What kind of government did montesquieu want

Rousseau realized that democracy as he envisioned it would be hard to maintain. Of the four philosophers discussed in this article, which two do you think differed the most? Which of the democratic forms government proposed by Locke, Montesquieu, and Rousseau do you think is the best?

How do you think his words relate to American democracy today? Divide the class into four groups, each taking on the role of Hobbes, Locke, Montesquieu, or Rousseau. The members of each of the role group will need to research why their philosopher would agree or disagree with the debate topics listed below. The groups should then debate the topic from the point of view of the philosopher they are role playing.

Follow the same procedure for the rest of the topics. After all the debates are finished, class members should discuss which one of the four philosophers they agree with the most and why. The best form of government is a representative democracy. Only the president should have the power to declare war. A good way to make laws is for all the people to directly vote on them.

Religion should be a part of the government. Wikipedia: Thomas Hobbes. Wikipedia: Leviathan. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Thomas Hobbes. Malaspina Great Books: Thomas Hobbes. SparkNotes: Leviathan A study guide to the book. Yahoo Directory: Thomas Hobbes. Google Directory: Thomas Hobbes. Open Directory Project: Thomas Hobbes. Wikipedia: John Locke.

Bluplete Biography: John Locke. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: John Locke. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: John Locke. Wikipedia: Two Treatises of Government. Second Treatise of Civil Government Text of the book. Malaspina Great Books: John Locke. Yahoo Directory: John Locke.

Google Directory: John Locke. Open Directory Project: John Locke. Wikipedia: Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The Social Contract The text of the book.

Yahoo Directory: Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Google Directory: Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Wikipedia: Montesquieu. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Montesquieu. Catholic Encyclopedia: Montesquieu. The Spirit of the Laws The text of the book. Malaspina Great Books: Montesquieu. Yahoo Directory: Baron de Montesquieu. Google Directory: Montesquieu. Open Directory Project: Montesquieu. How did Montesquieu impact the world?

Did Montesquieu believe in equality? Did Montesquieu believe in democracy? What did Montesquieu believe about society? What religion did Montesquieu believe? Which two philosophers differed the most? Why is Montesquieu important today? Why was Montesquieu important to the Enlightenment? What kind of government did Montesquieu believe in? How does Montesquieu define the state of nature? Did Montesquieu think mankind was good or bad? What is the difference between Hobbes and Locke state of nature?

What does Hobbes mean by state of nature? If it is to provide its citizens with the greatest possible liberty, a government must have certain features. First, since "constant experience shows us that every man invested with power is apt to abuse it This is achieved through the separation of the executive, legislative, and judicial powers of government.

If different persons or bodies exercise these powers, then each can check the others if they try to abuse their powers. But if one person or body holds several or all of these powers, then nothing prevents that person or body from acting tyrannically; and the people will have no confidence in their own security. Certain arrangements make it easier for the three powers to check one another. Montesquieu argues that the legislative power alone should have the power to tax, since it can then deprive the executive of funding if the latter attempts to impose its will arbitrarily.

Likewise, the executive power should have the right to veto acts of the legislature, and the legislature should be composed of two houses, each of which can prevent acts of the other from becoming law. The judiciary should be independent of both the legislature and the executive, and should restrict itself to applying the laws to particular cases in a fixed and consistent manner, so that "the judicial power, so terrible to mankind, … becomes, as it were, invisible", and people "fear the office, but not the magistrate" SL Liberty also requires that the laws concern only threats to public order and security, since such laws will protect us from harm while leaving us free to do as many other things as possible.

Thus, for instance, the laws should not concern offenses against God, since He does not require their protection. They should not prohibit what they do not need to prohibit: "all punishment which is not derived from necessity is tyrannical. The law is not a mere act of power; things in their own nature indifferent are not within its province" SL The laws should be constructed to make it as easy as possible for citizens to protect themselves from punishment by not committing crimes.

They should not be vague, since if they were, we might never be sure whether or not some particular action was a crime. Nor should they prohibit things we might do inadvertently, like bumping into a statue of the emperor, or involuntarily, like doubting the wisdom of one of his decrees; if such actions were crimes, no amount of effort to abide by the laws of our country would justify confidence that we would succeed, and therefore we could never feel safe from criminal prosecution.

Finally, the laws should make it as easy as possible for an innocent person to prove his or her innocence. They should concern outward conduct, not for instance our thoughts and dreams, since while we can try to prove that we did not perform some action, we cannot prove that we never had some thought. The laws should not criminalize conduct that is inherently hard to prove, like witchcraft; and lawmakers should be cautious when dealing with crimes like sodomy, which are typically not carried out in the presence of several witnesses, lest they "open a very wide door to calumny" SL Montesquieu's emphasis on the connection between liberty and the details of the criminal law were unusual among his contemporaries, and inspired such later legal reformers as Cesare Beccaria.

Montequieu believes that climate and geography affect the temperaments and customs of a country's inhabitants. He is not a determinist, and does not believe that these influences are irresistible. Nonetheless, he believes that the laws should take these effects into account, accommodating them when necessary, and counteracting their worst effects. According to Montesquieu, a cold climate constricts our bodies' fibers, and causes coarser juices to flow through them.

Heat, by contrast, expands our fibers, and produces more rarefied juices. These physiological changes affect our characters. Those who live in cold climates are vigorous and bold, phlegmatic, frank, and not given to suspicion or cunning. They are relatively insensitive to pleasure and pain; Montesquieu writes that "you must flay a Muscovite alive to make him feel" SL Those who live in warm climates have stronger but less durable sensations. They are more fearful, more amorous, and more susceptible both to the temptations of pleasure and to real or imagined pain; but they are less resolute, and less capable of sustained or decisive action.

The manners of those who live in temperate climates are "inconstant", since "the climate has not a quality determinate enough to fix them" SL These differences are not hereditary: if one moves from one sort of climate to another, one's temperament will alter accordingly.

A hot climate can make slavery comprehensible. Montesquieu writes that "the state of slavery is in its own nature bad" SL However, on his view, there are two types of country in which slavery, while not acceptable, is less bad than it might otherwise be.

In despotic countries, the situation of slaves is not that different from the situation of the despot's other subjects; for this reason, slavery in a despotic country is "more tolerable" SL In unusually hot countries, it might be that "the excess of heat enervates the body, and renders men so slothful and dispirited that nothing but the fear of chastisement can oblige them to perform any laborious duty: slavery is there more reconcilable to reason" SL However, Montesquieu writes that when work can be done by freemen motivated by the hope of gain rather than by slaves motivated by fear, the former will always work better; and that in such climates slavery is not only wrong but imprudent.

He hopes that "there is not that climate upon earth where the most laborious services might not with proper encouragement be performed by freemen" SL The quality of a country's soil also affects the form of its government. Monarchies are more common where the soil is fertile, and republics where it is barren. This is so for three reasons.

First, those who live in fruitful countries are more apt to be content with their situation, and to value in a government not the liberty it bestows but its ability to provide them with enough security that they can get on with their farming. They are therefore more willing to accept a monarchy if it can provide such security.

Often it can, since monarchies can respond to threats more quickly than republics. Second, fertile countries are both more desirable than barren countries and easier to conquer: they "are always of a level surface, where the inhabitants are unable to dispute against a stronger power; they are then obliged to submit; and when they have once submitted, the spirit of liberty cannot return; the wealth of the country is a pledge of their fidelity" SL Montesquieu believes that monarchies are much more likely than republics to wage wars of conquest, and therefore that a conquering power is likely to be a monarchy.

Third, those who live where the soil is barren have to work hard in order to survive; this tends to make them "industrious, sober, inured to hardship, courageous, and fit for war" SL Those who inhabit fertile country, by contrast, favor "ease, effeminacy, and a certain fondness for the preservation of life" SL For this reason, the inhabitants of barren countries are better able to defend themselves from such attacks as might occur, and to defend their liberty against those who would destroy it.

These facts give barren countries advantages that compensate for the infertility of their soil. Since they are less likely to be invaded, they are less likely to be sacked and devastated; and they are more likely to be worked well, since "countries are not cultivated in proportion to their fertility, but to their liberty" SL This is why "the best provinces are most frequently depopulated, while the frightful countries of the North continue always inhabited, from their being almost uninhabitable" SL Montesquieu believes that the climate and geography of Asia explain why despotism flourishes there.

Asia, he thinks, has two features that distinguish it from Europe. First, Asia has virtually no temperate zone. While the mountains of Scandinavia shelter Europe from arctic winds, Asia has no such buffer; for this reason its frigid northern zone extends much further south than in Europe, and there is a relatively quick transition from it to the tropical south.

For this reason "the warlike, brave, and active people touch immediately upon those who are indolent, effeminate and timorous; the one must, therefore, conquer, and the other be conquered" SL In Europe, by contrast, the climate changes gradually from cold to hot; therefore "strong nations are opposed to the strong; and those who join each other have nearly the same courage" SL Second, Asia has larger plains than Europe.

Its mountain ranges lie further apart, and its rivers are not such formidable barriers to invasion. Since Europe is naturally divided into smaller regions, it is more difficult for any one power to conquer them all; this means that Europe will tend to have more and smaller states. Asia, by contrast, tends to have much larger empires, which predisposes it to despotism.

Of all the ways in which a country might seek to enrich itself, Montesquieu believes, commerce is the only one without overwhelming drawbacks. Conquering and plundering one's neighbors can provide temporary infusions of money, but over time the costs of maintaining an occupying army and administering subjugated peoples impose strains that few countries can endure.

Extracting precious metals from colonial mines leads to general inflation; thus the costs of extraction increase while the value of the extracted metals decreases. The increased availability of money furthers the development of commerce in other countries; however, in the country which extracts gold and silver, domestic industry is destroyed.

Commerce, by contrast, has no such disadvantages. It does not require vast armies, or the continued subjugation of other peoples. It does not undermine itself, as the extraction of gold from colonial mines does, and it rewards domestic industry.

It therefore sustains itself, and nations which engage in it, over time. While it does not produce all the virtues -- hospitality, Montesquieu thinks, is more often found among the poor than among commercial peoples -- it does produce some: "the spirit of commerce is naturally attended with that of frugality, economy, moderation, labor, prudence, tranquility, order, and rule" SL 5. In addition, it "is a cure for the most destructive prejudices" SL In monarchies, Montesquieu believes, the aim of commerce is, for the most part, to supply luxuries.

In republics, it is to bring from one country what is wanted in another, "gaining little" but "gaining incessantly" SL In despotisms, there is very little commerce of any kind, since there is no security of property. In a monarchy, neither kings nor nobles should engage in commerce, since this would risk concentrating too much power in their hands. By the same token, there should be no banks in a monarchy, since a treasure "no sooner becomes great than it becomes the treasure of the prince" SL In republics, by contrast, banks are extremely useful, and anyone should be allowed to engage in trade.

Restrictions on which profession a person can follow destroy people's hopes of bettering their situation; they are therefore appropriate only to despotic states. While some mercantilists had argued that commerce is a zero-sum game in which when some gain, others necessarily lose, Montesquieu believes that commerce benefits all countries except those who have nothing but their land and what it produces.

In those deeply impoverished countries, commerce with other countries will encourage those who own the land to oppress those who work it, rather than encouraging the development of domestic industries and manufacture. However, all other countries benefit by commerce, and should seek to trade with as many other nations as possible, "for it is competition which sets a just value on merchandise, and establishes the relation between them" SL Montesquieu describes commerce as an activity that cannot be confined or controlled by any individual government or monarch.

This, in his view, has always been true: "Commerce is sometimes destroyed by conquerors, sometimes cramped by monarchs; it traverses the earth, flies from the places where it is oppressed, and stays where it has liberty to breathe" SL However, the independence of commerce was greatly enhanced when, during the medieval period, Jews responded to persecution and the seizure of their property by inventing letters of exchange.

This set in motion developments which made commerce still more independent of monarchs and their whims. First, it facilitated the development of international markets, which place prices outside the control of governments.

Money, according to Montesquieu, is "a sign which represents the value of all merchandise" SL The price of merchandise depends on the quantity of money and the quantity of merchandise, and on the amounts of money and merchandise that are in trade. Monarchs can affect this price by imposing tariffs or duties on certain goods. But since they cannot control the amounts of money and merchandise that are in trade within their own countries, let alone internationally, a monarch "can no more fix the price of merchandise than he can establish by a decree that the relation 1 has to 10 is equal to that of 1 to 20" SL If a monarch attempts to do so, he courts disaster: "Julian's lowering the price of provisions at Antioch was the cause of a most terrible famine" SL Second, it permitted the development of international currency exchanges, which place the exchange rate of a country's currency largely outside the control of that country's government.

A monarch can establish a currency, and stipulate how much of some metal each unit of that currency shall contain. However, monarchs cannot control the rates of exchange between their currencies and those of other countries. These rates depend on the relative scarcity of money in the countries in question, and they are "fixed by the general opinion of the merchants, never by the decrees of the prince" SL For this reason "the exchange of all places constantly tends to a certain proportion, and that in the very nature of things" SL Finally, the development of international commerce gives governments a great incentive to adopt policies that favor, or at least do not impede, its development.

Governments need to maintain confidence in their creditworthiness if they wish to borrow money; this deters them from at least the more extreme forms of fiscal irresponsibility, and from oppressing too greatly those citizens from whom they might later need to borrow money.

Since the development of commerce requires the availability of loans, governments must establish interest rates high enough to encourage lending, but not so high as to make borrowing unprofitable.