From what has been said, it is clear that the revolutionary doctrine is not a doctrine of absolute individualism in the spirit of pure free trade and non-intervention, but contains the rudiments of social justice, which, however, do not violate the principles of freedom 3).
Thus, in the era of enlightenment, the Anglo-Americans and the French laid the foundations of democratic individualism. The French educators and doctrinaires of the great revolution of 1789 were able to perceive and rework in their works all the rich, diverse, philosophical motives (materialism, utilitarianism, rationalism, skepticism, political optimism, together with the irreligious spirit of the world), which fed the moral and political French understanding of life.
His distinctive feature was a personality thirsting for enlightenment, striving for the creation of a natural (i.e., in accordance with the instincts, properties of human
$) The spirit expresses itself in the opposite direction. S. Vepyapyo, Ge ato step!4tse! her G6buff. 1891. b. 154. To think differently is Henri Michel (1,146e 4e Geyoa5; shg) and M. M. Kovalevsky: “Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen,” who says in conclusion: the principles of 1989 are broader than what we think, and there is no reason to believe that on the basis of freedom it would not be possible to achieve a social solution question““.
nature) humane morality. This personality, who for so many years stood at the foot of state and church power, surrounding himself with mystical and indisputable authority, contrasted it with his natural and called sacred rights. The inner meaning of the individualistic, revolutionary doctrine is covered by the expression: politically sovereign, individually free person.
Contrasting law to power, hitherto the only source of lawmaking, the revolutionary doctrine drew a line between the terms law and right.
When the absolute power of the monarch was rejected, the old term law received new content, in the spirit of political individualism, i.e. in the spirit of recognizing each individual has the right to participate in lawmaking, and most the law began to be viewed as the result of the general will and consensual agreement of all citizens. This denied the involvement of history and customary law. The process of lawmaking was entirely reduced to rational, conscious, volitional creativity, which elevated the importance of any individual citizen in a political union. But when thought turned to the justification of such a view, it could not think of anything else but to refer to the innate right of the individual to freedom and equality. Already some representatives of the peace assembly persistently spoke about the dangers of accepting without restriction these elements of personal law. They expressed the idea that one should not remove the “veil” from truths that humanity cannot realize - but without such limitations - which will easily create the ground for the development of centrifugal forces among the masses. They said that, having proclaimed freedom and equality, that is, having discovered the essence of natural law, it would be difficult to introduce this right into limits. And these proposals are persistently indicated by the hostel itself.
if the salary is KA LYI ZI.
The cover was, tfm not to remove the rights, in the first two declarations, the drafters did not even contrast responsibilities. And the right of personality itself was given only a general definition. This common law was recognized as the basis of positive law. And at the same time, not only as a metaphysical truth emanating from the “academic utopians” (Expressed by Taine about constitutional or. sy.), but in order that “this proclamation of natural, inalienable and sacred rights, always being in front of all members of the public body, would constantly remind them of their rights and duties; so that the actions of the legislative and executive powers are always compared with the purpose of any political institution, etc.” 1).
To fill the general concept of law with content, that is, to comprehend the essence of law, became the task of further philosophical and legal thought, which, alas, it has not satisfactorily resolved to this day. But this or that development turned out to be in the slightest connection, negative or positive, with political individualism; it was overgrown and supported by a multitude of metaphysical and natural scientific considerations, depending on the prevailing views of the moment.
In answers to the question about the essence of law, the basis was the form of the law or its content. But Montesquieu also showed the variability of the laws of law, according to their content time and space, and the doctrinaires are French. the revolutionaries were looking precisely for eternal justice, the same for of all times and peoples 2), - naturally, they limited themselves to indicating the rights of the individual and a general formula that determined the use of her life by the rules 3). This formula contains the germ of all further formal definitions of law: and the implementation of the law. beale 4i }ep41 20 Aotsyo.
2) Az. 2 O. 1789. 3) G}. agb. 4 and ab. 6 O. 1193.
tes
Anyuna
By the very nature of its natural law in society, it is limited by the exercise of the same rights by other individuals. In other words, the freedom of one is limited by the freedom of the other. Hence the need to combine freedoms by coordinating them in political association. But the demarcation of freedom does not in the least affect the question of what will fill the depth of this freedom.