A Vindication of Natural Society: or, a View of the Miseries and Evils arising to Mankind from every Species of Artificial Society is a work by Edmund Burke published in 1756. Although the Vindication is a satire aimed at the deism of Lord Bolingbroke, Burke confronted Bolingbroke not in the sphere of religion but in that of civil society and government, countering that his arguments against revealed religion could apply to all institutions. So close to Bolingbroke's style was the work that Burke's ironic intention was missed by some readers, leading Burke in his preface to the second edition (1757) to make plain that it was a satire; this is the consensus view among most Burkean scholars and followers.
The Vindication was recognized as satire by William Godwin, often regarded as the first modern proponent of philosophical anarchism, who supported part of Burke's arguments critical of the existing political institutions despite the irony inherent in its satire. Conversely, some modern right-wing libertarian commentators, such as Murray Rothbard and Joseph Sobran, interpreted Burke's satire as a serious philosophical anarchist argument against the state.
Satire
Most historians and Burke's biographers, scholars, and followers believe the Vindication was intended as satire; some political commentators disagree.[1] For example, American anarcho-capitalist economist and political theorist Murray Rothbard described the work as "perhaps the first modern expression of rationalistic and individualistic anarchism",[2] and argued that Burke wrote the Vindication in earnest but later wished to disavow it for political reasons,[3][nb 1] while American paleoconservative writer Joseph Sobran stated that Burke's anti-statist argument was too persuasive to be a joke.[4]
Rothbard's argument was based on a misunderstanding. He believed it took nine years (until 1765) for Burke to divulge that he was the author of the work, and only claimed it to be a satire to save his then spawning political career. In reality, Burke revealed both his authorship and claims the book as a satire in the preface to its second edition published in 1757, long before he would embark upon a political career.[5]
British political philosopher William Godwin, often considered the first modern proponent of anarchism,[nb 2] appreciated its critique of political institutions but recognized the satire, and observed that the intent of Burke was to show that the existing political institutions, for all their flaws, were still preferable to anarchy.[6] Passages that included Jonathan Swift-style irony, where Burke acted as though he was Bolingbroke and those who supported him in many ways in the Vindication,[7] and as a theoretical realization of the danger such controversial opinions may have upon a career are the following:
"In such a Discussion, far am I from proposing in the least to reflect on our most wise Form of Government; no more than I would in the freer Parts of my philosophical Writings, mean to object to the Piety, Truth, and Perfection of our most excellent Church.[8] [...] These and many more Points I am far from spreading to their full Extent. You are sensible that I do not put forth half my Strength; and you cannot be at a loss for the Eeason. A Man is allowed sufficient Freedom of Thought, provided he knows how to chuse his Subject properly. You may criticise freely upon the Chinese Constitution, and observe with as much Severity as you please upon the Absurd Tricks, or destructive Bigotry of the Bonzees. But the Scene is changed as you come homeward, and Atheism or Treason may be the Names given in Britain, to what would be Reason and Truth if asserted of China."[9]
Content
The preface presents the occasion of the essay as a riposte to the philosophy of Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke (died 1751), whose Collected Works and Letters had been published by David Mallet in 5 volumes in 1754. A new preface was written by Burke after his authorship was discovered, and after a significant number of his contemporaries who read his work had not caught the irony.[10] In this apologetic preface, he wrote that Vindication was inspired by "seeing every Mode of Religion attacked in a lively Manner, and the Foundation of every Virtue, and of all Government, sapped with great Art and much Ingenuity" in Lord Bolingbroke's collected works.[11] About his design, Burke wrote:[12]
"The Design was, to shew that, without the Exertion of any considerable Forces, the same Engines which were employed for the Destruction of Religion, might be employed with equal Success for the Subversion of Government; and that specious Arguments might be used against those Things which they, who doubt of every thing else, will never permit to be questioned."[13]
Burke contrasts natural society with political society,[14] beginning with a distrust of the Mind, which "every day invents some new artificial Rule to guide that Nature which if left to itself were the best and surest Guide".[15] He proposes to set out to identify those "unalterable Relations which Providence has ordained that every thing should bear to every other. These Relations, which are Truth itself, the Foundation of Virtue, and consequently, the only Measures of Happiness, should be likewise the only Measures by which we should direct our Reasoning."[16] Burke's attack on the rationalists of his day is not because they are rationalists but because they engage in artificial rather than natural reason.[17] In the spirit of the Age of Enlightenment, Burke expresses every confidence in the cumulative progress of the human condition. He writes:
"The Fabrick of Superstition has in this our Age and Nation received much ruder Shocks than it had ever felt before; and through the Chinks and Breaches of our Prison, we see such Glimmerings of Light, and feel such refreshing Airs of Liberty, as daily raise our Ardor for more. The Miseries derived to Mankind from Superstition, under the Name of Religion, and of ecclesiastical Tyranny under the Name of Church Government, have been clearly and usefully exposed."[16]
In a swift survey of history, Burke finds nothing but "Tumults, Rebellions, Massacres, Assassinations, Proscriptions, and a Series of Horror",[18] and remarks that "All Empires have been cemented in Blood" as the casualties mount in the millions, with cruelties perfected by technology.[19] Contrasted with natural liberty and natural religion, Burke sets the Aristotelian general forms of government,[20] which he describes with the same emphatic detail as used in the Satires of Juvenal: starting from despotism, the simplest and most universal, where "unbounded Power proceeds Step by Step, until it has eradicated every laudable Principle";[21] then republics, which "have many Things in the Spirit of absolute Monarchy, but none more than this; a shining Merit is ever hated or suspected in a popular Assembly, as well as in a Court";[22] followed by aristocracy, which is scarcely better, as "a Genoese, or a Venetian Republick, is a concealed Despotism";[23] and finally giddy democracy, where the common people are "intoxicated with the Flatteries of their Orators".[24][nb 3] Despite being a law student, Burke also denounced lawyers and legal procedures.[25]
Having employed fulminating rhetoric to dispense with the artificial political societies after "so fair an Examen, wherein nothing has been exaggerated; no Fact produced which cannot be proved",[26] Burke is expected to turn to his idea of natural society for contrast. Instead, he turns his critical eye upon the mixed government, which combines monarchy, aristocracy, and a tempered democracy, the form of politics this essay's British readers would immediately identify as their own (Westminster system). His satirist's view takes it all in, painting once again in broad strokes the dilemmas of the law courts or the dissatisfactions of wealth, and closes—without actually having vindicated natural society at all. Embedded in the whirl of extravagant invective, Burke is able, like all writers of Menippean satire, to express some subversive criticism thusly: "You may criticise freely upon the Chinese Constitution, and observe with as much Severity as you please upon the Absurd Tricks, or destructive Bigotry of the Bonzees. But the Scene is changed as you come homeward, and Atheism or Treason may be the Names given in Britain, to what would be Reason and Truth if asserted of China."[9]
↑ For Rothbard's full arguments for why the Vindication was a serious work by Burke, see:
Rothbard 1958, pp. 117–118: "There are many internal indications that this is a sober work by Burke, and not a satire. In the first place, there is his treatment of reason. One of Burke's most characteristic views in his later years, and one that particularly endears him to the New Conservatives, is his distrust of reason. In particular the rationalists who wish to plan the lives of people in the way an engineer builds a machine, are contrasted with conservatives who rely on spontaneous and unplanned change. It would seem, therefore, that Burke's reliance on reason in the Vindication is simply a satire on these rationalist views. But this is not the case at all. In upholding reason as the bulwark of his extreme libertarian views, Burke also attacks those rationalists who wish to plan and tyrannize over society. But he attacks them not because they are rationalists, but precisely because they are false to reason. They are not rationalist enough to realize the rationality of liberty. ... Secondly, if Burke had meant to impugn Bolingbroke's Deist views, he would have denounced 'artificial religion' equally or more than he denounces government. But on the contrary, Burke explicitily states that government is a far greater evil. Another piece of evidence for the seriousness of the Vindication is its bitter denunciation of lawyers and legal procedures. We know that Burke, in this period, was an unhappy law student, fed up with law and eagerly turning to literature and literary companions. His bitter passages on Law in the Vindication fit perfectly with what we know of his feelings in this period. But if these passages are faithful to Burke's genuine opinions, why not the rest of the work as well? Historians have stressed that the Vindication was written in imitation of the style of the recently dead Bolingbroke, and have taken this as proof of its satiric bent. Yet these same biographers of Burke admit that, in his later writings, he continued to write in a similar style! Is it, in fact, surprising that young Burke should try to imitate the style of the man universally acknowledged as the greatest stylist and orator of his day? Burke's elaborate efforts to shield his identity from the public, to give the impression that this was a posthumous work of Bolingbroke's, hint at a different explanation. This is his realization that the kind of views expressed in the Vindication would be bitterly reviled and denounced. ... If the work were [sic] really a satire, why only proclaim it as such when a rising political career was at stake? Why not announce it shortly after publication? And if the Burke of Vindication was in deadly earnest, did he really change his earlier views, or did this great advocate of prudence bow prudently to the public temper?"
For John C. Weston Jr.'s response to Rothbard's arguments, see:
Weston 1958, p. 441: "Mr. Rothbard presents a number of specific reasons for believing the Vindication a 'sober' work, which perhaps should be answered. First, in connection with Burke's 'treatment of reason,' one cannot deny the irony of his treatment merely by asserting the literal reading. Second, that Burke 'did not impugn Bolingbroke's Deist views' is not true and if it were is not an indication that he approved of them; Burke in this essay was attacking the suppositions of Deism by ridiculing its methods and attitudes as applied to politics. Third, that Burke-as-Bolingbroke here denounces what we know Burke himself disliked, lawyers and legal procedures, does not mean that the piece is sober; a part of a general satire can represent the author's real belief used to satirize something else. Fourth, there is really no proof that Burke presented his own views as Bolingbroke's to protect himself from the charge of radicalism: many contemporaries, as the above review shows, know who wrote the piece anyway, and although there are indications of a hoax there is no indication of 'elaborate efforts to shield his identity.' That the whole piece has the tone of 'a man who fears the consequences of publishing his views' is a part of the very ingenious, perhaps overly-subtle, satire: Bolingbroke himself delayed publication of nearly all his pieces until after his death; Burke here, like his friend Dr. Johnson elsewhere, is attacking his furtive, dishonest, and stealthy manner."
↑ According to Rothbard 1958, p. 116, Burke "emphatically denounces any and all government, and not just specific forms of government. Citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, pp. 46, 32–33: "The Several species of government vie with each other in the absurdity of their constitutions, and the oppression which they make their subjects endure. Take them under what form you please, they are in effect but a despotism ... Parties in religion and politics make sufficient discoveries concerning each other, to give a sober man proper caution against them all. The monarchist, and aristocratical, and popular partisans have been jointly laying their axes to the root of all government, and have in their turns proved each other absurd and inconvenient. In vain you tell me that artificial governing thing itself is the abuse." According to Rothbard 1958, p. 117, Burke "explicitily states that government is a far greater evil", citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, pp. 46–47. According to Weston 1958, pp. 438–439: "In his conclusion (62–66) [Burke] insists on the connection between artificial religion and artificial society, asserts that the latter is the worse and maintains that to do away with the one necessities doing away with the other and, ironically and conversely, that if the one is kept the other must be kept also. He ends the piece by confessing that he has not always been able to view objects, as he is now able, in the 'cold light of reason' but that with age has come a falling off of passions."
References
↑ Rothbard 1958, pp.114, 118: "In 1756 Edmund Burke published his first work: Vindication of Natural Society. Curiously enough it has been almost completely ignored in the current Burke revival. This work contrasts sharply with Burke's other writings, for it is hardly in keeping with the current image of the Father of the New Conservatism. A less conservative work could hardly be imagined; in fact, Burke's Vindication was perhaps the first modern expression of rationalistic and individualist anarchism. It is well known that Burke spent the rest of his career battling for views diametrically opposite to those of his Vindication. His own belated explanation was that the Vindication was a satire on the views of rationalist Deists like Lord Bolingbroke, demonstrating that a devotion to reason and an attack on revealed religion can logically eventuate in a subversive attack on the principle of government itself. Burke's host of biographers and followers have tended to adopt his explanation uncritically. ... Historians have stressed that the Vindication was written in imitation of the style of the recently dead Bolingbroke, and have taken this as proof of its satiric intent."; Weston 1958, pp.435, 441: "By choosing to read Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society (1756) as a literal and 'sober' statement of ideas, Murray N. Rothbard has presented us with the heterodox view of Burke as a man who in his early years was an individualistic anarchist but who went on to become the principal modern exponent of classical conservatism. If one chooses to read the Vindication literally, one would come up with this view, but one must not read it literally, because of reasons which are here offered in what would be but for Mr. Rothbard's bold questionings of the opinions of all Burke scholars and biographers a gratuitous demonstration. ... This much disagreement among the readers of the time shows that Burke's efforts at irony were not completely successful, and realizing this he published his explanation the next year. But the fact that the irony was not universally perceived does not do away with the ironic intention, which has been and is immediately clear to all serious students of Burke's thought."; Smith 2014: "The notion that a young Burke, within a year after publishing the Vindication, converted from a hyper-rationalistic anarchist (and anti-Christian deist) to an anti-rationalistic conservative (and devout Anglican), while attempting to disguise his conversion with a deceitful preface, is, in a word, preposterous. There is not a scintilla of credible evidence to support this interpretation."
↑ Rothbard 1958, pp.114, 117: "A less conservative work could hardly be imagined; in fact, Burke's Vindication was perhaps the first modern expression of rationalistic and individualist anarchism. ... Consequently, both the communist and the individualist wings of anarchism have drawn up sustenance from this work. William Godwin, the late eighteenth-century English founder of communist anarchism, hailed Vindication as a precursor of his own viewpoint. On the other hand, an English disciple of Josiah Warren's individualist anarchism reprinted the Vindication in 1858, with appropriate marginal comment, and it was highly praised and reprinted by Benjamin R. Tucker in Liberty in 1885. On balance, it would be fair, though inconclusive, to place the Vindication in the individualist camp, since there is no sign of enmity to private property as such in this work.; Weston 1958, p.435: "By choosing to read Edmund Burke's Vindication of Natural Society (1756) as a literal and 'sober' statement of ideas, Murray N. Rothbard has presented us with the heterodox view of Burke as a man who in his early years was an individualistic anarchist but who went on to become the principal modern exponent of classical conservatism. If one chooses to read the Vindication literally, one would come up with this view, but one must not read it literally, because of reasons which are here offered in what would be but for Mr. Rothbard's bold questionings of the opinions of all Burke scholars and biographers a gratuitous demonstration."
↑ Rothbard 1958, p.118: "If the work were really a satire, why only proclaim it as such when a rising political career was at stake? Why not announce it shortly after publication? And if the Burke of Vindication was in deadly earnest, did he really change his earlier views, or did this great advocate of prudence bow prudently to the public temper?"; Weston 1958, p.435: "The only question is whether or not the Vindication is ironic. A number of factual matters should be settled. First, Burke did not, as Mr. Rothbard asserts, wait nine years to write this 'Preface' containing an explanation of the ironic purpose of the essay. The 'Preface' appeared in the second edition published one year after the first edition. Thus Mr. Rothbard cannot argue that Burke waited to proclaim it as satire on grounds of prudence only 'when a rising political career was at stake.' Second, that Burke did not hold these ideas as literally set forth in the Vindication can be easily demonstrated by citing passages from his writings done within a few years of its publication. A few fairly random examples of early, typically Burkean conservative ideas will suffice."
↑ Sobran 2002: "Oddly enough, the great conservative Edmund Burke began his career with an anarchist tract, arguing that the state was naturally and historically destructive of human society, life, and liberty. Later he explained that he'd intended his argument ironically, but many have doubted this. His argument for anarchy was too powerful, passionate, and cogent to be a joke. Later, as a professional politician, Burke seems to have come to terms with the state, believing that no matter how bloody its origins, it could be tamed and civilized, as in Europe, by 'the spirit of a gentleman, and the spirit of religion'. But even as he wrote, the old order he loved was already breaking down."
↑ Weston 1958, p.435: "The only question is whether or not the Vindication is ironic. A number of factual matters should be settled. First, Burke did not, as Mr. Rothbard asserts, wait nine years to write this 'Preface' containing an explanation of the ironic purpose of the essay. The 'Preface' appeared in the second edition published one year after the first edition. Thus Mr. Rothbard cannot argue that Burke waited to proclaim it as satire on grounds of prudence only 'when a rising political career was at stake.' Second, that Burke did not hold these ideas as literally set forth in the Vindication can be easily demonstrated by citing passages from his writings done within a few years of its publication. A few fairly random examples of early, typically Burkean conservative ideas will suffice."; Smith 2014: "There is a simple answer to Rothbard's questions: Burke did in fact announce the satirical intent of the Vindication shortly after its initial publication in 1756. The second edition with the new preface was actually published in 1757, just one year after the original edition--not nine years later, in 1765, as Rothbard asserted. And in 1757 Burke was not running for any political office."
↑ Godwin 1842, p.7, footnote: "Most of the above arguments [referring to and citing Locke on Government, Book L Ch. i. §. 1; and Book II. Ch vii, §. 91.] may be found much more at large in Burke's Vindication of Natural Society; a treatise in which the evils of the existing political institutions are displayed with incomparable force of reasoning and lustre of eloquence, while the intention of the author was to show that these evils were to be considered trivial." Also cited in Philp, Mark; Clemit, Pamela; Fitzpatrick, Martin; St. Clair, William, eds. (2020) [1993]. The Political and Philosophical Writings of William Godwin. Vol.3 (1st e-booked.). London: Routledge. p.14. doi:10.4324/9780429350061. ISBN978-1-000-74895-6. Retrieved 16 December 2024– via Google Books. Most of the above arguments may be found much more at large in Burke's Vindication of Natural Society; a treatise in which the evils of the existing political institutions are displayed with incomparable force of reasoning and lustre of eloquence, while the intention of the author was to show that these evils were to be considered trivial.
↑ Weston 1958, pp.437–438: "Burke's object of attack is the person or the ideas of the person who is ostensibly doing the writing. Burke's object of attack in this personation is both Bolingbroke and those people who believe like him. His main purpose is to show, as he says in the Preface (1757) ... Burke has two objections to Bolingbroke's philosophy: that his arguments are specious and that his arguments are applied to a subject-matter which should be sacred from all argument. From the treatment of the first comes the humor of his satire; from the second comes the most basic ideological significance of the work. Burke satirizes Bolingbroke's method in numerous ways. The main aim is to show a mind roving freely over all things, condemning all historical or present events or situations upon which it touches by comparing them with an imaginary natural society. After an introduction (9–14) in which Burke-as-Bolingbroke lays down his principles, attacks his opponents, and discourses on natural society ... ."
1 2 Burke 1998, p.52. Also quoted in Rothbard 1958, p. 118, citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, p. 36. Rothbard 1958, p. 118, citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, p. 32, includes the following (taken seriously by Rothbard): "When the world is in a fitter temper than it is at present to hear truth, or when I shall be more indifferent about its temper, my thoughts may become more public. In the meantime, let them repose in my own bosom, and in the bosoms of such men as are fit to be initiated in the sober mysteries of truth and reason."
↑ Weston 1958, p.441: "This much disagreement among the readers of the time shows that Burke's efforts at irony were not completely successful, and realizing this he published his explanation the next year. But the fact that the irony was not universally perceived does not do away with the ironic intention, which has been and is immediately clear to all serious students of Burke's thought."
↑ Weston 1958, p. 437, citing Edmund Burke, Works, I, pp. 4–5: "... without the exertion of any considerable forces, the same engines which were employed with equal success for the subversion of government; and that specious arguments might be used against these things which they, who doubt of everything else, will never permit to be questioned."
↑ Rothbard 1958, pp.115–116: "The catalog of murders is impressive enough; and Burke estimates that, from ancient times, thirty-six million people have been slaughtered by government. But Burke is not content to stop there. Why, he asks, why does evil center in States? He finds the answer in the nature of the State itself. All 'political society' rests on subordination on the one hand, and tyranny on the others. ... The Vindication contains much rhetoric about inequality between the rich and the poor. Close examination reveals, however, that Burke is writing not about social classes but about social castes, i.e., he is referring to the artificial inequalities of wealth resulting from state actions and not to the inequalities resulting from free action. Burke is denouncing the slavery, poverty, and vices introduced by 'political society.' It should be clear from this work that by 'political society,' Burke did not signify 'society' in general. This is no Rousseauan call for a return to the jungle, either earnestly or satirically. Burke's attack is levelled not against society—the framework of peaceful human interrelations and exchanges, but against states—those uniquely coercive elements in human relations. His argument rests on a belief that when we observe the nature of man, we find that states are anti-social institutions."; Weston 1958, p.441: "In the next section (57–62) [Burke] shows, again by a comparison with natural society, that the distinction between rich and poor, which is inseparable from civil society, leads to no happiness because not only are the poor wretched but their masters are even more so."
↑ Rothbard 1958, p.117. From Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, p. 37: "During the course of my inquiry you may have observed a very material difference between my manner of reasoning and that which is in use among the abettors of artificial society. They form their plans upon what seems most eligible to their imaginations, for the ordering of mankind. I discover the mistakes in those plans, from the real known consequences which have resulted from them. They have enlisted reason to fight against itself ... turned our reason against itself, in that proportion have we increased the follies and miseries of mankind." Also cited in Burke 1999, p. 94. Weston 1958, p. 440: "Thus Burke's attack against Bolingbroke had as one of its principal features what Lovejoy calls 'rationalistic anti-rationalism', that is, a detestation of impious pride of intellect, and this places Burke on one of the main currents of eighteenth-century thought. The above in its generality is probably the reading which all biographers and students of Burke have given this work."
↑ Burke 1998, p. 21. Also cited in Rothbard 1958, p. 115: "The catalog of murders is impressive enough; and Burke estimates that, from ancient times, thirty-six million people have been slaughtered by government. Burke examines the nature of the State. He points to the familiar fact that government do things for 'reasons of state' which individuals could not justly do. But he adds that these injustice are grounded on the very nature of the State itself, i.e., on the fact that the State is necessarily supported by violence." Citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, p. 21: "To prove that these sort of political societies are a violation offered to nature and constraint upon the human mind, it needs only to look upon the sanguinary measures, and instruments of violence, which are everywhere used to support them. Let us take a review of the dungeons, whips, chains, racks, gibbets, with which every society is abundantly stored ... I acknowledge, indeed, the necessity of such a proceedings in such institutions; but I must have a very mean opinion of institutions where such proceedings are necessary." Weston 1958, pp. 437–438: "Burke satirizes Bolingbroke's method in numerous ways. The main aim is to show a mind roving freely over all things, condemning all historical or present events or situations upon which it touches by comparing them with an imaginary natural society. After an introduction (9–14) in which Burke-as-Bolingbroke lays down his principles, attacks his opponents, and discourses on natural society, he enters into an examination of civil society (14–51), using, he says, history and experience as guides. He first examines civil society 'externally,' that is, the relations between states (14–30). He attempts to prove that there have been seventy-five times as many people killed as a result of wars as there are people alive on the earth at the time of his writing. He does this by estimating the number of dead as a result of the campaigns of various generals and of various wars, adding these calculations erroneously, and finally multiplying this figure by 1,000 to allow for error! He then as assesses the blame for this carnage on the existence of civil society by four amusing arguments, among which is a comparison with the state of nature and also with the relationship existing between animals."
↑ Rothbard 1958, pp. 115–116: "Burke proceeds to a discussion of the famous Aristotelian types of government: despotism, aristocracy, democracy. Each is taken up, examined, and found wanting. Despotism is obviously evil; but aristocracy is not better. In fact, an aristocracy is apt to be worse, since its rule is more permanent and does not depend on the whims of one man. And what of democracy? Here Burke draws on his store of knowledge of ancient Greece. Democracy is not only tyrannical, but bound to succumb to hatred of superior individuals. The rule of the people tends to be warlike and despotic, and to make heavy use of taxes and subsidies. Finally, Burke takes up the 'mixed' form of government, the form particularly admired by republican theorists in modern times. By a division and balance of powers, republican government is supposed to blend all three of these forms, so that each can check and balance the excesses of the other. Burke, confessing a former adherence to this system, plunges into an analysis of it, pursuing truth whenever it may lead. First, he says this intricate balance must necessarily be very delicate, and easily upset by one power or another. Second, overlapping spheres of powers create a constant source of confusion and argument. Third, the effect of the conflict between the various powers is that first one, and then the other, segment achieves dominant power in the endless struggle, and alternately tyrannizes over the people. Whichever party achieves power, tyranny is the result." Citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, p. 35: "... the balance is overset, now upon one side, now upon the other. The government is, one day, arbitrary power in a single person; another, a juggling confederacy of a few to cheat the prince, and enslave the people, and the third, a frantic and unmanageable democracy. The great instrument of all these changes ... is party ...; the spirit which actuates all parties is the same; the spirit of ambition, of self-interest, of oppression, and treachery." Weston 1958, p. 438: "[Burke] next considers civil society 'internally' (30–51). He discovers that despotism is intolerable by citing Locke's opinion that anarchy is preferable. He discovers aristocracy to be worse because the policy is unchanging and because a remedy is more difficult to effect. Then he finds that democracy is even worse because, reversing the previous argument about aristocracy, it is too changeable and multiplies the evils of one or a few men through government by all men. Finally, he discovers that a mixed form of government combines the evils of all three monstrous systems he previously has annihilated and further objects that there exists in this system a constant fight among its parts. Thus Burke has Bolingbroke turn upside down the traditional belief, stemming ultimately from Aristotle, that mixed system as best, since they mitigate the errors of each class or part."
↑ Rothbard 1958, p. 117, citing Edmund Burke, Works (London, 1900), I, pp. 38–41. Weston 1958, p. 441. "[Burke] next attacks law (51–57) After comparing his methods of enquiry with those of the defenders of artificially society and showing the connection between professors of artificial religion and artificial society, he involves himself in a hypothetical law case in which he is soon very indignantly at the mercy of a pack of scoundrel lawyers who reduce him to penury and finally to slavery. He ends this section with his favorite comparison: of this law-ridden society and the happy state of nature.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
