18.Here might be a place to state the different shares which different persons may have in the issuing of the same command:to explain the nature of corporate action:to enumerate and distinguish half a dozen or more different modes in which subordination between the same parties may subsist:
to distinguish and explain the different senses of the words,`consent',`representation',and others of connected import:consent and representation,those interesting but perplexing words,sources of so much debate:and sources or pretexts of so much animosity.But the limits of the present design will by no means admit of such protracted and intricate discussions.
19.In the same manner,also,it may be conceived,how the same set of men considered among themselves,may at one time be in a state of nature,at another time in a state of government.For the habit of obedience,in whatever degree of perfection it be necessary it should subsist in order to constitute a government,may be conceived,it is plain,to suffer interruptions.
At different junctures it may take place and cease.
20.Instances of this state of things appear not to be unfrequent.The sort of society that has been observed to subsist among the AMERICAN INDIANSmay afford us one.According to the accounts we have of those people,in most of their tribes,if not in all,the habit we are speaking of appears to be taken up only in time of war.It ceases again in time of peace.The necessity of acting in concert against a common enemy,subjects a whole tribe to the orders of a common Chief.On the return of peace each warrior resumes his pristine independence.
21.One difficulty there is that still sticks by us.It has been started indeed,but not solved.This is to find a note of distinction,a characteristic mark,whereby to distinguish a society in which there is a habit of obedience,and that at the degree of perfection which is necessary to constitute a state of government,from a society in which there is not:a mark,I mean,which shall have a visible determinate commencement;insomuch that the instant of its first appearance shall be distinguishable from the last at which it had not as yet appeared.`Tis only by the help of such a mark that we can be in a condition to determine,at any given time,whether any given society is in a state of government,or in a state of nature.
I can find no such mark,I must confess,any where,unless it be this;the establishment of names of office:the appearance of a certain man,or set of men,with a certain name,serving to mark them out as objects of obedience:such as King,Sachem,Cacique,Senator,Burgomaster,and the like.'This,I think,may serve tolerably well to distinguish a set of men in a state of political union among themselves from the same set of men not yet in such a state.
22.But suppose an incontestable political society,and that a large one,formed;and from that a smaller body to break off:by this breach the smaller body ceases to be in a state of political union with respect to the larger:and has thereby placed itself,with respect to that larger body,in a state of natureWhat means shall we find of ascertaining the precise juncture at which this change took place?What shall be taken for the characteristic mark in this case?The appointment,it may be said,of new governors with new names.But no such appointment,suppose,takes place.The subordinate governors,from whom alone the people at large were in use to receive their commands under the old government,are the same from whom they receive them under the new one.The habit of obedience which these subordinate governors were in with respect to that single person,we will say,who was the supreme governor of the whole,is broken off insensibly and by degrees.The old names by which these subordinate governors were characterized,while they were subordinate,are continued now they are supreme.In this case it seems rather difficult to answer.
23.If an example be required,we may take that of the DUTCH provinces with respect to SPAIN.These provinces were once branches of the Spanish monarchy.They have now,for a long time,been universally spoken of as independent states:independent as well of that of Spain as of every other.
They are now in a state of nature with respect to Spain.They were once in a state of political union with respect to Spain:namely,in a state of subjection to a single governor,a King,who was King of Spain.At what precise juncture did the dissolution of this political union take place?
At what precise time did these provinces cease to be subject to the King of Spain?This,I doubt,will be rather difficult to agree upon.(49)24.Suppose the defection to have begun,not by entire provinces,as in the instance just mentioned,but by a handful of fugitives,this augmented by the accession of other fugitives,and so,by degrees,to a body of men too strong to be reduced,the difficulty will be increased still farther.
At what precise juncture was it that ancient ROME,or that modem VENICE,became an independent state?
25.In general then,at what precise juncture is it,that persons subject to a government,become,by disobedience,with respect to that government,in a state of nature?When is it,in short,that a revolt shall be deemed to have taken place;and when,again,is it,that that revolt shall be deemed to such a degree successful,as to have settled into independence?
