1.

Constant Two kinds of liberty:

There is confusion in the concept of liberty. The representative
government/system is a discovery of the moderns. The ancient people
couldnt appreciate its advantages bc their social organization led them to
desire a different freedom.

Liberty of the Modern (page 2, paragraph 6). Independence.

o Their aim is the security in private pleasures and they call
liberty to the guarantees accorded by institutions to these
pleasures.
Liberty of the Ancient (page 2, paragraph 7). No notion of
individual rights. Political rights.
o The sharing of social power among the citizens of the same
fatherland.

Linkage between sovereignty and liberty.

Cause of this difference:
-

Narrow territory of the ancient republics with bellicose spirit and with
slaves. The modern world has a different view because there is a
mass of human beings that are essentially homogeneous in their
nature.
War and commerce are two different ways of achieving the same end.
In modern age, commerce has replaced war.
o Successful war increased private and public wealth in slaves,
tributes and lands. For the moderns, a successful one costs
more than it is worth.

Outcome of these differences:

a. The size of the country causes a corresponding decrease of the
importance allotted to each individual. The bigger, the less influence.
b. The abolition of slavery has deprived the free of their leisure (time of
discussion).
c. Commerce doesnt leave in mens lives intervals of inactivity. War
would cause trouble to modern citizens occupied with their
enterprises.
d. Commerce inspires in men love of individual independence.
Conclusion: We can no longer enjoy the liberty of the ancients, which
consisted in an active and constant participation in collective power. Our
freedom consists of peaceful enjoyment and private independence.
The exercise of political rights offered the ancients much more pleasure
because they had real influence. But, nowadays, the pleasure was reduced
because there are other sources of personal happiness. Therefore, we are
more attached to our personal independence.
ROUSSEAUS CRITIQUE: By transposing to our modern age an extent of
social power/collective sovereignty which belonged to other centuries, has
furnished pretexts for tyranny. Misunderstood the authority of the social
body for liberty.

The men who brought by events the head of the French revolution were
stepped in ancient views, which the philosophers (Rousseau, Montesquieu
and Mably) made fashionable. They believed that everything should give
way before collective will, and that all restrictions on individual rights would
be compensated by participation in social power.
This social power injured independence in every possible way, without
destroying the need for it.
PRINCIPLES:

Individual independence is the first need of moderns so we must not

require from them any sacrifices to establish political liberty.
None of the ancient institutions that hindered individual liberty is
valid in modern times.

There are certain republican usages from which institutions feel certain
affection (ostracism, education, religion and censorship).

Individual liberty is the true modern liberty. Political liberty is its

guarantee, therefore it is indispensable; but to ask modern people to
sacrifice the whole of their individual liberty to the political one is the
surest means to detach them from the former making it easy to
deprive them of the latter.
If the liberty that suits the modern is different, the despotism that was
possible amongst the ancients is no longer possible.

As we are more preoccupied with individual liberty we shall defend it

with more persistence.

Commerce makes the action of arbitrary power easier to elude,

because it makes property circulate. It places authority in a position
of dependence because its effects are the:
o Emancipation of individuals.
o Creation of credit.
o Bringing of nations together people are compatriots.
Result: Individual existence is less absorbed in political existence.

Since liberty is different, it needs a different organization:

representative system (page 9, last paragraph).
Modern liberty is also threatened by different sort of danger:
o Ancient liberty, threatened by the fact that men exclusively
concerned to securing their social power, attached too little to
individual rights.
o Modern liberty, men, absorbed in the enjoyment odf their
private independence and particular interest, surrender their
share of political power too easily.
But men are not only moved by happiness, also by selfdevelopment. Political liberty is the most effective means of selfdevelopment.

CONCLUSION:

It is necessary to learn to combine the two kinds of liberty together.

Institutions must accomplish the destiny of the humanity, not only peace.
They must achieve moral education of the citizens.
By respecting their individual rights, institutions must consecrate their
influence over public affairs; and by forming them through practice for
elevated functions, give them both the desire and the right to discharge
these.