[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]
.In point of fact, there was no government before 1776 that did not, in wholeor in part, depend for its authority upon claims, whether of an individual,an individual family, or an aristocratic class, that made the rulers superiorby birth to the many they ruled.equality of human beingsWe must now turn to how the equality of human beings that is to say, theequality in dominion, the equality in the right to rule is transformed intopolitical community, in which there are rulers and ruled.For the state inwhich natural equality rules is what is called a state of nature, no one hav-ing more authority over another than the other has over him.Although inthe state of nature, no one has authority over another, neither can anyonecommand the person or property of another in defense of his own personor property.The insecurity of the state of nature makes it imperative thatsecurity be sought by means of political community.The transformation of the state of nature into the political state is accom-plished by means of the social contract (or as Madison called it, compact ).We must attend to this with the greatest care and precision.The contracttakes place when a number of free and equal humans agree with each otherto form a political community.The agreement must reflect the equality andfreedom that preceded it.The government they form must be dedicated tothe equal protection of the persons and property of each.All must placethemselves at whatever risk is necessary for the protection of any one ofthem.Every one of them must be prepared to take whatever risk is necessaryto join with others in protecting each of them.In the original form of civilsociety, every adult is in principle a member of the militia of his community.61 Harry V.JaffaLet us imagine a group of families on the frontier building a stockade intowhich one can take shelter from Indians or wild animals.If the stockade isunder assault, everyone must take whatever part they can in the defense ofthe stockade.No one can opt out under the pretense that they sought onlysafety, and not danger, in joining the community.The equal protection of thelaws allows no exemption from equal responsibility to the laws.Similarly,everyone is bound to be taxed in whatever manner is deemed equal.Thisreciprocality in the equal entitlement to the protection of the laws, and theequal responsibility to enable the government to offer that protection, is theessence of the social contract.This understanding is moreover unanimousamong the contracting partners, who by contracting become fellow citizens.To repeat: this is a unanimous decision, not a majority decision.But it is thisunanimous decision that becomes the basis of majority rule.It is essential that we understand correctly this relationship between una-nimity and majority.Civil society cannot function by unanimity.If it could,then government would be possible in the state of nature.Majority rule isthe practical means whereby the community, unanimous in its desire forsecurity of person and of property, may act to gain that security.It is impos-sible to exaggerate the importance of the unanimous consent by which thepolitical community is first formed and the majority rule that follows uponthat unanimity.Majority rule, apart from this underlying unanimity, has nomoral obligation whatever.Yet in the world today, demands are constantlymade in the name of the authority of the majority.No less a personage thanSupreme Court justice Antonin Scalia has declared that the whole theoryof democracy is majority rule.When asked about the minority, he replied, They lose, unless the majority decides to accord them certain rights.Healso said that if a people decide they want abortion to be legal, then abortionshould be legal.If, on the contrary, they want abortion to be illegal, then itshould be illegal.If one substitutes slavery for abortion, one might be quoting SenatorStephen A.Douglas in his debates with Abraham Lincoln.Douglas heldto what he called popular sovereignty. He did not care, he said, whetherslavery in the territories was voted up or down.He cared only for the sacredright of the people to decide.Lincoln responded by saying that if slavery wasa matter of moral indifference, then it would be perfectly correct to let themajority decide.But if slavery was wrong, then the people had no right tovote for what was wrong.A people, properly so called, is itself formed by themoral law.The people does not form the moral law; the moral law forms thepeople.This is certainly implied in the Declaration of Independence, whenthe Congress appeals to the Supreme Judge of the world for the righteousnessof their intentions.Majority rule begins only after the unanimous consent62 A Political Philosopher s Defense of Lincolnforms a moral bond between any possible majority and any possible minority
[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]