代議制統治論
- 言語:
- 英語
- 状態:
- 完全な作品
- 著者性:
- 著者自身による
- テキストの状態:
- 良好なテキスト
- 分量:
- 約 100,000 語 · 482 節
この作品を引用
- APAジョン・スチュアート・ミル. (n.d.). 代議制統治論. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-stuart-mill/considerations-on-representative-government
- MLAジョン・スチュアート・ミル. "代議制統治論." SigPhi, https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-stuart-mill/considerations-on-representative-government.
- Chicagoジョン・スチュアート・ミル. 代議制統治論. SigPhi. https://sigphiai.com/ja/works/john-stuart-mill/considerations-on-representative-government.
何についての本か
一八六一年の書。民主政が多数者の暴政に終わらぬためには、どのように働かねばならないかをミルが説く。
背景と歴史
最良の統治形態は代議制であるとまず述べ、その上で本書の全体を、選挙するだけでは足りない理由に費やす。彼の抱えた問題は我々の問題でもある。多数派が自分たちの利害を少数派に押しつけるのをどう防ぐか。議会が自ら行政をやろうとせずに行政府を監督するにはどうするか。事情を知る人々に投票させるにはどうするか。古びた提案もあれば、そうでないものもある。ヘアの比例代表制を支持し、女性への選挙権拡張を——一八六一年に——支持し、同時に教育程度に応じた複数投票をも支持している。この最後の一点は、今日読むと居心地が悪い。もっともよく引かれるのは次の頁だ。統治の良し悪しは、それが市民を何者にするかで決まる。統治に習熟していない民は、いつまでも学ばぬままである。
これは編集上の背景であり、引用できる典拠ではありません。作品本文の一節とは異なり、これらの記述はコーパスで検証できません。
Author Of "A System Of Logic, Ratiocinative And Inductive" [Redactor's note: Italics are indicated by underscores surrounding the _italicized text_.] [Footnotes initially found throughout the text have been numbered and placed at the end of the text.] Preface Those who have done me the honor of reading my previous writings will probably receive no strong impression of novelty from the present volume; for the principles are those to which I have been working up during the greater part of my life, and most of the practical suggestions have been anticipated by others or by myself. There is novelty, however, in the fact of bringing them together, and exhibiting them in their connection, and also, I believe, in much that is brought forward in their support. Several of the opinions at all events, if not new, are for the present as little likely to meet with general acceptance as if they were. It seems to me, however, from various indications, and from none more than the recent debates on Reform of Parliament, that both Conservatives and Liberals (if I may continue to call them what they still call themselves) have lost confidence in the political creeds which they nominally profess, while neither side appears to have made any progress in providing itself with a better. Yet such a better doctrine must be possible; not a mere compromise, by splitting the difference between the two, but something wider than either, which, in virtue of its superior comprehensiveness, might be adopted by either Liberal or Conservative without renouncing any thing which he really feels to be valuable in his own creed. When so many feel obscurely the want of such a doctrine, and so few even flatter themselves that they have attained it, any one may without presumption, offer what his own thoughts, and the best that he knows of those of others, are able to contribute towards its formation.…