Objecting to the theories of deflation of the authorities, Bentalg 1) says that Montesquieu did not understand the English constitution. Its essence lies in the responsibility of the executive branch to parliament. This is vfrno. But was the parliament itself in charge of the KVM? At least, in modern English doctrine there is a large share of Hobbism, from which only custom and the individualistic character of the English can be saved.
Montesquieu has no answer to these questions, although in The Spirit of the Laws Montesquieu is not inclined to support Hobbism. Here is the proof: the freedom of every citizen to do what he does in the XX century book. Ch. P, there is a part of general freedom, and in a people's state there is even a part of the autocracy. Selling your citizenship, 910 is such extravagance, which cannot in any way be assumed in a human being. If freedom is valuable to the one who buys it, then it is priceless to the one who sells it. The civil law, which allowed people to divide property, could not include in the property distribution part of the people who
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
— 341 had to produce this spill. Civil law, which invalidates agreements that involve any damage to a person, cannot but invalidate an agreement that involves the most monstrous of all damages.
This is Montesquieu’s attitude towards these types of freedom, the defender of which he acted in his immortal work. It is important that he already distinguishes between them and lays the basis for the first, new classification of states, after Aristotle).
The second real idea included in the concept of the political individual given by the natural law doctrine did not escape him either - the idea of equality. The thoughts expressed by Montesquieu about it reveal a connection between its implementer and the form of right-left.
Montesquieu says: in the state of nature, people are born equal, but cannot be established in this equality; society takes it away from them, and they become equal again only thanks to the laws.”
And it was worse for Montesquieu to give a legal definition of equality, which remains in the doctrines of the individualistic state to this day. What is equality due to laws? Montesquieu defined true equality primarily as equality in human dignity between the governed and the rulers: the spirit of true equality does not consist in the fact that there are no superiors above us, but that our superiors are equal to us °).
1) When you study the classification of states, Montesquieu identifies only one incorrect form of state structure, despotism, in contrast to Aristotle’s three incorrect forms, for despotism, without implementing the principle of dividing the authorities, is a right that is absolutely hostile to the freedom of citizens, both political and civil.
2) Book. At Ch. Sh. The following quotations again show that Montasquieu actually noted the connection between this element of the concept of the political individual and the constitution of the state:
En. At Ch. PSH. The love of democracy is the love of equality. “In monarchs and in despotic states, no one strives: for rako Po a DIVO PE ivo rsdashatsi.: thief For
Consequently, this prejudice is eliminated about the mystical origin of power, with which monarchs and their adherents in the family of Filmeira, Bossuet and others so loved to surround their authority.
Montesquieu warns that such equality has nothing in common in democracies, where everyone wants to be a ruler, unable to stand the authorities elected by him. Apparently, he meant this image of a right-handed person, in ancient classifications denoted by the term ochlocracy, i.e., the rule of the mob').
Secondly, in addition to this, so to speak, political concept of equality, Montesquieu also points to the legal concept of equality, which is the equality of all before political and civil principles. For example, equal availability for all positions and equal subordination, without any privileged allocations (which largely characterized the feudal system) to the laws of the country and the same right to their equal protection °).
Thus, Montesquieu explains the concept of equality, which was then included in the first and sixth paragraphs of the French Declaration of Rights.
It remains for us to point out that Montesquieu’s political individualism, which, as we have indicated, was not based on a direct ironic instruction of the individual to the state, is alien to the administrative nihilism of Spencer or the state indifference of W. Humboldt, which we will get acquainted with below.