★ Find a new page on our Untranscribed Manuscripts list.
No edit summary |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 3: | Line 3: | ||
<!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | <!-- ENTER TRANSCRIPTION BELOW THIS LINE --> | ||
<head>Civil</head><lb/><p> Locke's fiction was applicable <add> good only for </add> only to a Monarchy.<lb/> | <head>Civil</head><lb/> | ||
<p> Locke's fiction was applicable <add> good only for </add> only to a Monarchy.<lb/> Rousseau's was <del> of </del> equally applicable to<lb/> every government. It was as applicable to a<lb/> Monarchy <add> Monarchical government </add> as to the most popular government: though<lb/><add> the part <gap/> <del>by</del> in the business by Rousseau's Monarch compared with Locke's Monarch<lb/> cuts <add> makes </add> but an indifferent figure. In Locke's scheme <add> indenture </add> <lb/> you have the King's signature on one side of <lb/> the parchment, <del> and the </del> <add> answering to and standing against </add> marking that of the whole<lb/> people on the other. In Rousseau's the King <lb/> never signs at all: he is no party to the Contract.<lb/> The people say to one another we engage to be<lb/>governed by this man so long as he governs in<lb/> a certain manner, and behaves well: but the King <lb/> himself says nothing. He has no voice in the matter,<lb/> but stands in waiting <add> up in a corner </add> in readiness to do as <lb/> he is bid: looking for the <del> turn</del> <add> waiting for the turn </add> signature of the <lb/> contract, in virtue of which they are to do as he <lb/> bids them. </p> | |||
<p> Ask which is the best system of the two <add> is the truest</add>, the <lb/> answer is, neither. [In both cases as no such contract<lb/> was ever made there is no knowing the terms of it<lb/> and as there is no knowing the terms of it, it is of <lb/> no manner of use. </p> <pb/> | |||
Civil
Locke's fiction was applicable good only for only to a Monarchy.
Rousseau's was of equally applicable to
every government. It was as applicable to a
Monarchy Monarchical government as to the most popular government: though
the part by in the business by Rousseau's Monarch compared with Locke's Monarch
cuts <add> makes but an indifferent figure. In Locke's scheme indenture
you have the King's signature on one side of
the parchment, and the answering to and standing against marking that of the whole
people on the other. In Rousseau's the King
never signs at all: he is no party to the Contract.
The people say to one another we engage to be
governed by this man so long as he governs in
a certain manner, and behaves well: but the King
himself says nothing. He has no voice in the matter,
but stands in waiting up in a corner in readiness to do as
he is bid: looking for the turn waiting for the turn signature of the
contract, in virtue of which they are to do as he
bids them.
Ask which is the best system of the two is the truest, the
answer is, neither. [In both cases as no such contract
was ever made there is no knowing the terms of it
and as there is no knowing the terms of it, it is of
no manner of use.
---page break---
|
Identifier: | JB/100/106/001"JB/" can not be assigned to a declared number type with value 100. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
|
100 |
civil code |
||
|
106 |
civil |
||
|
001 |
|||
|
text sheet |
1 |
||
|
recto |
|||
|
jeremy bentham |
|||
|
32122 |
|||
