It is impossible to refer to natural law, as Spinoza did, in defense of freedom of thought and speech, because Pufendorf ultimately reduces the state to the supreme power of its bearer. From her come laws, in her name all subordinate authorities act. What are the guarantees for natural law? None, and00 Pufendorf, like Tom and Tomazy, imagine forming states through a two-step guilt ro che
E I oh agreement!). The first agreement on political cohabitation®, the second—-0 transfers, (and neo delegates)?) all “ratoez roep-
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
to the visitor or carriers. But about the limitations of this medium by the rights that belonged to people and continue to do so. They belong to the state as long as there are no rivers.
The sovereign is given only purely moral restraints. These restrictions are clearly and separately set out by Tomaz in his article “On the Rights of the Christian Monarch in Religious Affairs.” If Pueendor, and subsequently Volya, barely admit the thought of self-defense of their subjects against the tyranny, then Hryspav Tomazy advises his subjects to only unconditionally endure and obey.
Thus, in the political and philosophical doctrines of Kommersant Tomaz we do not find a connection between the principles of individual freedom and the state structure, which largely reflects the influence of the feudal legal outlook.
Even that idea that is fruitful for political individualism, which Tomazpo quite rightly credits, the idea of the separation of law from morality, is not accepted by them as a political doctrine in all its significance. It remains somehow aside, although Gomazy was the first to point out that the area of morality (honest and decent, in his terminology) should be legally and under compulsion, like the area of a person’s inner, intimate life.
Tomazy was close to the doctrine of the innate rights of man, which he called, however, innate. But along with this, he is forced to suffer from such a confusion of the principles of individual freedom (natural), that he places parental authority and the community of people in the same category with it.
1) Oe write paatae es. T.. UC. With. 1-2. 2) In this respect, Pufendorf is a step back even compared to the Tyranomachus.
yeah,
zebra:
her Zecheniani
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
(What was said about Pueendor" and Thomas is even more applicable to Chrisman Voljeu, in whom, along with the acceptance of natural law principles in the spirit of individualism, we find a political outlook of a feudal nature. Volieu (sheyopez $ pabagae her sepeit 1750) recognizes the equality and freedom of people as the natural conditions of their existence. But in further development In his thoughts, he attaches not a legal, but a moral significance to these conditions. The freedom of people is understood as an obligation to strive for self-development. It is not complete freedom to dispose of one’s personality at one’s discretion, but with the indispensable condition of labor, the social welfare and the state must have supreme oversight over the correct use of their forces by the citizens. The equality of citizens consists not only in presenting the same demands to all of them from the side of law, but also from the side of morality, which Vollier, contrary to the idea laid down by Tomasi, confuses with law.
Such considerations in the spirit of a police state are not tempered by the democratic principles adopted by Volye in his policies, namely, we reduce the source of sovereignty to the popular will and limit the prerogatives of the bearers of supreme power.
Whatever the form of power, since not only the area of law is subject to its control and intervention (at least by providing the individual with a certain freedom, which Vollier stood for in principle), but also the area of morality, the dignity of the individual, his independence, his right to self-determination in private life and are sacrificed to the abstract goals of the state; or, in other words, the goals that its actual rulers find it necessary to set for the state.
Re: oh sooooo
It’s absolutely fair to criticize Prof. Novgorodtsev about the philosophers of law under consideration, and the Zamfans have a conclusion that can be discussed with them on the issue that interests us.
_.. “If anything was missing before Kant’s philosophy of law, it was a clear idea of the moral autonomy of the individual, of the independent dignity and significance of the individual person.” This thought flashed in vague theoretical outlines and was easily combined with views of a completely opposite nature 3).