Ameritopia_ The Unmaking of America - Mark R. Levin [54]
Montesquieu explained that unlike the poor in republican governments, who in freedom can better their circumstances, in despotic states the poor have no hope. “There are two sorts of poor peoples: some are made so by the harshness of the government, and these people are capable of almost no virtue because their poverty is a part of their servitude; the others are poor only because they have disdained or because they did not know the comforts of life, and these last can do great things because this poverty is a part of their liberty” (4, 20, 3).
Industrious men and societies are also to be encouraged. “Countries which have been made inhabitable by the industry of men and which need that same industry in order to exist call for moderate government” (3, 18, 6). “Men, by their care and their good laws, have made the earth more fit to be their home. We see rivers flowing where there were lakes and marshes; it is a good that nature did not make, but which is maintained by nature. When the Persians were the masters of Asia, they permitted those who diverted the water from its source to a place that had not yet been watered to enjoy it for five generations, and, as many streams flow from the Taurus mountains, they spared no expense in getting water from there. Today, one finds it in one’s fields and gardens without knowing where it comes from. Thus, just as destructive nations do evil things that last longer than themselves, there are industrious nations that do good things that do not end with themselves” (3, 18, 7). Montesquieu, like Locke, explained that commerce, industriousness, and laws that inspire them require a moderate or republican government, which, in combination, preserve and improve the society. Alternatively, “Every lazy nation is grave; for those who do not work regard themselves as sovereigns of those who work” (3, 19, 9).
Moreover, commerce is a natural outgrowth of republican government, where individuals are largely free to make self-interested economic decisions. Montesquieu wrote, “Commerce is related to the constitution. In government by one alone, it is ordinarily founded on luxury, and though it is also founded on real needs, its principal object is to procure for the nation engaging in it all that serves its arrogance, its delights, and its fancies. In government by many, it is more often founded on economy. Traders, eyeing all the nations of earth, take to one what they bring from another.…” (4, 20, 4)
Montesquieu, always mindful of history’s preference for tyranny, argued that political liberty exists within the context of a constitution—a fixed, established law. The constitution must institute a governing structure that controls the governors. He proposed that the three powers of government—that is, the legislative, the executive, and the judicial—be divided into three separate entities. In this not only does Montesquieu add significant clarity to Locke’s notion of division of powers, but his words have a major influence on the future constitution of the American republic, as they did in the state constitutions.
Montesquieu wrote, “Political liberty in a citizen is that tranquility of spirit which comes from the opinion each one has of his security, and in order for him to have this liberty the government must be such that one citizen cannot fear another citizen. When legislative power is united with executive power in a single person or in a simple body of magistracy, there is no liberty, because one can fear that the same monarch or senate that makes tyrannical laws will execute them tyrannically. Nor is there liberty if the power of judging is not separate from legislative power and from executive power. If it were joined to legislative power, the power over the life and liberty of the citizens would be arbitrary, for the judge would be the legislator. If it were joined to executive power, the judge