OCR Text |
Show 36 as to the change made in man's natural rights by his entrance into civil society. It is commonly said that men part with a portion of these by becoming a community, a body politic; that govemment consists of powers surrendered by the individual; and it is said, "If certain rights and powers may be surrendered, why not others? why not all? What limit is to be set? The good of the community, to which a part is given up, may demand the wbole; and in this goorl, all private rights are merged." This is the logic of despotism. \Ve are grie,·ed, that it finds its way into republics, and that it sets down the great principles of freedom as abstractions and metaphysical theories, good enough for the cloister, but too refined for practical and real life. Human rights, however, are not to be so reasoned away. They belong, as we have seen, to man as a mora] being~ and nothing can divest him of them but the destruction of his nature. They are not to be given up to society as a prey. On the contrary, the great enu of civil society is to secure them. The great end of government is to rept·ess all wrong. Its highest function is to protect the weak against the powerful, so that the obscurest human being may enjoy his rights in peace. Strange that an institution, built on the idea of Rights, should be used to unsettle this idea, to confuse our moral perceptions, to sanctify wrongs as means of general good. 37 It is said that in forming eivil society the individual surrenders a part of his rights. It would be more proper to say that he adopts new modes of securing them. He consents, for example, to desist from self-defence, that he and all may be more effectually defended Ly the public force. He consents to submit his cause to an umpire or tribunal, that justice may be more impartially awarded, and that J>e and all may more certainly receive their due. l-Ie consents to part with a portion of his property in taxation, that his own and others' property may be the more secure. He submits to certain restraints, that he and others 111ay enjoy more enduring freedom. He expects an equivalent for what he relinquishes, and insists on it as his ritrht. He is wron(red by partial laws, which com1~el him to contl'iU0ute to the Slate beyond his proportion, his auility, and the measure of benefits which he receives. How absurd is it to suppose, that by consenting to be protected by the state, and by yielding it the means, he surrenders the very rights wbic:h were the objects of his acceosion to the social compact! The authority of the state to impose laws on its members I cheerfully allow; but this has limits, whie!J are found to be more and more narrow in proportion to the progress of moral science. The state is equally restrained with individuals by the moral law. Fm· exatuple, it may not, must not |