On the other hand, the tradition of Milton, Sidney and Locke, intensively read in Franchy, was drawn in, which shows the works of the same Rousseau, the encyclopedists, Peter Bayle: If we remember what Locke’s teaching on individual rights was, perceived by American literary fighters for liberation and the attitude of the French towards it, it becomes clear to the returning rulers constituents and compilers of the following declarations on the path laid out by the French tyrannachs. Contrasting these last principles of the people and their rights with the tyrant sovereign, according to the six pillars, goes into contrasting the individual with the state, through the protection of the individual with natural and inalienable rights. This transition is quite understandable if we remember that, under the influence of the natural legal doctrine of 17 so many philosophers and enlighteners, the atomization of the people took place and the concept of the people's atom - the political individual - was formed.
Under the crushing tyranomaches and natural legal doctrine, the identification of the sovereign and the state ceased to exist.
1) Declaratory constituents of 1789, declaring constituents of 1793 and 1795. 2) Virginia, Pennsylvania, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, etc.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
NOTHING RE CHEEKS Ra r k
Eva ORG Goa e-VO IVIAne
to work. That is why, at the end of the 18th century, in political theory, it is opposed not to the sovereign, but to the state to the individual, which in Humboldt, then in the 19th century, is partly in Eötvos, Inpolite Taine, Herbert Spencer and others, also justified by considerations of economics and culture.
To protect individual freedom not only from absolutism and the arbitrariness of an unlimited monarch, but in general from the state, we require the considerations of Thomas Pan, developed in the book “Common Sense”, which made the author famous 1). We will not convey the contents of Pan's entire treatise, which had enormous literary and political significance, as is unanimously recognized by modern Western European and American scientists. We will note in it only some elements of the growth of the doctrine of political individualism. We are more than right to limit ourselves to this, since the interpretation is built partly on natural legal doctrines known to us, and some of its elements point to the misfortune of puritanism (references to St. Scripture in a sharp criticism of monarchism).
For us, the view expressed by Peng on the government as an inevitable evil is extremely remarkable. The same view that will find an ardent supporter in W. Humboldt (only for other reasons).
Peng proceeds from the difference, “wrongly overlooked, between society and government.” Society is the result of our needs, says Peng, the government is the result of our vices. The functions of the first are positive, the functions of the second are negative. The first is to bring unity, the second is to give birth to social divisions and
1) Thie hundredth zepze (released in the year approved by the Congress of the Declaration of Independence in America in 1776) {ta4. Bgapz. rag Gafaashe.
With SOA
Act by showcasing. Here we can already glimpse that indefinite and vague consciousness between the social state, the prototype of which was the natural state 1), and the political state, all the guiding threads of which are in the hands of the government. But this government is not identified by Pan, following the example of tyrant fighters or tyranomaches, only with despotism or tyrants. Analyzing the structure of the English state, which showed tyranny chesnye tendencies, in the management of American ears, Thomas finds in it only the remnants and experiencing tyranny in the persons of the monarch (Tez tezfez ae Pa Tugashi shopageShaie), the remnants of the aristocratic Tiravi (House of Lords), but also the republican elements represented by the House of Commoners.