The ideological process that led to this theory involved the development of two ideas - positive and negative. The first is the idea of the individual. After the development of the natural law doctrine, it took the form of the idea of the political individual. Prepared by the Hellenic-Roman practical philosophy, the Christian doctrine - the liberal ideas and theories of the two swords of the Middle Ages, its development took rapid steps, starting with Descartes, and in the era of the two revolutionary Anglo-American and French led to the empowerment of the individual with inalienable, sacred and inalienable rights, opposed to the idea of the state (i.e. absolute dominate over the individual). When such isolation of the individual was achieved, the idea of the state presented itself in two ways. The theory associated one of them with the ancient view of the state as an absorbing entity, which gave the state the role of “rar rgouiepse”, a source of happiness and prosperity; the other represented the state as the original enemy of the individual, his oppressor and enslaver, a necessary evil, which, in the words of Thomas Pan, easily turns into intolerable and therefore T. Pan assigned the first place in the political mechanism to the self-activity of society D). Because of this, the limited limits of state positive activity for the individual, i.e., the area of his intervention in private and public life, all the more guarantees that the abuser will become less.
1) See especially his later work: “0 human rights”. Part 2.
oats tt toi ZOV,
yyy DE
This second idea is of a negative nature. The fundamentals are: the rational individualism of Cartesanism, adopted by the revolutionary doctrine, on the other hand, hatred in the guardianship tendencies of the bearers of power, to the privileged right of the “top ten thousand”, the identification of the bearer of absolute power with the state, and the state with the destinies of the dynasty, proclaimed by legitimism and, subsequently, the idea of the rights of the minority after how legitimism gave way to popular rule and the theory noted the possibility of the tyranny of the majority. These were the various motives, easily distinguishable among political writers, leading to the theory of minimal impact on the individual on the part of the political associate.
We must pay attention, however, to two features that characterize this theory: to the optimistic zeal for the possibility of developing the individual through his own efforts and to setting such development by the ideal of understanding life; on the other hand, to the idea that the state can only create obstacles, but in no way contribute to this in a developed, positive way. In addition, the theory of state indifference, which was harmful in this regard, reduced everything to the state, without first addressing the question of what other pressures an individual might be subjected to in coexistence with other individuals, having embraced the political. This issue is under consideration; to be the later, but not the first, theorists of state formal doctrine.
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
[fragment illegible in the scan of the first edition]
hee
— 387 zeyokey.” The free independence of the individual has its purpose: 1) to improve and at the same time not to allow alien interference, that is, interference in the sense of violating the rights of the individual and the violent, compulsory arrangement of a person’s life. The task of the state is to be solely on guard, preventing intrusion into the sphere of free self-indulgence of a person. Security of the individual is the last word of Kant’s political theory. It is impossible not to see in it the practical application of the principle of personal autonomy, which was placed at the head of Kant’s ethical teaching. The above-mentioned provisions about the ideal of self-development, about the perfection of the individual, the protection of his inherent rights, regardless of the exercise of this right, as long as it does not violate the rights of others, are about state security, in connection with a negative attitude towards statism (i.e., the political enslavement of the individual) and paternal rule (hespiep regione) 2) but only appear in the treatise of Wilhelm Humboldt, who adopted the practical principles of Kantism, in “T4en hi etet Uegziev (e Stepiep Aeg \Uikzashkei: des bfaa{z hi Bez yishep” 3). But in Humboldt’s substantiation, instead of dry rashionalistic schematism, the vital consciousness of reality is emphasized, and their individualistic tendency becomes the head of the political normative understanding, to such an extent that in some places of the treatise of V. Humboldt, the very idea of the state as a political community fluctuates: