So the citizens of Boston developed in 1772 the “Declaration of the colonists, as people, as Christians and citizens.” In this declaration, the insertion is especially noteworthy: * “like a chrisman”, disappearing into the declarations of costuants. It points to the genetic connection of legal freedom with religiosity, which began with the tyrants and independents at the beginning of the liberation political movement. Thirty-three years before the Boston Declaration and eight years before the Asteeshesh oY {Ve reofe”, the Treaty Declaration of Connecticut appeared, subsequently issued under the name of the “Fundamental Law” of this state, which also speaks of one of the motives for its proclamation, the preservation of the purity of the Gospel confession of the law with the help of the projected Lolithic associates These predecessors of the declaration of 1789, which was placed at the head of the French constitution, together with further French declarations, reveal a connection between political individualism and fundamental laws, which, in French terminology, still apply
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
That the constitution and constitutionalism grew on the basis of the development of ideas of political individualism is shown not only by American and English history with its “petiche of rights” and “bill of rights”, and by the reasoning of the drafters of the French Declaration 1), but by the political ileal philosophy of law of the 18th century, so characteristically expressed by Jean Rousseau in the following formulas of his “Soptaf zose”: "find one like this"
1) This is best expressed e.g. in Mounier (Be Gshitsepse, abPiabe aach roozorez zig a geotaiop. Patlz 1828). Every paragraph of the constitution, he says, must flow from a certain principle. The basis of the constitution should be a statement of individual rights assigned to individuals based on natural justice. See Holbach (Zuz{esche 30611. p. 2 p. 1).
oh no: B
a form of association, in which the person and property of each member of the association would have protection and protection from the general power, and thanks to which, everyone, being in unity with everyone, would obey only himself and remain as free as before.”
Thus, the political problem - (in which very few writers of this time Mably', Godwin 2) introduced the beginnings of socialist and anarchist ideas) - here comes down to the liberal and individualistic forms of the citizen's relationship to the state. Moreover, having justified the state, it loses all the supernatural motivation that characterized the political-theoretical sophistication of previous centuries.
But what should be especially noted is the reduction of the state to a service role for the individual. At no point in the political construction do the individualists lose sight of the fact that the essence of the natural freedom of the individual must be preserved and that the individual is the master, the state is the servant, and the rulers are the legatees of the people, obliged to do their will.
Undoubtedly, Rousseau's formulation, to a large extent, inspired the events that followed in France.
But imagine that all possible combinations of political forces are exhausted and it turns out that with every political combination, even the most democratic, the individual cannot remain “free, as before,” that is, That is, as in the state of nature - that obeying only oneself, under the most radical and liberal political forms of government, turns into an illusion, a mirage, and that such a phantom of freedom is obvious to every free mind?
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
HER RES
The state, over which the terrifying specter of Levathan hovers, turns out to be not a servant, as the political individualism of the 18th century strived for, but also a master.
After all, the natural individual, as he was depicted in the imagination of the theoretical 18th century, must become a political individual.