Power and Responsibility: Textual Research on "Best Government Theory"
The famous saying that "the best government is the one that does the least" has always been regarded as the classic expression of classical liberalism's ideas of "small government and big society" and "country of night watchman". But who did such a famous word first come from? This is a long-standing unsolved problem in the history of thought. (Yan Nan,)
So far, the most common saying in the English-speaking world is: Jefferson, the father of the United States, said this. But this passage is not found in Jefferson's various collections and letters. Neither the Jefferson Heritage Society of the United States, which specializes in collecting Jefferson words, nor the Jefferson Electronic Resource Library of the Adelman Library of the University of Virginia can retrieve this text. (Yan Nan,)
In 1999, Eyler Robert Coates, president of the Jefferson Heritage Association, posted a reply on the Internet in view of a large number of people asking about this statement, pointing out that "it is almost certain" Jefferson never said this statement, or even something similar. In addition to this statement can not be found in Jefferson's existing literature, Coates believes that this statement is also inconsistent with Jefferson's consistent thinking on politics and government. He quoted Jefferson's remarks that emphasized the responsibility of the government many times, and came to the conclusion that "the smallest government is the best", and attached too much importance to the government as an institutionalized power. However, Jefferson's government thought focused on the function of serving the people's wishes, and arbitrarily letting the government "manage the least" may not help it perform its duties better. (Yan Nan,)
Coates also verified that "the best government is the one that manages least" was actually a famous political critic john O'Sullivan who admired Jefferson as early as 19 century, and was also a writer of American Magazine and Democratic Review, and said it as early as 1837, and it was O 'Sullivan who first attributed this sentence to Jefferson. But the problem is: even if this sentence was first said by O 'Sullivan instead of Jefferson, O 'Sullivan was also recognized as "Jefferson" at that time. If it was not Jefferson's original words, it was at least the thought he summed up and thought it belonged to Jefferson. So did Jefferson really have a similar idea? Coates' denial of this is controversial. (Yan Nan,)
As we all know, at the beginning of the founding of the United States, the protracted and far-reaching debate between federalists headed by Hamilton and Democrats headed by Jefferson focused on whether to have a strong federal government. The attitudes of both sides are clear: Hamilton wants it and Jefferson doesn't. In the debate, Jefferson's remarks about the excessive power of the government (especially the central-federal government) threatening civil rights and people's freedom abound. Therefore, in response to Coates' statement, American classical liberals refuted it. They think that "the best government manages the least" is a correct summary of Jefferson's thought, although it was first put forward by O 'Sullivan. (Yan Nan,)
Contrary to the refutation of classical liberals, the "New Deal Liberalism" of the United States against "Conservatism" (usually considered to be similar to social democracy in Europe) supports Coates' statement. In fact, for a long time, "New Deal liberalism" has been trapped in "Jefferson Puzzlement". Because Jefferson and Hamilton are traditionally considered to be inclined to the elites of the lower class and the upper class respectively, they respectively embody the two traditions of "left" and "right", democracy (or liberal democracy) and conservatism (or liberal conservatism) in American dual politics. However, after the "liberal turn" marked by Roosevelt's New Deal appeared in the United States in the 20th century, the welfare state policy advocated by New Deal liberalism thought that it inherited Jefferson's civilian tendency, which was seriously tense with Jefferson's "small government" proposition when he opposed federalists. Now Coates has come out to prove that Jefferson did not advocate that "the best government is the least concerned", but only emphasized the government's responsibility to the people, which eliminated the tension and made the New Deal more self-explanatory in theory. (Yan Nan,)
However, if Jefferson thinks that the power of the government should be strictly limited-in short, the best government has the least power. So does this mean that he must advocate that the government is not accountable to the people? Or: Did Jefferson think that "the best government is the most irresponsible government"? Of course not. As early as the New Deal era, when Roosevelt's supporters fell into Jefferson's confusion, the famous New Deal liberal walter lippmann pointed out: "The best government is the government that controls the least, which is completely correct; But it is also true that the best government is also the government that provides the most services. " 1 In fact, if we put aside that original sentence and just talk about Jefferson's ideological theory, we can say that both explanations are well-founded: Jefferson insisted on limiting and reducing government power to protect people's freedom, as the "right" said, and also insisted on attaching importance to and emphasizing the unshirkable responsibility of the government to provide "public servants" services for the people. In other words, the so-called "size" of a government or country can be discussed in two senses and cannot be confused: Jefferson advocated "small government" in the sense of power, but at the same time advocated "big government" in the sense of responsibility. Today, the "liberal left" and "liberal right" in the United States have proved this success in a certain sense. However, they used today's problem consciousness to cover up their predecessors in the18th century, so they fell into an argument of "the chicken told the duck". (Yan Nan,)
In fact, George Mason, Jefferson's close comrade-in-arms when he opposed federalists, said in the Virginia Bill of Rights: "The best government is the one that can provide the greatest happiness and security." Even though people generally attributed the theory of "small government" to Jefferson, no one ever regarded Mei Sen's statement about "the best government" as a refutation of Jefferson. In fact, Mei Sen and Jefferson have the same position. Mei Sen's "big government" is the government that bears the "greatest" responsibility for people's "happiness and security", not the government with unlimited "maximum power". As Jefferson said, the "small government" is the government with the most limited power, not the most irresponsible government. Jefferson and Mei Sen's understanding of * * * can be expressed as: "The best government" is the government with the least power and the greatest responsibility. In other words, it is a "small government" in restricting civil liberties and a "big government" in providing public services. 2 (Yan Nan,)
But can the "best government" pursued by this "Jefferson-Mei Sen knowledge" exist? Common sense tells us that a government without power cannot be responsible for public services. There is no such thing as telling a horse to run and not eat grass. Modern democratic constitutionalism can only realize the rights and corresponding powers and responsibilities of the people, which makes it possible for people to argue about what is a "sub-optimal government", that is, how much power citizens under democratic constitutionalism intend to grant their "public servants"? Should we give the government more power and ask it to take on more responsibilities and provide as much welfare and security as possible for the society, or should we give the government little power so that it cannot ask the government to take on any welfare responsibilities? This is the so-called dispute between social democracy and liberalism, or the dispute between "welfare state" and "laissez-faire". However, this debate has not yet reached a recognized conclusion. (Yan Nan,)
"Bread and Circus" and "From Cradle to Grave": "Contract State" and Western Welfare Responsibility Tradition
However, although history is not "ending", it is "progressing" after all. The "Jefferson-Mei Sen knowledge" has not been realized yet, and the "optimal government" with the least power and the greatest responsibility does not exist in the east and the west today as it did in the past. However, the opposite situation, that is, the government with the greatest power and the least responsibility, used to be very popular in both east and west. Today, it is declining-in some places, it has been eliminated by history, in others, its legitimacy resources are also declining. (Yan Nan,)
But this was not the case in the past.
We know that liberalism rose in the old and new continents in the18th century. It should be said that the source of American liberalism is European liberalism. However, the view that "the best government is the least concerned" only comes from Jefferson, O 'Sullivan, Thoreau, Harrison and others in the United States. /kloc-European liberal thinkers in the 0 th and 8 th centuries emphasized the balance of power, people's authorization and separation of powers, but no one talked about "small government" like Americans. Why? (Yan Nan,)
I think one of the main reasons is that in the United States, which has realized the rule by the people and the corresponding powers and responsibilities, no one would imagine that a government with little responsibility for public services can still have great power to exploit and imprison the people. However, in the18th century, most countries were still autocratic rather than democratic. In Europe, the state machine still served the private or small groups of rulers to a great extent. It is not surprising that the government, which is the least concerned in the field of public services, has the power to seize people's wealth and infringe on people's freedom. In this state of being neither a welfare state nor a laissez-faire, simply emphasizing "no matter what" does not necessarily mean the "best government" in the eyes of liberals-just as the government with the most affairs at that time does not necessarily mean the "best government" in the eyes of socialists (please think about Marx's hatred of "mercantilism" and Bismarck system). Authoritarian government is a government with unrestricted power and is often irresponsible to the people. Therefore, under authoritarian conditions, the government shirking its responsibilities does not necessarily mean giving up power or accepting the constraints on power. Just because the government rarely provides public services does not mean that it will not enrich itself to the greatest extent. In other words, in this case, the "small government" in the sense of responsibility and the "big government" in the sense of power can be exactly the same. (Yan Nan,)
On the other hand, the tradition of "contract country" is relatively old in Europe after all. In this regard, people are used to talking about the western tradition of freedom and individualism, but rarely talk about the "welfare state" as a long-standing western tradition. In fact, as far as urban landscape is concerned, large-scale public facilities (amphitheater, gymnasium, great hall, public baths, etc.) appear. ) In the western classical cities, it is in sharp contrast with the large-scale imperial city in China. Miyagi is highly closed, and public places are rarely behind. Historically, both ancient Greece and Rome were democratic regimes or political regimes based on the authorization of citizens. Under such a system, the state power may not be greater than that of the Persian imperial monarchy, but the public service function developed earlier. (Yan Nan,)
Athens, a democratic city-state, relied on the national financial resources controlled by citizens, such as Laurian Silver Mine, to develop public facilities, and implemented a series of "ancient welfare state" policies in finance, ranging from public funds to prison redemption, debt relief and poverty relief, to measures to help citizens participate in public life and public decision-making. Aristotle recorded that there was a special welfare budget in Athens at that time, called poleos argurion ("city money"), and the Athens Parliament regularly reviewed welfare eligibility. Those who can't work and other eligible Athenian citizens can get a continuous subsidy of two apos per day or a one-time subsidy of no more than 300 drachmas (that is, 65,438+0,800 apos). As early as Solon's time, when Athens had just established democracy, the city-state had a record of granting pensions to veterans. By the time of peisistratus, Athens had established a military pension system through legislation. Because the city-state implements a citizen soldier system rather than a professional soldier, this actually means that there is a citizen pension system. Later, in the fifth century BC, Athens formally legislated to extend the pension system to all citizens. When Tammy stokely was in power, in order to solve the unemployment problem of citizens, the government introduced the work-for-relief system, and arranged for the poor to work in public welfare places and motorcades. In Pericles' era, "Athenian democracy" developed to the highest degree, and the number of citizens subsidized by the state reached 20,000-a considerable proportion for this city-state, and at the same time, it provided the minimum living guarantee for the vulnerable groups such as orphans, the disabled and the families of national victims. In 358 BC, the Athens citizens' assembly decided to institutionalize theater subsidies and set up a special fund for Teorek in the city-state budget. As long as the poor don't quit halfway, they can get two scholarships every time. In addition, the polis must ensure that the poor can get cheap food from the market. Some Greek city-states outside Athens implemented food distribution, while Athens relied on the state treasury and epidoseis ("voluntary public welfare donations") to establish reserves to stabilize food prices. City-states also have the responsibility to help citizens to colonize overseas and maintain their welfare under their own citizenship until they can stand on their own feet. 5 (Yan Nan,)
Rome's welfare is more developed, and the Law of Seplonia is the beginning of establishing an effective public welfare system in Rome. Marx once famously said, "Modern proletarians feed the society, while ancient proletarians are fed by the society", which means that Rome and the state assume the welfare responsibility for poor citizens (Latin source of modern Spanish "ploretariate"). (Yan Nan,)
Around the turn of the century, Rome's * * * system declined and began to transform into an empire. From the head of state to the monarchy, the monarchy gradually strengthened and became uncontrollable. However, the establishment process of the Roman monarchy formed from the soil of * * * and China is different from that of most countries in the East: in the crisis of * * * and the later period, the "peace faction" was actually an aristocratic oligarch, while the "democratic faction" leaders who relied on civilian and military support to challenge the nobility * * * and China were subverting * * and gradually taking power. From the background of "first citizen", the expansion of the Roman monarchy mainly depended on. At the end of the Western Roman Empire, no matter how autocratic the monarch was, no Roman emperor dared to claim that the country was the private property of himself or his family, and the Roman throne was not hereditary in form. Therefore, the autocratic system of the Roman Empire is quite socialist, and monarchical power needs to show the identity of "people's leader", so that the welfare responsibility of the country will expand with the strengthening of monarchical power. Although Roman citizens became increasingly passive politically in the whole process of monarchy, they enjoyed more welfare guarantees than * * * and the state, and were actually bought and parasitized by the emperor. As early as * * * and the later period, "bread and circus" became the rigid commitment of emerging powers to the people, that is, the state should be responsible for ensuring not only the material life of citizens ("bread"), but also the spiritual enjoyment of citizens ("circus"). (Yan Nan,)
In the "Golden Age of the Empire", the public entertainment facilities funded by the Roman government (never exclusive to the royal family like our Summer Palace stage) became larger and larger, and entertainment activities became more and more frequent. In order to assume the responsibility of welfare, the income that the state obtained from the outside world through war and tribute is far from enough. In the early days of the empire, the system of "high taxes and high welfare" was implemented to subsidize the poor. The child allowance system established by Emperor Nirva was particularly influential at that time. This allowance is used to pay for food and education for the children of the free poor in Rome and Italy. For a long time, the coverage of food funds is quite high. Up to now, there are hundreds of inscriptions on grain distribution records in Italy, which have become important historical materials for scholars to study historical demography. In addition to security subsidies, during the imperial period, the state also issued low-interest and interest-free loans to meet the needs of the poor. In the "golden age of Rome", the money was often not repaid-Trajan and other emperors had abolished the debts owed by the poor to the state and destroyed the debt deeds. This kind of scene is recorded in Trajan Column and other documents and historical sites. It must be emphasized that what is exempted here is the money lent by the state at the request of the poor out of obligation, rather than the accumulated debt that the state collects from its subjects by virtue of its power and the subjects are unable to pay. It is different from the occasional pardon of the people by the imperial court in the history of our country. It is also different from the "official usury" in which the court forcibly distributed "public money" and "young crops money" to generate income. (Yan Nan,)
Citizens can rightfully ask the state to provide "bread and circus". This traditional influence has been symbolized for a long time. Nowadays, supermarkets, food chain stores, hotels and theaters with the signboard of "bread and circus" can often be seen in Europe and America. 10 is cheap and affordable, which is completely different from the ancient national welfare. However, with the implication that this signboard is affordable and popular, the influence of history can still be seen. This "high welfare" in ancient Roman countries is not necessarily a good thing: modern people can say that it only benefited freemen but not slaves, which led to the passive parasitism of citizens and the demise of politics, and eventually led to the financial crisis and collapse of the late empire. Today, many classical liberal scholars also like to interpret the decline of Greek and Roman countries and civilizations as "the bankruptcy of ancient welfare countries" to compare the plight of western welfare countries and publicize their laissez-faire thoughts. However, regardless of the value, the ancient Roman countries exchanged "bread and circus" for the "quiet" of the people (in Trajan), which was very different from the harsh laws of the ancient China court that made the grass people afraid of clothes. (Yan Nan,)
During the typical Middle Ages, the Roman-style ancient countries disintegrated and Europe became a world of religious territories, villages and autonomous cities. At that time, the royal power was usually weak, and naturally there would be no welfare responsibility of the Romans. However, at that time, secular territories and autonomous cities were just like small countries, and their internal ruling powers and responsibilities were relatively symmetrical. The attachment relationship between feudal lords and vassals in the Middle Ages, including the relationship between lords and serfs (the lowest vassals), was a combination of bondage and "protection". The binding force of lords on princes is related to the responsibility of "protecting" the latter. Therefore, some people say that the poorest and richest people in the Middle Ages were all free men, with serfs in the middle. Marx also said: the serfs in the middle ages were guaranteed, but the proletarians in modern times were not. Therefore, when Napoleon liberated serfs in the Rhine, he was resisted by the "liberated": "Without the master, who will protect us?" Under the medieval fief-village system, farmers were guaranteed to keep their land and use public land, so the free tenancy system broke this tradition (the so-called "enclosure movement" in the past) when it entered "modern times", which would cause fierce reactions. This is hard to understand in the absence of such protection in China. 1 1 (Yannan,)
In the Middle Ages, the church was the most important undertaker of public service responsibility. At that time, when the kingship was weak and the "kingship responsibility" was not obvious, various Christian churches established a large number of church hospitals, free pharmacies, nurseries, orphanages, nursing homes and almshouses in society. Especially in education, since the 12 century, there has been a trend of running universities by churches since the general education represented by three major missionary schools (St. Paul's School, St. Martin's School and St. Mary's School). 12 Public welfare systems such as public health and public education in the west today are all related to the church tradition. In the Middle Ages before the separation of church and state, the church was both a community and a government, so the church public welfare was also regarded as the originator of modern citizen autonomy public welfare and national public welfare (welfare state). 13 (Yannan,)
In the late Middle Ages, Europe reappeared a powerful royal power, and a nation-state appeared under the background of centralization. This kingship usurped the traditional powers of the lords and the church, and at the same time inherited the public welfare responsibilities of the latter two, resulting in the pre-modern national public welfare that followed the Roman "ancient welfare state" and the modern welfare state. Take Britain as an example. Before the Reformation, church funds once accounted for about one-third to one-half of the national wealth. Tudor dynasty strengthened the royal power, confiscated religious property on a large scale in 1532 and 1545, and took over the huge church public welfare system. 160 1 year, the British parliament passed the poor law, stipulating that the state has the responsibility to help the poor. In the same year, Queen Elizabeth promulgated the Regulations on the Use of Charitable Funds, stipulating that charitable trusts are "functions jointly participated by private individuals and the state" and that the state should be the "total founder of charitable funds" nationwide, thus taking the ultimate responsibility for the trustees. Generally speaking, these two pieces of legislation are regarded as the "Magna Carta" of the public welfare system and the "core of Anglo-Saxon law" about the welfare society, so they are the source of modern "welfare state". (Yan Nan,)
Of course, Tudor autocracy makes the country's commitment to welfare responsibility lack supervision, so it is more empty talk than action. Before democratization made the responsibility constraint of welfare state rigid, Tudor Britain did not fully implement these laws, so that some people thought that the principle of "welfare magna carta" was not realized until Roosevelt's New Deal in the United States. 14 However, the social welfare in the pre-Tudor era, especially the church welfare, was at least partly the result of "nationalization" in the Tudor era, which also made a considerable number of people in the health, education and welfare institutions of the church turn into state employees. 15 It is now calculated that the Tudor state employees in China were more than those in the Qing Dynasty, saying that the Qing Dynasty was closer to the liberal small government. In fact, it is a fact that the British bureaucratic group has expanded due to the development of the Tudor monarchy, but the factors that expand the public service function of the modern nation-state are also very important. Compared with the traditional China dynasty, which had stronger autocratic power but did not take too much responsibility for public affairs, the latter was mainly limited to the oppressive functions such as money, food, punishment and fame. Even if the bureaucracy is small, it is not the same as the so-called tolerance and openness. (Yan Nan,)
However, the essential mismatch between power and responsibility of authoritarian system will not be eliminated because of special "cultural tradition". Although the people-oriented tradition of classical Greek and Roman citizen countries and the influence of Christian ethical factors make some European feudal countries more contractual and less hegemonic. The concepts of "Magna Carta", "no taxation without representation", people without rights and obligations, and countries without service without power were formed earlier. However, in the era of autocracy, the overall situation of great state power but little responsibility still exists. Since governments that are not so conscientious under authoritarian conditions do not necessarily accumulate more, and countries without "welfare" do not necessarily have "freedom", it is not difficult to understand that Europeans do not like to discuss the "size" of a country or government without distinguishing rights and responsibilities like "democratic precocious" North Americans. The Tudor dynasty ended at the beginning of the17th century, and then the Stuart dynasty had a revolution, and then the United States and France changed weather one after another. Although it is fashionable and insightful to emphasize the difference between the American revolution and the French revolution, for a long time, they are still in the same direction-that is, they both restrict the power of the rulers and make their responsibilities more difficult to shirk. Today, even Britain, which is the least "welfare country", has experienced three public welfare expansions: disraeli's Tory Socialism in the19th century, Lloyd George's social welfare plan and MacDonald's Labor Party Socialism in the 20th century, and the responsibility of the country has become much heavier than that of Elizabeth's "poor law" era. Even in the most typical welfare state, such as Sweden, the responsibility of "from cradle to grave" weighs heavily on the state, but its power is not restrictive, not to mention much smaller than Qin Shihuang, who burned books and buried Confucianism, and even much smaller than the old lady Elizabeth. (Yan Nan,)
So now "right" countries such as the United States and "left" countries such as Sweden have realized the correspondence between rights and responsibilities on the basis of democratic constitutionalism-although the former has relatively small rights and responsibilities, the latter has great rights and responsibilities. Therefore, it is reasonable for people to argue about "big government" or "small government", or praise Switzerland and belittle the United States, or praise the United States and belittle Switzerland. (Yan Nan,)
But in the era without constitutionalism, can we say that the government has little responsibility and power? Where there is no "welfare state", there must be "laissez faire". Unlike Sweden, it must be like the United States? Obviously, our common sense cannot accept this logic. However, the "sinology way of thinking" in modern western countries immersed in the "problem situation" often considers problems according to this logic. (Yan Nan,)