Stock theory (state theory)

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The so-called share theory is the basic idea of ​​the state theory of the Osnabrück lawyer and statesman Justus Möser (1720–1794); it is at the same time an (outdated) thesis on the emergence of the state .

Basics of Stock Theory

According to Möser, the state , i.e. H. the entire basic political and social order, originally from a contractual agreement of all landowners . This distinguishes his view from the form of contract theory that was widespread at the time , which generally included all free adults (or at least all men), regardless of their property or other characteristics, in the original founding of the state (in the so-called state of nature ).

For Möser, this association of landowners represented a real historical process in which wealthy families living together or their heads came together to take care of common concerns, such as the cultivation of "ownerless" land or the securing of goods to the outside world. “ The Europeans, as farmers, placed ... the property of an Acherhof, called Mansus, designated for each state, at the basis of their association. Only the real owner of such a mansus was a member of the nation ... ”. This thesis is considered outdated in ethnological research on the emergence of the state . In exactly this sense Möser compares land ownership elsewhere with a share : It is through his land, which the individual contributes to the "state community", that he becomes a citizen . It is his contribution to the community for which he acquires a share in the common cause, the state. As civic duties and rights are directly linked in this way, there is also a certain form of fair performance : “ The poor who have no land have no political rights, but they do not have to pay any taxes and maybe none either To do military service ”, interprets Schröder. Such an understanding of political justice was widespread in Western societies up to the end of the 19th century (compare census suffrage ), but would no longer be justifiable according to the modern, egalitarian understanding of citizenship .

Although, according to this theory, initially only landowners, that is, large landowners, have a share in the rulership, Möser's “share theory” does not serve exclusively to justify its primacy. Other social groups (such as the bourgeoisie ) were also able to acquire political rights over time, namely by participating in the burden of the community, which was probably primarily understood in financial terms. Schröder said: “ Over time, the land shareholders' own funds are no longer sufficient and they have to ask for further funds from owners of money (citizens and farmers). But as soon as this 'second class' grants higher tax payments, 'it appears as a free class that has as much the right to approve and refuse as the first class [of citizens].' ”According to Möser, this explains the development of the third estate or its participation in the political order.

Ultimately, the completely destitute would also become part of the citizenry through their military service for the state qua conscription (similar to the so-called thetes in ancient Athens). But since Möser allows the historically earlier or older right of the landowners, who only own the original "shares", to prevail over the law of the later citizens, they still occupy a certain leadership position in the community: from the fact that only the large landowners concluded the original state founding treaty, he concludes that all further political rights can only be derived from the rights of the landowners. The second and other classes of citizens therefore have political participation rights, but not to the same extent as the landowners. "In this respect, Möser still asserts the historical over the rational justification of the class privileges, " which clearly sets him apart from the positions of other, "more progressive" natural law thinkers of his time.

literature

Individual evidence

  1. See Schröder , p. 296.
  2. Möser : Justus Mösers Complete Works , Vol. 5, p. 191, quoted from Schröder, p. 296f. Insertion not in the original.
  3. In " The Farm Regarded as a Actie ", see sources .
  4. Schröder , p. 297.
  5. Schröder , there.
  6. See Schröder , p. 298.
  7. Schröder , there.