Until this moment, Crusius has been speaking of a state of nature, that is, a state without no government. Then again, he notes, human beings cannot remain in this state of nature, because their fallen state creates problems. Some people want to do harm to others, and a need to defend oneself leads to the formation of communities. Crusius insists that not everyone can take part in the actual decision making of a community, which requires some form of representation. Furthermore, communities require some principles to fill gaps in the law of nature and means by which to enforce natural law and contracts.
These needs generate an incentive to form republics, by which Crusius means communities in which one or more persons take care of common welfare and security, in order that natural duties and rights of moral person would be better protected. Crusius also insists that God wants republics, because they are in the current state of the world the best means for common welfare. Crusius does admit that first republics were probably dictatorships. Still, he thinks that this genesis does not lessen our obligations toward them. Furthermore, he notes that republics are not absolutely necessary, since in state of nature many things can be determined through contracts.
Crusius notes that republics have two different kinds of members - regents or rulers and subjects or citizens - both of which have their own duties and rights. Although he notes that a republic can have many regents and that even the whole nation could be a regent, most of his discussion seems to rise from the monarchic context of a single ruler.
Duty of regents is, Crusius says, to take care of the welfare of the whole republic and to use their powers only for this purpose and not to restrict individual rights further than necessary. Rights of regent, which Crusius calls rights of majesty, can either be historically determined, such as a right to hunt in certain places where others are not allowed. Still, Crusius notes, some of their rights are determined already by the very notion of regency and thus belong to natural law.
A central right of regents, in Crusius’ account, is the right to explicitly or implicitly appoint civil laws, which are meant for the best of the whole republic and which subjects are obligated to follow. Civil laws either generally say that something should be done or not done, or they assign rights to certain people and to other people a duty to respect those rights.
Crusius bases the obligation toward civil laws on a more fundamental obligation toward natural law - civil laws should be obeyed, because natural law says so. Civil laws are mostly needed where natural law leaves matters very undetermined, for instance, with questions concerning property. In addition, they can be used to bolster parts of natural law that are not accepted by everyone.
Crusius considers also the relationship of civil laws to rights and duties based on natural laws. He notes that civil laws can cancel negative natural rights, for instance, a civil law can cancel a right to hunt. Then again, Crusius adds, positive right can be cancelled only for a good reason. Crusius thinks also that a civil law can cancel those natural duties, which are indeterminate or not in itself necessary, because civil security is more important than following these duties. Then again, he emphasises, immutable natural duties cannot be denied by any civil law, because even civil law is based on such duties.
In addition to devising civil laws, Crusius says that regent is also tasked to apply natural and civil laws as the highest judge of republic. This does not mean that regent would have to sit in court all day, because they can assign officials and judges to help them in their work. Then again, regent cannot leave judicial power to the hands of ordinary citizens - thus, Crusius condemns practices such as dueling. Finally, according to Crusius, regents themselves can judged only by God, so that the security of republic can be maintained.
Crusius says that a regent has a right to punish and thus force subjects to follow laws. In extreme cases they can even kill people, as a deterrent, but Crusius advises this should not be done lightly. Still, Crusius suggests that righteous death penalty should be regarded as deriving from God’s will.
As has already been noted, Crusius wanted regents to avoid meddling into private affairs of citizens, as much as it is possible. This means also that regent should respect property of private persons, although they have a right to tax citizens during extreme times. Crusius also notes that private affairs of regent do not fall under right of majesty, in other words, regent does not have any special rights when e.g. buying or selling property.
Crusius remarks that republic might contain smaller communities. These communities fall also under the command of regent. Thus, Crusius notes, they must provide enough information of their activities to regent, in order to determine whether they won’t pose a threat to a republic. If these communities are harmless, their activities belong to the private sphere.
Crusius also considers the origin of regent’s rights. Originally, he says, majesty must be decided by pact. Such a constitutional pact can be entered freely, but Crusius admits it might also arise through force, if the alternative is even worse. This pact can be explicit - for instance, in case of elections - or implicit. Crusius considers it as a case of an implicit pact, when children continue to live in a republic that has raised them - it is not their parents that have decided the issue, but children themselves, because they enjoy the security provided by the republic.
Crusius says that rights of regent and their limits are determined by the original pact - unless regents want to turn into dictators, they should not try to overcome those limits. Crusius is of the opinion that the rights of regent can be restricted only by an explicit pact or by clear implicit conditions, such as regent’s duty to act for the benefit of the whole republic.
Crusius notes that regent has power also over churches in republic. Indeed, he insists that churches must be regulated more than other communities, because churches are large, depravations can be easily masked as religious dogmas and unruly persons often become church officials. Still, Crusius adds, regent should otherwise give churches the same rights as other communities.
Crusius has further rules about the relationship of regent and religion. Firstly, he begins, regents themselves should not make new religions and they should not make essential changes to religion. Since regents should not meddle in private affairs, they should not force anyone to convert to a religion. Particularly, they should not take children from their parents and make them part of a different religious community. Generally, Crusius says, nobody should be punished just because of their religion. Furthermore, unless the good of the republic demands so, Crusius continues, regent should not force religious community to change its characteristics.
Crusius thinks that power of regents over a religion goes somewhat further, if they follow that particular religion, because then they are obligated to aim for the best of its followers - for instance, regents would then have also judicial power in church. Crusius suggests that regents are obligated to help their religious community survive all internal conflicts. Indeed, he adds, they can even determine the rules of the religious community, if the general good so demands.
According to Crusius, regent can pick some religion as an official religion of the republic, in so far as nobody is forced to uphold it involuntarily. Crusius notes that while regent can punish people who disturb general peace, even if they do it for the sake of their conscience, this does not mean he can punish people just for having a different religion. Still, Crusius allows regents to punish external mockery of the official religion, which Crusius considers to include atheism or deism.
Crusius thinks subjects have a duty to follow civil laws and administration of majesty, thus denying all disobedience. According to Crusius, this duty is based not just on the original pact, but also on the duty of upholding security of whole community. This duty also implies, Crusius says, that despite all their faults, regents must be thought to be good, because on the public image of the regent is based the security of whole republic. Similarly, Crusius continues, subjects must think that a regent always acts according to the best interest of republic.
Crusius admit that if regents forget the duty of upholding common good, citizens are only externally obligated to follow them. He then raises the interesting question whether this external duty of obedience contradicts inner duty of citizens to follow their own conscience. His answer differs from one case to another. Firstly, he notes that when citizens are unsure what is best for the republic, they should just follow their regent. Even if the citizens would know a better course of action than what regent suggests, regent’s suggestion should be follow not be bad as such.
What then if regent’s decision would be foolish or even ethically unsound? Advise of Crusius is to avoid as much conflict as possible. He denies all active rebellion, but accepts a sort of passive resistance, where regent’s commands are not just followed. Even in this case, Crusius says, this disobedience should be done without arousing too much commotion and the citizens should accept the punishment, if their disobedience becomes public.
Since the rights of regent are based on original, explicit or implicit, pact, these rights might vanish and subjects wouldn’t then be obligated to follow their regent. Crusius warns that this could happen only if the regent had committed a great crime, since revolution always endangers public security. Furthermore, he adds that the decision to start a revolution should not rise from a single person, but from whole nation or at least from a majority of nation or from a selected group of its representatives.
While within a republic or a nation, civil laws rule in addition to natural law, when it comes to relation of nations, Crusius says, no such civil laws exist. This means, firstly, that all nations have similar right and no nation can rule or judge over another. Secondly, Crusius adds, it means that all obligations of nations must be based on either natural law or on contracts made by them. Still, the mere existence of free nations changes the natural law somewhat from that holding in a state of nature, for instance, since the existence of nations often implies the existence of entities other than individuals that can own property.
Because free nations have no further ruler above them, Crusius notes, they have a right to force their own rights, in other words, they can start just wars. Just war is no illegal revenge, Crusius clarifies, but a righteous way for a nation to uphold its rights. Still, he points out, war is always an unnatural state and should happen only at very extreme situations, after all diplomatic means have been used. Furthermore, Crusius continues, warring nations should use the least amount of violence and to end the war as soon as possible, while neutral states should not be disturbed during war. Despite these antiwar attitudes, Crusius makes one concession: raging barbarian hordes can be attacked, no matter what.
