the origins of contemporary france-4-第43部分

快捷操作: 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! 如果本书没有阅读完，想下次继续接着阅读，可使用上方 "收藏到我的浏览器" 功能 和 "加入书签" 功能！



private　domain；　indeed；　physical　or　moral；　offers　temptations　for　its

neighbors　to　trespass　on　it；　and；　to　keep　this　intact；　demands　the

superior　intervention　of　a　third　party。　　To　acquire；　to　possess；　to

sell；　to　give；　to　bequeath；　to　contract　between　husband　and　wife；

father；　mother　or　child；　between　master　or　domestic；　employer　or

employee；　each　act　and　each　situation；　involves　rights　limited　by

contiguous　and　adverse　rights；　and　it　is　the　State　which　sets　up　the

boundary　between　them。　　Not　that　it　creates　this　boundary；　but；　that

this　may　be　recognized；　it　draws　the　line　and　therefore　enacts　civil

laws　which　it　applies　through　its　courts　and　gendarmes　in　such　a　way

as　to　secure　to　each　individual　what　belongs　to　him。　　The　State

stands；　accordingly；　as　regulator　and　controller；　not　alone　of　private

possessions；　but　also　of　the　family　and　of　domestic　life；　its

authority　is　thus　legitimately　introduced　into　that　reserved　circle　in

which　the　individual　will　has　entrenched　itself；　and；　as　is　the　habit

of　all　great　powers；　once　the　circle　is　invaded；　its　tendency　is　to

occupy　it　fully　and　entirely。　　…　To　this　end；　it　invokes　a　new

principle。　　Constituted　as　a　moral　personality；　the　same　as　a　church；

university；　or　charitable　or　scientific　body；　is　not　the　State　bound；

like　every　corporate　body　that　is　to　last　for　ages；　to　extend　its

vision　far　and　near　and　prefer　to　private　interests；　which　are　only

life…interests；　the　common　interest　（l'intérêt　commun）　which　is

eternal？　Is　not　this　the　superior　end　to　which　all　others　should　be

subordinated；　and　must　this　interest；　which　is　supreme　over　all；　be

sacrificed　to　two　troublesome　instincts　which　are　often　unreasonable

and　sometimes　dangerous；　to　conscience；　which　overflows　in　mystic

madness；　and　to　honor；　which　may　lead　to　strife　even　to　murderous

duels？　…　Certainly　not；　and　first　of　all　when；　in　its　grandest　works；

the　State；　as　legislator；　regulates　marriages；　inheritances；　and

testaments；　then　it　is　not　respect　for　the　will　of　individuals　which

solely　guides　it；　it　does　not　content　itself　with　obliging　everybody

to　pay　his　debts；　including　even　those　which　are　tacit；　involuntary

and　innate；　it　takes　into　account　the　public　interest；　it　calculates

remote　probabilities；　future　contingencies；　all　results　singly　and

collectively。　　Manifestly；　in　allowing　or　forbidding　divorce；　in

extending　or　restricting　what　a　man　may　dispose　of　by　testament；　in

favoring　or　interdicting　substitutions；　it　is　chiefly　in　view　of　some

political；　economical　or　social　advantage；　either　to　refine　or

consolidate　the　union　of　the　sexes；　to　implant　in　the　family　habits　of

discipline　or　sentiments　of　affection；　to　excite　in　children　an

initiatory　spirit；　or　one　of　concord；　to　prepare　for　the　nation　a

staff　of　natural　chieftains；　or　an　army　of　small　proprietors；　and

always　authorized　by　the　universal　assent。　　Moreover；　and　always　with

this　universal　assent；　it　does　other　things　outside　the　task

originally　assigned　to　it；　and　nobody　finds　that　it　usurps　when；



*　it　coins　money；

*　it　regulates　weights　and　measures；

*　it　establishes　quarantines；

*　on　condition　of　an　indemnity；　it　expropriates　private　property　for

public　utility；

*　it　builds　lighthouses；　harbors；　dikes；　canals；　roads；

*　it　defrays　the　cost　of　scientific　expeditions；

*　it　founds　museums　and　public　libraries；

*　at　times；　toleration　is　shown　for　its　support　of　universities；

schools；　churches；　and　theaters；

and；　to　justify　fresh　drafts　on　private　purses　for　such　objects；　no

reason　is　assigned　for　it　but　the　common　interest。　　（l'intérêt　commun）

…　Why　should　it　not；　in　like　manner；　take　upon　itself　every　enterprise

for　the　benefit　of　all？　Why　should　it　hesitate　in　commanding　the

execution　of　every　work　advantageous　to　the　community；　and　why　abstain

from　forbidding　every　harmful　work？　Now　please　note　that　in　human

society　every　act　or　omission；　even　the　most　concealed　or　private；　is

either　a　loss　or　a　gain　to　society。　　So　if　I　neglect　to　take　care　of

my　property　or　of　my　health；　of　my　intellect　or　of　my　soul；　I

undermine　or　weaken　in　my　person　a　member　of　the　community　which　can

only　be　rich；　healthy　and　strong　through　the　wealth；　health　and

strength　of　his　fellow　members；　so　that；　from　this　point　of　view；　my

private　actions　are　all　public　benefits　or　public　injuries。　　Why　then；

from　this　point　of　view；　should　the　State　scruple　about　prescribing

some　of　these　to　me　and　forbidding　others？　Why；　in　order　to　better

exercise　this　right；　and　better　fulfill　this　obligation；　should　it　not

constitute　itself　the　universal　contractor　for　labor；　and　the

universal　distributor　of　productions？　Why　should　it　not　become　the

sole　agriculturist；　manufacturer　and　merchant；　the　unique　proprietor

and　administrator　of　all　France？　…　Precisely　because　this　would　be

opposed　to　the　common　weal　（l'intérêt　de　tous；　the　interest　of

everyone）＇15＇。　　　Here　the　second　principle；　that　advanced　against

individual　independence；　operates　inversely；　and；　instead　of　being　an

adversary；　it　becomes　a　champion。　　Far　from　setting　the　State　free；　it

puts　another　chain　around　its　neck；　and　thus　strengthens　the　fence

within　which　modern　conscience　and　modern　honor　have　confined　the

public　guardian。



V。



Direct　common　interest。　　…　This　consists　in　the　absence　of　constraint。

…　Two　reasons　in　favor　of　freedom　of　action。　　…　Character；　in　general；

of　the　individual　man。　　…　Modern　complication。



In　what；　indeed；　does　the　common　weal　（l'intérêt　de　tous；　the　interest

of　everyone）　consist？　…　In　the　interest　of　each　person；　while　that

which　interests　each　person　is　the　things　of　which　the　possession　is

agreeable　and　deprivation　painful。　　The　whole　world　would　in　vain

gainsay　this　point；　every　sensation　is　personal。　　My　suffering　and　my

enjoyments　are　not　to　be　contested　any　more　than　my　inclination　for

objects　which　procure　me　the　one；　and　my　dislike　of　objects　which

procure　me　the　other。　　There　is；　therefore；　no　arbitrary　definition　of

each　one's　particular　interest；　this　exists　as　a　fact　independently　of

the　legislator；　all　that　remains　is　to　show　what　this　interest　is；　and

what　each　individual　prefers。　　Preferences　vary　according　to　race；

time；　place　and　circumstance。　　Among　the　possessions　which　are　ever

desirable　and　the　privation　of　which　is　ever　dreaded；　there　is　one；

however；　which；　directly　desired；　and　for　itself；　becomes；　through　the

progress　of　civilization；　more　and　more　cherished；　and　of　which　the

privation　becomes；　through　the　progress　of　civilization；　more　and　more

grievous。　　That　is　the　disposition　of　one's　self；　the　full　ownership

of　one's　body　and　property；　the　faculty　of　thinking；　believing　and

worshipping　as　one　pleases；　of　associating　with　others；　of　acting

separately　or　along　with　others；　in　all　senses　and　without　hindrance；

in　short；　one's　liberty。　　That　this　liberty　may　as　extensive　as

possible　is；　in　all　times；　one　of　man's　great　needs；　and；　in　our　days；