Immanuel Kant "Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre" Friedrich Julius Stahl "Die Philosophie des Rechts" Development of that patriarchal family to become a state and Family growth to become a country according to Mac Iver
Biography of Immanuel Kant
Immanuel Kant was a professor from Prussia.
Immanuel Kant lived in 1724-1804.
Immanuel Kant is a nationalist.
Immanuel Kant is one of the great thinkers of the state and law, his teaching of philosophy is critical in which Immanuel Kant outlines his teachings about the state and law.
Immanuel Kant's thoughts on the state and law are written in his book "Metaphysische Anfangsgründe der Rechtslehre" (Metaphysical Principles of Law).
In many ways his teachings only conveyed the old teachings that had previously existed.
But the revolutionary element which thinkers of the state and law in the eighteenth century always put forward, by Immanuel Kant, thwarted its development.
This was due to Immanuel Kant when he lived under the rule of an absolute king.
Besides that he lived in transitional times, where people face a new age which is a new age altogether, an era where people will end their exaltation of reason.
And it is true that in the time of Immanuel Kant, the theory of natural law will end, which means that there will also be an end to the view in which people only glorify reason.
Immanuel Kant's philosophy
His philosophical teachings, Immanuel Kant, set the limits of human thinking ability and stated that there is a realm that cannot be penetrated by human reason, namely the realm of belief.
That is why Immanuel Kant gives place again for religion or belief in the human mind besides reason.
According to Immanuel Kant, the state is a must, because the state must guarantee the implementation of the public interest in a legal situation. This means that the state must guarantee that every citizen is free in a legal environment. So being free does not mean you can do whatever you want or arbitrarily. But all his actions, although free, must be in accordance with, or according to what has been regulated in the law, so it must be according to the will of the people, because the law is an incarnation rather than the general will.
Like Immanuel Kant as a natural law scholar, Immanuel Kant accepts the opinion that the state occurs because of a community agreement, so it is the same as Rousseau opinion, and expresses his opinion that the sovereignty rests with the people, and that general will is manifest in state legislation. But even so there are differences, and those differences are principal.
If previous natural law scholars, such as Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, Montesquieu, Rousseau, they argue that the community agreement really happened, it is an event in history, so what is called the community agreement does exist.
Meanwhile, according to Immanuel Kant, that what is called a community agreement has never existed, never happened, has never been a reality or an event in history. That the construction of such a state, meaning that the state occurs because of a community agreement, is not true, in the sense that it never happened.
If people say that, it means that the state occurs because of a community agreement, the community agreement is actually only a juridical construction that can help people explain how the state came about, how the state exists, how there is power in the country, and who is the power. that, as well as how it is.
It was said earlier that with the teachings of Immanuel Kant, the teachings of natural law would end its development.
The main reason that makes Immanuel Kant the closing of thoughts about state and law in the sixteenth century and is an introduction to thoughts about state and law in the nineteenth century is the occurrence of revolutions in America and in France.
Why is that ?
Because with this event a person finally accompanies his words with his actions. Thus, people then get the widest possible opportunity to carry out what During the last two centuries it has only been thought of with the help of reason as a good principle to be the basis for the life of the State, while the experiences of this practice will turn it in another direction, which will initiate thinking. about the country and law in the XIX century.
This event began with countries that were formerly colonies proclaiming their independence and sovereignty and then forming national governments. North America, which was originally a British colony, declared its independence and sovereignty in 1776.
The North American countries then agreed to establish the United States with the aim of jointly defending themselves, guaranteeing their independence and sovereignty, and advancing the welfare of their people, in which each of these countries would send representatives to a congress.
And then in 1787 a constitution was drawn up, which people then considered as a renewed social agreement. This is in America.
Whereas in France, people are trying to change the Consultative Assembly by means of a national meeting whose demands are to provide a constitution, that is, a renewed public agreement, written in nature, which must be created by all citizens, in which the rights of the citizens are determined. , or human rights.
With this, human rights have been implemented in practice.
Meanwhile, other countries have followed suit, proclaiming their independence and sovereignty, making constitutions, and including human rights in their constitutions, all of which cannot be contested or restricted by the state.
If in the XVII and XVIII centuries, absolute monarchies were still developing, with the consequence that criticism of the government or rulers was prohibited, then this resulted in a small number of thinkers about the state and law.
Meanwhile, in the century. XIX will have a different situation, in which experts think about the state and law will emerge, both individuals and appearing as representatives of groups, as the church presents its representatives in medieval times.
This is because in the XIX century it was permitted, the formation of political parties and even deemed necessary for the functioning of representative bodies.
In this way the representative bodies will acquire their true character, that is, the nature of reflecting the true will of the people, or of being representative.
With it also developed a modern democracy of all types. This development continues today.
Meanwhile, it is good if we do not forget the existence of an expert thinker about the state and law who lived in the nineteenth century, but his views or the nature of his teachings were theocratic-sociological.
He is Friedrich Julius Stahl. Friedrich Julius Stahl's book on this is called "Die Philosophie des Rechts".
His theocratic-sociological teachings can be seen in his description of the existence of the state. Stahl argues that the country occurs because of the development of a family that is patriarchal, which occupies an area.
Due to historical events and equality of fate, needs and so on, and which have gone through several phases, the nation was born, which later formed the state.
The merger of one family to another is due to several reasons, among others, because of marriage, the war of the loser and then joining of the winner, or for other reasons. This is what gives the teaching a sociological character.
Meanwhile, its theocratic character appears because Stahl said that the existence of such a state was not because it was deliberately created by humans, but because of God's nature, or because of divine will (Hohëre Fügung, or Gottes Fügung). So the existence of that country was what God wanted. God created the country.
Development of that patriarchal family to become a state
In this case Stahl said the following : Initially, in its development, the family had already contained the seeds of tasks which would later become tasks in the state, if the family had developed into a state.
For example, in the family, there is a division of labor duties, so that there are those who are specifically tasked with finding food, maintaining the integrity of the family when there is danger, there are those who are specially tasked with worshiping their ancestors, and so on.
These tasks will later be in the country which is the departments or ministries.
Another opinion that is almost the same as Stahl's opinion on the existence of the state is the opinion of an American scholar named Mac Iver.
Mac Iver's book on thoughts about state and law is “The web of government. and The modern state”.
Mac Iver said that the country was due to the development of a family.
Family growth to become a country according to Mac Iver
Regarding this, Mac Iver said that, in a society that is still simple, we see that there are parts or important duties of the state, and this we can see in the life of a family. So the first level is family.
Within the family there are habits that are always adhered to, or there are institutions, and there is also a power or authority that cannot be separated from these habits. Even within the family there is a leader or head who is called the head of the family or paterfamilies.
The second level is that the family develops, or combines with each other, so that it becomes a large family called 'clan'. Its head is called primus inter pares.
The next development is that the head or leader appoints his offspring to be his successor, then a position system emerges which is hereditary from a rulling family (the ruling family). Thus, then obtained the position of king.
So according to Mac Iver 'the country happened because of the development of a family, and in this development the role of war cannot be forgotten.
But Mac Iver only called the results of this development as a country after it occurred or reached the territorial state, so after the family controlled a certain area.
And this happened after passing the feudalism era.
Meanwhile, the period between the family and Mac Iver's feudalism does not mention the results one by one.
