear only to pursue their weary toil !or the sa9e o!
those who come a!ter them preparing !or the latter another stage on
which they may carry higher the structure which +ature has in viewK
and that it is to be the happy !ate o! only the latest generations to dwell
in the building upon which the long series o! their !ore!athers have
laboured without so much as intending it and yet with no possibility o!
participating in the happiness which they were preparing. Get however
mysterious this may be it is as necessary as it is mysterious when we
once accept the position that one species o! animals was destined to
possess 8eason and that !orming a class o! rational beings mortal in
all the individuals but immortal in the species it was yet to attain to a
complete development o! its capacities.
$&H85H '8&'&)(5(&+.
5he means which +ature employs to bring about the development o! all
the capacities implanted in men is their mutual Antagonism in society
but only so !ar as this antagonism becomes at length the cause o! an
&rder among them that is regulated by Law.
*y this Antagonism ( mean the unsocial sociability o! menK that is their
tendency to enter into society con<oined however with an
accompanying resistance which continually threatens to dissolve this
society. 5he disposition !or this lies mani!estly in human nature. ;an
has an inclination to socialise himsel! by associating with others
12%
because in such a state he !eels himsel! more than a natural man in
the development o! his natural capacities. He has moreover a great
tendency to individualise himsel! by isolation !rom others because he
li9ewise !inds in himsel! the unsocial disposition o! wishing to direct
everything merely according to his own mindK and hence he e=pects
resistance everywhere <ust as he 9nows with regard to himsel! that he
is inclined on his part to resist others. +ow it is this resistance or mutual
antagonism that awa9ens all the powers o! man that drives him to
overcome all his propensity to indolence and that impels him through
the desire o! honour or power or wealth to strive a!ter ran9 among his
!ellow,men J whom he can neither bear to inter!ere with himsel! nor
yet let alone. 5hen the !irst real steps are ta9en !rom the rudeness o!
barbarism to the culture o! civilisation which particularly lies in the
social worth o! man. All his talents are now gradually developed and
with the progress o! enlightenment a beginning is made in the
institution o! a mode o! thin9ing which can trans!orm the crude natural
capacity !or moral distinctions in the course o! time into de!inite
practical principles o! actionK and thus a pathologically constrained
combination into a !orm o! society is developed at last to a moral and
rational whole. Without those @ualities o! an unsocial 9ind out o! which
this Antagonism arises J which viewed by themselves are certainly not
amiable but which everyone must necessarily !ind in the movements o!
his own sel!ish propensities J men might have led an Arcadian
shepherd li!e in complete harmony contentment and mutual love but
in that case all their talents would have !orever remained hidden in their
germ. As gentle as the sheep they tended such men would hardly
have won !or their e=istence a higher worth than belonged to their
domesticated cattleK they would not have !illed up with their rational
nature the void remaining in the Creation in respect o! its !inal 4nd.
5han9s be then to +ature !or this unsociableness !or this envious
<ealousy and vanity !or this unsatiable desire o! possession or even o!
powerQ Without them all the e=cellent capacities implanted in man9ind
by nature would slumber eternally undeveloped. ;an wishes concordK
but +ature 9nows better what is good !or his species and she will have
discord. He wishes to live com!ortably and pleasantlyK but +ature wills
that turning !rom idleness and inactive contentment he shall throw
himsel! into toil and su!!ering even in order to !ind out remedies against
them and to e=tricate his li!e prudently !rom them again. 5he natural
impulses that urge man in this direction the sources o! that
unsociableness and general antagonism !rom which so many evils
arise do yet at the same time impel him to new e=ertion o! his powers
12/
and conse@uently to !urther development o! his natural capacities.
Hence they clearly mani!est the arrangement o! a wise Creator and do
not at all as is o!ten supposed betray the hand o! a malevolent spirit
that has deteriorated His glorious creation or spoiled it !rom envy.
$($5H '8&'&)(5(&+.
5he greatest practical 'roblem !or the human race to the solution o!
which it is compelled by +ature is the establishment o! a Civil )ociety
universally administering 8ight according to Law.
(t is only in a )ociety which possesses the greatest Liberty and which
conse@uently involves a thorough Antagonism o! its members J with
however the most e=act determination and guarantee o! the limits o!
this Liberty in order that it may coe=ist with the liberty o! others J that
the highest purpose o! +ature which is the development o! all her
capacities can be attained in the case o! man9ind. +ow +ature also
wills that the human race shall attain through itsel! to this as to all the
other ends !or which it was destined. Hence a )ociety in which Liberty
under external laws may be !ound combined in the greatest possible
degree with irresistible 'ower or a per!ectly $ust Civil Constitution is
the highest natural problem prescribed to the human species. And this
is so because +ature can only by means o! the solution and !ul!ilment
o! this problem realise her other purposes with our race. A certain
necessity compels man who is otherwise so greatly prepossessed in
!avour o! unlimited !reedom to enter into this state o! coercion and
restraint. And indeed it is the greatest necessity o! all that does thisK !or
it is created by men themselves whose inclinations ma9e it impossible
!or them to e=ist long beside each other in wild lawless !reedom. *ut in
such a complete growth as the Civil Hnion these very inclinations
a!terwards produce the best e!!ects. (t is with them as with the trees in
a !orestK !or <ust because everyone strives to deprive the other o! air
and sun they compel each other to see9 them both above and thus
they grow beauti!ul and straight whereas those that in !reedom and
apart !rom one another shoot out their branches at will grow stunted
and croo9ed and awry. All the culture and art that adorn humanity and
the !airest social order are !ruits o! that unsociableness which is
necessitated o! itsel! to discipline itsel! and which thus constrains man
by compulsive art to develop completely the germs o! his +ature.
1-0
)(>5H '8&'&)(5(&+.
5his 'roblem is li9ewise the most di!!icult o! its 9ind and it is the latest
to be solved by the Human 8ace.
5he di!!iculty which the mere idea o! this 'roblem brings into view is
that man is an animal, and i! he lives among others o! his 9ind he has
need of a 0aster. $or he certainly misuses his !reedom in relation to
his !ellow,menK and although as a rational creature he desires a law
which may set bounds to the !reedom o! all yet his own sel!ish animal
inclinations lead him wherever he can to e=cept himsel! !rom it. He
there!ore re@uires a master to brea9 his sel!,will and compel him to
obey a Will that is universally valid and in relation to which everyone
may be !ree. Where then does he obtain this master7 +owhere but in
the Human 8ace. *ut this master is an animal too and also re@uires a
master. *egin then as he may it is not easy to see how he can
procure a supreme Authority over public <ustice that would be
essentially <ust whether such an authority may be sought in a single
person or in a society o! many selected persons. 5he highest authority
has to be $ust in itself, and yet to be a man. 5his problem is there!ore
the most di!!icult o! its 9indK and indeed its per!ect solution is
impossible. &ut o! such croo9ed material as man is made o! nothing
can be hammered @uite straight. )o it is only an appro=imation to this
(dea that is imposed upon us by +ature.
1
(t !urther !ollows that this
problem is the last to be practically wor9ed out because it re@uires
correct conceptions o! the nature o! a possible Constitution great
e=perience !ounded on the practice o! ages and above all a good will
prepared !or the reception o! the solution. *ut these three conditions
could not easily be !ound togetherK and i! they are !ound it can only be
very late in time and a!ter many attempts to solve the problem had
been made in vain.
)4?4+5H '8&'&)(5(&+.
5he problem o! the establishment o! a per!ect Civil Constitution is
dependent on the problem o! the regulation o! the e=ternal relations
between the )tates con!ormably to LawK and without the solution o! this
latter problem it cannot be solved.
What avails it to labour at the arrangement o! a Commonwealth as a
Civil Constitution regulated by law among individual men7 5he same
unsociableness which !orced men to it becomes again the cause o!
1-1
each Commonwealth assuming the attitude o! uncontrolled !reedom in
its e=ternal relations that is as one )tate in relation to other )tatesK
and conse@uently any one )tate must e=pect !rom any other the same
sort o! evils as oppressed individual men and compelled them to enter
into a Civil Hnion regulated by law. +ature has accordingly again used
the unsociableness o! men and even o! great societies and political
bodies her creatures o! this 9ind as a means to wor9 out through their
mutual Antagonism a condition o! rest and security. )he wor9s through
wars through the strain o! never rela=ed preparation !or them and
through the necessity which every )tate is at last compelled to !eel
within itsel! even in the midst o! peace to begin some imper!ect e!!orts
to carry out her purpose. And at last a!ter many devastations
overthrows and even complete internal e=haustion o! their powers the
nations are driven !orward to the goal which 8eason might have well
impressed upon them even without so much sad e=perience. 5his is
none other than the advance out o! the lawless state o! savages and
the entering into a $ederation o! +ations. (t is thus brought about that
every )tate including even the smallest may rely !or its sa!ety and its
rights not on its own power or its own <udgment o! 8ight but only on
this great (nternational $ederation "5Kdus 2mphictionum# on its
combined power and on the decision o! the common will according to
laws. However visionary this idea may appear to be J and it has been
ridiculed in the way in which it has been presented by an AbbB de )t
'ierre or 8ousseau "perhaps because they believed its realisation to
be so near# J it is nevertheless the inevitable issue o! the necessity in
which men involve one another. $or this necessity must compel the
+ations to the very resolution J however hard it may appear J to which
the savage in his uncivilised state was so unwillingly compelled when
he had to surrender his brutal liberty and see9 rest and security in a
Constitution regulated by law. J All wars are accordingly so many
attempts J not indeed in the intention o! men but yet according to the
purpose o! +ature J to bring about new relations between the +ationsK
and by destruction or at least dismemberment o! them all to !orm new
political corporations. 5hese new organisations again are not capable
o! being preserved either in themselves or beside one another and
they must there!ore pass in turn through similar new 8evolutions till at
last partly by the best possible arrangement o! the Civil Constitution
within and partly by common convention and legislation without a
condition will be attained which in the li9eness o! a Civil
Commonwealth and a!ter the manner o! an Automaton will be able to
preserve itsel!.
1-2
5hree views may be put !orward as to the way in which this condition is
to be attained. (n the !irst place it may be held that !rom an @picurean
concourse o! causes in action it is to be e=pected that the )tates li9e
the little particles o! matter will try by their !ortuitous con<unctions all
sort o! !ormations which will be again destroyed by new collisions till at
last some one constitution will by chance succeed in preserving itsel! in
its proper !orm J a luc9y accident which will hardly ever come aboutQ (n
the second place it may rather be maintained that +ature here pursues
a regular march in carrying our species up !rom the lower stage o!
animality to the highest stage o! humanity and that this is done by a
compulsive art that is inherent in man whereby his natural capacities
and endowments are developed in per!ect regularity through an
apparently wild disorder. &r in the third place it may even be asserted
that out o! all these actions and reactions o! men as a whole nothing at
all J or at least nothing rational J will ever be producedK that it will be in
the !uture as it has ever been in the past and that no one will ever be
able to say whether the discord which is so natural to our species may
not be preparing !or us even in this civilised state o! society a hell o!
evils at the endK nay that it is not perhaps advancing even now to
annihilate again by barbaric devastation this actual state o! society and
all the progress hitherto made in civilisation J a !ate against which
there is no guarantee under a government o! blind chance identical as
it is with lawless !reedom in action unless a connecting wisdom is
covertly assumed to underlie the system o! +ature. +ow which o!
these views is to be adopted depends almost entirely on the @uestion
whether it is rational to recognise harmony and design in the parts o!
the Constitution o! +ature and to deny them o! the whole7 We have
glanced at what has been done by the seemingly purposeless state o!
savagesK how it chec9ed !or a time all the natural capacities o! our
species but at last by the very evils in which it involved man9ind it
compelled them to pass !rom this state and to enter into a civil
Constitution in which all the germs o! humanity could be un!olded.
And in li9e manner the barbarian !reedom o! the )tates when once
they were !ounded proceeded in the same way o! progress. *y the
e=penditure o! all the resources o! the Commonwealth in military
preparations against each other by the devastations occasioned by
war and still more by the necessity o! holding themselves continually in
readiness !or it the !ull development o! the capacities o! man9ind are
undoubtedly retarded in their progressK but on the other hand the very
evils which thus arise compel men to !ind out means against them. A
law o! 4@uilibrium is thus discovered !or the regulation o! the really
1--
wholesome antagonism o! contiguous )tates as it springs up out o!
their !reedomK and a united 'ower giving emphasis to this law is
constituted whereby there is introduced a universal condition o! public
security among the +ations. And that the powers o! man9ind may not
!all asleep this condition is not entirely !ree !rom danger: but it is at the
same time not without a principle which operates so as to equalise the
mutual action and reaction o! these powers that they may not destroy
each other. *e!ore the last step o! bringing in a universal Hnion o! the
)tates is ta9en J and accordingly when human nature is only hal! way
in its progress J it has to endure the hardest evils o! all under the
deceptive semblance o! outward prosperityK and 8ousseau was not so
!ar wrong when he pre!erred the state o! the savages i! the last stage
which our race has yet to surmount be le!t out o! view. We are
cultivated in a high degree by )cience and Art. We are civilised, even
to e=cess in the way o! all sorts o! social !orms o! politeness and
elegance. *ut there is still much to be done be!ore we can be regarded
as moralised. 5he idea o! morality certainly belongs to real CultureK but
an application o! this idea which e=tends no !arther than the li9eness o!
morality in the sense o! honour and e=ternal propriety merely
constitutes civilisation. )o long however as )tates lavish all their
resources upon vain and violent schemes o! aggrandisement so long
as they continually impede the slow movements o! the endeavour to
cultivate the newer habits o! thought and character on the part o! the
citiDens and even withdraw !rom them all the means o! !urthering it
nothing in the way o! moral progress can be e=pected. A long internal
process o! improvement is thus re@uired in every Commonwealth as a
condition !or the higher culture o! its citiDens. *ut all apparent good that
is not gra!ted upon a morally good disposition is nothing but mere
illusion and glittering misery. (n this condition the Human 8ace will
remain until it shall have wor9ed itsel! in the way that has been
indicated out o! the e=isting chaos o! its political relations.
4(AH5H '8&'&)(5(&+.
5he history o! the human race viewed as a whole may be regarded as
the realisation o! a hidden plan o! +ature to bring about a political
Constitution internally and !or this purpose also e=ternally per!ect as
the only state in which all the capacities implanted by her in ;an9ind
can be !ully developed.
5his proposition is a corollary !rom the preceding proposition. We see
1-1
by it that philosophy may also have its millennial view but in this case
the Chiliasm is o! such a nature that the very idea o! it J although only
in a !ar,o!! way J may help to !urther its realisationK and such a
prospect is there!ore anything but visionary. 5he real @uestion is
whether e=perience discloses anything o! such a movement in the
purpose o! +ature. ( can only say it does a little: !or the movement in
this orbit appears to re@uire such a long time till it goes !ull round that
the !orm o! its path and the relation o! its parts to the whole can hardly
be determined out o! the small portion which the human race has yet
passed through in this relation. 5he determination o! this problem is <ust
as di!!icult and uncertain as it is to calculate !rom all previous
astronomical observations what course our sun with the whole host o!
his attendant train is pursuing in the great system o! the !i=ed stars
although on the ground o! the total arrangement o! the structure o! the
universe and the little that has been observed o! it we may in!er
con!idently enough to the result o! such a movement. Human +ature
however is so constituted that it cannot be indi!!erent even in regard to
the most distant epoch that may a!!ect our race i! only it can be
e=pected with certainty. And such indi!!erence is the less possible in
the case be!ore us when it appears that we might by our own rational
arrangements hasten the coming o! this <oyous period !or our
descendants. Hence the !aintest traces o! the approach o! this period
will be very important to ourselves. +ow the )tates are already involved
in the present day in such close relations with each other that none o!
them can pause or slac9en in its internal civilisation without losing
power and in!luence in relation to the restK and hence the
maintenance i! not the progress o! this end o! +ature is in a manner
secured even by the ambitious designs o! the )tates themselves.
$urther Civil Liberty cannot now be easily assailed without in!licting
such damage as will be !elt in all trades and industries and especially
in commerceK and this would entail a diminution o! the powers o! the
)tate in e=ternal relations. 5his Liberty moreover gradually advances
!urther. *ut i! the citiDen is hindered in see9ing his prosperity in any
way suitable to himsel! that is consistent with the liberty o! others the
activity o! business is chec9ed generallyK and thereby the powers o! the
whole )tate again are wea9ened. Hence the restrictions on personal
liberty o! action are always more and more removed and universal
liberty even in 8eligion comes to be conceded. And thus it is that
notwithstanding the intrusion o! many a delusion and caprice the spirit
of @nlightenment gradually arises as a great Aood which the human
race must derive even !rom the sel!ish purposes o! aggrandisement on
1-3
the part o! its rulers i! they understand what is !or their own advantage.
5his 4nlightenment however and along with it a certain sympathetic
interest which the enlightened man cannot avoid ta9ing in the good
which he per!ectly understands must by and by pass up to the throne
and e=ert an in!luence even upon the principles o! Aovernment. 5hus
although our rulers at present have no money to spend on public
educational institutions or in general on all that concerns the highest
good o! the world J because all their resources are already placed to
the account o! the ne=t war J yet they will certainly !ind it to be to their
own advantage at least not to hinder the people in their own e!!orts in
this direction however wea9 and slow these may be. $inally war itsel!
comes to be regarded as a very haDardous and ob<ectionable
underta9ing not only !rom its being so arti!icial in itsel! and so uncertain
as regards its issue on both sides but also !rom the a!terpains which
the )tate !eels in the ever,increasing burdens it entails in the !orm o!
national debt J a modern in!liction J which it becomes almost
impossible to e=tinguish. And to this is to be added the in!luence which
every political disturbance o! any )tate o! our continent J lin9ed as it is
so closely to others by the connections o! trade J e=erts upon all the
)tates and which becomes so observable that they are !orced by their
common danger although without law!ul authority to o!!er themselves
as arbiters in the troubles o! any such )tate. (n doing so they are
beginning to arrange !or a great !uture political *ody such as the world
has never yet seen. Although this political *ody may as yet e=ist only in
a rough outline nevertheless a !eeling begins as it were to stir in all its
members each o! which has a common interest in the maintenance o!
the whole. And this may well inspire the hope that a!ter many political
revolutions and trans!ormations the highest purpose o! +ature will be
at last realised in the establishment o! a universal ,osmopolitical
Institution, in the bosom o! which all the original capacities and
endowments o! the human species will be un!olded and developed.
+(+5H '8&'&)(5(&+.
A philosophical attempt to wor9 out the Hniversal History o! the world
according to the plan o! +ature in its aiming at a per!ect Civil Hnion
must be regarded as possible and as even capable o! helping !orward
the purpose o! +ature.
(t seems at !irst sight a strange and even an absurd proposal to
suggest the composition o! a 1istory according to the idea o! how the
1-2
course o! the world must proceed i! it is to be con!ormable to certain
rational laws. (t may well appear that only a %omance could be
produced !rom such a point o! view. However i! it be assumed that
+ature even in the play o! human !reedom does not proceed without
plan and design the idea may well be regarded as practicableK and
although we are too shortsighted to see through the secret mechanism
o! her constitution yet the idea may be serviceable as a clue to enable
us to penetrate the otherwise planless 2ggregate o! human actions as
a whole and to represent them as constituting a &ystem. $or the idea
may so !ar be easily veri!ied. 5hus suppose we start !rom the history o!
(reece, as that by which all the older or contemporaneous History has
been preserved or at least accredited to us.
2
5hen i! we study its
in!luence upon the !ormation and mal!ormation o! the political
institutions o! the 8oman people which swallowed up the Aree9
)tates and i! we !urther !ollow the in!luence o! the 8oman 4mpire upon
the *arbarians who destroyed it in turn and continue this investigation
down to our own day con<oining with it episodically the political history
o! other peoples according as the 9nowledge o! them has gradually
reached us through these more enlightened nations we shall discover
a regular movement o! progress through the political institutions o! our
Continent which is probably destined to give laws to all other parts o!
the world. Applying the same method o! study everywhere both to the
internal civil constitutions and laws o! the )tates and to their e=ternal
relations to each other we see how in both relations the good they
contained served !or a certain period to elevate and glori!y particular
nations and with themselves their arts and sciences J until the
de!ects attaching to their institutions came in time to cause their
overthrow. And yet their very ruin leaves always a germ o! growing
enlightenment behind which being !urther developed by every
revolution acts as a preparation !or a subse@uent higher stage o!
progress and improvement. 5hus as ( believe we can discover a clue
which may serve !or more than the e=planation o! the con!used play o!
human things or !or the art o! political prophecy in re!erence to !uture
changes in )tates J a use which has been already made o! the history
o! man9ind even although it was regarded as the incoherent e!!ect o!
an unregulated !reedomQ ;uch more than all this is attained by the idea
o! Human History viewed as !ounded upon the assumption o! a
universal plan in +ature. $or this idea gives us a new ground o! hope
as it opens up to us a consoling view o! the !uture in which the human
species is represented in the !ar distance as having at last wor9ed itsel!
up to a condition in which all the germs implanted in it by +ature may
1-0
be !ully developed and its destination here on earth !ul!illed. )uch a
$ustification of /ature, or rather let us say o! +rovidence, is no
insigni!icant motive !or choosing a particular point o! view in
contemplating the course o! the world. $or what avails it to magni!y
the glory and wisdom o! the creation in the irrational domain o! +ature
and to recommend it to devout contemplation i! that part o! the great
display o! the supreme wisdom which presents the 4nd o! it all in the
history o! the Human 8ace is to be viewed as only !urnishing perpetual
ob<ections to that glory and wisdom7 5he spectacle o! History i! thus
viewed would compel us to turn away our eyes !rom it against our willK
and the despair o! ever !inding a per!ect rational 'urpose in its
movement would reduce us to hope !or it i! at all only in another
world.
5his (dea o! a Hniversal History is no doubt to a certain e=tent o! an a
priori character but it would be a misunderstanding o! my ob<ect were it
imagined that ( have any wish to supplant the empirical cultivation o!
History or the narration o! the actual !acts o! e=perience. (t is only a
thought o! what a philosophical mind J which as such must be
thoroughly versed in History J might be induced to attempt !rom
another standpoint. *esides the praiseworthy circumstantiality with
which our history is now written may well lead one to raise the
@uestion as to how our remote posterity will be able to cope with the
burden o! history as it will be transmitted to them a!ter a !ew centuries7
5hey will surely estimate the history o! the oldest times o! which the
documentary records may have been long lost only !rom the point o!
view o! what will interest themK and no doubt this will be what the
nations and governments have achieved or !ailed to achieve in the
universal world,wide relation. (t is well to be giving thought to this
relationK and at the same time to draw the attention o! ambitious rulers
and their servants to the only means by which they can leave an
honourable memorial o! themselves to latest times. And this may also
!orm a minor motive !or attempting to produce such a philosophical
History.
Notes:
1
5he part that has to be played by man is there!ore a very arti!icial
one. We do not 9now how it may be with the inhabitants o! other
planets or what are the conditions o! their natureK but i! we e=ecute
well the commission o! +ature we may certainly !latter ourselves to the
1-%
e=tent o! claiming a not insigni!icant ran9 among our neighbours in the
universe. (t may perhaps be the case that in those other planets every
individual completely attains his destination in this li!e. With us it is
otherwiseK only the species can hope !or this.
2
(t is only a learned +ublic which has had an uninterrupted e=istence
!rom its beginning up to our time that can authenticate Ancient History.
*eyond it all is terra incognita: and the History o! the peoples who lived
out o! its range can only be begun !rom the date at which they entered
within it. (n the case o! the .ewish 'eople this happened in the time o!
the 'tolemies through the Aree9 5ranslation o! the *ible without
which little !aith would have been given to their isolated accounts o!
themselves. $rom that date ta9en as a beginning when it has been
determined their records may then be traced upwards. And so it is with
all other peoples. 5he !irst page o! 5hucydides says Hume is the
beginning o! all true History.
1-/
Source +F C
?eorg Wilhel! 7riedrich Hegel
Philosophy of (ight5
The State5 LL ;04. ;01
I 230
5he state is the actuality o! the ethical (dea. (t is ethical mind qua the
substantial will mani!est and revealed to itsel! 9nowing and thin9ing
itsel! accomplishing what it 9nows and in so !ar as it 9nows it. 5he
state e=ists immediately in custom mediately in individual sel!,
consciousness 9nowledge and activity while sel!,consciousness in
virtue o! its sentiment towards the state !inds in the state as its
essence and the end,product o! its activity its substantive !reedom.
8emar9. 5he +enates are inward gods gods o! the underworldK the
mind o! a nation "Athene !or instance# is the divine 9nowing and willing
itsel!. $amily piety is !eeling ethical behaviour directed by !eelingK
political virtue is the willing o! the absolute end in terms o! thought.
I 23%
5he state is absolutely rational inasmuch as it is the actuality o! the
substantial will which it possesses in the particular sel!,consciousness
once that consciousness has been raised to consciousness o! its
universality. 5his substantial unity is an absolute unmoved end in itsel!
in which !reedom comes into its supreme right. &n the other hand this
!inal end has supreme right against the individual whose supreme duty
is to be a member o! the state.
8emar9. (! the state is con!used with civil society and i! its speci!ic end
is laid down as the security and protection o! property and personal
!reedom then the interest o! the individuals as such becomes the
ultimate end o! their association and it !ollows that membership o! the
state is something optional. *ut the stateXs relation to the individual is
@uite di!!erent !rom this. )ince the state is mind ob<ecti!ied it is only as
one o! its members that the individual himsel! has ob<ectivity genuine
individuality and an ethical li!e. Hni!ication pure and simple is the true
content and aim o! the individual and the individualXs destiny is the
living o! a universal li!e. His !urther particular satis!action activity and
110
mode o! conduct have this substantive and universally valid li!e as their
starting point and their result.
8ationality ta9en generally and in the abstract consists in the
thorough,going unity o! the universal and the single. 8ationality
concrete in the state consists "a# so !ar as its content is concerned in
the unity o! ob<ective !reedom "i.e. !reedom o! the universal or
substantial will# and sub<ective !reedom "i.e. !reedom o! everyone in his
9nowing and in his volition o! particular ends#K and conse@uently "b# so
!ar as its form is concerned in sel!,determining action on laws and
principles which are thoughts and so universal. 5his (dea is the
absolutely eternal and necessary being o! mind.
*ut i! we as9 what is or has been the historical origin o! the state in
general still more i! we as9 about the origin o! any particular state o!
its rights and institutions or again i! we in@uire whether the state
originally arose out o! patriarchal conditions or out o! !ear or trust or
out o! Corporations Yc. or !inally i! we as9 in what light the basis o! the
stateXs rights has been conceived and consciously established whether
this basis has been supposed to be positive divine right or contract
custom Yc. J all these @uestions are no concern o! the (dea o! the
state. We are here dealing e=clusively with the philosophic science o!
the state and !rom that point o! view all these things are mere
appearance and there!ore matters !or history. )o !ar as the authority o!
any e=isting state has anything to do with reasons these reasons are
culled !rom the !orms o! the law authoritative within it.
5he philosophical treatment o! these topics is concerned only with their
inward side with the thought o! their concept. 5he merit o! 8ousseauXs
contribution to the search !or this concept is that by adducing the will
as the principle o! the state he is adducing a principle which has
thought both !or its !orm and its content a principle indeed which is
thin9ing itsel! not a principle li9e gregarious instinct !or instance or
divine authority which has thought as its !orm only. Hn!ortunately
however as $ichte did later he ta9es the will only in a determinate
!orm as the individual will and he regards the universal will not as the
absolutely rational element in the will but only as a cgeneralX will which
proceeds out o! this individual will as out o! a conscious will. 5he result
is that he reduces the union o! individuals in the state to a contract and
there!ore to something based on their arbitrary wills their opinion and
their capriciously given e=press consentK and abstract reasoning
proceeds to draw the logical in!erences which destroy the absolutely
111
divine principle o! the state together with its ma<esty and absolute
authority. $or this reason when these abstract conclusions came into
power they a!!orded !or the !irst time in human history the prodigious
spectacle o! the overthrow o! the constitution o! a great actual state and
its complete reconstruction ab initio on the basis o! pure thought alone
a!ter the destruction o! all e=isting and given material. 5he will o! its re,
!ounders was to give it what they alleged was a purely rational basis
but it was only abstractions that were being usedK the (dea was lac9ingK
and the e=periment ended in the ma=imum o! !right!ulness and terror.
Con!ronted with the claims made !or the individual will we must
remember the !undamental conception that the ob<ective will is
rationality implicit or in conception whether it be recognised or not by
individuals whether their whims be deliberately !or it or not. We must
remember that its opposite i.e. 9nowing and willing or sub<ective
!reedom "the only thing contained in the principle o! the individual will#
comprises only one moment and there!ore a one,sided moment o! the
(dea o! the rational will i.e. o! the will which is rational solely because
what it is implicitly that it also is e=plicitly.
5he opposite to thin9ing o! the state as something to be 9nown and
apprehended as e=plicitly rational is ta9ing e=ternal appearances J i.e.
contingencies such as distress need !or protection !orce riches Yc. J
not as moments in the stateXs historical development but as its
substance. Here again what constitutes the guiding thread o! discovery
is the individual in isolation J not however even so much as the
thought o! this individuality but instead only empirical individuals with
attention !ocused on their accidental characteristics their strength and
wea9ness riches and poverty Yc. 5his ingenious idea o! ignoring the
absolute in!inity and rationality in the state and e=cluding thought !rom
apprehension o! its inward nature has assuredly never been put
!orward in such an unadulterated !orm as in Herr von HallerXs
%estauration der &taatswissenschaft. ( say cunadulteratedX because in
all other attempts to grasp the essence o! the state no matter on what
one,sided or super!icial principles this very intention o! comprehending
the state rationally has brought with it thoughts i.e. universal
determinations. Herr von Haller however with his eyes open has not
merely renounced the rational material o! which the state consists as
well as the !orm o! thought but he has even gone on with passionate
!ervour to inveigh against the !orm and the material so set aside. 'art
o! what Herr von Haller assures us is the cwidespreadX e!!ect o! his
principles. 5his %estauration undoubtedly owes to the !act that in his
112
e=position he has deliberately dispensed with thought altogether and
has deliberately 9ept his whole boo9 all o! a piece with its lac9 o!
thought. $or in this way he has eliminated the con!usion and disorder
which lessen the !orce o! an e=position where the accidental is treated
along with hints o! the substantial where the purely empirical and
e=ternal are mi=ed with a reminiscence o! the universal and rational
and where in the midst o! wretched inanities the reader is now and
again reminded o! the lo!tier sphere o! the in!inite. $or the same reason
again his e=position is consistent. He ta9es as the essence o! the state
not what is substantive but the sphere o! accident and consistency in
dealing with a sphere o! that 9ind amounts to the complete
inconsistency o! utter thoughtlessness which <ogs along without loo9ing
behind and is <ust as much at home now with the e=act opposite o!
what it approved a moment ago.
Addition. 5he state in and by itsel! is the ethical whole the actualisation
o! !reedomK and it is an absolute end o! reason that !reedom should be
actual. 5he state is mind on earth and consciously realising itsel! there.
(n nature on the other hand mind actualises itsel! only as its own
other as mind asleep. &nly when it is present in consciousness when
it 9nows itsel! as a really e=istent ob<ect is it the state. (n considering
!reedom the starting,point must be not individuality the single sel!,
consciousness but only the essence o! sel!,consciousnessK !or
whether man 9nows it or not this essence is e=ternally realised as a
sel!,subsistent power in which single individuals are only moments. 5he
march o! Aod in the world that is what the state is. 5he basis o! the
state is the power o! reason actualising itsel! as will. (n considering the
(dea o! the state we must not have our eyes on particular states or on
particular institutions. (nstead we must consider the (dea this actual
Aod by itsel!. &n some principle or other any state may be shown to
be bad this or that de!ect may be !ound in itK and yet at any rate i! one
o! the mature states o! our epoch is in @uestion it has in it the moments
essential to the e=istence o! the state. *ut since it is easier to !ind
de!ects than to understand the a!!irmative we may readily !all into the
mista9e o! loo9ing at isolated aspects o! the state and so !orgetting its
inward organic li!e. 5he state is no ideal wor9 o! artK it stands on earth
and so in the sphere o! caprice chance and error and bad behaviour
may dis!igure it in many respects. *ut the ugliest o! men or a criminal
or an invalid or a cripple is still always a living man. 5he a!!irmative
li!e subsists despite his de!ects and it is this a!!irmative !actor which is
our theme here.
11-
$ootnote. ( have described the boo9 su!!iciently to show that it is o! an
original 9ind. 5here might be something noble in the authorXs
indignation by itsel! since it was 9indled by the !alse theories
mentioned above emanating principally !rom 8ousseau and especially
by the attempt to realise them in practice. *ut to save himsel! !rom
these theories Herr von Haller has gone to the other e=treme by
dispensing with thought altogether and conse@uently it cannot be said
that there is anything o! intrinsic value in his virulent hatred o! all laws
and legislation o! all e=pressly and legally determinate rights. 5he
hatred o! law o! right made determinate in law is the shibboleth
whereby !anaticism !labby,mindedness and the hypocrisy o! good
intentions are clearly and in!allibly recognised !or what they are
disguise themselves as they may.
&riginality li9e Herr von HallerXs is always a curious phenomenon and
!or those o! my readers who are not yet ac@uainted with his boo9 ( will
@uote a !ew specimen passages. 5his is how he lays down his most
important basic proposition. c6ust as in the inorganic world the greater
dislodges the less and the mighty the wea9 .... so in the animal
9ingdom and then amongst human beings the same law appears in
noblerX "o!ten too surely in ignobler7# c!ormsX and cthis there!ore is
the eternal unalterable ordinance o! Aod that the mightier rules must
rule and will always ruleX. (t is clear enough !rom this let alone !rom
what !ollows in what sense cmightX is ta9en here. (t is not the might o!
<ustice and ethics but only the irrational power o! brute !orce. Herr von
Haller then goes on to support this doctrine on various grounds
amongst them that cnature with amaDing wisdom has so ordered it that
the mere sense o! personal superiority irresistibly ennobles the
character and encourages the development o! <ust those virtues which
are most necessary !or dealing with subordinatesX. He as9s with a great
elaboration o! undergraduate rhetoric \ibid.] cwhether it is the strong or
the wea9 in the 9ingdom o! science who more misuse their trust and
their authority in order to achieve their petty sel!ish ends and the ruin o!
the credulousK whether to be a past master in legal learning is not to be
a petti!ogger a leguleius one who cheats the hopes o! unsuspecting
clients who ma9es white blac9 and blac9 white who misapplies the
law and ma9es it a vehicle !or wrongdoing who brings to beggary
those who need his assistance and tends them as the hungry vulture
tends the innocent lambX Yc. Yc. Herr von Haller !orgets here that the
point o! this rhetoric is to support his proposition that the rule o! the
mightier is an everlasting ordnance o! AodK so presumably it is by the
111
same ordinance that the vulture rends the innocent lamb and that
hence the mighty are @uite right to treat their unsuspecting clients as
the wea9 and to ma9e use o! 9nowledge o! the law to empty their
poc9ets. (t would be too much however to as9 that two thoughts
should be put together where there is really not a single one.
(t goes without saying that Herr von Haller is an enemy o! codes o! law.
(n his view the laws o! the land are on the one hand in principle
cunnecessary because they spring sel!,e=planatory !rom the laws o!
natureX. (! men had remained satis!ied with csel!,e=planatoryX as the
basis o! their thin9ing then they would have been spared the endless
labour devoted since ever there were states to legislation and legal
codes and which is still devoted thereto and to the study o! positive
law. c&n the other hand laws are not e=actly promulgated !or private
individuals but as instructions to puisne <udges ac@uainting them with
the will o! the high courtX. Apart !rom that the provision o! law,courts is
and all over the place# not a state duty but a !avour help rendered by
the authorities and c@uite supererogatoryXK it is not the most per!ect
method o! guaranteeing menXs rightsK on the contrary it is an insecure
and uncertain method cthe only one le!t to us by our modern lawyers.
5hey have re!t us o! the other three methods o! <ust those which lead
most swi!tly and surely to the goal those which unli9e law,courts
!riendly nature has given to man !or the sa!eguarding o! his right!ul
!reedomX. And these three methods are J what do you suppose7 J "1#
'ersonal acceptance and inculcation o! the law o! natureK "2#
8esistance to wrongK "-# $light when there is no other remedy.
Lawyers are un!riendly indeed it appears in comparison with the
!riendliness o! natureQ c*ut the natural divine law given to everyone by
nature the all,bounti!ul is. Honour everyone as thine e@ualX "on the
authorXs principles this should read cHonour not the man who is thine
e@ual but the one who is mightierX#K churt no man who hurts thee notK
demand !rom him nothing but what he owesX "but what does he owe7#K
cnay more love thy neighbour and serve him when thou canstX. 5he
cimplanting o! this lawX is to ma9e a legislator and a constitution
super!luous. (t would be curious to see how Herr von Haller ma9es it
intelligible why legislators and constitutions have appeared in the world
despite this cimplantingX.
(n vol. iii the author comes to the cso,called national libertiesX by which
he means the laws and constitutions o! nation states. 4very legally
constituted right is in this wide sense o! the word a clibertyX. &! these
laws he says inter alia that ctheir content is usually very insigni!icant
113
although in boo9s a high value may be placed on documentary liberties
o! that 9indX. When we then realise that the author is spea9ing here o!
the national liberties o! the Aerman 4states o! the 4nglish people "e.g.
;agna Carta which is little read and on account o! its archaic
phraseology still less understood the *ill o! 8ights and so !orth# o! the
people o! Hungary Yc. we are surprised to !ind that these
'ossessions !ormerly so highly priDed are only insigni!icantK and no
less )urprised to learn that it is only in boo9s that these nations place a
value on laws whose co,operation has entered into every coat that is
worn and every crust that is eaten and still enters into every day and
hour o! the lives o! everyone.
5o carry @uotation !urther Herr von Haller spea9s particularly ill o! the
'russian Aeneral Legal Code because o! the cincredibleX in!luence on
it o! the errors o! !alse philosophy "though in this instance at any rate
the !ault cannot be ascribed to CantXs philosophy a topic on which Herr
von Haller is at his angriest# especially where it spea9s o! the state
the resources o! the state the end o! the state the head o! the state
his duties and those o! civil servants and so !orth. Herr von Haller
!inds particularly mischievous cthe right o! de!raying the e=penses o! the
state by levying ta=es on the private wealth o! individuals on their
businesses on goods produced or consumed. Hnder those
circumstances neither the 9ing himsel! "since the resources o! the
state belong to the state and are not the private property o! the 9ing#
nor the 'russian citiDens can call anything their own neither their
person nor their propertyK and all sub<ects are bondslaves to the law
since they may not withdraw themselves !rom the service o! the state.X
(n this welter o! incredible crudity what is perhaps most comical o! all is
the emotion with which Herr von Haller describes his unspea9able
pleasure in his discoveries J ca <oy such as only the !riend o! truth can
!eel when a!ter honest search he has become con!ident that he has
!ound as it wereX "yes indeed7 cis it wereX is rightQ# cthe voice o! nature
the very word o! AodX. "5he truth is that the word o! Aod very clearly
distinguishes its revelations !rom the voices o! nature and unregenerate
man.# 5he author could have sun9 to the ground in open amaDement a
stream o! <oy!ul tears burst !rom his eyes and living religious !eeling
sprang up in him there and then. Herr von Haller might have
discovered by his creligious !eelingX that he should rather bewail his
condition as the hardest chastisement o! Aod. $or the hardest thing
which man can e=perience is to be so !ar e=cluded !rom thought and
reason !rom respect !or the laws and !rom 9nowing how in!initely
112
important and divine it is that the duties o! the state and the rights o!
the citiDens as well as the rights o! the state and the duties o! the
citiDens should be de!ined by law J to be so !ar e=cluded !rom all this
that absurdity can !oist itsel! upon him as the word o! Aod.
110
Source +F
*urray N5 (othbard
The Anato!y 6f The State
d
What the State Is Not
5he )tate is almost universally considered an institution o! social
service. )ome theorists venerate the )tate as the apotheosis o!
societyK others regard it as an amiable though o!ten ine!!icient
organiDation !or achieving social endsK but almost all regard it as a
necessary means !or achieving the goals o! man9ind a means to be
ranged against the Oprivate sectorO and o!ten winning in this
competition o! resources. With the rise o! democracy the identi!ication
o! the )tate with society has been redoubled until it is common to hear
sentiments e=pressed which violate virtually every tenet o! reason and
common sense such as Owe are the government.O 5he use!ul collective
term OweO has enabled an ideological camou!lage to be thrown over the
reality o! political li!e. (! Owe are the governmentO then anything a
government does to an individual is not only <ust and untyrannical but
also OvoluntaryO on the part o! the individual concerned. (! the
government has incurred a huge public debt which must be paid by
ta=ing one group !or the bene!it o! another this reality o! burden is
obscured by saying that Owe owe it to ourselvesOK i! the government
conscripts a man or throws him into <ail !or dissident opinion then he is
Odoing it to himsel!O and there!ore nothing untoward has occurred.
Hnder this reasoning any 6ews murdered by the +aDi government
were not murderedK instead they must have Ocommitted suicideO since
they were the government "which was democratically chosen# and
there!ore anything the government did to them was voluntary on their
part. &ne would not thin9 it necessary to belabor this point and yet the
overwhelming bul9 o! the people hold this !allacy to a greater or lesser
degree.
We must there!ore emphasiDe that OweO are not the governmentK the
government is not Ous.O 5he government does not in any accurate
sense OrepresentO the ma<ority o! the people.
1
*ut even i! it did even i!
00 percent o! the people decided to murder the remaining -0 percent
this would still be murder and would not be voluntary suicide on the
part o! the slaughtered minority.
2
+o organicist metaphor no irrelevant
11%
bromide that Owe are all part o! one anotherO must be permitted to
obscure this basic !act.
(! then the )tate is not OusO i! it is not Othe human !amilyO getting
together to decide mutual problems i! it is not a lodge meeting or
country club what is it7 *rie!ly the )tate is that organiDation in society
which attempts to maintain a monopoly o! the use o! !orce and violence
in a given territorial areaK in particular it is the only organiDation in
society that obtains its revenue not by voluntary contribution or
payment !or services rendered but by coercion. While other individuals
or institutions obtain their income by production o! goods and services
and by the peace!ul and voluntary sale o! these goods and services to
others the )tate obtains its revenue by the use o! compulsionK that is
by the use and the threat o! the <ailhouse and the bayonet.
-
Having
used !orce and violence to obtain its revenue the )tate generally goes
on to regulate and dictate the other actions o! its individual sub<ects.
&ne would thin9 that simple observation o! all )tates through history
and over the globe would be proo! enough o! this assertionK but the
miasma o! myth has lain so long over )tate activity that elaboration is
necessary.
What the State Is
;an is born na9ed into the world and needing to use his mind to learn
how to ta9e the resources given him by nature and to trans!orm them
"!or e=ample by investment in OcapitalO# into shapes and !orms and
places where the resources can be used !or the satis!action o! his
wants and the advancement o! his standard o! living. 5he only way by
which man can do this is by the use o! his mind and energy to
trans!orm resources "OproductionO# and to e=change these products !or
products created by others. ;an has !ound that through the process o!
voluntary mutual e=change the productivity and hence the living
standards o! all participants in e=change may increase enormously.
5he only OnaturalO course !or man to survive and to attain wealth
there!ore is by using his mind and energy to engage in the production,
and,e=change process. He does this !irst by !inding natural resources
and then by trans!orming them "by Omi=ing his laborO with them as
Loc9e puts it# to ma9e them his individual property and then by
e=changing this property !or the similarly obtained property o! others.
5he social path dictated by the re@uirements o! manFs nature there!ore
is the path o! Oproperty rightsO and the O!ree mar9etO o! gi!t or e=change
11/
o! such rights. 5hrough this path men have learned how to avoid the
O<ungleO methods o! !ighting over scarce resources so that A can only
ac@uire them at the e=pense o! * and instead to multiply those
resources enormously in peace!ul and harmonious production and
e=change.
5he great Aerman sociologist $ranD &ppenheimer pointed out that
there are two mutually e=clusive ways o! ac@uiring wealthK one the
above way o! production and e=change he called the Oeconomic
means.O 5he other way is simpler in that it does not re@uire productivityK
it is the way o! seiDure o! anotherFs goods or services by the use o!
!orce and violence. 5his is the method o! one,sided con!iscation o!
the!t o! the property o! others. 5his is the method which &ppenheimer
termed Othe political meansO to wealth. (t should be clear that the
peace!ul use o! reason and energy in production is the OnaturalO path
!or man. the means !or his survival and prosperity on this earth. (t
should be e@ually clear that the coercive e=ploitative means is contrary
to natural lawK it is parasitic !or instead o! adding to production it
subtracts !rom it. 5he Opolitical meansO siphons production o!! to a
parasitic and destructive individual or groupK and this siphoning not only
subtracts !rom the number producing but also lowers the producerFs
incentive to produce beyond his own subsistence. (n the long run the
robber destroys his own subsistence by dwindling or eliminating the
source o! his own supply. *ut not only thatK even in the short,run the
predator is acting contrary to his own true nature as a man.
We are now in a position to answer more !ully the @uestion. what is the
&tate7 5he )tate in the words o! &ppenheimer is the OorganiDation o!
the political meansOK it is the systematiDation o! the predatory process
over a given territory.
1
$or crime at best is sporadic and uncertainK the
parasitism is ephemeral and the coercive parasitic li!eline may be cut
o!! at any time by the resistance o! the victims. 5he )tate provides a
legal orderly systematic channel !or the predation o! private propertyK
it renders certain secure and relatively Opeace!ulO the li!eline o! the
parasitic caste in society.
3
)ince production must always precede
predation the !ree mar9et is anterior to the )tate. 5he )tate has never
been created by a Osocial contractOK it has always been born in
con@uest and e=ploitation. 5he classic paradigm was a con@uering
tribe pausing in its time,honored method o! looting and murdering a
con@uered tribe to realiDe that the time,span o! plunder would be
longer and more secure and the situation more pleasant i! the
con@uered tribe were allowed to live and produce with the con@uerors
130
settling among them as rulers e=acting a steady annual tribute.
2
&ne
method o! the birth o! a )tate may be illustrated as !ollows. in the hills
o! southern O8uritaniaO a bandit group manages to obtain physical
control over the territory and !inally the bandit chie!tain proclaims
himsel! OCing o! the sovereign and independent government o! )outh
8uritaniaOK and i! he and his men have the !orce to maintain this rule
!or a while lo and beholdQ a new )tate has <oined the O!amily o!
nationsO and the !ormer bandit leaders have been trans!ormed into the
law!ul nobility o! the realm.
Ho$ the State Preser#es Itself
&nce a )tate has been established the problem o! the ruling group or
OcasteO is how to maintain their rule.
0
While !orce is their modus
operandi their basic and long,run problem is ideological. $or in order to
continue in o!!ice any government "not simply a OdemocraticO
government# must have the support o! the ma<ority o! its sub<ects. 5his
support it must be noted need not be active enthusiasmK it may well
be passive resignation as i! to an inevitable law o! nature. *ut support
in the sense o! acceptance o! some sort it must beK else the minority o!
)tate rulers would eventually be outweighed by the active resistance o!
the ma<ority o! the public. )ince predation must be supported out o! the
surplus o! production it is necessarily true that the class constituting
the )tate J the !ull,time bureaucracy "and nobility# J must be a rather
small minority in the land although it may o! course purchase allies
among important groups in the population. 5here!ore the chie! tas9 o!
the rulers is always to secure the active or resigned acceptance o! the
ma<ority o! the citiDens.
%/
&! course one method o! securing support is through the creation o!
vested economic interests. 5here!ore the Cing alone cannot ruleK he
must have a siDable group o! !ollowers who en<oy the prere@uisites o!
rule !or e=ample the members o! the )tate apparatus such as the !ull,
time bureaucracy or the established nobility.
10
*ut this still secures only
a minority o! eager supporters and even the essential purchasing o!
support by subsidies and other grants o! privilege still does not obtain
the consent o! the ma<ority. $or this essential acceptance the ma<ority
must be persuaded by ideology that their government is good wise
and at least inevitable and certainly better than other conceivable
alternatives. 'romoting this ideology among the people is the vital
social tas9 o! the Ointellectuals.O $or the masses o! men do not create
131
their own ideas or indeed thin9 through these ideas independentlyK
they !ollow passively the ideas adopted and disseminated by the body
o! intellectuals. 5he intellectuals are there!ore the Oopinion,moldersO in
society. And since it is precisely a molding o! opinion that the )tate
most desperately needs the basis !or age,old alliance between the
)tate and the intellectuals becomes clear.
(t is evident that the )tate needs the intellectualsK it is not so evident
why intellectuals need the )tate. 'ut simply we may state that the
intellectualFs livelihood in the !ree mar9et is never too secureK !or the
intellectual must depend on the values and choices o! the masses o!
his !ellow men and it is precisely characteristic o! the masses that they
are generally uninterested in intellectual matters. 5he )tate on the
other hand is willing to o!!er the intellectuals a secure and permanent
berth in the )tate apparatusK and thus a secure income and the
panoply o! prestige. $or the intellectuals will be handsomely rewarded
!or the important !unction they per!orm !or the )tate rulers o! which
group they now become a part.
11
5he alliance between the )tate and the intellectuals was symboliDed in
the eager desire o! pro!essors at the Hniversity o! *erlin in the
nineteenth century to !orm the Ointellectual bodyguard o! the House o!
HohenDollern.O (n the present day let us note the revealing comment o!
an eminent ;ar=ist scholar concerning 'ro!essor Witt!ogelFs critical
study o! ancient &riental despotism. O5he civiliDation which 'ro!essor
Witt!ogel is so bitterly attac9ing was one which could ma9e poets and
scholars into o!!icials.O
12
&! innumerable e=amples we may cite the
recent development o! the OscienceO o! strategy in the service o! the
governmentFs main violence,wielding arm the military.
1-
A venerable
institution !urthermore is the o!!icial or OcourtO historian dedicated to
purveying the rulersF views o! their own and their predecessorsF
actions.
11
;any and varied have been the arguments by which the )tate and its
intellectuals have induced their sub<ects to support their rule. *asically
the strands o! argument may be summed up as !ollows. "a# the )tate
rulers are great and wise men "they Orule by divine rightO they are the
OaristocracyO o! men they are the Oscienti!ic e=pertsO# much greater
and wiser than the good but rather simple sub<ects and "b# rule by the
e=tent government is inevitable absolutely necessary and !ar better
than the indescribable evils that would ensue upon its down!all. 5he
union o! Church and )tate was one o! the oldest and most success!ul
132
o! these ideological devices. 5he ruler was either anointed by Aod or
in the case o! the absolute rule o! many &riental despotisms was
himsel! AodK hence any resistance to his rule would be blasphemy.
5he )tatesF priestcra!t per!ormed the basic intellectual !unction o!
obtaining popular support and even worship !or the rulers.
13

Another success!ul device was to instill !ear o! any alternative systems
o! rule or nonrule. 5he present rulers it was maintained supply to the
citiDens an essential service !or which they should be most grate!ul.
protection against sporadic criminals and marauders. $or the )tate to
preserve its own monopoly o! predation did indeed see to it that private
and unsystematic crime was 9ept to a minimumK the )tate has always
been <ealous o! its own preserve. 4specially has the )tate been
success!ul in recent centuries in instilling !ear o! other )tate rulers.
)ince the land area o! the globe has been parceled out among
particular )tates one o! the basic doctrines o! the )tate was to identi!y
itsel! with the territory it governed. )ince most men tend to love their
homeland the identi!ication o! that land and its people with the )tate
was a means o! ma9ing natural patriotism wor9 to the )tateFs
advantage. (! O8uritaniaO was being attac9ed by OWaldaviaO the !irst
tas9 o! the )tate and its intellectuals was to convince the people o!
8uritania that the attac9 was really upon them and not simply upon the
ruling caste. (n this way a war between rulers was converted into a war
between peoples with each people coming to the de!ense o! its rulers
in the erroneous belie! that the rulers were de!ending them. 5his device
o! OnationalismO has only been success!ul in Western civiliDation in
recent centuriesK it was not too long ago that the mass o! sub<ects
regarded wars as irrelevant battles between various sets o! nobles.
;any and subtle are the ideological weapons that the )tate has
wielded through the centuries. &ne e=cellent weapon has been
tradition. 5he longer that the rule o! a )tate has been able to preserve
itsel! the more power!ul this weaponK !or then the > :ynasty or the G
)tate has the seeming weight o! centuries o! tradition behind it.
12
Worship o! oneFs ancestors then becomes a none too subtle means o!
worship o! oneFs ancient rulers. 5he greatest danger to the )tate is
independent intellectual criticismK there is no better way to sti!le that
criticism than to attac9 any isolated voice any raiser o! new doubts as
a pro!ane violator o! the wisdom o! his ancestors. Another potent
ideological !orce is to deprecate the individual and e=alt the collectivity
o! society. $or since any given rule implies ma<ority acceptance any
ideological danger to that rule can only start !rom one or a !ew
13-
independently,thin9ing individuals. 5he new idea much less the new
critical idea must needs begin as a small minority opinionK there!ore
the )tate must nip the view in the bud by ridiculing any view that de!ies
the opinions o! the mass. OListen only to your brothersO or Oad<ust to
societyO thus become ideological weapons !or crushing individual
dissent.
10
*y such measures the masses will never learn o! the
none=istence o! their 4mperorFs clothes.
1%
(t is also important !or the
)tate to ma9e its rule seem inevitableK even i! its reign is disli9ed it will
then be met with passive resignation as witness the !amiliar coupling
o! Odeath and ta=es.O &ne method is to induce historiographical
determinism as opposed to individual !reedom o! will. (! the > :ynasty
rules us this is because the (ne=orable Laws o! History "or the :ivine
Will or the Absolute or the ;aterial 'roductive $orces# have so
decreed and nothing any puny individuals may do can change this
inevitable decree. (t is also important !or the )tate to inculcate in its
sub<ects an aversion to any Oconspiracy theory o! historyKO !or a search
!or OconspiraciesO means a search !or motives and an attribution o!
responsibility !or historical misdeeds. (! however any tyranny imposed
by the )tate or venality or aggressive war was caused not by the
)tate rulers but by mysterious and arcane Osocial !orcesO or by the
imper!ect state o! the world or i! in some way everyone was
responsible "OWe Are All ;urderersO proclaims one slogan# then there
is no point to the people becoming indignant or rising up against such
misdeeds. $urthermore an attac9 on Oconspiracy theoriesO means that
the sub<ects will become more gullible in believing the Ogeneral wel!areO
reasons that are always put !orth by the )tate !or engaging in any o! its
despotic actions. A Oconspiracy theoryO can unsettle the system by
causing the public to doubt the )tateFs ideological propaganda.
Another tried and true method !or bending sub<ects to the )tateFs will is
inducing guilt. Any increase in private well,being can be attac9ed as
Ounconscionable greedO OmaterialismO or Oe=cessive a!!luenceO pro!it,
ma9ing can be attac9ed as Oe=ploitationO and OusuryO mutually
bene!icial e=changes denounced as Osel!ishnessO and somehow with
the conclusion always being drawn that more resources should be
siphoned !rom the private to the Opublic sector.O 5he induced guilt
ma9es the public more ready to do <ust that. $or while individual
persons tend to indulge in Osel!ish greedO the !ailure o! the )tateFs
rulers to engage in e=changes is supposed to signi!y their devotion to
higher and nobler causes J parasitic predation being apparently
morally and esthetically lo!ty as compared to peace!ul and productive
131
wor9.
(n the present more secular age the divine right o! the )tate has been
supplemented by the invocation o! a new god )cience. )tate rule is
now proclaimed as being ultrascienti!ic as constituting planning by
e=perts. *ut while OreasonO is invo9ed more than in previous centuries
this is not the true reason o! the individual and his e=ercise o! !ree willK
it is still collectivist and determinist still implying holistic aggregates
and coercive manipulation o! passive sub<ects by their rulers.
5he increasing use o! scienti!ic <argon has permitted the )tateFs
intellectuals to weave obscurantist apologia !or )tate rule that would
have only met with derision by the populace o! a simpler age. A robber
who <usti!ied his the!t by saying that he really helped his victims by his
spending giving a boost to retail trade would !ind !ew convertsK but
when this theory is clothed in Ceynesian e@uations and impressive
re!erences to the Omultiplier e!!ectO it un!ortunately carries more
conviction. And so the assault on common sense proceeds each age
per!orming the tas9 in its own ways.
5hus ideological support being vital to the )tate it must unceasingly
try to impress the public with its OlegitimacyO to distinguish its activities
!rom those o! mere brigands. 5he unremitting determination o! its
assaults on common sense is no accident !or as ;enc9en vividly
maintained.
5he average man whatever his errors otherwise at least sees
clearly that government is something lying outside him and
outside the generality o! his !ellow men J that it is a separate
independent and hostile power only partly under his control and
capable o! doing him great harm. (s it a !act o! no signi!icance
that robbing the government is everywhere regarded as a crime
o! less magnitude than robbing an individual or even a
corporation7 . . . What lies behind all this ( believe is a deep
sense o! the !undamental antagonism between the government
and the people it governs. (t is apprehended not as a committee
o! citiDens chosen to carry on the communal business o! the
whole population but as a separate and autonomous
corporation mainly devoted to e=ploiting the population !or the
bene!it o! its own members. . . . When a private citiDen is robbed
a worthy man is deprived o! the !ruits o! his industry and thri!tK
when the government is robbed the worst that happens is that
certain rogues and loa!ers have less money to play with than
133
they had be!ore. 5he notion that they have earned that money is
never entertainedK to most sensible men it would seem
ludicrous.
1/
Ho$ the State Transcends Its Li!its
As *ertrand de 6ouvenel has sagely pointed out through the centuries
men have !ormed concepts designed to chec9 and limit the e=ercise o!
)tate ruleK and one a!ter another the )tate using its intellectual allies
has been able to trans!orm these concepts into intellectual rubber
stamps o! legitimacy and virtue to attach to its decrees and actions.
&riginally in Western 4urope the concept o! divine sovereignty held
that the 9ings may rule only according to divine lawK the 9ings turned
the concept into a rubber stamp o! divine approval !or any o! the 9ingsF
actions. 5he concept o! parliamentary democracy began as a popular
chec9 upon absolute monarchical ruleK it ended with parliament being
the essential part o! the )tate and its every act totally sovereign. As de
6ouvenel concludes.
;any writers on theories o! sovereignty have wor9ed out one . . .
o! these restrictive devices. *ut in the end every single such
theory has sooner or later lost its original purpose and come to
act merely as a springboard to 'ower by providing it with the
power!ul aid o! an invisible sovereign with whom it could in time
success!ully identi!y itsel!.
20
)imilarly with more speci!ic doctrines. the Onatural rightsO o! the
individual enshrined in 6ohn Loc9e and the *ill o! 8ights became a
statist Oright to a <obOK utilitarianism turned !rom arguments !or liberty to
arguments against resisting the )tateFs invasions o! liberty etc.
Certainly the most ambitious attempt to impose limits on the )tate has
been the *ill o! 8ights and other restrictive parts o! the American
Constitution in which written limits on government became the
!undamental law to be interpreted by a <udiciary supposedly
independent o! the other branches o! government. All Americans are
!amiliar with the process by which the construction o! limits in the
Constitution has been ine=orably broadened over the last century. *ut
!ew have been as 9een as 'ro!essor Charles *lac9 to see that the
)tate has in the process largely trans!ormed <udicial review itsel! !rom
a limiting device to yet another instrument !or !urnishing ideological
132
legitimacy to the governmentFs actions. $or i! a <udicial decree o!
OunconstitutionalO is a mighty chec9 to government power an implicit or
e=plicit verdict o! OconstitutionalO is a mighty weapon !or !ostering public
acceptance o! ever,greater government power.
'ro!essor *lac9 begins his analysis by pointing out the crucial
necessity o! OlegitimacyO !or any government to endure this legitimation
signi!ying basic ma<ority acceptance o! the government and its
actions.
21
Acceptance o! legitimacy becomes a particular problem in a
country such as the Hnited )tates where Osubstantive limitations are
built into the theory on which the government rests.O What is needed
adds *lac9 is a means by which the government can assure the public
that its increasing powers are indeed Oconstitutional.O And this he
concludes has been the ma<or historic !unction o! <udicial review.
Let *lac9 illustrate the problem.
5he supreme ris9 \to the government] is that o! disa!!ection and
a !eeling o! outrage widely disseminated throughout the
population and loss o! moral authority by the government as
such however long it may be propped up by !orce or inertia or
the lac9 o! an appealing and immediately available alternative.
Almost everybody living under a government o! limited powers
must sooner or later be sub<ected to some governmental action
which as a matter o! private opinion he regards as outside the
power o! government or positively !orbidden to government. A
man is dra!ted though he !inds nothing in the Constitution
about being dra!ted. . . . A !armer is told how much wheat he
can raiseK he believes and he discovers that some respectable
lawyers believe with him that the government has no more right
to tell him how much wheat he can grow than it has to tell his
daughter whom she can marry. A man goes to the !ederal
penitentiary !or saying what he wants to and he paces his cell
reciting . . . OCongress shall ma9e no laws abridging the
!reedom o! speech.O. . . A businessman is told what he can as9
and must as9 !or buttermil9.
5he danger is real enough that each o! these people "and who
is not o! their number7# will con!ront the concept o!
governmental limitation with the reality "as he sees it# o! the
!lagrant overstepping o! actual limits and draw the obvious
conclusion as to the status o! his government with respect to
legitimacy.
22
130
5his danger is averted by the )tateFs propounding the doctrine that one
agency must have the ultimate decision on constitutionality and that
this agency in the last analysis must be part o! the !ederal
government.
2-
$or while the seeming independence o! the !ederal
<udiciary has played a vital part in ma9ing its actions virtual Holy Writ
!or the bul9 o! the people it is also and ever true that the <udiciary is
part and parcel o! the government apparatus and appointed by the
e=ecutive and legislative branches. *lac9 admits that this means that
the )tate has set itsel! up as a <udge in its own cause thus violating a
basic <uridical principle !or aiming at <ust decisions. He brus@uely
denies the possibility o! any alternative.
21
*lac9 adds.
5he problem then is to devise such governmental means o!
deciding as will \hope!ully] reduce to a tolerable minimum the
intensity o! the ob<ection that government is <udge in its own
cause. Having done this you can only hope that this ob<ection
though theoretically still tenable \italics mine] will practically lose
enough o! its !orce that the legitimating wor9 o! the deciding
institution can win acceptance.
23
(n the last analysis *lac9 !inds the achievement o! <ustice and
legitimacy !rom the )tateFs perpetual <udging o! its own cause as
Osomething o! a miracle.O
22
Applying his thesis to the !amous con!lict between the )upreme Court
and the +ew :eal 'ro!essor *lac9 9eenly chides his !ellow pro,+ew
:eal colleagues !or their shortsightedness in denouncing <udicial
obstruction.
\t]he standard version o! the story o! the +ew :eal and the Court
though accurate in its way displaces the emphasis. . . . (t
concentrates on the di!!icultiesK it almost !orgets how the whole
thing turned out. 5he upshot o! the matter was \and this is what (
li9e to emphasiDe] that a!ter some twenty,!our months o! bal9ing .
. . the )upreme Court without a single change in the law o! its
composition or indeed in its actual manning placed the
affirmative stamp of legitimacy on the /ew 'eal, and on the
whole new conception of government in 2merica.
20
(n this way the )upreme Court was able to put the @uietus on the large
body o! Americans who had had strong constitutional ob<ections to the
13%
+ew :eal.
&! course not everyone was satis!ied. 5he *onnie 'rince
Charlie o! constitutionally commanded laisseD,!aire still stirs the
hearts o! a !ew Dealots in the Highlands o! choleric unreality.
*ut there is no longer any signi!icant or dangerous public doubt
as to the constitutional power o! Congress to deal as it does
with the national economy. . . .
We had no means other than the )upreme Court !or imparting
legitimacy to the +ew :eal.
2%
As *lac9 recogniDes one ma<or political theorist who recogniDed J and
largely in advance J the glaring loophole in a constitutional limit on
government o! placing the ultimate interpreting power in the )upreme
Court was 6ohn C. Calhoun. Calhoun was not content with the
OmiracleO but instead proceeded to a pro!ound analysis o! the
constitutional problem. (n his 'isquisition Calhoun demonstrated the
inherent tendency o! the )tate to brea9 through the limits o! such a
constitution.
A written constitution certainly has many and considerable
advantages but it is a great mista9e to suppose that the mere
insertion o! provisions to restrict and limit the power o! the
government without investing those for whose protection they
are inserted with the means of enforcing their observance \my
italics] will be su!!icient to prevent the ma<or and dominant party
!rom abusing its powers. *eing the party in possession o! the
government they will !rom the same constitution o! man which
ma9es government necessary to protect society be in !avor o!
the powers granted by the constitution and opposed to the
restrictions intended to limit them. . . . 5he minor or wea9er
party on the contrary would ta9e the opposite direction and
regard them \the restrictions] as essential to their protection
against the dominant party. . . . *ut where there are no means
by which they could compel the ma<or party to observe the
restrictions the only resort le!t them would be a strict
construction o! the constitution. . . . 5o this the ma<or party
would oppose a liberal construction. . . . (t would be
construction against construction J the one to contract and the
other to enlarge the powers o! the government to the utmost.
*ut o! what possible avail could the strict construction o! the
minor party be against the liberal construction o! the ma<or
13/
when the one would have all the power o! the government to
carry its construction into e!!ect and the other be deprived o! all
means o! en!orcing its construction7 (n a contest so une@ual
the result would not be doubt!ul. 5he party in !avor o! the
restrictions would be overpowered. . . . 5he end o! the contest
would be the subversion o! the constitution . . . the restrictions
would ultimately be annulled and the government be converted
into one o! unlimited powers.
2/
&ne o! the !ew political scientists who appreciated CalhounFs analysis
o! the Constitution was 'ro!essor 6. Allen )mith. )mith noted that the
Constitution was designed with chec9s and balances to limit any one
governmental power and yet had then developed a )upreme Court with
the monopoly o! ultimate interpreting power. (! the $ederal Aovernment
was created to chec9 invasions o! individual liberty by the separate
states who was to chec9 the $ederal power7 )mith maintained that
implicit in the chec9,and,balance idea o! the Constitution was the
concomitant view that no one branch o! government may be conceded
the ultimate power o! interpretation. O(t was assumed by the people that
the new government could not be permitted to determine the limits o!
its own authority since this would ma9e it and not the Constitution
supreme.O
-0
5he solution advanced by Calhoun "and seconded in this century by
such writers as )mith# was o! course the !amous doctrine o! the
Oconcurrent ma<ority.O (! any substantial minority interest in the country
speci!ically a state government believed that the $ederal Aovernment
was e=ceeding its powers and encroaching on that minority the
minority would have the right to veto this e=ercise o! power as
unconstitutional. Applied to state governments this theory implied the
right o! Onulli!icationO o! a $ederal law or ruling within a stateFs
<urisdiction.
(n theory the ensuing constitutional system would assure that the
$ederal Aovernment chec9 any state invasion o! individual rights while
the states would chec9 e=cessive $ederal power over the individual.
And yet while limitations would undoubtedly be more e!!ective than at
present there are many di!!iculties and problems in the Calhoun
solution. (! indeed a subordinate interest should right!ully have a veto
over matters concerning it then why stop with the states7 Why not
place veto power in counties cities wards7 $urthermore interests are
not only sectional they are also occupational social etc. What o!
120
ba9ers or ta=i drivers or any other occupation7 )hould they not be
permitted a veto power over their own lives7 5his brings us to the
important point that the nulli!ication theory con!ines its chec9s to
agencies of government itsel!. Let us not !orget that !ederal and state
governments and their respective branches are still states are still
guided by their own state interests rather than by the interests o! the
private citiDens. What is to prevent the Calhoun system !rom wor9ing in
reverse with states tyranniDing over their citiDens and only vetoing the
!ederal government when it tries to intervene to stop that state tyranny7
&r !or states to ac@uiesce in !ederal tyranny7 What is to prevent !ederal
and state governments !rom !orming mutually pro!itable alliances !or
the <oint e=ploitation o! the citiDenry7 And even i! the private
occupational groupings were to be given some !orm o! O!unctionalO
representation in government what is to prevent them !rom using the
)tate to gain subsidies and other special privileges !or themselves or
!rom imposing compulsory cartels on their own members7
(n short Calhoun does not push his pathbrea9ing theory on
concurrence !ar enough. he does not push it down to the individual
himsel!. (! the individual a!ter all is the one whose rights are to be
protected then a consistent theory o! concurrence would imply veto
power by every individualK that is some !orm o! Ounanimity principle.O
When Calhoun wrote that it should be Oimpossible to put or to 9eep it
\the government] in action without the concurrent consent o! allO he
was perhaps unwittingly implying <ust such a conclusion.
-1
*ut such
speculation begins to ta9e us away !rom our sub<ect !or down this path
lie political systems which could hardly be called O)tatesO at all.
-2
$or
one thing <ust as the right o! nulli!ication !or a state logically implies its
right o! secession so a right o! individual nulli!ication would imply the
right o! any individual to OsecedeO !rom the )tate under which he lives.
--
5hus the )tate has invariably shown a stri9ing talent !or the e=pansion
o! its powers beyond any limits that might be imposed upon it. )ince
the )tate necessarily lives by the compulsory con!iscation o! private
capital and since its e=pansion necessarily involves ever,greater
incursions on private individuals and private enterprise we must assert
that the )tate is pro!oundly and inherently anticapitalist. (n a sense our
position is the reverse o! the ;ar=ist dictum that the )tate is the
Oe=ecutive committeeO o! the ruling class in the present day
supposedly the capitalists. (nstead the )tate J the organiDation o! the
political means J constitutes and is the source o! the Oruling classO
"rather ruling caste# and is in permanent opposition to genuinely
121
private capital. We may there!ore say with de 6ouvenel.
&nly those who 9now nothing o! any time but their own who are
completely in the dar9 as to the manner o! 'owerFs behaving
through thousands o! years would regard these proceedings
\nationaliDation the income ta= etc.] as the !ruit o! a particular
set o! doctrines. 5hey are in !act the normal mani!estations o!
'ower and di!!er not at all in their nature !rom Henry ?(((Fs
con!iscation o! the monasteries. 5he same principle is at wor9K
the hunger !or authority the thirst !or resourcesK and in all o!
these operations the same characteristics are present including
the rapid elevation o! the dividers o! the spoils. Whether it is
)ocialist or whether it is not 'ower must always be at war with
the capitalist authorities and despoil the capitalists o! their
accumulated wealthK in doing so it obeys the law o! its nature.
-1

What the State 7ears
What the )tate !ears above all o! course is any !undamental threat to
its own power and its own e=istence. 5he death o! a )tate can come
about in two ma<or ways. "a# through con@uest by another )tate or "b#
through revolutionary overthrow by its own sub<ects J in short by war
or revolution. War and revolution as the two basic threats invariably
arouse in the )tate rulers their ma=imum e!!orts and ma=imum
propaganda among the people. As stated above any way must always
be used to mobiliDe the people to come to the )tateFs de!ense in the
belie! that they are de!ending themselves. 5he !allacy o! the idea
becomes evident when conscription is wielded against those who
re!use to Ode!endO themselves and are there!ore !orced into <oining the
)tateFs military band. needless to add no Ode!enseO is permitted them
against this act o! Otheir ownO )tate.
(n war )tate power is pushed to its ultimate and under the slogans o!
Ode!enseO and OemergencyO it can impose a tyranny upon the public
such as might be openly resisted in time o! peace. War thus provides
many bene!its to a )tate and indeed every modern war has brought to
the warring peoples a permanent legacy o! increased )tate burdens
upon society. War moreover provides to a )tate tempting
opportunities !or con@uest o! land areas over which it may e=ercise its
monopoly o! !orce. 8andolph *ourne was certainly correct when he
wrote that Owar is the health o! the )tateO but to any particular )tate a
122
war may spell either health or grave in<ury.
-3
We may test the hypothesis that the )tate is largely interested in
protecting itself rather than its sub<ects by as9ing. which category o!
crimes does the )tate pursue and punish most intensely J those
against private citiDens or those against itself7 5he gravest crimes in
the )tateFs le=icon are almost invariably not invasions o! private person
or property but dangers to its own contentment !or e=ample treason
desertion o! a soldier to the enemy !ailure to register !or the dra!t
subversion and subversive conspiracy assassination o! rulers and
such economic crimes against the )tate as counter!eiting its money or
evasion o! its income ta=. &r compare the degree o! Deal devoted to
pursuing the man who assaults a policeman with the attention that the
)tate pays to the assault o! an ordinary citiDen. Get curiously the
)tateFs openly assigned priority to its own de!ense against the public
stri9es !ew people as inconsistent with its presumed raison d'etre.
-2
Ho$ States (elate to 6ne Another
)ince the territorial area o! the earth is divided among di!!erent )tates
inter,)tate relations must occupy much o! a )tateFs time and energy.
5he natural tendency o! a )tate is to e=pand its power and e=ternally
such e=pansion ta9es place by con@uest o! a territorial area. Hnless a
territory is stateless or uninhabited any such e=pansion involves an
inherent con!lict o! interest between one set o! )tate rulers and
another. &nly one set o! rulers can obtain a monopoly o! coercion over
any given territorial area at any one time. complete power over a
territory by )tate > can only be obtained by the e=pulsion o! )tate G.
War while ris9y will be an ever,present tendency o! )tates
punctuated by periods o! peace and by shi!ting alliances and coalitions
between )tates.
We have seen that the OinternalO or OdomesticO attempt to limit the
)tate in the seventeenth through nineteenth centuries reached its
most notable !orm in constitutionalism. (ts Oe=ternalO or O!oreign a!!airsO
counterpart was the development o! Ointernational lawO especially such
!orms as the Olaws o! warO and OneutralsF rights.O
-0
'arts o! international
law were originally purely private growing out o! the need o! merchants
and traders everywhere to protect their property and ad<udicate
disputes. 4=amples are admiralty law and the law merchant. *ut even
the governmental rules emerged voluntarily and were not imposed by
any international super,)tate. 5he ob<ect o! the Olaws o! warO was to
12-
limit inter,)tate destruction to the &tate apparatus itself thereby
preserving the innocent OcivilianO public !rom the slaughter and
devastation o! war. 5he ob<ect o! the development o! neutralsF rights
was to preserve private civilian international commerce even with
OenemyO countries !rom seiDure by one o! the warring parties. 5he
overriding aim then was to limit the e=tent o! any war and particularly
to limit its destructive impact on the private citiDens o! the neutral and
even the warring countries.
5he <urist $.6.'. ?eale charmingly describes such OciviliDed war!areO as
it brie!ly !lourished in !i!teenth,century (taly.
the rich burghers and merchants o! medieval (taly were too busy
ma9ing money and en<oying li!e to underta9e the hardships and
dangers o! soldiering themselves. )o they adopted the practice
o! hiring mercenaries to do their !ighting !or them and being
thri!ty businessli9e !ol9 they dismissed their mercenaries
immediately a!ter their services could be dispensed with. Wars
were there!ore !ought by armies hired !or each campaign. . . .
$or the !irst time soldiering became a reasonable and
comparatively harmless pro!ession. 5he generals o! that period
maneuvered against each other o!ten with consummate s9ill but
when one had won the advantage his opponent generally either
retreated or surrendered. (t was a recogniDed rule that a town
could only be sac9ed i! it o!!ered resistance. immunity could
always be purchased by paying a ransom. . . . As one natural
conse@uence no town ever resisted it being obvious that a
government too wea9 to de!end its citiDens had !or!eited their
allegiance. Civilians had little to !ear !rom the dangers o! war
which were the concern only o! pro!essional soldiers.
-%
5he well,nigh absolute separation o! the private civilian !rom the )tateFs
wars in eighteenth,century 4urope is highlighted by +e!.
4ven postal communications were not success!ully restricted
!or long in wartime. Letters circulated without censorship with a
!reedom that astonishes the twentieth,century mind. . . . 5he
sub<ects o! two warring nations tal9ed to each other i! they met
and when they could not meet corresponded not as enemies
but as !riends. 5he modern notion hardly e=isted that . . .
sub<ects o! any enemy country are partly accountable !or the
belligerent acts o! their rulers. +or had the warring rulers any
121
!irm disposition to stop communications with sub<ects o! the
enemy. 5he old in@uisitorial practices o! espionage in
connection with religious worship and belie! were disappearing
and no comparable in@uisition in connection with political or
economic communications was even contemplated. 'assports
were originally created to provide sa!e conduct in time o! war.
:uring most o! the eighteenth century it seldom occurred to
4uropeans to abandon their travels in a !oreign country which
their own was !ighting.
-/
And trade being increasingly recogniDed as bene!icial to both
partiesK eighteenth,century war!are also counterbalances a
considerable amount o! Otrading with the enemy.O
10
How !ar )tates have transcended rules o! civiliDed war!are in this
century needs no elaboration here. (n the modern era o! total war
combined with the technology o! total destruction the very idea o!
9eeping war limited to the )tate apparati seems even more @uaint and
obsolete than the original Constitution o! the Hnited )tates.
When )tates are not at war agreements are o!ten necessary to 9eep
!rictions at a minimum. &ne doctrine that has gained curiously wide
acceptance is the alleged Osanctity o! treaties.O 5his concept is treated
as the counterpart o! the Osanctity o! contract.O *ut a treaty and a
genuine contract have nothing in common. A contract trans!ers in a
precise manner titles to private property. )ince a government does
not in any proper sense OownO its territorial area any agreements that
it concludes do not con!er titles to property. (! !or e=ample ;r. 6ones
sells or gives his land to ;r. )mith 6onesFs heir cannot legitimately
descend upon )mithFs heir and claim the land as right!ully his. 5he
property title has already been trans!erred. &ld 6onesFs contract is
automatically binding upon young 6ones because the !ormer had
already trans!erred the propertyK young 6ones there!ore has no
property claim. Goung 6ones can only claim that which he has inherited
!rom old 6ones and old 6ones can only be@ueath property which he
still owns. *ut i! at a certain date the government o! say 8uritania is
coerced or even bribed by the government o! Waldavia into giving up
some o! its territory it is absurd to claim that the governments or
inhabitants o! the two countries are !orever barred !rom a claim to
reuni!ication o! 8uritania on the grounds o! the sanctity o! a treaty.
+either the people nor the land o! northwest 8uritania are owned by
either o! the two governments. As a corollary one government can
123
certainly not bind by the dead hand o! the past a later government
through treaty. A revolutionary government which overthrew the 9ing o!
8uritania could similarly hardly be called to account !or the 9ingFs
actions or debts !or a government is not as is a child a true OheirO to
its predecessorFs property.
History as a (ace %et$een State Po$er and Social Po$er
6ust as the two basic and mutually e=clusive interrelations between
men are peace!ul cooperation or coercive e=ploitation production or
predation so the history o! man9ind particularly its economic history
may be considered as a contest between these two principles. &n the
one hand there is creative productivity peace!ul e=change and
cooperationK on the other coercive dictation and predation over those
social relations. Albert 6ay +oc9 happily termed these contesting
!orces. Osocial powerO and O)tate power.O
11
)ocial power is manFs
power over nature his cooperative trans!ormation o! natureFs resources
and insight into natureFs laws !or the bene!it o! all participating
individuals. )ocial power is the power over nature the living standards
achieved by men in mutual e=change. )tate power as we have seen
is the coercive and parasitic seiDure o! this production J a draining o!
the !ruits o! society !or the bene!it o! nonproductive "actually
antiproductive# rulers. While social power is over nature )tate power is
power over man. 5hrough history manFs productive and creative !orces
have time and again carved out new ways o! trans!orming nature !or
manFs bene!it. 5hese have been the times when social power has
spurted ahead o! )tate power and when the degree o! )tate
encroachment over society has considerably lessened. *ut always
a!ter a greater or smaller time lag the )tate has moved into these new
areas to cripple and con!iscate social power once more.
12
(! the
seventeenth through the nineteenth centuries were in many countries
o! the West times o! accelerating social power and a corollary
increase in !reedom peace and material wel!are the twentieth century
has been primarily an age in which )tate power has been catching up J
with a conse@uent reversion to slavery war and destruction.
1-
(n this century the human race !aces once again the virulent reign o!
the )tate J o! the )tate now armed with the !ruits o! manFs creative
powers con!iscated and perverted to its own aims. 5he last !ew
centuries were times when men tried to place constitutional and other
limits on the )tate only to !ind that such limits as with all other
122
attempts have !ailed. &! all the numerous !orms that governments
have ta9en over the centuries o! all the concepts and institutions that
have been tried none has succeeded in 9eeping the )tate in chec9.
5he problem o! the )tate is evidently as !ar !rom solution as ever.
'erhaps new paths o! in@uiry must be e=plored i! the success!ul !inal
solution o! the )tate @uestion is ever to be attained.
11
Notes:
d @galitarianism as a %evolt 2gainst /ature and 8ther @ssays by
;urray +. 8othbard "Auburn. ;ises (nstitute 2000 \1/01]# pp. 33,%%.
1
We cannot in this chapter develop the many problems and !allacies
o! Odemocracy.O )u!!ice it to say here that an individualFs true agent or
OrepresentativeO is always sub<ect to that individualFs orders can be
dismissed at any time and cannot act contrary to the interests or
wishes o! his principal. Clearly the OrepresentativeO in a democracy can
never !ul!ill such agency !unctions the only ones consonant with a
libertarian society.
2
)ocial democrats o!ten retort that democracy J ma<ority choice o!
rulers J logically implies that the ma<ority must leave certain !reedoms
to the minority !or the minority might one day become the ma<ority.
Apart !rom other !laws this argument obviously does not hold where
the minority cannot become the ma<ority !or e=ample when the
minority is o! a di!!erent racial or ethnic group !rom the ma<ority.
-
6oseph A. )chumpeter ,apitalism, &ocialism, and 'emocracy "+ew
Gor9. Harper and *ros. 1/12# p. 1/%. 5he !riction or antagonism
between the private and the public sphere was intensi!ied !rom the !irst
by the !act that . . . the )tate has been living on a revenue which was
being produced in the private sphere !or private purposes and had to
be de!lected !rom these purposes by political !orce. 5he theory which
construes ta=es on the analogy o! club dues or o! the purchase o! the
service o! say a doctor only proves how !ar removed this part o! the
social sciences is !rom scienti!ic habits o! mind.
Also see ;urray +. 8othbard O5he $allacy o! the F'ublic )ectorOF /ew
Individualist %eview ")ummer 1/21#. -!!.
1
$ranD &ppenheimer 9he &tate "+ew Gor9. ?anguard 'ress 1/22#
pp. 21J20.
120
5here are two !undamentally opposed means whereby man
re@uiring sustenance is impelled to obtain the necessary means
!or satis!ying his desires. 5hese are wor9 and robbery oneFs own
labor and the !orcible appropriation o! the labor o! others. . . . (
propose in the !ollowing discussion to call oneFs own labor and
the e@uivalent e=change o! oneFs own labor !or the labor o!
others the Oeconomic meansO !or the satis!action o! need while
the unre@uited appropriation o! the labor o! others will be called
the Opolitical meansO. . . . 5he )tate is an organiDation o! the
political means. +o )tate there!ore can come into being until the
economic means has created a de!inite number o! ob<ects !or the
satis!action o! needs which ob<ects may be ta9en away or
appropriated by warli9e robbery.
3
Albert 6ay +oc9 wrote vividly that
the )tate claims and e=ercises the monopoly o! crime. . . . (t
!orbids private murder but itsel! organiDes murder on a colossal
scale. (t punishes private the!t but itsel! lays unscrupulous hands
on anything it wants whether the property o! citiDen or o! alien.
+oc9 8n 'oing the %ight 9hing, and 8ther @ssays "+ew Gor9. Harper
and *ros. 1/2/# p. 11-K @uoted in 6ac9 )chwartDman OAlbert 6ay
+oc9 J A )uper!luous ;anO 5aith and 5reedom ":ecember 1/3-#. 11.
2
&ppenheimer 9he &tate p. 13.
What then is the )tate as a sociological concept7 5he )tate
completely in its genesis . . . is a social institution !orced by a
victorious group o! men on a de!eated group with the sole
purpose o! regulating the dominion o! the victorious group o! men
on a de!eated group and securing itsel! against revolt !rom within
and attac9s !rom abroad. 5eleologically this dominion had no
other purpose than the economic e=ploitation o! the van@uished
by the victors.
And de 6ouvenel has written. Othe )tate is in essence the result o! the
successes achieved by a band o! brigands who superimpose
themselves on small distinct societies.O *ertrand de 6ouvenel 8n
+ower "+ew Gor9. ?i9ing 'ress 1/1/# pp. 100J01.
0
&n the crucial distinction between OcasteO a group with privileges or
12%
burdens coercively granted or imposed by the )tate and the ;ar=ian
concept o! OclassO in society see Ludwig von ;ises 9heory and
1istory "+ew Haven Conn.. Gale Hniversity 'ress 1/30# pp. 112!!.
%
)uch acceptance does not o! course imply that the )tate rule has
become OvoluntaryOK !or even i! the ma<ority support be active and
eager this support is not unanimous by every individual.
/
5hat every government no matter how OdictatorialO over individuals
must secure such support has been demonstrated by such acute
political theorists as Etienne de la *oBtie :avid Hume and Ludwig von
;ises. 5hus c!. :avid Hume O&! the $irst 'rinciples o! AovernmentO
in @ssays, -iterary, 0oral and +olitical "London. Ward Loc9e and
5aylor n.d.# p. 2-K Etienne de la *oBtie 2nti4'ictator "+ew Gor9.
Columbia Hniversity 'ress 1/12# pp. %J/K Ludwig von ;ises 1uman
2ction "Auburn Ala.. ;ises (nstitute 1//%# pp. 1%%!!. $or more on the
contribution to the analysis o! the )tate by la *oBtie see &scar 6asDi
and 6ohn :. Lewis 2gainst the 9yrant "Alencoe (ll.. 5he $ree 'ress
1/30# pp. 33J30.
10
La *oBtie 2nti4'ictator pp. 1-J11.
Whenever a ruler ma9es himsel! dictator . . . all those who are
corrupted by burning ambition or e=traordinary avarice these
gather around him and support him in order to have a share in
the booty and to constitute themselves petty chie!s under the big
tyrant.
11
5his by no means implies that all intellectuals ally themselves with
the )tate. &n aspects o! the alliance o! intellectuals and the )tate c!.
*ertrand de 6ouvenel O5he Attitude o! the (ntellectuals to the ;ar9et
)ocietyO 9he 8wl "6anuary 1/31#. 1/J20K idem O5he 5reatment o!
Capitalism by Continental (ntellectualsO in $.A. Haye9 ed. ,apitalism
and the 1istorians "Chicago. Hniversity o! Chicago 'ress 1/31# pp.
/-J12-K reprinted in Aeorge *. de HusDar 9he Intellectuals "Alencoe
(ll.. 5he $ree 'ress 1/20# pp. -%3J//K and )chumpeter Imperialism
and &ocial ,lasses "+ew Gor9. ;eridian *oo9s 1/03# pp. 11-J33.
12
6oseph +eedham O8eview o! Carl A. Witt!ogel 8riental 'espotism,*
&cience and &ociety "1/3%#. 23. +eedham also writes that Othe
successive \Chinese] emperors were served in all ages by a great
company o! pro!oundly humane and disinterested scholarsO p. 21.
Witt!ogel notes the Con!ucian doctrine that the glory o! the ruling class
12/
rested on its gentleman scholar,bureaucrat o!!icials destined to be
pro!essional rulers dictating to the mass o! the populace. Carl A.
Witt!ogel 8riental 'espotism "+ew Haven Conn.. Gale Hniversity
'ress 1/30# pp. -20J21 and passim. $or an attitude contrasting to
+eedhamFs c!. 6ohn Lu9acs O(ntellectual Class or (ntellectual
'ro!ession7O in de HusDar 9he Intellectuals pp. 321J22.
1-
6eanne 8ibs O5he War 'lottersO -iberation "August 1/21#. 1-.
O\s]trategists insist that their occupation deserves the Fdignity o! the
academic counterpart o! the military pro!ession.FO Also see ;arcus
8as9in O5he ;egadeath (ntellectualsO /ew Lork %eview of )ooks
"+ovember 11 1/2-#. 2J0.
11
5hus the historian Conyers 8ead in his presidential address
advocated the suppression o! historical !act in the service o!
OdemocraticO and national values. 8ead proclaimed that Ototal war
whether it is hot or cold enlists everyone and calls upon everyone to
play his part. 5he historian is not !reer !rom this obligation than the
physicist.O 8ead O5he )ocial 8esponsibilities o! the HistorianO
2merican 1istorical %eview "1/31#. 2%-!!. $or a criti@ue o! 8ead and
other aspects o! court history see Howard C. *eale O5he 'ro!essional
Historian. His 5heory and 'racticeO 9he +acific 1istorical %eview
"August 1/3-#. 220J33. Also c!. Herbert *utter!ield O&!!icial History. (ts
'it!alls and CriteriaO 1istory and 1uman %elations "+ew Gor9.
;acmillan 1/32# pp. 1%2J221K and Harry 4lmer *arnes 9he ,ourt
1istorians <ersus %evisionism "n.d.# pp. 2!!.
13
C!. Witt!ogel 8riental 'espotism pp. %0J100. &n the contrasting
roles o! religion vis,e,vis the )tate in ancient China and 6apan see
+orman 6acobs 9he 8rigin of 0odern ,apitalism and @astern 2sia
"Hong Cong. Hong Cong Hniversity 'ress 1/3%# pp. 121J/1.
12
:e 6ouvenel 8n +ower p. 22.
5he essential reason !or obedience is that it has become a habit
o! the species. . . . 'ower is !or us a !act o! nature. $rom the
earliest days o! recorded history it has always presided over
human destinies . . . the authorities which ruled \societies] in
!ormer times did not disappear without be@ueathing to their
successors their privilege nor without leaving in menFs minds
imprints which are cumulative in their e!!ect. 5he succession o!
governments which in the course o! centuries rule the same
society may be loo9ed on as one underlying government which
100
ta9es on continuous accretions.
10
&n such uses o! the religion o! China see +orman 6acobs passim.
1%
H.L. ;enc9en 2 0encken ,hrestomathy "+ew Gor9. Cnop! 1/1/#
p. 113.
All \government] can see in an original idea is potential change
and hence an invasion o! its prerogatives. 5he most dangerous
man to any government is the man who is able to thin9 things
out !or himsel! without regard to the prevailing superstitions and
taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the
government he lives under is dishonest insane and intolerable
and so i! he is romantic he tries to change it. And even i! he is
not romantic personally he is very apt to spread discontent
among those who are.
1/
(bid. pp. 112J10.
20
:e 6ouvenel 8n +ower pp. 20!!.
21
Charles L. *lac9. 6r. 9he +eople and the ,ourt "+ew Gor9.
;acmillan 1/20# pp. -3!!.
22
(bid. pp. 12J1-.
2-
(bid. p. 32.
5he prime and most necessary !unction o! the \)upreme] Court
has been that o! validation not that o! invalidation. What a
government o! limited powers needs at the beginning and
!orever is some means o! satis!ying the people that it has ta9en
all steps humanly possible to stay within its powers. 5his is the
condition o! its legitimacy and its legitimacy in the long run is
the condition o! its li!e. And the Court through its history has
acted as the legitimation o! the government.
21
5o *lac9 this OsolutionO while parado=ical is blithely sel!,evident.
the !inal power o! the )tate . . . must stop where the law stops it.
And who shall set the limit and who shall en!orce the stopping
against the mightiest power7 Why the )tate itsel! o! course
through its <udges and its laws. Who controls the temperate7
Who teaches the wise7 "(bid. pp. -2J--#
101
And.
Where the @uestions concern governmental power in a sovereign
nation it is not possible to select an umpire who is outside
government. 4very national government so long as it is a
government must have the !inal say on its own power. "(bid. pp.
1%J1/#
23
(bid. p. 1/.
22
5his ascription o! the miraculous to government is reminiscent o!
6ames *urnhamFs <usti!ication o! government by mysticism and
irrationality.
(n ancient times be!ore the illusions o! science had corrupted
traditional wisdom the !ounders o! cities were 9nown to be gods
or demigods. . . . +either the source nor the <usti!ication o!
government can be put in wholly rational terms . . . why should (
accept the hereditary or democratic or any other principle o!
legitimacy7 Why should a principle <usti!y the rule o! that man
over me7 . . . ( accept the principle well . . . because ( do
because that is the way it is and has been.
6ames *urnham ,ongress and the 2merican 9radition "Chicago.
8egnery 1/3/# pp. -J%. *ut what i! one does not accept the principle7
What will Othe wayO be then7
20
*lac9 9he +eople and the ,ourt p. 21.
2%
(bid. p. 23.
2/
6ohn C. Calhoun 2 'isquisition on (overnment "+ew Gor9. Liberal
Arts 'ress 1/3-# pp. 23J20. Also c!. ;urray +. 8othbard
OConservatism and $reedom. A Libertarian CommentO 0odern 2ge
")pring 1/21#. 21/.
-0
6. Allen )mith 9he (rowth and 'ecadence of ,onstitutional
(overnment "+ew Gor9. Henry Holt 1/-0# p. %%. )mith added.
it was obvious that where a provision o! the Constitution was
designed to limit the powers o! a governmental organ it could
be e!!ectively nulli!ied i! its interpretation and en!orcement are
le!t to the authorities as it designed to restrain. Clearly common
sense re@uired that no organ o! the government should be able
102
to determine its own powers.
Clearly common sense and OmiraclesO dictate very di!!erent views o!
government "p. %0#.
-1
Calhoun 2 'isquisition on (overnment pp. 20J21.
-2
(n recent years the unanimity principle has e=perienced a highly
diluted revival particularly in the writings o! 'ro!essor 6ames
*uchanan. (n<ecting unanimity into the present situation however and
applying it only to changes in the status quo and not to e=isting laws
can only result in another trans!ormation o! a limiting concept into a
rubber stamp !or the )tate. (! the unanimity principle is to be applied
only to changes in laws and edicts the nature o! the initial Opoint o!
originO then ma9es all the di!!erence. C!. 6ames *uchanan and Aordon
5ulloc9 9he ,alculus of ,onsent "Ann Arbor. Hniversity o! ;ichigan
'ress 1/22# passim.
--
C!. Herbert )pencer O5he 8ight to (gnore the )tateO in &ocial &tatics
"+ew Gor9. :. Appleton 1%/0# pp. 22/J-/.
-1
:e 6ouvenel 8n +ower p. 101.
-3
We have seen that essential to the )tate is support by the
intellectuals and this includes support against their two acute threats.
5hus on the role o! American intellectuals in AmericaFs entry into World
War ( see 8andolph *ourne O5he War and the (ntellectualsO in 9he
1istory of a -iterary %adical and 8ther +apers "+ew Gor9. ).A.
8ussell 1/32# pp. 203J22. As *ourne states a common device o!
intellectuals in winning support !or )tate actions is to channel any
discussion within the limits o! basic )tate policy and to discourage any
!undamental or total criti@ue o! this basic !ramewor9.
-2
As ;enc9en puts it in his inimitable !ashion.
5his gang "Othe e=ploiters constituting the governmentO# is well
nigh immune to punishment. (ts worst e=tortions even when they
are baldly !or private pro!it carry no certain penalties under our
laws. )ince the !irst days o! the 8epublic less than a !ew doDen
o! its members have been impeached and only a !ew obscure
understrappers have ever been put into prison. 5he number o!
men sitting at Atlanta and Leavenworth !or revolting against the
e=tortions o! the government is always ten times as great as the
number o! government o!!icials condemned !or oppressing the
ta=payers to their own gain. ";enc9en 2 0encken
10-
,hrestomathy pp. 110J1%#
$or a vivid and entertaining description o! the lac9 o! protection !or the
individual against incursion o! his liberty by his OprotectorsO see H.L.
;enc9en O5he +ature o! LibertyO in +re$udices> 2 &election "+ew
Gor9. ?intage *oo9s 1/3%# pp. 1-%J1-.
-0
5his is to be distinguished !rom modern international law with its
stress on ma=imiDing the e=tent o! war through such concepts as
Ocollective security.O
-%
$.6.'. ?eale 2dvance to )arbarism "Appleton Wis.. C.C. +elson
1/3-# p. 2-. )imilarly 'ro!essor +e! writes o! the War o! :on Carlos
waged in (taly between $rance )pain and )ardinia against Austria in
the eighteenth century.
at the siege o! ;ilan by the allies and several wee9s later at
'arma . . . the rival armies met in a !ierce battle outside the town.
(n neither place were the sympathies o! the inhabitants seriously
moved by one side or the other. 5heir only !ear as that the troops
o! either army should get within the gates and pillage. 5he !ear
proved groundless. At 'arma the citiDens ran to the town walls to
watch the battle in the open country beyond. "6ohn H. +e! ;ar
and 1uman +rogress \Cambridge ;ass.. Harvard Hniversity
'ress 1/30] p. 13%. Also c!. Ho!!man +ic9erson ,an ;e -imit
;ar7 \+ew Gor9. $rederic9 A. )to9e 1/-1]#
-/
+e! ;ar and 1uman +rogress p. 122.
10
(bid. p. 121. &n advocacy o! trading with the enemy by leaders o! the
American 8evolution see 6oseph :or!man 9he @conomic 0ind in
2merican ,ivilization "+ew Gor9. ?i9ing 'ress 1/12# vol. 1 pp. 210J
11.
11
&n the concepts o! )tate power and social power see Albert 6. +oc9
8ur @nemy the &tate "Caldwell (daho. Ca=ton 'rinters 1/12#. Also
see +oc9 0emoirs of a &uperfluous 0an "+ew Gor9. Harpers 1/1-#
and $ran9 Chodorov 9he %ise and 5all of &ociety "+ew Gor9. :evin,
Adair 1/3/#.
12
Amidst the !lu= o! e=pansion or contraction the )tate always ma9es
sure that it seiDes and retains certain crucial Ocommand postsO o! the
economy and society. Among these command posts are a monopoly o!
101
violence monopoly o! the ultimate <udicial power the channels o!
communication and transportation "post o!!ice roads rivers air routes#
irrigated water in &riental despotisms and education J to mold the
opinions o! its !uture citiDens. (n the modern economy money is the
critical command post.
1-
5his parasitic process o! Ocatching upO has been almost openly
proclaimed by Carl ;ar= who conceded that socialism must be
established through seiDure o! capital previously accumulated under
capitalism.
11
Certainly one indispensable ingredient o! such a solution must be
the sundering o! the alliance o! intellectual and )tate through the
creation o! centers o! intellectual in@uiry and education which will be
independent o! )tate power. Christopher :awson notes that the great
intellectual movements o! the 8enaissance and the 4nlightenment
were achieved by wor9ing outside o! and sometimes against the
entrenched universities. 5hese academia o! the new ideas were
established by independent patrons. )ee Christopher :awson 9he
,risis of ;estern @ducation "+ew Gor9. )heed and Ward 1/21#.
103