Free Political Propositions

the people, and a solely free government, is the only one that by its nature allows for and encompasses continuous improvement. Consequently, it cannot be argued through this pretended mode of mixing the three aforementioned states that the Monarchy, Aristocracy, or even mutually conflicting Lordships or Tyrannies have, by their nature, contributed any benefit to the Democracy, or to a solely free and true government of the people. On the contrary, they have brought only harm and hindrance to the people's freedom and, by extension, to all further prosperity. Therefore, all the good that appears to have been sworn into existence by this purportedly useful mixing must be attributed solely to the people's co-governance and authority. And what is most noteworthy is this: it will be found clearly and truly everywhere that all the good which this purportedly useful mixing seems to have brought about must be attributed solely to the authority, shared voting, and governance of the people. For I believe it will never be found otherwise, but that in accordance with how the people's authority has increased or decreased, the prosperity of such a pretended Republic has also increased or decreased. And what, then, is one to think, if an old and superstitious crowd has brought the primary benefit to the Greek and Roman pretended Republics through co-governance? What, I ask, is one to think again: that a completely free, respectable, well-organized people, freed from superstition and accustomed to being guided only by reason, would be capable of achieving for the common welfare or good? In my judgment, nothing less than that which would far exceed and surpass all the wonders of the world. And whoever wishes to consider most closely the example of Sparta, founded by Lycurgus the Spartan lawgiver, will also not fail to notice that, notwithstanding the purportedly useful mixing of the three states, Sparta’s long-standing existence depended primarily on the little or no possession of riches, the maintenance of the least prominence of one state over another, and free and brave military exercise. And had Lycurgus not been all too wise or narrow in his precise maintenance of his institutions, and had he known how to receive and integrate foreigners—so necessary for the strengthening of a people—in the most convenient way, while nevertheless preventing the possession of excessive riches by one over another, Sparta, in my judgment, could have endured much longer and even far surpassed Rome in power and strength. But as far as I am concerned, it has very little to say or signify whether any people, even though they appear to exist somewhat freely on their own for many centuries without being conquered and subjugated by other peoples, when that exists far from a free City or citizenry, such as in Sparta in a house of discipline original: "Tuchthuys"; a correctional or workhouse that violates freedom, and as in Rome, which was found to be mostly a den of thieves that forced everything into robbery. And as for Sparta, it seems to me that the objective of Lycurgus, like that of many other founders of pretended commonweals, was more focused on the greatness and longevity of his name through his particular institutions, which were also more directed toward a direct coercion of the people than toward a people's enduring freedom, growing and flourishing prosperity, and strengthening. For what cunning increase of a man—who, from the state of the Spartans at that time, could measure what might be advantageous to them—did he try to bind those same Spartans, despite the multiple necessary changes of nature, to some very good and others very harsh, freedom-contradicting, and even trivial institutions for eternity and as unchangeable?