— 329 this would mean denying the unity and supremacy of the national will. From under the weight of popular sovereignty, which for Rousseau was a kind of idol, if you like Moloch, in such a case a part of the individual would slip away and at every moment would threaten to destroy the integrity of the assemblage. The 18th century was an era of indignation and the dominance of reason over life. The principles of reason could not be ceded by the racialists to the facts of history, which they rejected. Therefore, Rousseau's rationalist school did not tolerate Locke's half-hearted individualism. From the fact that the natural freedom of the individual had to be preserved in one way or another in political association, a subsequent alternative arose: either a political association is possible, which actually preserves freedom - (as Rousseau thought of his), or a political association always has a tendency (whatever its form) to invade freedom and therefore is only an evil, the effect of which is the individual must be minimized through restrictions on the rights of associates over the individual. But if the state is an evil for the freedom and equality of individuals, then is it not better to overthrow its rule, since one cannot count on the voluntary renunciation of power by the interested commanding classes? This question is raised by anarchists and should not be part of our topic. For the doctrine of political individualism comes down to attempts to solve the question: how to achieve the greatest freedom and development equality of people precisely with the help of political association,
The answers given to this question can be reduced to two types. The first type is characterized by unconditional recognition of the suitability of the state for this purpose. The essence is only in its design. (Montesquieu, Rousseau and the entire liberal school from constitutionalism to the republic, as a pure form of popular rule). The second type of answer: its essence lies in the fact that the state, no matter how it is, always represents a form of organized force and
— 3830 tendency to interfere in the personal life of an individual. On the contrary, the individual must be left to his natural forces in his life, to exercise his rights without the intervention of the state. As for coercion, which constitutes the monopoly and function of the state, as well as the physical force at its disposal, the state must use it only for internal and external security. There is nothing to talk about external security, i.e., 0 protection from enemies by military force. But what is internal security? It is confidence in the protection and protection of one’s rights from encroachment and violation by other individuals and the state itself. Consequently, the manifestation of natural freedom is also required. restrictions if it is aimed at harming others.
So, in the 18th century, the doctrine of political individualism appeared before us in the forms of constitutionalism, democracy (Montesquieu, Rousseau and their followers) and in the forms of state indifference (Wilhelm Humboldt).
Montesquieu's book "On the Spirit of Laws" and Rousseau's "Social Contract" became an arsenal of liberation political ideas not only for Franchy, but for the whole world. "Soptae Baudet" can be called a frank book of the French revolution, while "G'ezrgy 4ez 1015" contains vital documents of civil and political freedom, which Montesquieu supplied with his commentaries. Rousseau was ahead of modernity, Montesquieu took from it all the best for freedom’).
1) If you can see political freedom, where it is already available and found, then why should you look for it, Montesquieu said before expounding the state structure of the English. Book And, ch. UT.
Rousseau also pointed out the correspondence of forms of government with reality, but he outlined a formula that, despite his warnings and references to the cautious Montesquieu, the revolutionary fighters filled with historical content. The difference between these two authors is not so much in the principles as in the temporal, logical development of these principles by minds dissimilar in character (racialistic and historical) 1).
1) In the literature on this issue we find disagreement, which is not of great importance for us. Some believe that the teachings of Rousseau and Montesquieu constitute a single doctrine. For example, M. M. Kovalevek, who devotes many pages to this issue in his book “The Origin of Modern Democracy” Vol. 16. Part PT and State University. Ed. 2nd (p. 331). He denies that between the two schools, the school of Montesquieu and the school of Rousseau, there really exists that deep line of difference that is usually drawn and that both did not serve to form a single political doctrine, the doctrine of a balanced democratic monarchy.