![Rank: 5](templates/yantan/img/star_level2.gif)
- UID
- 461
- 帖子
- 5111
- 精华
- 3
- 性别
- 男
- 注册时间
- 2004-3-17
访问个人博客
|
241楼
发表于 2011-8-22 09:45
| 只看该作者
§239. In these cases Barclay, the great champion of absolute monarchy, is forced to allow, that a king may be resisted, and ceases to be a king. That is, in short, not to multiply cases, in whatsoever he has no authority, there he is no king, and may be resisted: for wheresoever the authority ceases, the king ceases too, and becomes like other men who have no authority. And these two cases he instances in, differ little from those above mentioned, to be destructive to governments, only that he has omitted the principle from which his doctrine flows: and that is, the breach of trust, in not preserving the form of government agreed on, and in not intending the end of government itself, which is the public good and preservation of property. When a king has dethroned himself, and put himself in a state of war with his people, what shall hinder them from prosecuting him who is no king, as they would any other man, who has put himself into a state of war with them, Barclay, and those of his opinion, would do well to tell us. This farther I desire may be taken notice of out of Barclay, that he says, the mischief that is designed them, the people may prevent before it be clone: whereby he allows resistance when tyranny is but in design. Such designs as these (says he) when any king harbours in his thoughts and seriously promotes, he immediately gives up all care and thought of the common-wealth; so that, according to him, the neglect of the public good is to be taken as an evidence of such design, or at least for a sufficient cause of resistance. And the reason of all, he gives in these words, because he betrayed or forced his people, whose liberty he ought carefully to have preserved. What he adds, into the power and dominion of a foreign nation, signifies nothing, the fault and forfeiture lying in the loss of their liberty, which he ought to have preserved, and not in any distinction of the persons to whose dominion they were subjected. The people’s right is equally invaded, and their liberty lost, whether they are made slaves to any of their own, or a foreign nation; and in this lies the injury, and against this only have they the right of defence. And there are instances to be found in all countries, which shew, that it is not the change of nations in the persons of their governors, but the change of government, that gives the offence. Bilson, a bishop of our church, and a great stickler for the power and prerogative of princes, does, if I mistake not, in his treatise of Christian subjection, acknowledge, that princes may forfeit their power, and their title to the obedience of their subjects; and if there needed authority in a case where reason is so plain, I could send my reader to Bracton, Fortescue, and the author of the Mirrour, and others, writers that cannot be suspected to be ignorant of our government, or enemies to it.
§239. 在这些情况中,绝对君主制的重要斗士巴克利也不得不承认,国王可以遭到抵抗,而不再成其为国王。换句话说,简而言之,无需大量举例,在任何没有授权的事情上,他就不是国王,就可以遭到抵抗:因为在授权终止的情况下,国王也就终止了,他变成了像其他没有权力的人一样。在巴克利所列举的两种情况中,与前面提到的破坏政府的情况并没有多大的区别,只是他忘记了他的学说所依据的原则:这个原则就是,违背信任,不去保护人们所同意的政府形式,不去追求政府本身的目的,即公共利益和财产的保护。当一个国王自我罢免,置身于对其臣民的战争状态之中,又有什么办法阻止他们对不是国王的他进行指控呢,如同他们指控任何其他的对他们宣战的人,巴克利,以及那些赞同他的观点的人,最好好好给我们解释一下。对巴克利的话,我希望进一步注意,他说,意图加于人们的伤害,他们可以在其实现之前予以阻止:据此当暴政还在计划当中他也允许进行抵抗。(他说)当任何国王怀有这样的意图并真的促其实现,他便立即放弃了所有对国家的关心;所以,根据他的说法,忽略公共利益可以被视为这样的意图的证据,或至少是抵抗的一个充分理由。而全部的理由,他是这样说的,因为他背叛或者强迫他的臣民——他本来应当细心的保护他们的自由的。至于他添加的“置身于外国的权力和统治之下”则没有什么意义,国王的过错和权力的丧失在于他本来应当加以保护的臣民的自由的丧失,而不在于他们受谁统治的不同。无论他们做他们自己人的奴隶,还是做外国的奴隶,人们的权利都是同样的受到侵犯,他们的自由都是同样的丧失;他们所受的伤害在这里,并且他们也只有反抗这种伤害的自卫权利。在所有国家都能找到这样的例子说明,引起侵犯的并不是统治者们的国籍的改变,而是政府的改变。比尔森(Thomas Bilson,1547 – 1616),我们教会的一个主教,一个君主权力和特殊权力的重要的拥护者,如果我没有弄错的话,在他的《论基督徒的服从》中承认,君主们可以丧失他们的权力和拥有其臣民的服从的资格;如果在理由如此明白的情况下还需要学术权威的话,我建议我的读者到布莱克顿,福特斯丘,《明镜》的作者,以及其他的写作者那里去,这些人都不能被怀疑对我们的政府无知或是我们政府的敌人。 |
1,I.stability of possession;II.transference by consent;III.performance of promises.
2,中国的教育体系是制造SB的流水线。
3,一个充满着下贱历史的国家如何走向正常? |
|