04.02.2013 Views

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

GUIDE TO THE PHILOSOPHY 1938 - 1947.pdf - Rare Books at ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

514<br />

POLITICS<br />

of the authority of all the other persons or institutions<br />

who or which possess authority, but which itself derives<br />

its authority from nobody and nothing. The possession<br />

of such ultim<strong>at</strong>e power Bodin calls Sovereignty, and the<br />

possessor of it in a St<strong>at</strong>e, the Sovereign.<br />

Two questions have been historically discussed. First,<br />

who or wh<strong>at</strong> is the Sovereign in a community? Secondly,<br />

who or wh<strong>at</strong> ought to be the Sovereign, or r<strong>at</strong>her, who of<br />

wh<strong>at</strong> does a particular writer think ought to be the<br />

Sovereign? These questions are, it is obvious, separ<strong>at</strong>e<br />

been confused.<br />

questions : nevertheless, they have frequently<br />

Machiavelli, for example, confines himself to the question<br />

of fact. Power in a community is, he maintains, as a m<strong>at</strong>ter<br />

of actual fact vested in the Prince. The actions of the Prince<br />

must frequently run counter to wh<strong>at</strong> appear to be the interests<br />

and wishes of the people, if he is to keep the com-<br />

munity together; but, since it is in the interests of the<br />

people th<strong>at</strong> the community should be kept together, when<br />

the Prince appears to be thwarting their interests on a<br />

particular occasion, he is not doing so in reality.<br />

Hobbes is concerned with the question of "ought",<br />

He does not maintain th<strong>at</strong> all power in a community does<br />

in fact reside in the ruler; he says th<strong>at</strong> it ought to do so, if<br />

society is to fulfil its primary purpose of giving security<br />

to its members.<br />

The Views of Locke and Rousseau. Locke,<br />

as we<br />

have seen, holds th<strong>at</strong> Sovereignty ought to belong to the<br />

majority. Whether the majority is right is irrelevant;<br />

wh<strong>at</strong> is right is th<strong>at</strong> the majority should decide, and in a<br />

would in<br />

properly constituted community the majority<br />

fact do so. Rousseau maintains th<strong>at</strong> Sovereignty belongs<br />

to the people as a whole. While he was prepared to allow<br />

to the government of the day and to the executive special<br />

powers for particular purposes,<br />

be exercised subject to the law,<br />

powers which were to<br />

the whole object and<br />

intention of his writings is to prevent the arrog<strong>at</strong>ion of<br />

Sovereignty by any one governing body, whether executive,

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!