Legislative law, as well, must be directed toward the driving principle of the government. In a republic, virtue means love of the state, and a desire to sustain the state. Since a democracy is sustained by the volunteered will of the people, the law must encourage that action. In a democracy, laws will aim toward equality among the citizens. At the start, this means division of land ownership. After a time, it will mean equitable sharing in marriage and after death. The citizens themselves will act to preserve that equality, sacrificing when need be for the greater good. (Excepting that class of people engaged in commerce, who know their success sustains many.) But even then, the law must treat them in such a way that their activity is sutained. The selection of legislators should also sustain the system-- a permanent class of overarching rule-setters (a senate), and a rotating class to administer day-to-day needs.
In an aristocracy (still a republic), the laws will encourage moderation among that class, to preserve their contact with the underclass.
In a monarchy, honor is the driving principle. Hereditary power is part of this, as is pomp among the ruling class. Laws that respect class distinctions preserve peace among the classes for long periods, as everyone is satisfied with their place.
In a despotic reign, the system is sustained through fear. Whatever laws are decreed attempt only to preserve immediate power, and usually succeed in doing so. But they don't support a sustainable system-- and there is no thought to doing so. Ultimately, though, this leads to rapid turnover within society and in leadership, as different despots take and try to hold the reins of power (for its own sake).
--------------------
I'm starting to remember why I hated reading my philosophy assignments. This is brutal without an additional explanatory text. I think I have to skip ahead to the books that are relevant to America's founding-- the separation of powers part.
No comments:
Post a Comment