Historically, the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century was also "imported" in. At that time, compared to the feudal ignorance of France, Britain was simply a symbol of advanced and enlightened. Voltaire went into exile in the country in 1726 and learned their advanced theoretical knowledge. In the natural sciences it is Newton's classical mechanics, and in philosophy it is Locke's empiricism. Locke was the first to push down the idea of talent, which greatly influenced Voltaire, Condiac, Aer repair, and even Rousseau. Of course, Locke was not only a philosopher, he was also a well-known political scientist, and the Treatise on Government, published before and after the Glorious Revolution, was once hailed as "the Bible of the Modern Bourgeois Revolution." Not having read or failing to read this book is not a pity for every political science enthusiast.
"The Theory of Government" is divided into two parts, the first part is of a polemical nature, mainly attacking the absurd theory of the divine right of kings and hereditary legitimacy advocated by Dr. Robert Fermer; the second part is a direct discussion of Locke's political thought, which can be roughly divided into three paragraphs: the origin of the government, the purpose of establishing the government, and the final disintegration of the government - in a word: how the government came into being, and why it will perish! Let us take the opening part to analyze why a government is still established in the natural state of freedom and equality for all. Does the government hinder people's freedoms? And in passing, what is the purpose of establishing a government?
John Locke's Treatise on Government
<h1>How did people live before there was no government? </h1>
Hobbes, Locke's predecessor, depicted a primitive society in Leviathan, saying that at that time the government had not yet emerged, and human beings were still in a state of nature. Everywhere, people lived in small clans, and there were often wars between them that robbed each other, and plunder became a fixed occupation. Barbarians are like carnivorous beasts, ferocious and terrifying, they follow the natural law of "survival of the fittest", conquering and killing each other by force. Hobbes therefore referred to this wartime when everyone was hostile to each other as "the natural state of suffering." It is believed that the emergence of the government and the state is to avoid this sad state, and the state is like a giant beast called the Leviathan, which gathers the rights of all people, and eventually uses force to subdue all forces, and to achieve peace through forced obedience.
However, from the experience of history, the state of nature envisioned by Hobbes may not be true. Father Casas, in his report to the King of Spain, A Narrative of the Destruction of the West Indies, said that when Europeans landed in the Americas, they found Indians who were still in their natural state. These people are simple and generous, kind-hearted, honest and honest, and never hypocritical and cunning to people. They warmly received white visitors from afar, never thinking of killing them in order to collect money. Moreover, the Indians are thin and thin, and they are very easy to die from various diseases. Not at all as ferocious and savage as Hobbes had imagined, the "civilized" Spanish colonists slaughtered these docile natives like jackals. If the Indians, in their natural state, were as ferocious as carnivores, the Spaniards would have been beaten away by them.
Therefore, hobbes's vision of the "natural state of suffering" does not correspond to historical experience. Locke pointed out in "On Government" that Hobbes confused the real state of nature with the state of war, that war is very much, and peace is the norm. Even the cannibal tribes are not at war every day, they have their own groups and have a peaceful way of life. The true state of nature should be like this:
All men are born free, equal and relatively independent;
Everyone can decide his own actions and dispose of his own property according to his own will, without obeying anyone's orders;
No one shall infringe upon the life, health, liberty or property of another person, otherwise he will be attacked by a group;
No one enjoys a higher status than others or jurisdiction over others, and no one is a slave to anyone;
People live under the guidance of natural law;
What is natural law? In layman's terms, it is the law that everyone can perceive by nature's nature. Nature tells us that fire is hot and should not be touched; that stones are hard, do not touch them with your head; that the soil cannot be eaten as food, otherwise it will hurt your stomach. In group life, we will also understand some universal laws of nature, such as other people are human beings like me, if I do not respect the equality and freedom of others, infringing on the interests of others, then I myself will suffer revenge, followed by suffering.
It is precisely because of the constraints of natural laws that it is possible for people to gather together to live together and the earliest societies have emerged. If everyone were as savage and ferocious as Hobbes said, then man would have to live in isolation and wandering around like a tiger, unable to form settlements, clans, and live a social life.
<h1>Why do people need to build governments? </h1>
In the state of nature, although people enjoy freedom, equality and relative independence, this is an unstable state, and these rights are not guaranteed and cannot be fully realized. The natural state has many inconveniences and drawbacks:
First, people in the state of nature are subordinated to customs, customs and customs, and lack definite, mandatory and well-known laws. In the state of nature, everyone can act and dispose of property according to their own will, but each person's will is subjective, and their interpretation of natural law is different, and it is impossible to distinguish whether it has infringed on others and the extent of the infringement. People's prejudices, ignorance and low quality often make the laws of nature ineffective, so there is a need for mandatory laws as an objective criterion for judging right and wrong, and become the common yardstick for handling disputes.
Secondly, in the state of nature, there is a lack of an adjudicator who has the power to adjudicate all disputes in accordance with established law. Although coercive law has replaced natural law, if there is no impartial referee, then the interpretation of the law will fall into endless disputes, reducing the code to waste paper. In the state of nature, everyone is a player and a magistrate who has the right to prohibit and correct what he considers to be a violation of natural law. For example, a good citizen who caught a criminal should have been sentenced according to the instructions of calm reason and conscience, in proportion to the severity of the crime. However, if the criminal were his enemy, the punishment would be heavier; if it were his acquaintance, it would be lighter; if it were a relative, it would most likely choose to cover up. Going on like this will only lead to the constant destruction of natural law, leading to chaos and disorder. Therefore, the government is needed to act as a third party to restrain people's selfishness and violence.
Third, in the state of nature, everyone has equal power, which can easily lead to a situation where no one obeys the other. When a dispute occurs, there is often a lack of power to support the right judgment so that it is properly enforced. An evil man harms the interests of the entire clan, but no one dares to stand up and expel him, because everyone has no right to expel others. At this time, people must want to delegate their power to the majority of the community, to impose rulings in the name of the community, and to forcibly exile the black sheep.
Therefore, the government is essentially the entrusting body of public power, which governs and rules according to the laws formulated by people, handles various conflicts of interest, and ensures that the implementation of power is fair and selfless, compulsory and effective.
The essence of government is the delegation of authority
<h1>Why should people give up their natural freedom and be subject to society? </h1>
In the state of nature, human beings are inherently free, equal and independent, and no individual or organization can place a person outside this state without his consent, subjecting him to the political power of another person. Man's natural freedom means that he is not bound by any superior power, but only by natural law; and when man establishes a government, every man is bound by the laws promulgated by the legislature and the rules and regulations implemented by the government. People must abide by the norms of society and obey the dispatch of the government.
In the era of natural law, if I caught a thief, I would have the right to punish him, and others would also have this right because he had violated natural law, and "everyone has the right to punish criminals and act as enforcers of natural law". However, in the society in which the government has been established, this right of each individual has been transferred to the public sector, forming public power. So I have no right to lynch a thief, and even if he steals my belongings, I can only send him to the public sector, where they determine the punishment. From this point of view, the freedoms and rights we enjoy in the state of nature are weakened in comparison with the social state.
However, is this really the case?
In fact, "natural freedom" is only an abstract freedom, that is, "potential freedom." Absolute freedom exists only in the minds of men, for it can be free from the conditions of reality, but the freedom of reality cannot be so willful. Imagine what kind of confusion and disputes would arise if the people of a society did not obey the law and only recognized the natural law that they perceived by their own nature. I thought I had the right to punish the thief, which was given to me by natural law, and the thief thought that when he was punished, he also had the right to protect himself from excessive punishment, which was also conferred on him by natural law. When two rights clash together, neither right is guaranteed, and in the end only violence can be used to determine victory or defeat.
And if we transfer both rights to a just third party, the government, then either right will be guaranteed. I protected my property by delegating power to the government and letting it punish the thieves, who were willing to accept punishment for their crimes and protect their personal safety.
It is true that we are limited in joining society, but this restriction is not bad compared to the state of nature. Like a crossroads, if everyone demands the right and freedom of priority passage, it will be congested and no one will be able to pass; and if the traffic light is used to restrict, then although we lose the abstract "free passage", we will make the right really realized, which is the purpose of the people to delegate power to the government.
It is therefore the government's vocation to guarantee the full realization of the rights of the people. Locke believes that people unite to become a state and stay under the government not for the sake of any illusory dream of great power and world domination, but for better protection of personal and property safety and public welfare. The government is only a delegate of the power of the people, its power must not be extended beyond what is necessary for the welfare of the public, it must guarantee the personal and property safety of every citizen. Govern by established laws that are well known to the people of the whole country and are often in force, rather than by temporary orders; the government should handle disputes impartially and impartially to facilitate the development of the national economy.
The purpose of the establishment of the Government is simply to put it" "only for the peace, security and public welfare of the people". ”