« AnteriorContinuar »
given nation, and to reason deductively from known qualities of human nature to the probable outcome of any given political arrangements, as is sometimes done by the political economist with reference to economical affairs.
But we must be careful to draw the line between what the state is, or, under given circumstances, must be, and what the state should be, and should do. A very common fault in much of the current writing on politics, is the mixing up of the treatment of such subjects as the sphere and ends of the state, or personal rights, or national rights or law, or political ethics, or the limitations of the action of the state, with the consideration of the impulses which control men in the formation of political communities or with the consideration of the structure of the state, and the organs and instrumentalities through which the work of the state is accomplished. By clearly separating the two orders of topics, we are better able to comprehend each in its proper place. The direction of the will of the community or nation, and the use of the force of the community or the nation, will finally, among intelligent people, be guided by what experience teaches is the best code of private, as well as public, law. And the determination of what is the true sphere of the state, or what should be the maxims touching personal or national rights, or law, or ethics, would be the same without reference to the form of government, or even to its historical development. The consideration of these topics touches rather the daily movement of thought and action within the completed state, and while of the most vital interest to the members of a political community, yet furnishes merely rules of conduct, and should be eliminated from inquiries into the laws of the state's being. Even the theories as to the duties of the state which are so radically opposed to each other as those of the so-called Manchester, or free-trade, school of politicians, and the Socialists, may be applied, according to their advocates, under any form of government, from the most absolute monarchy, to the most democratic republic. The former would restrict the state to the narrowest limits, making a sort of policeman of it, whose only duty is to prevent men depredating upon one another. The extremists of this school would introduce absolute freetrade, and non-interference of the government in any business or pursuit. In their view, the state should not concern itself about the schools, or poor-laws, or religion, or morals; they assert that it fulfills its duty when it leaves every one entirely free to follow out his own ideas of happiness in his own way, provided, however, he does not, in so doing, encroach on the rights of his neighbor. The greatest degree of personal freedom is the cardinal point with this school. On the opposite side stand the Socialists, who claim that government should control all the instruments of labor, the soil, the mines, the machinery within the state, which should be used for the benefit of the workingmen ; that wages should be abolished, and the state should see that the workingman is duly paid for his hours of labor, without reference to skill. Intermediate between these two extremes, are many who believe that the state should control the liberty of the citizen, at various points, for the good of the whole. Some would have all the land owned by the state, and leased for the common benefit; others think that the ways of communication, the railroads and telegraph lines, should be so controlled. Some are in favor of compulsory education; some believe in the prohibition of the sale of intoxicating liquors, and so on, through numerous applications of state power to the community. But all parties start from the same point; they all tacitly or argumentatively assume that in the sovereign political community there are no actual limitations of power, except those self imposed by the community. And further, their several views may be carried out without any essential alteration in the form of any government. So far as it concerns the political structure of the British government, the Socialistic scheme could be carried out without change. And the same scheme could be effected without change in Russia. So again, what are denominated personal political rights, as, for instance, those enumerated in our Federal Constitution, may exist and be protected under any form of government. An absolute king may consider it wise policy to concede them, and still be an absolute king, so long as he has power to abolish them. That they are fixed by a written constitution, as in the United States, simply indicates that the power to abolish them is deposited at another point in this organism than in the absolute state.
In states having popular governments, all these questions are more particularly addressed to political parties; they pertain to the art of government. They should be taken account of by the person or body of persons who express the will of the nation and wield the force of the nation, but they occupy a field apart from scientific politics ; they hold with respect to this subject the position of an art in relation to its corresponding science. *
* For a brief statement of the views of various authors on the nature and ends of the state, see Kautz, “ Theorie und Geschichte der National-Oekonomik," p. 261, note II.
The nation is an organic social being, a growth, and not an artificial creation.
The human race is, and always has been, divided into social groups. These groups are of different sizes, varying between small bands of depredating savages and a great empire. Whenever we can outline a distinctive group, however insignificant it may appear, we shall find that it exhibits an internal tie of political coherence which, in a greater or less degree, individualizes that community, It is possible to contemplate these social groups apart from their governments, or the political forces at work in or between them. A prime essential of clear political discussion is to have at the outset a proper conception of the nature of the social group in question ; if in national politics, then of the nation.
It may be thought that the term state suffices to convey an idea of what a nation is ; but this term rather narrows the definition to the purely governmental part of the nation; there is something beyond. Again, the term state is now frequently applied to one of a federation, as in the United States and in the German Empire, and to dependent and unimportant political bodies, as the Slavonic states, Bulgaria, Servia, Herzegovina, and others.
In the use of the words nation, nationality, and people, there is still considerable consusion in political writings, especially in the ordinary periodical literature, German
writers on politics use the word nation in a sense opposite to that usually given to it by Americans, Englishmen, and Frenchmen. They mean by the word nation what we ordinarily understand by the word people. For instance, when they speak of the German nation, they comprehend all Germans living in German communities. As Bluntschli expresses it, “the nation is an intellectual being (Culturwesen), because its inner composition, as well as its separation from foreign nations, have principally arisen out of intellectual development, and especially manifest their effect in its intellectual conditions.”* All Germans, in Prussia, Bavaria, Austria, and elsewhere, compose, in this view, the German nation. The word people (Volk), on the other hand, imports a politically united body of persons, who need not necessarily be of the same race or stock. In this sense, those subject to the German Empire are the German people, while those of the same stock in Austria are part of the Austrian people, though belonging to the German nation. The Alsatian is considered one of the German people, because the country now be
time, be styled one of the French nation, because he was born a Frenchman, speaks French, and is socially and in culture and sympathies assimilated to the French Ger
mological grounds, because the word natio signifies a race, a species. The more general use among French publicists, and those of England and this country, is of the term nation as signifying a large political body. The prominent mark is political sovereignty, though there may also be the minor marks of community of race, language, and possibly religion.
The term people, on the other hand, with the latter, * “ Lehre vom modernen Stat,” Stuttgart, 1875, I., p. 95.