- UID
- 461
- 帖子
- 5111
- 精华
- 3
- 性别
- 男
- 注册时间
- 2004-3-17
访问个人博客
|
78楼
发表于 2011-7-12 10:39
| 只看该作者
§74. To conclude then, tho' the father's power of commanding extends no farther than the minority of his children, and to a degree only fit for the discipline and government of that age; and tho' that honour and respect, and all that which the Latins called piety, which they indispensably owe to their parents all their life-time, and in all estates, with all that support and defence is due to them, gives the father no power of governing, i.e. making laws and enacting penalties on his children; though by all this he has no dominion over the property or actions of his son: yet it is obvious to conceive how easy it was, in the first ages of the world, and in places still, where the thinness of people gives families leave to separate into unpossessed quarters, and they have room to remove or plant themselves in yet vacant habitations, for the father of the family to become the prince of* it; he had been a ruler from the beginning of the infancy of his children: and since without some government it would be hard for them to live together, it was likeliest it should, by the express or tacit consent of the children when they were grown up, be in the father, where it seemed without any change barely to continue; when indeed nothing more was required to it, than the permitting the father to exercise alone, in his family, that executive power of the law of nature, which every free man naturally hath, and by that permission resigning up to him a monarchical power, whilst they remained in it. But that this was not by any paternal right, but only by the consent of his children, is evident from hence, that no body doubts, if a stranger, whom chance or business had brought to his family, had there killed any of his children, or committed any other fact, he might condemn and put him to death, or other-wise have punished him, as well as any of his children; which it was impossible he should do by virtue of any paternal authority over one who was not his child, but by virtue of that executive power of the law of nature, which, as a man, he had a right to: and he alone could punish him in his family, where the respect of his children had laid by the exercise of such a power, to give way to the dignity and authority they were willing should remain in him, above the rest of his family.
§74. 那么结论就是,虽然父亲命令的权力不能超越他的孩子的未成年期,并只能到适合那个年龄的管教的程度;虽然敬重及所有拉丁人所称的“piety”的东西,必须属于他们的父母在有生之年所享有,所有的不动产和所有他们应得的帮助和保护,并不给与父亲统治的权力,即针对孩子制定法律并实施惩罚;虽然靠这一切他对他儿子的财产或行为都没有统治权:然而很明显可以设想,在世界的初期,在某些地方人口稀少仍然容许家庭分离到未被占有的角落,他们可以迁移或定居到尚未有人定居的地方,这样家庭的父亲便很容易成为一个君主;他从他的孩子一来到这个世界开始便作为一个统治者:由于没有某种统治他们很难在一起生活,那么极可能的情况是,当孩子们长大的时候,基于他们明确表达或默认的同意,将统治权授予父亲,对此看起来没有任何改变,只是一切照常而已;实际上,对父亲的这种统治权力所要求的,不过是允许父亲在他的家庭中单独行使自然法的执行权力而已,这种权力每个自由的人都自然的拥有,只要他们仍然留在这个家庭之中,基于这种允许便转让给了父亲一种君主性的权力。但是这并不是基于任何父权利,而仅仅基于他的孩子们的同意,由此很明显,没有人会怀疑,如果一个外来人意外或因事来到他家,杀了他的一个孩子或犯了其它的罪行,他可以对他进行谴责并处死,或以其它方式惩罚他,对他自己的任何一个孩子也是这样;在这件事上,对于一个不是他孩子的人的惩罚,显然不可能依据任何父权力,而只能依据自然法的执行权力,这种权力,只要是一个人便有权利去做:而在他家中只有他能够惩罚他,是因为孩子们的敬重将这样一种权力的行使让给了父亲,他们愿意将那种尊严和权力交给父亲从而使他居于家庭中其余的人之上。 |
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? |
|