about popular sovereignty.-english-gustav theodor fechner

7/29/2019 About Popular Sovereignty.-english-Gustav Theodor Fechner.

1/5

Gustav Theodor Fechner

About popular sovereignty.

Supplement to the Leipziger Tageblatt on 11 May 1848

(Biedermann and White)

The principle of popular sovereignty, as it is now provided, bring a part of themselves

that the voices of the majority of the people, the last major eruption is in all matters

where something is in dispute between him and his government, the other part that

the people of his government and government organs generated from themselves by

their own choice (at least approved). Where the principle of popular sovereignty is

performed purely, this should apply from the lowest to the highest organs of

government, the freedom such, as it is the people in his interest pursuant to switch,remain always maintained it. The from this company resulting state of the freest

republican form of government is explained for the most perfect, if the government is

there for the people, not vice versa, and this voraussetzlich best to know what best

serves his or her interests and what people are most appropriate, it represented. The

hereditary monarchy depends hereafter together with an imperfect political education

of the people and must fall with the progress of this education itself. It is, however,

where it is again, still so far to tolerate to maintain even when the law is not yet

politically mature or ripe for complete freedom sentient people still want the same

themselves. For it is indeed the principle of popular sovereignty, that it, itsgovernment bodies, so as to choose its own form of government. Finds it so for now

the hereditary monarchical form of government, nor conducive to the good of his, so

it must be free of him, even now to stand in the same. Although it hereby limits its

own sovereignty even more than equal to the ideal state, but enough that it does so

with free will, and it will give up this restriction by itself, if it feels that it no longer

needs them.

I hereby think probably essentially the meaning of a speaker (Professor Biedermann

in the German club) to have made, representing the principle of popular sovereignty

of citizens with agility and, in this case only to rare, dignified attitude. From generalconsiderations can be identified as the principle oppose:

1) That do not the majority of the people, it is that best knows what is his own good,

but a minority of the clear-sighted, Gesinnungstchtigsten, best. It may be that the

people had this to determine the safest by their own choice for the management of its

affairs in a position, if the choice mode purified belonging through indirect elections

without Wahlumtriebe from the bottom up, and really the voice of the whole nation or

its majority to could make this duly submitted;

2) that the greatest possible freedom to all the people allowed to have a voice and

mitzuhandeln just means the worst is to bring the voice and wishes of the majority of

the people to bear in state affairs. Because instead of the voices and wishes of the


2/5

majority (and wisest) weigh the facts of this case always the loudest, boldest, prior to

use violent means Least Concern, as yet, the experience of all truly democratic

republics has shown. The restriction of free choice, so grows the people from his own

bosom, is much larger than that will grow it in from above, if the government simply

is not there to carry out the will of the people, but to also put him reins, conversely

only the required is subject to restrictions on the part of the people's will;3) that, for the maintenance and prosperity of any organization, elements of strength

or bonds of organization are needed, which may not be canceled with the same

freedom again, as they may be initially set as rather a precaution against the

possibility of re-suspension in the principle of organization itself must be added. The

best organization will be the one which at the same time and the redissolution most

other makes, but evolution favors the most. However, it covers just the opposite takes

place in the principle of popular sovereignty. By the in this principle unrestricted

freedom of the people, its government and institutions from below to choose and

change without the once chosen above given prevailing institutions are entitled toexercise a self-sustaining influence, however, are just the ones for the maintenance

and disadvantaged herewith for the good of the whole essential elements of strength,

get the gang of the organization itself more or less resistant to the liquid level, which

belongs to the set itself. Instead of a thriving evolution is a constant reiteration of the

front or down instead, it always wants to find something, but solve the people's waves

it again immediately. This will be in accordance with cogent, as really the principle of

popular sovereignty is carried out fully, although the hopelessness of success follow a

right and lasting implementation has such never ever allowed will allow.

It is always hard to do short and compelling discussions held by the general nature ofsuch issues, and historical examples are always the thing one meets only certain

pages. Let's try it here with a picture:

I mean, the principle of popular sovereignty that each individual has indeed submit to

the will of the majority and the dependent order of things, but even greatest possible

and, with any other same freedom to have a say this will and the dependent order of

things, - where the amount is, which raises the bodies of their will by itself about

itself, is carried out consistently, the people exactly in the condition of a moving

sea. As has every water particles by must add the connexion of the whole, the greatest

and same with the other freedom to participate in the design of the whole, the sea, thetotality of all water particles, it is that the wave peaks (authorities, government bodies

) from rising above themselves, they go and make plunge again and now it rises once

a summit of all others, must soon do the same to one or more other place. The waves

rush over and against each other. There is no lack of a kind of organization, because

in each wave, each particle moves in a singular, coherent with the wave shape of the

whole way, but each design comes off, as it is generated. For the greatest possible

freedom of all individuals, the greatest possible equality takes place, what's up, is

nothing else than what is below, and must face the risk to take even the lowest place

the next moment. So the whole thing is a bleak, barren and bustle begriffenes innature. Here, the sea is only apparent free. Gusts of wind and stones stir it up, and

indeed every gust of wind stirred it up, nobody can determine in what way.


3/5

This forever fluctuating, neither height nor depth, PERFORMING safe, it is fruitless

to zerarbeitende state, which is held up to us as the ideal, should lead one to the

political maturity of the people. Or else where would be the elements of strength in

the carried out the principle of popular sovereignty? Is it about the common direction

to his own interests, which is to bring a halt to the whole thing? But there is nothing

in principle that ensured a unity and strength in the means to achieve this generalobjective pursued, and one must beware, in the ideal of a state constitution to

presuppose also ideal people who understand the whole in the majority of the best

and their special interest prepend what the nature of man and of humanity for ever the

case may be, and is, least of all is that all the individual passions-setting in motion

and all the special interests of free play as possible against each other gestattende

principle of popular sovereignty, the people this ideal state approach, but only on the

condition could start his healing success is.

If we look at our bodies, and where we could find a better picture of the state of

human organism than the organism of man himself. Since everything is not equal andfree to move as allowed in that sea, not every design from the bottom space, but there

are fixed parts movable relative to, and the fact itself that the whole is a solid

framework based makes the movement in the other to so free. Not waves beat against

waves, but the blood runs his orderly, the play of muscles found his footing in the

solid bone structure. Thus, trade and commerce, and all the creative activities of the

people may take an orderly and prosperous transition only in a state with solid

institutions that can not be thrown at any moment by a storm of popular will on the

pile by the possibility thereof lacking in principle. Although there is nothing in our

organism completely immutable, veins, bones, tendons, nerves, brain dominant,everything is renewed in metabolism and develops, but as it were on the path of

History, always on its old foundations. Only in the very beginning, in the egg, each

organism was a kind of liquid sea, since he produced his entire organs from the

bottom up, by itself, it is something any young State (Example: Free States of North

America), but he can, once designed to not want to liquefy anew without destroying

itself, and are in danger of being absorbed by foreign powers, and succeeded him to

make the destruction of the old building a new self-powerful, it would still have to be

just to themselves for the future, possibly by even stronger ties than bind earlier so

again not such destruction could take hold. Although the defenders of the sovereignty

of the people want a historical development, but one that also no finding of such

permits again for resolution, either slower or faster, does not lead to further

development of the historical foundations and, in principle, because each Determined,

it is as Such are, the less people will more upper bound, but the binding is on this

principle, nothing is to be ascertained, not even through what he has previously

imposed itself on himself, determined.

One says: Even our organism producing and renew yes its organization and ruling

organs resistant by itself, so this is only true insofar as the once out educated ruling

bodies, the most important parts are now even this organism, also a ruling and theirgoal of self-preservation effect it may express. But it is this day for them is the

principle of popular sovereignty.


4/5

With what precedes is not to say that the old embodied system was the best, no, a

system where the parties and Movable holds the balance, a system where everyone

can switch freely into his private area, each also contribute to the state organism may,

but according to more and continuous and cross when he is closer to the peak points

of the State, so that people like yourself in all elections as generally as possible

participate, but only at the lowest selection stage, and it is not all the people's choicefrom below but many a reserved and the provisions of above. I think this are the best

in terms of developing the principle of our constitutional monarchy. We like what

happened when watching a wholesome development of disease, to lead us through a

rapid progress the gedeihlichsten state which deliberative economics and governance,

but let us beware that the fever is not us out leads as to lead to the resolution. Explain

that the people reign after his majority, and the government should be there only to

execute his will, as now a widespread outcry goes, ie, arms and legs and everything

else for the majority of the body is the place of the brain, the brain but take the place

of the arm. And this topsy-turvy world should really be the ideal to which we shouldaspire to, where we once had to arrive?

Without limiting the above used imaging exploit, may still be short pointed out how

the human organism itself is not a Republican, but a monarchical system, with the

brain at the top, the one highest, although others through the positive and negative

interaction and related organs often has limited power, and as ever the organization is

so perfect, not the more general equality, but the more, up to certain limits, the

general inequality grows. The tapeworm and a member of the isopod's about as much

worth as the other. And you do not do think that the lowest levels therefore are worse

because there are higher levels above them. If you wanted to make all the same, theneverything just like these lowest levels would be located and the bottom did not even

stay the prospect of bringing it up, except, as in the crawling worm and the heaving

seas, a member or a wave alternately the other rises, and yet they remain basically the

same. The inequality of the stand is a necessary condition for a complete

development of the whole, all, even the lowest win, if only by the opportunity to

bring it up, which must be a security for the legal and bold. Only that may be true that

in the previous form of government was stunted this possibility more than right.

After such considerations, I confess that I am on the election of a deputy, who, resting

republican form of government openly declared on the principle of popularsovereignty for the ideal of constitutions, just as such may look as if he to the, in my

opinion bad goals but the slowest and geordnetsten means, and this with pure

conviction loyalty, want, although it contradicts the principle of progress toward this

goal itself that the means can claim such a character, and I confess that to me in this

relationship a serious deception in that representative obzuwalten seems that may still

exist neither an impartial view of history. Reassuring but can his be for anyone

recently given, explanation, which holds that goal at all for a bad, because even the

best and geordnetsten means, they would be still possible, it is not like arrive there,

and we should not yet pose that who just do not hold the current state mature enoughto realize that the best target, unless he is called upon to to initiate a new state of

things, to help will then appear that the same in the sense of progress on this , goals


5/5

will initiated, that maturity was approaching more and more.

This we have therefore to be expected from Professor Biedermann, otherwise yes he

is and he has always maintained the principle of progress would be unfaithful to his

own honor be it said, not what we expect from him.So, these are not merely a

theoretical view, but a man and a situation which are then initiate the technical assert

this view.

Another word, if we are to honor Professor Biedermann, that he earnestly and

courage to progress to a thing that seems right to him, represents, and at one time

been publicly represented, with the powers that anything so was for him to win and

we now honor it also to Professor White that he stop at the one thing that seems right

to him, represented by Ernst and courage, to a time when just a little something to

gain from the powers that is, and was silent for a time when something was to win it,

and we make accusations opposite kind judge themselves. Is our business at all a

worthy, we prove it by the fact that we know to claim it with dignity and against our

enemies, and we lie especially more so even rein in the behavior towards each other,

to be rid of, the more we the reins from above want.

As much as I agree my part in White call: we hold true to our King and Constitution,

which also makes the same meaning for us! Life presents itself certainly no worse

and lower in that each one higher than his, also sees in the human nor his

condition. Than those in the crown - how much nicer it is to look through a pure

clarity after a glowing all over crown to him who bears, no more graces than us that

we rally around him to wear it, is Dust came to see and walk in the vertebrae of this

dust. Seems to us to be too high crown to come? If that gold will benefit the

downtrodden? F.

about popular sovereignty.-english-gustav theodor fechner

Documents