Bentham, Jeremy: Anarchical Fallacies Preliminary Observations: French Revolutions product, The Declaration of the Rights of Man buses

words, begging the question and is built upon abstract propositions. Such improper usage of language is unacceptable and has no place in constitutional and fundamental laws. Article I: Men are born and remain free, and equal in respect of rights. Social distinctions cannot be founded, but upon common utilit . Sentence 1: !. "ll men are born free. #. "ll men remain free.

$roblem !. Men are not born free % the are all born in sub&ection to their parents, and are wholl dependent upon them for the sa'e of e(istence. )n turn, man'inds continuance depends on the individuals survival too. $roblem #. There is no clarification accompan ing the statement on whether the claim is applicable to the pre*e(istence of political societ +state of nature, or during the e(istence of political societ . )f it is the prior, the claim is then irrelevant. )f it is the latter, then the claim is false. $roblem -. "s to wh the claim is false if applied to the latter % certain men are born slaves. . /oc's Second Treatise of 0overnment, laws of being need to abide b laws of nature in order to be valid. )n ac'nowledging so, laws of nature are sufficient determinants of the rights of men. 1owever, a political law which supports slaver contradicts the laws of nature and thus is invalid. /ord .acon sa s that the &udge who tortures laws to torture men is cruel. 1owever, crueller is the anarchist who, in order to subvert the laws whereb subverting the legislators and men, tortures not onl words of the law, but the vitals of language. Therefore, in accordance to Descartes ma(im Whatever is, is, the 'e difference between the moderate man and the anarchist is the un&ustified re&ection of what is. -. "ll men are born equal in rights. $roblem !. Men are not born equal in rights. 2onsider the differences in the rights of the heirs of the most indigent famil and wealthiest famil . Since the French law has defined the law of universal independence, the fundamental rights of men, it is applicable to ever single government. Therefore, the inequalit in rights stands true for all governments. $roblem #. )n reference to "rticle !- % " common contribution is essential for the maintenance of the public forces and for the cost of administration. This should be equitabl distributed among all the citi3ens in proportion to their means % the claim that men are born equal in rights is in variance with itself within the declaration.

4. "ll men remain equal in rights. $roblem !. "ll men do not remain equal in rights, and will never be equal in rights. To presuppose the truth of this claim insinuates that the apprentice and the master are of equal 'nowledge and s'ills, that the wife and the husband are of equal status and sa , and that the ward and the guardian are of equal wisdom and power. To e(emplif the flaw in this claim, it supports the madman in confining people as much as people confining the madman. )n realit , the government does not allow the societ to function as such, therefore contradicting the claim. More specificall with the case of the husband and the wife, the declaration is antagonistic towards marriage since no two differing wills can ta'e effect at the same time and consequentl , inequalit within a marriage is inevitable. )n regard to the master and the servant, there is no compatibilit between libert and servitude % the are diametricall opposite concepts. .etter a man should starve than hire himself5 in doing so, he reverts bac' to the state of nature % as "ristotle states in $olitics, a man who lives divorced from the e(changes of societ and is completel self*sufficient +his own master and his own servant, can onl be god or beast. $roblem #. The e(tent of rights appl to propert and wealth to % to sa that a state provides equal rights to all men, the government then is claiming a state of communism which implies an equal distribution of all propert and wealth. Sentence 2: Social distinctions cannot be founded but upon common utilit . The statement is plagued b con&ectures 6hat are social distinctions7 Distinctions not respecting equalit 7 )t is in contradiction with the claims in the first sentence. Distinctions in respect of equalit 7 )t nullifies itself, and thus cannot be founded upon an thing. 6hat is cannot7 Does it mean no social distinctions, but those which it approves as having the foundation in question, are established an where7 8r that none such ought to be established an where7 The first ma'es appeal to observation. The second9 Article II: The end in view of ever political association is the preservation of the natural and imprescriptible rights of man. These rights are libert , propert , securit and resistance to oppression. Sentence 1: implies a few claims: !. There are rights anterior to the establishment of governments. Their preservation owes itself to the e(istence of government after the formation of political societ . #. These rights cannot be abrogated b government. -. The governments that e(ist must have derived their origin from formal associations.

!. There are no natural rights. Thus, there are no natural rights opposed to legal rights. "nterior to the establishment of government, there are no laws due to the lac' of propert , libert and securit to protect, with the absence of laws, there are no rights. #. " government cannot abrogate what does not e(ist. That which cannot be destro ed cannot require an thing to preserve it from destruction. -. 0overnments are established b habit. 2ontracts are a product of government, not a foundation for government. Sentence 2: assumes unbounded rights "lthough no bounds are assigned to an rights, it is to be understood that the are to have bounds that are set b the laws. )t is contradictor with the writing of the declaration in the first place % which is to bind the people b a certain law. )f the language is to be ta'en as it is, that all rights are unlimited, then that in itself is against the laws % if all men are to have full protection, libert , propert , etc., there will be no need for laws to reinforce them. To claim absolute rights to propert is to e(tinguish the e(istence of propert . )f an and ever man can ta'e an and ever propert for himself, the political state reduces itself down to the state of nature, where the earth is owned b man'ind as a collective entit % if all land is owned b ever man, then no land is owned b an man. "ll rights and all laws are made at the e(pense of libert % if all men are allowed to do what the wish, be it inflict pain on others or over*indulge in pleasure for the self, the are free to do so completel protected under unbounded securit . 1owever, the other person whom the are doing harm to would be consequentl denied of his right to absolute securit and resistance to oppression. Therefore, it is impossible for all men to have equal rights +sentence !, and absolute rights in ever single aspect possible. This follows the flaw with the husband and wife dilemma % no two differing wills can ta'e effect at the same time.