Although Montesquieu’s understanding of equality does not reach socialist equality, there is no need for the state royalty; It doesn’t even occur to anyone to think about it>. Book 5 ch. U. The division of lands equally can “occur only when a new republic was founded, or when the old one was so corrupted and the state of minds in it was such that the poor were forced to seek a similar means, and the rich to allow it” 1. U.
1) En. USh Ch. P.
2) Book. USh Ch. AND.
— 343 the authors of the "Spirit of Laws", in some cases, are charged with the duty to promote the welfare of citizens '). These are the main features of Montesquieu's doctrine of political individualism. He began by affirming, 70 65 a free state, every person who is recognized as a free soul must govern himself independently, and legislative power must belong to the whole people, and ended with the theories of a moderate right-handed person (copueglet 104er6) - which formed the basis for the design of a modern individualistic constitutional state. Voltaire summed up Montesquieu's historical case perfectly when he said that "he found the lost rights of humanity."
Rousseau starts precisely from Montesquieu's initial statement. The above situation, where the author of “The Spirit of Laws” is free to recognize a state in which the individual “ne no doioetie, die rat no ‘tbte,” not only resembles the formula of Rousseau’s political-individualist problem, but is also extremely characteristic of the comparison between Montesquieu and Rousseau, who went much further along the path of political-democratic individualism. He does not make the restrictions indicated by Montesquieu, and recognizes a “free soul” for each member of his association. Secondly, the power of the people extends not only to the legislative and judicial functions, but also to the executive.
He did not agree with Montesquieu, who directly
. exactly after the above quote, he notes: “but so
Since in large states this is impossible, and in small states it is associated with great inconveniences, it is necessary that the people, through their representatives, do everything that they cannot do themselves.” As is well known, Rousseau pointed out
1) See especially book. UP.
le ezh MVV: 5. 5 ыы SOFA» rtov ony VR ONY Zda
'salo
He said that it was the British who lost their freedom after they elected and sent their representatives to parliament.
If Montesquieu theoretically separated the political too much. and civil liberty, then Rousseau is guilty. just the opposite. Let us consider Rousseau's political individualism in addition to what we have already said.
Montesquieu only briefly refers to the natural state, which he replaced with the primitive state of people (in the sense given to this word by modern ethnology). Rousseau fully adheres to the rationalism of natural legal doctrine.
He can be called Descartes's philosophy of law. Just as this father of rationalism rejected the works of his predecessors, so Rousseau said *) that the writings of Pascal, Locke, Leibniz and others did not satisfy him. He is forced to build the theory of law and state anew. And indeed, it’s just built new. All the elements of political individualism found in Rousseau are given by predecessors. Their synthesis in Rousseau does not leave the pre-Evils of the state constitution. The unity of sovereignty, so protected by Rousseau, will essentially be confined to the formulas: sovereignty belongs to all people and all are subject to sovereignty. Every citizen is a sovereign.
In this formula, individualism seems to reach its highest point. And it is accepted by the modern political doctrine of democracy as a principle. Its meaning is a single people - the source of power. This principle is the merit of Rousseau for the direction being studied, which we will try to clarify below. This merit concerns more than that part of political individualism, which Montesquieu defines as the relationship of the individual to the political system. In the attitude of the citizen to freedom in Rousseau we encounter opposition?
2) Guez sosheza!rep. I. 1. 8.
22. yy eoetsaya Nod a» AZ
shya, giving Benjamin Constant the opportunity to characterize Rousseau in the following way: “se e6te zi te (a'apppay Gatoig 1e r rig @e 1a 156 a Yush 16 a shoshz 4e No. pezez rge- {exfez & rshz Chip oepge, Che fuggache °).
However, I have no doubt that Rousseau was looking for freedom, not tyranny 2). But in his search for the political freedom of the ancients, he lost individual freedom in his construct: Although he thought that he not only did not lose, but strengthened by political association that which was so subject to the accidents of the natural state.