追尋「共和主義」的斷裂點─倫理、法權、制度的三層次分析架構底檢驗

Finding the Contradiction Point of Republicanism: The Test of Three Arrangements of Ideas Analysis System of Metaphysic, Right, Constitutional Structure

10.6712/JCPA.201112_(9).0007

劉岫靈(Hsiao-Lin Liu)

共和主義 ； 民主共和 ； 憲政共和 ； 共和制 ； 基進民主 ； Republicanism ； Democratic Republicanism ； Constitutional Republicanism ； Republic ； Radical democracy

中華行政學報

9期（2011 / 12 / 01）

111 - 130

繁體中文

理論上「憲政共和」（Constitutional Republicanism）與「民主共和」（Democratic Republicanism）乃同時作為「共和主義」（Republicanism）的次類型。然而若重新依循「共和主義」發展脈絡而理解其內在架構與理路後，將會發現「民主共和」與「共和主義」傳統之間，可能存在著一個嚴重的理路斷裂問題。亦即一個融合「基進民主原則」（The Principle of Radical Democracy）於「共和主義」（Republicanism）中轉化而出的「民主共和」，可能存在著足以造成共和主義內在邏輯體系崩解的致命斷裂點。而追尋此一「共和主義」斷裂點即為本文之要旨。

In theory, ”Constitutional Republicanism” and ”Democratic Republicanism” are sub-type of Republicanism at the same time. But when we are serious to re-follow the development context of Republicanism and understand the internal logic, then, we will find a great problem of logical contradiction-The Principle of Radical Democracy combines in Republicanism which is coming into Democratic Republicanism. The existence is sufficient to totally collapse the Republicanism logical system. The contradiction point is ”Direct-Democracy”. Therefore, firstly, this dissertation is going to differentiate the Republicanism to be three arrangements of ideas-Metaphysic, Right, Constitutional structure-which is the Analytical framework. Under the Analytical framework, I am going to explain Aristotle, Cicero, Scholasticism, Humanists, Neo-Roman Theory, Kant, Montesquieu and Federalists whose description of the Republicanism. They finish the intension of three arrangements of ideas of the Republicanism together. Secondly, this dissertation is emphasize to link three arrangements of internal ideas of the Republicanism and the logic changing between three arrangements of ideas. And then I will put Rousseau's Democratic Republicanism into the analytical framework of three arrangements of ideas of the Republicanism to test it. Finally, we will see clearly that The Principle of Radical Democracy of Rousseau's Democratic Republicanism will collapse the logical system of the Republicanism which is going to be the fatal contradiction point of the Republicanism.

1. 蕭高彥(2002)。共和主義與現代政治。政治與社會哲學評論，1，85-116。
   連結：
2. 蕭高彥(2007)。《聯邦論》中的憲政主義與人民主權。政治與社會哲學評論，22，65-108。
   連結：
3. Aristotle,Apostle, Hippocrates G.(trans.)(1966).Metaphysic.Bloomington:Indiana University Press.
4. Aristotle,Lord, Carnes(trans.)(1984).Politics.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
5. Bock, Gisela(ed.),Skinner, Quentin(ed.),Viroli, Maurizio(ed.)(1990).Machiavelli and the Republican Ideal of Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
6. Cicero, Marcus Tullius,Griffin, M. T.(ed.),Atkins, E. M.(trans.)(1991).On Duties.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
7. Cicero, Marcus Tullius,Keyers, C. W.(trans.),Heinemsnn, W.(ed.)(1952).De Res Publica: De Legibus.Oxford:Harvard University Press.
8. Hamilton, Alexander,Madison, James,Jay, John,Jones, H.M.(ed.).The Federalist.Oxford:Harvard University Press.
9. Harrington, James,Pocock, J. G. A.(ed.)(1992).Commonwealth of Oceana and A System of Politics.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
10. Hendel, C. W.(1962).Jean Jacques Rousseau: Moralist.Indianapolis:Bobb-Merrill.
11. Kant, Immanuel,Gregor, Mary J.(trans.)(1980).Metaphysic of Morals.Philadelphia:Pennsylvania University Press.
12. Krieger, Leonard(1972).The German Ideal of Freedom.Chicago:Chicago University Press.
13. McClelland, J. S.、彭懷棟譯(2000)。西洋政治思想史。台北:商業週刊。
14. Montesquieu,Choler, A. M.(trans.),Miller, B. C.(trans.),Stone, H. S.(trans.)(2000).The Spirit of the Laws.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
15. Paton, H. J.(1971).The Categorical Imperative.Philadelphia:Pennsylvania University Press.
16. Pettit, Philip(1997).Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government.Oxford:Oxford University Press.
17. Pocock, J. G. A.(1973).Politics, Language and Time.New York:Atheneum.
18. Reiss, Hans(ed.),Nisbel, H. B.(trans.)(1991).Kant: Political Writings.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
19. Rousseau, Jean Jacques,Cole, G. D. H.(trans. ed.)(1955).A Discourse on the Origin of In equality.London:Dent.
20. Rousseau, Jean Jacques,Cole, G. D. H.(trans.)(1968).The Social Contract and Discourses.London:Dent.
21. Skinner, Quentin(1998).Liberty Before Liberalist.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
22. Skinner, Quentin(1978).The Foundations of Modern Political Thought-Volume One: The Renaissance.Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
23. Strauss, Leo(1953).Natural Right and History.Chicago:University of Chicago Press.
24. Sunstein, Cass R.(1988).Beyond the Republican Revival.The Yale Law Journal,97(8)
25. 朱堅章(1972)。盧梭政治思想中自由觀念的分析。國立政治大學學報，26
26. 江宜樺(1995)。政治社群與生命共同體：亞里斯多德、城邦理論的若干啟示。政治社群，台北:
27. 張福建(2001)。在自由主義與共和主義之外：梅迪遜早期憲政思想探索。自由主義，台北:
28. 陳思賢(1999)。西洋政治思想史─古典世界篇。台北:五南圖書出版股份有限公司。
29. 劉岫靈(2008)。Kant式共和主義之分析─從「令式倫理學」、「法權」到「共和制」的建立。中華人文社會學報，8
30. 劉岫靈(2010)。共和主義的起源？─重返Aristotle與Cicero之比較。朝陽人文社會學刊，8(1)
31. 蔡英文(1999)。古典共和公民社會的理想與奧古斯丁政治神學之解釋。台灣哲學研究，2，71-107。
32. 蕭高彥(2001)。從共和主義到激進民主─盧梭的政治秩序論。自由主義，台北:
33. 賴賢宗(2001)。從「道德」到「法權」─從康德的令式倫理學到康德的法權哲學。思與言，39(2)，165-191。