{"id":5235,"date":"2018-01-29T07:00:15","date_gmt":"2018-01-29T12:00:15","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/?p=5235"},"modified":"2023-11-03T18:19:28","modified_gmt":"2023-11-03T22:19:28","slug":"48-ideas-ponet-grotius-hobbes-and-locke","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/?p=5235","title":{"rendered":"48. Ideas: Ponet, Grotius, Hobbes, and Locke"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"Yup,<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

I wonder where she’s going with this…<\/p>\n\n\n

<\/p>\n

Chapter 2: What Were They Thinking?<\/p>\n

Page 48: Enlightenment Inspiration<\/p>\n

Average Joe starts explaining, Sis being dismissive.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

When it comes to political theory — what government is for, how it ought to work, and all that — the Framers’ ideas were strongly influenced by philosophers of the\u00a0Enlightenment\u2026<\/strong><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

*Pff* Not\u00a0this<\/strong> trope again.<\/p>\n

Joe makes a “come on, seriously?” gesture. Sis responds with her own.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

*ahem* \u2026by Enlightenment thinkers like\u00a0Locke, Montesquieu,<\/strong> and others who, in the world of scientific revolution, believed that politics and other human behavior obeyed inherent “natural laws” which could be discovered through\u00a0reason.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Weird Renaissance-looking dude with a sword.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

But before reason came\u00a0resistance.<\/strong><\/p>\n

By the time Columbus was discovering the New World, the kings of England were no longer the chief\u00a0warlords<\/strong> of a feudal system, but the chief\u00a0executives<\/strong> of a powerful centralized government.<\/p>\n

WEIRD-LOOKING… KING, I GUESS?<\/em><\/p>\n

I\u2026 have\u2026 the\u00a0power!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Gilded illustration from a medieval book.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The new arrangement brought a new problem: Now that political authority no longer came from swords, land and loyalty\u2026\u00a0where<\/strong> did the government’s authority\u00a0come<\/strong> from?<\/p>\n

MEDIEVAL CHARACTER<\/em><\/p>\n

Well,\u00a0all<\/strong> power is ultimately\u00a0God’s.<\/strong><\/p>\n

I<\/strong> have the power now, so God must have\u00a0delegated\u00a0<\/strong>it to me.<\/p>\n

It’s what God wants, he’s entitled me to rule\u2026 in other words, I rule by\u00a0divine right!<\/strong><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

As the sovereign’s\u00a0authority<\/strong> to rule and the\u00a0legitimacy<\/strong> of his rule came from\u00a0religion,<\/strong> you did get a certain level of stability\u2026<\/p>\n

After all, disobeying the government was practically a sin!<\/p>\n

But not everyone\u00a0agreed<\/strong> this was a good idea.<\/p>\n

MEDIEVAL CHARACTER<\/em><\/p>\n

Especially when it wasn’t\u00a0their<\/strong> denomination.<\/p>\n

Henry VIII portrait.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

For one thing, religious\u00a0tolerance<\/strong> was now a threat to national\u00a0security.<\/strong> Dissenting views weren’t mere difference of opinion, but an existential threat<\/strong> to the regime (and ruler). Repressing other doctrines was a matter of self-defense.<\/p>\n

HENRY VIII<\/em><\/p>\n

So I persecuted P<\/strong>rotestants<\/strong> when I was a Catholic\u2026<\/p>\n

and\u00a0Catholics<\/strong> after I became a Protestant!<\/p>\n

16th-Century warship.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

When Henry VIII’s Catholic daughter became queen, she quickly\u00a0 earned the name “Bloody Mary,” burning hundreds of Protestants at the stake. After fleeing to continental Europe, Anglican bishop\u00a0John Ponet<\/strong> had some words to say about all this:<\/p>\n

JOHN PONET (haranguing from deck)<\/em><\/p>\n

Kings do\u00a0not<\/strong> rule by divine right!<\/p>\n

The right to rule comes from doing the job properly!<\/p>\n

And government has\u00a0one<\/strong> job: to ensure justice, for the\u00a0people’s<\/strong> benefit.<\/p>\n

If the government isn’t doing its job well, then the people have the right to\u00a0fire<\/strong> it, and get a better one!<\/p>\n

And if the ruler has\u00a0harmed<\/strong> the people, they’re allowed to\u00a0execute<\/strong> him like any other criminal\u2026<\/p>\n

John Adams portrait.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Ponet wrote his “Short Treatise on Political Power” in 1556, far away in Strasbourg, and his ideas got\u00a0zero<\/strong> traction with European sensibilities. But 200 years later, they were avidly studied by some of America’s founding generation.<\/p>\n

JOHN ADAMS (1787)<\/em><\/p>\n

Ponet’s work contained\u00a0all<\/strong> the essentials of liberty. Guys like Locke were just fiddling with the details. Hell, Ponet even said government should have three equal branches!<\/p>\n

Joe talking head.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

That last bit’s a\u00a0little<\/strong> misleading. He wasn’t talking about separation of powers. He meant a\u00a0mixed<\/strong> government — the decisiveness of a king, the wisdom of a ruling elite, and the popular voice of democracy.<\/p>\n

The best traits of each would balance out, and ensure the best government its society could produce.<\/p>\n

Hugo Grotius portrait<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

A lifetime came and went, and in 1625,\u00a0Hugo Grotius<\/strong> started the ball rolling again with his concept of\u00a0natural law.<\/strong><\/p>\n

GROTIUS<\/em><\/p>\n

That’s “law” as in “the law of gravity” (not yet discovered).<\/p>\n

I thought all our moral and political norms emerged from basic truths — axioms of the universe, you know?<\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

And if there are natural\u00a0laws,<\/strong> he reasoned, then naturally we must have the ability — the power — to\u00a0obey<\/strong> them.<\/p>\n

In other words, we must have\u00a0natural rights.<\/strong><\/p>\n

GROTIUS<\/p>\n

Right!<\/p>\n

So! Because it is our\u00a0nature<\/strong> to be self-preserving, we must therefore have the\u00a0right<\/strong> to self-preservation!<\/p>\n

Sis and Joe talking heads.<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

So a “right” is something that’s inherently\u00a0right<\/strong> to do!<\/p>\n

By its very nature, it couldn’t be considered immoral or illegal.<\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

Nowadays, we are so\u00a0used<\/strong> to having rights, that it can be difficult to grasp that this was a\u00a0new<\/strong> idea!<\/p>\n

Grotius portrait with Sis talking head.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Grotius further reasoned that, if rights are something people\u00a0possess<\/strong>, then they’re something that people can\u00a0give away.<\/strong><\/p>\n

In other words, rights are\u00a0alienable!<\/strong><\/p>\n

GROTIUS<\/em><\/p>\n

You wanna sell yourself into slavery? Sure, go right ahead.<\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

Wait,\u00a0what?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Thomas Hobbes portrait.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Writing at the end of the English Civil War, in 1651,\u00a0Thomas Hobbes<\/strong> took those ideas to the next level.<\/p>\n

Not surprisingly (given the, y’know, civil war and all) he decided it is a natural law that people want to be\u00a0safe<\/strong> from each other.<\/p>\n

HOBBES<\/em><\/p>\n

What you think yer doin’ with that\u00a0gun,<\/strong> son?<\/p>\n

Engraving of violent state of nature.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

He argued that, without government, you’ve have unlimited liberty, but so would the next guy. In this\u00a0State of Nature,<\/strong> you could kill that guy, or he could kill you, and none of it would be “wrong.”<\/p>\n

For safety, therefore, he reasoned that people left the state of nature by entering into a\u00a0social contract.<\/strong><\/p>\n

People\u00a0gave up<\/strong> their liberty to a sovereign “common wealth” — giving it unlimited authority to\u00a0rule<\/strong> over them — in exchange for security and protection.<\/p>\n

Sis and King talking heads.<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

So what’s the people’s remedy if the sovereign\u00a0breaches<\/strong> the contract, and\u00a0oppresses<\/strong> the people?<\/p>\n

KING<\/em><\/p>\n

“Breaches\u2026?” What part of\u00a0unlimited authority<\/strong> did you not understand?<\/p>\n

Jacobean dudes.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

During that same civil war, some thoughtful people — calling themselves\u00a0Levellers<\/strong> — started saying people are\u00a0born<\/strong> with certain inherent rights: The right to\u00a0liberty,<\/strong> to freedom of\u00a0religion,<\/strong> and to\u00a0equal protection<\/strong> of the law.<\/p>\n

LEVELLER<\/em><\/p>\n

It all just seems so\u00a0true!<\/strong><\/p>\n

SPOILSPORT<\/em><\/p>\n

Uh, I’m pretty sure the whole of history says it\u00a0isn’t.<\/strong><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

They also had this crazy notion called\u00a0popular sovereignty.<\/strong> Government doesn’t have power because it’s\u00a0in<\/strong> power, they said. Government only has whatever powers the\u00a0people<\/strong> allow it to have. Specific,\u00a0limited<\/strong> powers. And all other powers still belong to the\u00a0people.<\/strong><\/p>\n

SPOILSPORT<\/em><\/p>\n

Wow, you\u00a0really<\/strong> don’t know how the world works, do you?<\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Levellers’ ideas\u00a0did\u00a0not<\/span><\/strong> catch on.<\/p>\n

English Civil War soldier helmet.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The civil war ended with England’s monarchy\u00a0overthrown\u2026<\/strong> A brief experiment with republicanism (the “Commonwealth”) shut down at\u00a0gunpoint…<\/strong> and a military dictatorship called the “Protectorate” running the country.<\/p>\n

It was\u00a0tyranny.<\/strong><\/p>\n

The dictatorship based the legitimacy of its rule on a radical\u00a0ideology,<\/strong> so once again dissent<\/strong> from the correct thinking was\u00a0violently<\/strong> suppressed. England suffered a reign of terror.<\/p>\n

English crown.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The English didn’t put up with that for long, though, and in 1660 the monarchy was\u00a0restored.<\/strong><\/p>\n

When it turned out that the new king’s successor would be yet another\u00a0Catholic,<\/em> however, many in Parliament\u00a0opposed<\/strong> his succession.<\/p>\n

Sis in a big pompadour wig.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

This new “faction” (or political party) was derisively called the\u00a0Whigs.<\/strong><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

Ooh! I like this party already!<\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

No, not “wigs.” “Whig” was an old insult meaning “yokel” or “horse thief.”<\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Whig party (which attracted many former Levellers) believed in individual\u00a0liberty<\/strong> — in\u00a0tolerance<\/strong> of dissenting views, and that government is\u00a0accountable<\/strong> to the people.<\/p>\n

They also believed that corrupt or arbitrary government was a\u00a0threat<\/strong> to liberty — it only served whomever paid the biggest\u00a0bribes<\/strong> or was owed the biggest\u00a0favors,<\/strong> or served an official’s\u00a0personal<\/strong> interests.<\/p>\n

And so they said the people have the right to\u00a0replace<\/strong> bad government with good.<\/p>\n

John Locke portrait.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Earl of Shaftesbury was the leader of the Whig party, and living in his household was his young prot\u00e9g\u00e9,\u00a0John Locke.<\/strong><\/p>\n

LOCKE<\/em><\/p>\n

‘Sup.<\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Strongly influenced by Shaftesbury’s ideas, Locke would in turn influence Which philosophy with some ideas of his\u00a0own.<\/strong><\/p>\n

It was the early days of the Scientific Revolution, and Locke was good friends with men like Newton and Boyle. And Locke wanted to explain political behavior\u00a0scientifically.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Nevertheless, the scientific method had yet to replace philosophical\u00a0logic.\u00a0<\/strong>(And psychology and anthropology were a long way off.) So Locke still explained human behavior with the idea that there are “natural laws,” and fundamental moral truths, which one can discove\u00a0purely<\/strong> by mental\u00a0reasoning.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Sea of stick figures.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

For example, Locke reasoned that no matter whether you’re born to a baron or to a beggar,\u00a0all<\/strong> people are created\u00a0equal.<\/strong><\/p>\n

ONE OF THE CROWD<\/em><\/p>\n

A king’s got\u00a0no<\/strong> more rights than\u00a0me!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Man assaulting a woman, shoving her in the chest.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

He said you’re born with inherent\u00a0rights,<\/strong> which all stem from the fact that you\u00a0“own”<\/strong> yourself. Which meant, for example, the right to protect yourself: to\u00a0life.<\/strong><\/p>\n

WOMAN<\/em><\/p>\n

Hey! Get off my property!<\/p>\n

The man putting his hand on the woman’s boob.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

It also implied a right to\u00a0liberty<\/strong> — the freedom to act as you wish, so long as you don’t harm someone else.<\/p>\n

WOMAN<\/em><\/p>\n

I\u00a0said<\/strong> get off my property!<\/p>\n

The man running off with the woman’s purse.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Because you own your own life, you also own your own labor\u2026 and the\u00a0fruits<\/em> of your labor.<\/p>\n

Which meant you have the right to\u00a0make<\/strong> something or\u00a0take<\/strong> something (so long as it’s not stealing). \u2026A right to get\u00a0property.<\/strong><\/p>\n

WOMAN<\/em><\/p>\n

You jerk! Come back with my\u00a0property!<\/strong><\/p>\n

Hands exchanging liberties for a present.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

In the\u00a0absence<\/strong> of government (Locke’s definition of the state of nature), he was like Hobbes in saying everyone was equal, with the same rights.<\/p>\n

And like Hobbes, he said that people form governments by\u00a0giving up<\/strong> liberty in exchange for protection of their rights.<\/p>\n

But\u00a0unlike<\/strong> Hobbes, Locke said people\u00a0couldn’t<\/strong> give up their fundamental rights\u00a0entirely,<\/strong> even if they wanted to — he said these rights were\u00a0inalienable.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Therefore, unlike Hobbes, Locke’s social contract theory only gave government\u00a0limited\u00a0<\/strong>powers — only what it needs so it can\u00a0protect<\/strong> the people’s rights to life, liberty, and property.<\/p>\n

17th-Century depressed dude, and Locke.<\/em><\/p>\n

DEPRESSED DUDE<\/em><\/p>\n

I’d like to sell myself, please.<\/p>\n

LOCKE<\/em><\/p>\n

Sorry, no can do.<\/p>\n

Government doesn’t\u00a0have<\/strong> rights, it only has powers.<\/p>\n

The man hopefully placing his hand on the woman’s boob again.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Also unlike Hobbes, Locke’s version of the social contract was all about\u00a0consent.\u00a0<\/strong>(Not<\/strong> affirmative “agreement.” He meant passive “acquiescence” — the\u00a0absence<\/strong> of opposition.)<\/p>\n

WOMAN<\/em><\/p>\n

Ugh.\u00a0<\/strong>If you must.<\/p>\n

Crown over people.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

So government is only\u00a0legitimate<\/strong> when it has the\u00a0consent<\/strong> of the people it governs. That is, it only has authority so long as the people\u00a0allow<\/strong> it to have that authority.<\/p>\n

PEOPLE<\/em><\/p>\n

Ugh,\u00a0fine.<\/strong> Whatever.<\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

And it can’t\u00a0exceed<\/strong> its contractual authority to\u00a0protect<\/strong> their rights.<\/p>\n

Old painting of a mob<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Therefore,<\/strong> Locke argued, if government\u00a0breaches<\/strong> the social contract by abusing its power, violating the people’s rights, or exercising its power arbitrarily…<\/p>\n

MOB<\/em><\/p>\n

NO!<\/strong><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Then the people have the right to\u00a0overthrow<\/strong> that government, by rebellion if necessary, and set up a new one.<\/p>\n

Portraits of Algernon Sidney, Rousseau, and Montesquieu.<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

Then there was\u00a0Algernon Sidney,<\/strong> barely remembered now, but who was just as influential to the\u00a0Founders<\/span> as Locke, if not\u00a0more<\/strong> so!<\/p>\n

SIS (eyeing the word “Founders” suspiciously)<\/em><\/p>\n

Wait\u2026<\/p>\n

JOE (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

And of course, closer to their own time they had\u00a0Rousseau<\/strong>‘s new-and-improved social contract ideas… not to mention\u00a0Montesquieu’s<\/strong> ideas of-<\/p>\n

SIS (pissed)<\/em><\/p>\n

Okay,\u00a0stop!<\/strong><\/p>\n

You’re talking about what the\u00a0Founders<\/strong> were thinking?<\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

Yeah? So?<\/p>\n

Sis, furious<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

FRAMERS!<\/strong><\/p>\n

We’re supposed to be talking about the\u00a0Framers!<\/strong><\/p>\n

\u2026The ones who wrote the\u00a0Constitution.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Signing of the Declaration of Independence<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

The Founders are the ones who wrote the\u00a0Declaration of Independence.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Different<\/strong> document!\u00a0Different\u00a0purpose!<\/strong><\/p>\n

These Enlightenment ideas mainly helped the Founders\u00a0justify<\/strong> their rejection of British rule — helping them argue they were\u00a0entitled<\/strong> to break free, because the sovereign had breached some sort of\u00a0contract.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“No” symbol over the exchange of liberties for a present<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

But the Framers were making a\u00a0Constitution,<\/strong> not a contract. They weren’t drafting an\u00a0agreement<\/strong> saying “we’ll give you\u00a0A,<\/strong> if you give us\u00a0B\u2026<\/strong>“<\/p>\n

Clockwork machinery<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

And they were assembling the\u00a0structure<\/strong> of a government, not rationalizing whether its authority was\u00a0legitimate.<\/strong><\/p>\n

“No” symbol over a 1780s man thinking “I say, what if…”<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS (narrating)<\/em><\/p>\n

The Framers weren’t looking for\u00a0theories<\/strong> of how the world works or ought to work\u2026 they were trying to design a practical system that would\u00a0actually<\/strong> work, in real life!<\/p>\n

No enlightenment philosopher said a\u00a0word<\/strong> about the nuts and bolts of a functioning political system, much less getting them to\u00a0work<\/strong> together.<\/p>\n

1780s political cartoon of Thomas Paine tightening Liberty’s corset, “Fashion before Ease: or A good Constitution sacrificed for a Fantastick Form”<\/em><\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

And just as the\u00a0Founders<\/strong> didn’t propose a\u00a0system<\/strong> that fit their enlightenment philosophy\u2026 \u2026neither did the\u00a0Framers<\/strong> try to\u00a0fit<\/strong> their system into any particular philosophy.<\/p>\n

At least\u2026<\/p>\n

\u2026not\u00a0consciously.<\/strong><\/p>\n

Average Joe and Sis<\/em><\/p>\n

JOE<\/em><\/p>\n

What do you mean?<\/p>\n

SIS<\/em><\/p>\n

I mean the Framers\u00a0did<\/strong> share a common idea of what government\u00a0is,<\/strong> and what it’s\u00a0for.<\/strong><\/p>\n

You could say that even their most\u00a0divisive<\/strong> arguments weren’t over what they believed,<\/strong> so much as best way to\u00a0apply<\/strong> that belief!<\/p>\n

[Suggested edit: change “as best way” to “as the best way”]<\/em><\/p>\n

Theirs was an unspoken — and uniquely\u00a0American<\/strong> mindset\u2026<\/p>\n

<\/div><\/div>Transcript<\/a>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

\u00a0 I wonder where she’s going with this…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_sitemap_exclude":false,"_sitemap_priority":"","_sitemap_frequency":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[48,35,57,1,46],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-5235","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-a-brief-history-of-government","category-constitutional-law","category-intro-to-government","category-uncategorized","category-what-were-they-thinking"],"aioseo_notices":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5235","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=5235"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/5235\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=5235"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=5235"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lawcomic.net\/guide\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=5235"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}