the man versus the state-第32章

按键盘上方向键 ← 或 → 可快速上下翻页，按键盘上的 Enter 键可回到本书目录页，按键盘上方向键 ↑ 可回到本页顶部！
————未阅读完？加入书签已便下次继续阅读！


st　（as　Austin　would　say）　to　a　ruling　power；　appointed　by　the　sovereign　people；　for　the　purpose　of　distribution。　If；　as　we　have　seen；　the　proposition　that　rights　are　created　is　simply　a　figure　of　speech；　then　the　only　intelligible　construction　of　Bentham's　view　is　that　a　multitude　of　individuals；　who　severally　wish　to　satisfy　their　desires；　and　have；　as　an　aggregate；　possession　of　all　the　sources　of　satisfaction；　as　well　as　power　over　all　individual　actions；　appoint　a　government；　which　declares　the　ways　in　which；　and　the　conditions　under　which；　individual　actions　may　be　carried　on　and　the　satisfactions　obtained。　Let　us　observe　the　implications。　Each　man　exists　in　two　capacities。　In　his　private　capacity　he　is　subject　to　the　government。　In　his　public　capacity　he　is　one　of　the　sovereign　people　who　appoint　the　government。　That　is　to　say；　in　his　private　capacity　he　is　one　of　those　to　whom　rights　are　given；　and　in　his　public　capacity　he　is　one　of　those　who；　through　the　government　they　appoint；　give　the　rights。　Turn　this　abstract　statement　into　a　concrete　statement；　and　see　what　it　means。　Let　the　community　consist　of　a　million　men；　who；　by　the　hypothesis；　are　not　only　joint　possessors　of　the　inhabited　region；　but　joint　possessors　of　all　liberties　of　action　and　appropriation：　the　only　right　recognized　being　that　of　the　aggregate　to　everything。　What　follows？　Each　person；　while　not　owning　any　product　of　his　own　labour；　has；　as　a　unit　in　the　sovereign　body；　a　millionth　part　of　the　ownership　of　the　products　of　all　others'　labour。　This　is　an　unavoidable　implication。　As　the　government；　in　Bentham's　view；　is　but　an　agent；　the　rights　it　confers　are　rights　given　to　it　in　trust　by　the　sovereign　people。　If　so；　such　rights　must　be　possessed　en　bloc　by　the　sovereign　people　before　the　government；　in　fulfilment　of　its　trust；　confers　them　on　individuals；　and；　if　so；　each　individual　has　a　millionth　portion　of　these　rights　in　his　public　capacity；　while　he　has　no　rights　in　his　private　capacity。　These　he　gets　only　when　all　the　rest　of　the　million　join　to　endow　him　with　them；　while　he　joins　to　endow　with　them　every　other　member　of　the　million！　　　　　　Thus；　in　whatever　way　we　interpret　it；　Bentham's　proposition　leaves　us　in　a　plexus　of　absurdities。　

Even　though　ignoring　the　opposite　opinion　of　German　writers　on　jurisprudence；　and　even　without　an　analysis　which　proves　their　own　opinion　to　be　untenable；　Bentham's　disciples　might　have　been　led　to　treat　less　cavalierly　the　doctrine　of　natural　rights。　For　sundry　groups　of　social　phenomena　unite　to　prove　that　this　doctrine　is　well　warranted；　and　the　doctrine　they　set　against　it　unwarranted。　　　　　　Tribes　in　various　parts　of　the　world　show　us　that　before　definite　government　arises；　conduct　is　regulated　by　customs。　The　Bechuanas　are　controlled　by　〃long…acknowledged　customs。〃（11*）　Among　the　Koranna　Hottentots；　who　only　〃tolerate　their　chiefs　rather　than　obey　them；〃（12*）　〃when　ancient　usages　are　not　in　the　way；　every　man　seems　to　act　as　is　right　in　his　own　eyes。〃（13*）　The　Araucanians　are　guided　by　〃nothing　more　than　primordial　usages　or　tacit　conventions。〃（14*）　Among　the　Kirghizes　the　judgments　of　the　elders　are　based　on　〃universally　recognized　customs。〃（15*）　So；　too；　of　the　Dyaks；　Rajah　Brooke　tells　us　that　〃custom　seems　simply　to　have　become　the　law；　and　breaking　custom　leads　to　a　fine。〃（16*）　So　sacred　are　memorial　customs　with　the　primitive　man；　that　he　never　dreams　of　questioning　their　authority；　and　when　government　arises；　its　power　is　limited　by　them。　In　Madagascar　the　king's　word　suffices　only　〃where　there　is　no　law；　custom；　or　precedent。〃（17*）　Raffles　tells　us　that　in　Java　〃the　customs　of　the　country〃（18*）　restrain　the　will　of　the　ruler。　In　Sumatra；　too；　the　people　do　not　allow　their　chiefs　to　〃alter　their　ancient　usages。〃（19*）　Nay；　occasionally；　as　in　Ashantee；　〃the　attempt　to　change　some　customs〃　has　caused　a　king's　dethronement。〃（20*）　Now；　among　the　customs　which　we　thus　find　to　be　pre…governmental；　and　which　subordinate　governmental　power　when　it　is　established；　are　those　which　recognize　certain　individual　rights　　rights　to　act　in　certain　ways　and　possess　certain　things。　Even　where　the　recognition　of　property　is　least　developed；　there　is　proprietorship　of　weapons；　tools；　and　personal　ornaments；　and；　generally；　the　recognition　goes　far　beyond　this。　Among　such　North…American　Indians　as　the　Snakes；　who　are　without　government；　there　is　private　ownership　of　horses。　By　the　Chippewayans；　〃who　have　no　regular　government；〃　game　taken　in　private　traps　〃is　considered　as　private　property。〃（21*）　Kindred　facts　concerning　huts；　utensils；　and　other　personal　belongings；　might　be　brought　in　evidence　from　accounts　of　the　Ahts；　the　Comanches；　the　Esquimaux；　and　the　Brazilian　Indians。　Among　various　uncivilized　peoples；　custom　has　established　the　claim　to　the　crop　grown　on　a　cleared　plot　of　ground；　though　not　to　the　ground　itself；　and　the　Todas；　who　are　wholly　without　political　organization；　make　a　like　distinction　between　ownership　of　cattle　and　of　land。　Kolff's　statement　respecting　〃the　peaceful　Arafuras〃　well　sums　up　the　evidence。　They　〃recognize　the　right　of　property；　in　the　fullest　sense　of　the　word；　without　there　being　any　＇other＇　authority　among　them　than　the　decisions　of　their　elders；　according　to　the　customs　of　their　forefathers。〃（22*）　But　even　without　seeking　proofs　among　the　uncivilized；　sufficient　proofs　are　furnished　by　early　stages　of　the　civilized。　Bentham　and　his　followers　seem　to　have　forgotten　that　our　own　common　law　is　mainly　an　embodiment　of　〃the　customs　of　the　realm。〃　It　did　but　give　definite　shape　to　that　which　it　found　existing。　Thus；　the　fact　and　the　fiction　are　exactly　opposite　to　what　they　allege。　The　fact　is　that　property　was　well　recognized　before　law　existed；　the　fiction　is　that　〃property　is　the　creation　of　law。〃　　　　　Considerations　of　another　class　might　alone　have　led　them　to　pause　had　they　duly　considered　their　meanings。　Were　it　true；　as　alleged　by　Bentham；　that　Government　fulfils　its　office　〃by　creating　rights　which　it　confers　on　individuals；〃　then；　the　implication　would　be；　that　there　should　be　nothing　approaching　to　uniformity　in　the　rights　conferred　by　different　governments。　In　the　absence　of　a　determining　cause　over…ruling　their　decisions；　the　probabilities　would　be　many　to　one　against　considerable　correspondence　among　their　decisions。　But　there　is　very　great　correspondence。　Look　where　we　may；　we　find　that　governments　interdict　the　same　kinds　of　aggressions；　and；　by　implication；　recognize　the　same　kinds　of　claims。　They　habitually　forbid　homicide；　theft；　adultery：　thus　asserting　that　citizens　may　not　be　trespassed　against　in　certain　ways。　And　as　society　advances；　minor　individual　claims　are　protected　by　giving　remedies　for　breach　of　contract；　libel；　false　witness；　etc。　In　a　word；　comparisons　show　that　though　codes　of　law　differ　in　their　details　as　they　become　elaborated；　they　agree　in　their　fundamentals。　What　does　this　prove？　It　cannot　be　by　chance　that　they　thus　agree。　They　agree　because　the　alleged　creating　of　rights　was　nothing　else　than　giving　formal　sanction　and　better　definition　to　those　assertions　of　claims　and　recognitions　of　claims　which　naturally　originate　from　the　individual　desires　of