The Spirit of Laws, Book XIII - Of The Relation Which The Levying Of Taxes And The Greatness Of The Public Revenues Bear To Liberty

Section 1, quoted in full

1.-- Of the Public Revenues

The public revenues are a portion that each subject gives of his property, in order to secure or enjoy the remainder.

To fix these revenues in a proper manner, regard should be had both to the necessities of the state and to those of the subject.  The real wants of the people ought never to give way to the imaginary wants of the state.

Imaginary wants are those which flow from the passions and the weakness of the governors, from the vain conceit of some extraordinary project, from the inordinate desire of glory, and from a certain impotence of mind incapable of withstanding the impulse of fancy.  Often have ministers of a restless disposition imagined that the wants of their own mean and ignoble souls were those of the state.

Nothing requires more wisdom and prudence than the regulation of that portion of which the subject is deprived, and that which he is suffered to retain.

The public revenues should not be measured by the people's abilities to give, but by what they ought to give; and if they are measured by their abilities to give, it should be considered what they are able to give for a constancy.

Discussion of the Laffer curve.

Argument in favor of progressive tax rates.

Argument in favor of consumption tax at the point of sale, the better to disguise the tax from the consumer.  Possibility of a progressive consumption tax (VAT?).

Long discussion of use and abuse of taxes in various types of regimes, and the danger of gaming the system for private advantage.

------------------------

That was a fun chapter.  Good to end on a high note.

One thing I've discovered from wrestling with this book-- this project needs to stick to genuine literature as much as possible.  The technical stuff is awful.  (I don't know if that will put The Wealth of Nations in danger or not.)  Of course, crossover works like Plato's Republic (and hopefully Thucydides) will still make the cut.

The Spirit of Laws, Book XII - Of The Laws That Form Political Liberty, In Relation To The Subject

The previous concerned conditions of liberty in government itself.  The liberty of an individual is a different story altogether.  Philosophically, it involves the ability to exercise one's will.  Politically, it concerns the sense of personal security that is necessary for any such exercise to take place.

The laws that impinge on the individual ought to have that aim in mind.  That requires judicial procedures that are fair, predictable, and modest.  Proportional punishment for wrongdoing; fair rules and procedures for evidence; fair accusations-- no bringing ridiculous, but undefensible, charges like witchcraft.

Crimes against the government are especially tricky to define and fairly prosecute, for they always carry the potential and temptation for abuse.  Too often they are charged merely for political revenge.  They are cast onto bystanders or acquaintances too easily.  They impugn mere passing thoughts, or careless actions, or even satirical writing.

The people's sense of security against loss of liberty is improved by punishment for those who hurl false accusations.  It is improved also by laws against terrible abuse of debtors by owners.

[Long discussion of proper behavior on the part of monarchs.  Booooooring.]

The Spirit of Laws, Book XI - Of The Laws Which Establish Political Liberty With Regard To The Constitution

Liberty, in the realm of government, is the ability to properly pursue the ends of government.  This means setting up systems that inherently prevent the abuse of power.  Most governments are set up for the pursuit of some external goal, that is, external to the government itself.  But the English system is designed for the internal goal of maintaining political liberty-- of sustaining itself.  Any system looking to do this must be moderate in its actions.

Features of the English system, or any system looking to preserve itself:

Separation of power between legislative, executive, and judicial-- to prevent one body or person from amassing self-serving power.

Judicial appointees coming from the common population [jury trial].

Legislative representatives chosen from the best among the people-- possibly even from the nobility.  Or perhaps a combination [bicameral legislature].

Universal suffrage.

Active, nimble, and unitary executive, but one with the legislative power only to reject laws-- and ability of the legislature to override vetoes.

Regular legislative sessions.

Impeachment trials.

Slow-moving government overall-- so that when it does move, it moves in concert.

Legislative taxing power.  Executive control of the military.

Successful monarchies, too, must be organized by a proper division of power.  Much of the political turmoil in ancient history is due to improper, and thus unstable, divisions of power, that had to be corrected again and again.  The Greeks invested too much judicial power in their kings, but not the legislative power for them to be able to correct the problem themselves.  Eventually the entire system gave way.

[Looooooong discussion of the political developments among the Romans.  Highlights-- often the fairest systems arose in times of transition, but were superseded by the new changes.  Initial discussion is of the division between legislative senate and executive king, governor, or appointed dictator.  Later discussion of the organization of the judiciary.  Distinction between discovery of fact and discovery of law-- roles played by different bodies.  Peaceable systems in conquered lands-- often more stable.  Note: a fair separation of powers upholding a stable government that itself exemplifies "liberty" does not guarantee that the people themselves will experience anything resembling personal "liberty".  That's for a later chapter.]

Ends by saying that anyone wanting to explore the development of liberty in any other historical mode of government will have to do the work themselves.  He's done.

----------------------

Ah, the good stuff.  It's pretty remarkable how much of this was incorporated, and is still incorporated, in the American system at the constitutional level.  It may have a been a good idea to read this thing after all.

The Spirit of Laws, Book V - That The Laws Given By The Legislator Ought To Be In Relation To The Principles Of Government

Legislative law, as well, must be directed toward the driving principle of the government.  In a republic, virtue means love of the state, and a desire to sustain the state.  Since a democracy is sustained by the volunteered will of the people, the law must encourage that action.  In a democracy, laws will aim toward equality among the citizens.  At the start, this means division of land ownership.  After a time, it will mean equitable sharing in marriage and after death.  The citizens themselves will act to preserve that equality, sacrificing when need be for the greater good.  (Excepting that class of people engaged in commerce, who know their success sustains many.)  But even then, the law must treat them in such a way that their activity is sutained.  The selection of legislators should also sustain the system-- a permanent class of overarching rule-setters (a senate), and a rotating class to administer day-to-day needs.

In an aristocracy (still a republic), the laws will encourage moderation among that class, to preserve their contact with the underclass.

In a monarchy, honor is the driving principle.  Hereditary power is part of this, as is pomp among the ruling class.  Laws that respect class distinctions preserve peace among the classes for long periods, as everyone is satisfied with their place.

In a despotic reign, the system is sustained through fear.  Whatever laws are decreed attempt only to preserve immediate power, and usually succeed in doing so.  But they don't support a sustainable system-- and there is no thought to doing so.  Ultimately, though, this leads to rapid turnover within society and in leadership, as different despots take and try to hold the reins of power (for its own sake).

--------------------

I'm starting to remember why I hated reading my philosophy assignments.  This is brutal without an additional explanatory text.  I think I have to skip ahead to the books that are relevant to America's founding-- the separation of powers part.

The Spirit of Laws, Book IV - That The Laws Of Education Ought To Be In Relation To The Principles Of Government

Each type of govenment will institute a mode of education suitable to its driving principle.  In a monarchy, the point of education is to correctly understand the demands of honor.  Education, then, will concern itself with seeking greatness-- even in the little things.  Chivalry and gallantry are meant to be a big deal.  Truth isn't even the aim of education, except in that a sense of truth bestows an air of boldness.

Despotism concerns itself less with real education, and more with teaching the young their place in the world.  More important to understand subservient position than to grasp truth.

In a republic, the aim of education is to instill virtue.  But the aim of virtue is proper self-governance.  So education teaches the ways of self-governance, which requires a true understanding a love of that system of governance.  Education is directed to how things are.

[From here, Montesquieu went off describing something about the cultural institutions of the Greeks, like music/athletics/art, and how they served/undermined their culture.  I honestly couldn't follow it at all, and it seems completely unimportant.]

The Spirit of Laws, Book III - Of The Principles Of The Three Kinds Of Government

Having discussed the three structures of government, time to discuss the animating principles of each type.

A democracy is sustained by the concept of virtue.  The people recognize their own responsibility for themselves, and act accordingly.  The loss of virtue among the people leads to the downfall of that community-- witness the Greeks.  (Conversely, a state that tries to introduce democracy without first inculcating the necessary virtue will fall back to its old ways-- witness England under Cromwell.)  The loss of virtue leads instead to the influence of vice, which quickly spins out of control.

An aristocracy (the other type of republic) also requires virtue, but among the ruling class alone.  Two types-- either virtue in light of their responsibility for the remaining people (the good kind), or virtue in light of their sense of self-preservation (the not-as-good kind).

Virtue has not the same place in a monarchy.  The people instead are regulated by imposition of law.  For the ruler (and the class of nobles), the animating principle is honor.  The sense of honor determines public action, restrains public behavior, and even has a hold on the monarch himself.

Since despotism have to appeal to pre-existing law, however, it cannot be restrained by honor.  Instead, its animating principle is fear.  This determines what the people, or the higher classes, choose to try to do in light of what they think they can get away with.  If ever the despot loses the sense of fear among his underlings, he is immediately done for.  The only restraint on the despot is the opposition of religion-- the only possilble higher power left.

-----------------------

I find it interesting that Montesquieu makes no attempt to actually define "virtue".  He gives some examples in passing, but does not dwell on them.  Might be because the whole concept of virtue was immediately understood by the readers at the time-- something we've perhaps lost.

A good account of despotism, too.  The "loss of fear" pattern is exactly what we've seen in the Middle East protests over the past month.  The really bad regimes-- the ones that maintain the fear of the people-- are the ones that stay in power, too.

The Spirit of Laws, Book II - Of Laws Naturally Derived From The Nature Of Government

There are three natural arrangements for government.

A republic rests supreme power in the people at large-- either in an aristocracy, or with everyone in a democracy.  The most important task in a republic is to have a fixed concept of suffrage-- carelessness in this respect led to the downfall of Rome.  Different societies would have different natural ways of determining the best method.  But even in a full democracy, it becomes necessary for an elected body to direct the passions of the people-- likely an aristocracy.

It is possible for a member of the aristocracy to gain a sudden wealth of great power-- necessary, even, in some cases.  Fine, as long as such periods under a magistrate are kept short and well-defined.  Better, though, for an aristocracy to lean in the direction of democracy than in the direction of monarchy.

Under a monarchy, power is vested in an individual, who then rules according to a body of law-- either pre-existing, or proposed by a legislative group (possibly, even if informally, the nobility).  Whatever the structure of this body, it serves as a check on the capriciousness of the monarch.

In despotic government, there is no body (of persons or of laws) for the supreme ruler to be checked by.  In most cases, the despot will appoint a vizier to handle mundane cases-- which only makes things worse.  The isolation from the public at large makes a despot even worse of a ruler-- and he doesn't even know it.

-----------------------

I'm getting a very positive vibe out of Montesquieu-- he thinks mankind is doing pretty well, and generally issues have a way of working themselves out for the best.  This is a great contrast to what I read in a lot of contemporary debate, where all that gets discussed are the fundamental problems with societal arrangements.

I'm also thinking Montesquieu didn't do a lot of research-- around the world, or extensively historical-- in coming up with his list of possible systems.  Maybe every system that's ever been tried would fall into his categories, but it seems more likely that he's just describing the variations in his corner of the world.

The Spirit of Laws, Book I - Of Laws In General

Everything in nature is subject to laws.  (Otherwise it couldn't have lasted or produced what nature has produced.)  The laws of mankind or those needed to achieve a pre-law conception of justice.  But the nature of man also has freedom-- that's why it's complicated.

In a primal state, man would be weak, and impotent, and aware of his surroundings, and wary of his powerlessness-- not wanting to confront his neighbors.  Therefore, the initial state of man is (contra Hobbes) peaceful.  Then, seeing peaceable neighbors, having a natural affinity for company, and natural attraction to the opposite sex, society would start to develop.  Having grown strong through society, only then will a state of war emerge, and societal law be necessary.  Two types of law: political law, governing relations between man and governing class; and civil law, governing relations between men.

The exact structure and system of laws will come from each society's environment, inclinations, the precise form of their pre-existing relations, etc.

------------------------

The description of primal society is similar to what Paine used in his description.  I have a feeling both are borrowing from a still-prior source-- possibly all the way back to Aristotle.

Speaking of Aristotle, I think Montesquieu's metaphysics is Aristotilean.  Being pre-Darwin, a lot of the stuff he takes for granted falls differently on our ears-- but none of it can be called wrong yet, I think.

The Spirit of Laws (Montesquieu)

This is a late addition to my politics list, which puts things a bit out of sequence.  But it's still early, so I don't mind.  Montesquieu has been cited in more than one place as one of the important influences on the Founding Fathers, and especially as an influence in the writing of the Constitution with its separation of powers.  I've most recently heard it referenced in a Milt Rosenberg podcast interview with Paul Rahe, whom I greatly enjoy reading.

Since I don't know what I'm getting into quite yet with Montesquieu, I didn't feel compelled to actually buy the book.  This is my first book I'm reading strictly from the library, in this case from Mt. Prospect.

I also don't feel compelled to read the whole flippin' thing.  According to the introduction, the first thirteen books seem to cover what I want to cover, before Montesuieu gets into the influence of climate on government.  Ugh for now, but who knows for later.