Wilhelm von Humboldt's 'Limits of State Action': Study Guide

Published: at 12:00 PM

Foreword

Wilhelm von Humboldt’s Ideas for an Attempt to Determine the Limits of State Action (often simply called The Limits of State Action) is a foundational text of classical liberalism, exploring the essential relationship between individual freedom and state power. Written in the fervent intellectual climate following the French Revolution, its insights remain remarkably relevant today. However, like many philosophical works of its era, the original text can be dense and challenging for modern readers to navigate. This version represents my attempt to make Humboldt’s ideas more accessible. Working from the 1851 German edition edited by Dr. Eduard Cauer (which included Cauer’s own valuable introduction detailing the manuscript’s history), I focused on structuring the text extensively.

I’ve broken down the arguments into smaller sections with descriptive headings, subheadings, and occasional lists or summaries. The goal was not to fundamentally alter Humboldt’s arguments (presented here in translation), but to provide clear signposts and pathways through his reasoning. Please note that the introductory sections detailing the manuscript’s journey are derived from Cauer’s 1851 introduction and are editorial commentary, not part of Humboldt’s original essay.

This rendition is not intended as a critical scholarly edition or a substitute for rigorous academic translations meant for deep textual analysis. Instead, think of it as a study guide, a structured reading companion, or an entry point into Humboldt’s thought.

How might you use this version?

Get an Overview: Quickly grasp the main themes and flow of Humboldt’s argument. Find Specific Points: Use the headings and structure to locate discussions on particular topics (e.g., education, religion, security, contracts). Facilitate Discussion: The clearer structure might make it easier to discuss specific sections with others. Aid Comprehension: Use it alongside a more formal translation if you find the original structure difficult. Spark Further Interest: Hopefully, it encourages readers to delve deeper into Humboldt’s work and the history of liberal thought.

I developed this version during my own engagement with the text and decided to share it in the hope that it might prove useful to others exploring these vital questions about individual liberty and the role of the state.

Joona Heino May 12th, 2025

Ideas for an Attempt to Determine the Limits of State Action

By Wilhelm von Humboldt

“The challenge is to enact only necessary laws, to remain forever faithful to this truly constitutional principle of society, to guard against the frenzy of governing, the most fatal malady of modern governments.”

— Mirabeau the Elder, on public education, p. 69

Introduction

In recent decades, our nation’s intellectual wealth has been greatly enriched by a long series of publications from the golden age of our literary development. These have significantly expanded our understanding of our great literary past, adding depth, vibrancy, and breadth in ways that were previously hard to imagine. This current publication, which we owe to a fortunate turn of events and the passionate, self-sacrificing zeal of the esteemed publishing house, is a welcome addition to those that came before it.

An almost complete version of a previously little-known work by Wilhelm von Humboldt is now being made public. This work demands widespread interest, both for the significance of its content and due to its renowned author. As the editor entrusted with publishing this precious relic from one of our nation’s greatest minds, I have made it a point of honor to approach this task with the utmost care. My first duty is to report what has been discovered about the origin and previous history of this work.1

Wilhelm von Humboldt began his practical career at the Berlin Kammergericht (Chamber Court) in 1790, immediately after completing his academic studies. However, he soon left this position in the summer of the following year. Upon marrying, he retreated to the seclusion of a country estate (Burgörner in the County of Mansfeld) that came to him through his wife. In this period of contented leisure, alongside other pursuits, he devoted himself primarily to contemplating political questions.

These political questions had already been the subject of his correspondence with Forster during his time in Göttingen. The French Revolution, then in full swing, was keeping the thoughts of all intellectuals and passionate individuals focused in this direction. Thus, when the first French Constitution was completed, Humboldt took the opportunity to outline his general ideas on state constitutions and the laws governing their development in a letter to a friend. This letter found its way to the public through the “Berlinische Monatsschrift,” which published it in its January 1792 issue.2 It also reached the hands of Dalberg, the Coadjutor, who was then residing in Erfurt as the governor of the Elector of Mainz, and with whom Humboldt had already made contact during an earlier stay in that city.

The Journey of Humboldt’s Manuscript

As we can gather from this letter, Dalberg already had the original manuscript in his possession. Humboldt asked him to inquire with Göschen in Leipzig about publishing it for the Easter Fair of 1793. However, this letter reveals that Humboldt had envisioned a much more significant role for Schiller in his literary project than mere external assistance.

The letter states:

“Caroline1 writes to us that some ideas from my treatise have interested you, and that you’re now more engaged with these topics. You once half-promised to share some of your own ideas with me. What a delightful gift that would be! But what if you were to add them to my treatise as a preface, an appendix, or in any form you prefer, with or without your name? Of course, this is just a casual suggestion. But it seems incredibly interesting to me if a man of your intellect, without formal study of these subjects, and thus approaching from entirely new and more original perspectives, were to address this topic. Your usual writing activities don’t often present such a convenient opportunity to weave in these ideas, unless you’d like to expand them into a separate work.”

We don’t know how Schiller responded to this proposal. However, it’s reasonable to assume that he couldn’t consider it seriously, partly because the political ideas Humboldt knew he was pondering had already led to plans for his own independent work. This work is now available to us in the form of “Letters on the Aesthetic Education of Man.” Although Schiller didn’t complete these until 1794, they were already the subject of correspondence with Körner in March 1792. Despite differences in execution, these letters share unmistakable similarities with Humboldt’s “Ideas,” particularly in their fundamental views and how they relate politics, morality, and aesthetics to one another.

While Schiller couldn’t comply with Humboldt’s second request, he took the first – the practical concern for publishing his friend’s work – very seriously. Unexpectedly, Göschen was unwilling to commit to anything at that time, apparently due to being overwhelmed with publishing projects. Undeterred, Schiller not only sought another publisher but also included a portion of the essay in his journal “Thalia”2, intending to continue publishing excerpts from it in future issues.

Meanwhile, some fragments had also been published in the “Berlinische Monatsschrift.” Biester, who had the copy sent to Berlin, had selected the 5th, 6th, and 8th sections for his journal. He published at least the latter two without Humboldt’s knowledge in the last three monthly issues of 17923. Like the excerpts in “Thalia,” these were preliminary publications intended to prepare for, not replace, the release of the complete work.

The Fate of Humboldt’s Manuscript

Wilhelm von Humboldt completed his manuscript just eight months before, and only four months ago, he still fully agreed with the ideas he had presented. Now, however, he found himself unable to publish it unchanged or to make the revisions he felt were necessary. As time passed, both options became increasingly impossible for him.

Contrary to Humboldt’s expectations, his attention wasn’t diverted for just a few months. His correspondence with F.A. Wolf, which began around the time he started to feel disconnected from his political ideas, reveals the nature of his new interests. What seemed like a brief detour became the path on which he discovered and fulfilled a significant part of his life’s work.

When Humboldt’s career eventually led him back to state affairs, he had undergone significant personal growth. He had immersed himself in the study of antiquity and languages under F.A. Wolf’s guidance and explored the heights of art philosophy with Schiller. By this point, the political ideas of his youth must have seemed like a distant memory to the statesman he had become.

It’s also worth noting a crucial change in external circumstances that coincided with Humboldt’s shift in thinking. On January 18, 1793—the same day as Humboldt’s last letter addressing this matter—the execution of Louis XVI was decided in Paris. His death three days later dramatically altered the attitude of educated Germans towards the French Revolution and related ideas. Although Humboldt’s work showed great independence of thought, it was rooted in admiration for the revolutionary ideas emerging from France. As Count Stolberg said of Humboldt during those years, he had been “struck by the poisonous breath of the spirit of the times.” Publishing such a work would have seemed inappropriate after public sentiment had largely turned against these ideas.

This explains the fate of this manuscript, which Humboldt had initially been so eager to publish and still viewed favorably even as he was about to abandon it. After lying in obscurity for over half a century, circumstances have now brought it to light.

From Humboldt’s letters, we know that two copies of the manuscript existed in the summer of 1792: the original was with Schiller, and a copy was with Biester. The copy eventually returned to Humboldt and was lent out again. The original, which Humboldt requested Schiller to return in a letter dated January 14, 1793, also made its way back to him and remained in his possession.

The manuscript was recently discovered in Ottmachau, a beautiful estate in Silesia that Humboldt received as a national reward for his invaluable services in rebuilding the state after its fall in 1806. He frequently stayed there in the later years of his life, and it passed to his sons after his death1.

There’s no doubt that we’re dealing with the original manuscript. The handwriting, with its distinctive characteristics, matches perfectly with known samples of Humboldt’s writing. The nature of the corrections in the manuscript also indicates that these words flowed directly from the writer’s mind, rather than being copied from an existing text.

The most conclusive proof, however, lies in an unfortunate circumstance: a gap in our manuscript. Six sheets are missing—from the third to the eighth—which correspond to the portion of the essay printed in Thalia magazine. This clearly shows that we’re dealing with the manuscript that was in Schiller’s possession, which Humboldt distinctly refers to as the original, different from the copy. It appears that Schiller never returned these missing sheets to Humboldt.

This gap is highly regrettable, despite the partial publication in Thalia. Schiller made some changes to the manuscript before publishing it, changes that Humboldt appreciated and intended to follow in the future. We’ve lost the opportunity to determine how much of this section’s current form is due to Schiller’s influence.

Even more problematic is that the Thalia publication doesn’t completely fill the gap in the manuscript. The printed piece neither began exactly at the start of the third sheet nor ended precisely at the end of the eighth. This leaves us with two smaller, currently unfillable gaps.

Based on careful examination of the manuscript’s pagination and Humboldt’s detailed table of contents, I’ve determined that the piece printed in Thalia likely filled just under four sheets of the handwritten manuscript. This means we’re missing slightly over two sheets of material (equivalent to about 11-12 pages in the current print format).

This missing content is unevenly distributed between the two gaps. The first gap is very small, with the manuscript reaching page 14 and the print beginning on page 16. We’re only missing a few sentences that formally conclude the first section, with little loss in terms of content.

The second gap, however, is much larger, spanning nearly two sheets of the manuscript and causing a significant interruption in the flow of ideas. For now, we can only rely on the table of contents to get a sense of the missing thoughts2.

Despite these gaps, particularly the latter one, they don’t justify withholding publication of what we’ve found. There’s hope that this publication might lead to the discovery of the missing parts, either through the recovery of the missing sheets from our manuscript or the aforementioned copy.

Even if this hope isn’t realized, the current publication remains an invaluable gain for scholarship.

For the sections first printed in the Berlinische Monatsschrift, a comparison between the print and the manuscript reveals several variants. These are mostly minor stylistic differences, sometimes showing a tendency to smooth out small rough spots in the original. However, it can’t be said that these changes are always improvements; in many cases, I found the original preferable.

Humboldt’s Intellectual Journey and Legacy

The publication of this manuscript provides us with a nearly complete version of Wilhelm von Humboldt’s first major work. This text is more comprehensive in scope, broader in its appeal, and more accessible than his later works. The previously known sections, which were not selected based on any judgment of their value or any systematic approach, now appear in their proper context. They’re accompanied by related discussions that are, in many ways, equally worthy of attention.

Some might argue that publishing this work goes against Humboldt’s wishes, as he felt it was unsuitable for publication shortly after writing it and would have likely disapproved even more in his later years. However, while Humboldt was right to withhold a work he felt he could no longer stand behind, doesn’t the nation have a right to access all available resources to understand a man who has become such an important part of its intellectual heritage? This is especially true given that Humboldt’s reputation can only be enhanced by a deeper understanding of his work.

It’s not our intention to exhaustively analyze how this new material contributes to our understanding of Humboldt’s personality and development. However, we can outline the general direction of these insights:

  1. Consistency in Philosophy: Some might eagerly point out contradictions between the principles expressed in this work and Humboldt’s later actions as a statesman. However, this would be a superficial reading. In fact, there’s a remarkable consistency throughout Humboldt’s life.

  2. Ideals in Action: The man who worked tirelessly to revive the national spirit during times of crisis and create conditions for a healthy, free, and developable national existence had no reason to shy away from the ideals he expressed in this early work. His political career can be characterized by the same spirit that inspired this text.

  3. Fidelity to Youth: Towards the end of his life, Humboldt proudly claimed that he had remained true to his youth and maintained unity in his intellectual pursuits. This manuscript supports that claim, showing how he truly let “the genius of youth guide his heart faithfully and piously.”

  4. The Freshness of Youth: Perhaps the most significant contribution of this work is that it allows us to see Humboldt’s youthful genius in all its original freshness and spontaneity.

  5. Unity in Diversity: While some have argued that Humboldt showed little distinction between life stages, this text reveals a rich tapestry of developmental phases, all united by a consistent core philosophy.

  6. A Life Fully Lived: Humboldt’s life demonstrates a rare balance of thought, action, and enjoyment. He had the opportunity to apply his deep thinking to the great intellectual movements of his time, to experience the classical pleasures of Italy, and to channel his energy into rebuilding a shattered state amidst a powerful awakening of national spirit.

In essence, this early work provides invaluable insight into the formation of Humboldt’s ideas and the consistency of his intellectual journey throughout his life. It allows us to appreciate more fully the development of a man who embodied the best of his era and whose influence continues to shape our understanding of individual freedom, state power, and human potential.

Humboldt’s Intellectual Evolution: From Youth to Wisdom

Wilhelm von Humboldt’s life journey presents a fascinating study in intellectual growth and consistency. This newly discovered manuscript offers us a window into his youthful thoughts, complementing our existing knowledge of his later years.

The Arc of a Life

  1. Youth and Idealism: This early work reveals Humboldt’s initial fervor and boldness. Here, we find him:

    • Challenging the status quo with vigorous thought
    • Hoping to bring freedom through external societal changes
    • Filled with a Promethean self-confidence

  2. Maturity and Action: His middle years were marked by:

    • Practical engagement with the world
    • Application of his ideas to real-world challenges
    • A balance of thought, action, and experience

  3. Elderhood and Reflection: In his later years, as seen in his “Sonnets” and “Letters to a Friend,” Humboldt exhibited:

    • A profound inner peace
    • Gentle melancholy and detachment from the present
    • A focus split between memories and contemplation of the afterlife

The Value of This Early Work

  1. Completing the Picture: This manuscript fills a crucial gap in our understanding of Humboldt’s intellectual journey.

  2. Contrast and Development: By comparing this youthful work with his later writings, we gain insight into the rich development of his ideas over time.

  3. Consistency Amidst Change: Despite the stark contrasts between his youthful and elder selves, there’s a remarkable consistency in Humboldt’s core philosophy throughout his life.

Historical and Literary Significance

While the political standpoint in this work may not be directly applicable to modern political science, its historical value is immense:

  1. Philosophical Roots: The ideas are deeply rooted in Kant’s philosophy, particularly influenced by the “Critique of Judgment” (1790).

  2. Transition in Thought: This work marks a pivotal moment in Humboldt’s intellectual development, showing the shift from his focus on law and state to his later interests in art, antiquity, language, and spiritual life.

  3. Context of Its Time: The manuscript reflects the intellectual climate of its era, particularly in its view of the state as a necessary evil to be minimized – a perspective that has since evolved in political theory.

A Note on Religious Views

The section on religion in this manuscript is particularly noteworthy:

In essence, this early work provides an invaluable glimpse into the formation of Humboldt’s ideas. While its absolute value in political theory may be limited by its historical context, it remains a crucial document for understanding both Humboldt’s personal intellectual evolution and the broader intellectual currents of his time.

The Evolution of Political Philosophy: Humboldt’s Early Contributions

The Intellectual Climate of Humboldt’s Time

When Humboldt wrote this work, the philosophical landscape was dominated by Kant’s rigorous methodology. At this time:

Humboldt’s Breakthrough

In this context, Humboldt’s work represents a significant step towards independent thinking. His originality manifests in two key ways:

  1. Application of Kantian principles to new domains: Humboldt applied Kant’s ideas to areas the master hadn’t yet explored.

  2. Deepening and enlivening Kant’s principles: Humboldt began to develop and breathe new life into Kantian concepts.

Comparison with Kant’s Later Works

It’s fascinating to compare Humboldt’s views with those Kant later developed on similar topics1. Such a comparison often favors Humboldt:

Humboldt’s Intellectual Independence

While Humboldt deeply admired Kant, he maintained intellectual independence, particularly in ethics and aesthetics:

Moral Philosophy: Anticipating Fichte

Humboldt’s moral principles represent a noteworthy advancement beyond Kant, essentially reaching Fichte’s standpoint:

Political Applications

Humboldt uniquely applied these moral concepts to politics, arguing that:

This principle forms the positive core of Humboldt’s entire investigation, offering a lesson particularly relevant to our contemporary world.

The Paradox of Possession and the Nature of Human Energy

The Illusion of Rest and Possession

Possession, which seemingly offers rest to our strained energies, is often merely an illusion created by our imagination. In reality, human existence is characterized by:

True rest and possession, in this sense, exist only as abstract ideas. However:

The Relationship Between Education and Satisfaction

The common notion of boredom with possession, especially in matters of refined sentiments, varies greatly depending on one’s level of education:

The Appeal of Action Over Rest

Just as a conqueror finds more joy in victory than in the conquered land, and a reformer in the tumultuous process of reform rather than its peaceful outcomes, humans generally find:

This is because:

The desire for freedom often arises only when it’s lacking1.

The Importance of Examining State Limits

Despite this human tendency towards action and power, it remains crucial to investigate the purpose and limitations of state activity. This topic is perhaps more important than any other in politics because:

  1. It addresses the ultimate goal of all political endeavors
  2. It allows for easier and more widespread application

Practical Implications

The Nature of Effective Reform

The best human interventions are those that most closely mimic natural processes:

The Relationship Between Freedom and Education

Expanding individual freedoms and creating more diverse situations for citizens requires:

If our current era truly possesses superior education and individual capability, it should be prepared to grant the freedoms that naturally follow.

The Ideal Path to Reform

In an enlightened society, reform should ideally come about through:

This approach is morally superior and more uplifting than reform achieved through conflict or necessity.

The Contrast Between Ancient and Modern Ideals

The Unique Value of Antiquity

In recent centuries, we’ve been captivated by:

However, when we look at antiquity, we’re drawn to different qualities:

In ancient times, it was the individual—their strength and cultivation—that drove all activity. In contrast, our modern era often focuses on:

Shifting Perspectives on Virtue and Happiness

The ancients sought happiness through virtue. In recent times, we’ve often tried to derive virtue from happiness1. Even those who understood morality in its purest form felt compelled to construct elaborate systems to justify happiness as a reward for moral behavior, rather than seeing it as an inherent outcome.

Aristotle’s Timeless Wisdom

To illustrate this point, consider this quote from Aristotle’s Ethics:

“What is most characteristic of an individual’s nature is what’s best and most pleasant for them. For humans, this means living according to reason, as this is what most defines us as human and leads to the greatest fulfillment.”

The Debate Over the State’s Purpose

Security vs. Comprehensive Well-being

There’s been an ongoing debate among political theorists:

  1. Should the state focus solely on providing security?
  2. Or should it aim to ensure the overall physical and moral well-being of the nation?

Those advocating for personal freedom tend to support the first view. The second view is based on the idea that the state can offer more than just security, and that potential misuse of power doesn’t necessarily negate this broader role.

The Prevailing View

The comprehensive well-being approach has become dominant in both theory and practice, as evidenced by:

This has led to increased state involvement in various aspects of life:

The Need for Reexamination

Despite its prevalence, this comprehensive approach deserves closer scrutiny. Such an examination should start by considering the individual and the ultimate purposes of human existence.

The Interplay of Form and Substance in Human Nature

The Essence of Human Greatness

Human greatness stems from the fusion of two elements within us:

  1. Form (the organizing principle)
  2. Matter (the raw material or content)

This fusion is like an eternal mating process between the diverse and the unified aspects of our nature. The strength of this union depends on the vigor of the elements involved.

The Metaphor of Blossoming

The pinnacle of human achievement can be likened to a flower in full bloom1. Consider the life cycle of a plant:

  1. The seed sprouts, far from its eventual beauty.
  2. The thick stem and broad leaves emerge, still needing refinement.
  3. As we look up the stem, we see more delicate leaves yearning to unite.
  4. Finally, the bud seems to satisfy this longing, bursting into bloom.

Unlike plants, humans aren’t constrained by nature’s cycles. When one phase of our growth ends, it makes way for even greater development, with our ultimate potential hidden in the depths of infinity.

Nurturing Human Potential

What we receive from the outside world is merely a seed. Our own energetic activity must transform it into something truly beneficial. The more potent and unique the seed, the more it can contribute to our growth.

The Ideal of Human Coexistence

I believe the highest ideal for human coexistence is one where each person develops solely from within, for their own sake. In such a society:

The Appeal of Ancient Times

This ideal helps explain our fascination with ancient Greece and Rome. What draws us to these distant eras?

The Loss of Diversity

Each subsequent age tends to lose some of this diversity:

This trend accelerates over time, resulting in:

Why? Because:

  1. External pressures on humans have decreased as we’ve developed more tools to cope.
  2. It’s no longer possible to rely solely on our innate abilities to overcome challenges.
  3. Our accumulated knowledge makes new inventions less necessary, and learning can actually dull our creative capacities.

A New Kind of Diversity

However, as physical diversity has decreased, a richer intellectual and moral variety has emerged:

This new diversity might have been noticeable only to the wisest individuals of antiquity, if at all.

The Evolution of Humanity

Humanity as a whole has developed like an individual:

While it would be ideal if the strengths of one era could be fully passed on to the next (like books or inventions), this isn’t entirely possible. Our current refinement does have its own strength, perhaps even surpassing earlier, cruder forms in proportion to its sophistication. But we must ask: Is it necessary to go through earlier, coarser stages of development first?

Sensuality remains the primary seed and most vivid expression of all spiritual matters. While we can’t fully explore this idea here, we can conclude that we must carefully preserve what uniqueness and strength we still possess, along with everything that nourishes it.

Conclusion: The Ideal State of Human Freedom

I believe I’ve demonstrated that true reason can only wish for humanity a state in which:

  1. Every individual enjoys the most unrestrained freedom to develop according to their own unique nature.
  2. The physical environment receives no other shape from human hands than what each person gives it according to their needs and inclinations, limited only by the boundaries of their own strength and rights.

In my view, reason should never deviate from this principle more than is absolutely necessary for its own preservation. This principle should form the foundation of all politics, especially when addressing the question at hand.

The Unintended Consequences of State Intervention

The Pitfalls of Government Involvement in Society

Humboldt argues that when the state involves itself too deeply in the affairs of its citizens, particularly in matters of welfare and economic development, it produces several negative consequences:

  1. Loss of diversity and individuality: The more the state intervenes, the more uniform society becomes. This uniformity stifles the very diversity that makes society vibrant and valuable.

  2. Weakening of national strength: Excessive state involvement can actually diminish the overall strength and capability of the nation.

  3. Reduction in personal initiative: When people become accustomed to state assistance, they lose the drive to solve problems on their own.

  4. Erosion of moral character: Over-reliance on the state can lead to a decline in personal responsibility and moral fortitude.

The Homogenizing Effect of State Control

When the government takes an active role in shaping society, it imposes a singular vision and approach. This leads to:

While the state often aims for prosperity and tranquility, Humboldt argues that what humans truly need is variety and activity. These elements foster strong, multifaceted characters.

The Weakening of National Vitality

Humboldt uses a metaphor of matter and form to illustrate how state intervention can weaken a nation:

He argues that human potential flourishes when people are free to develop organically, rather than being molded by external forces.

The Decline of Self-Reliance and Initiative

State intervention often leads to:

Humboldt contends that true intellectual and character growth comes from active engagement and personal discovery, not from passively receiving state-directed information or assistance.

The Erosion of Moral Character

Extensive state involvement in citizens’ lives can have several negative effects on moral character:

The Weakening of Social Bonds

When citizens become overly reliant on the state, it can lead to:

Humboldt observes that communities left to their own devices often develop stronger internal bonds and support systems.

Conclusion: The Value of Self-Reliance

Humboldt concludes that while a completely hands-off approach by the state might lead to occasional hardships, it ultimately fosters a stronger, more capable, and more morally robust citizenry. The challenges faced by self-reliant individuals and communities serve to strengthen them, whereas constant state intervention, however well-intentioned, tends to weaken the fabric of society.

The Value of Self-Reliance and Personal Growth

The True Nature of Human Happiness

Humboldt argues that genuine human happiness stems from using one’s own abilities. Challenging situations sharpen our minds and shape our characters. When the state interferes too much, preventing people from acting on their own, do we really avoid problems? No. Instead, these issues still arise, but now affect people who have grown accustomed to relying on external support, leaving them in an even more desperate situation.

Note: Humboldt is emphasizing the importance of self-reliance and personal growth through overcoming challenges, rather than depending on state intervention.

The Interconnection of Work and Inner Life

Every human activity, even if it’s primarily aimed at meeting physical needs or achieving external goals, is closely tied to our inner feelings. Sometimes, alongside the external purpose, there’s also an internal one. For people with a strong sense of self, their chosen work naturally flows from their inner being. Even in situations where they didn’t freely choose their occupation, they tend to connect it more closely to their inner selves.

This is why interesting people remain engaging in all situations and occupations. They truly flourish when their way of life aligns with their character.

The Potential for Artistry in All Professions

Humboldt suggests that we could potentially transform all farmers and craftsmen into artists – people who love their work for its own sake, who improve their skills through self-directed effort and innovation. This approach would cultivate their intellectual abilities, refine their character, and enhance their enjoyment of life.

Note: This idea resonates with modern concepts of finding meaning and fulfillment in one’s work, regardless of the specific profession.

In this way, humanity could be ennobled through the very activities that, despite their inherent beauty, often serve to demean people in the current system.

The Importance of Inner Life in Shaping External Circumstances

The more a person is accustomed to living in the realm of ideas and feelings, and the stronger and more refined their intellectual and moral faculties, the more they seek external situations that nourish their inner life. Even when circumstances are thrust upon them by fate, they strive to find aspects that can contribute to their internal growth.

The Example of Agriculture and Its Impact on Character

Humboldt uses the example of undisturbed agricultural life to illustrate how work can shape character:

The Necessity of Freedom for Meaningful Work

However, Humboldt emphasizes that freedom is essential for work to have these beneficial effects on character. What is not chosen freely by an individual, or where they are restricted and directed, does not become part of their essence. It remains foreign to them, performed not with human capability but with mechanical skill.

Critiquing Ancient Views on Labor

Humboldt challenges the ancient Greek view that manual labor or work focused on external gains rather than inner development was harmful and dishonorable. He argues that any occupation can ennoble a person and give them a worthy form. What matters is how the work is approached.

The State’s Limited Perspective

When the state takes an active role in managing these aspects of life, it tends to focus solely on results, establishing rules it believes will lead to improvement. This limited viewpoint is particularly harmful in areas where the true purpose is moral or intellectual, or where the activity itself, not its consequences, is the primary aim.

The Complexity of Human Relationships: Marriage as an Example

Humboldt uses marriage as an example to illustrate the complexity of human relationships and how they reflect and shape individual character. He argues that the state’s involvement in such personal matters often fails to account for the nuanced ways in which these relationships contribute to personal growth and happiness.

The Importance of Women’s Character in Society

The Unique Role of Women in Preserving Morality

Humboldt argues that the development of women’s character in society is of immense importance. He suggests that each gender embodies different aspects of human excellence:

Note: This gendered view reflects 18th-century perspectives and should be considered in its historical context.

According to Humboldt, while men work to remove external barriers to growth, women cultivate the beneficial inner constraints that allow strength to blossom into virtue. Women are particularly suited for this role because:

  1. They have a deeper understanding of human nature
  2. They perceive the nuances of various relationships more acutely
  3. They rely more on intuition than on potentially misleading rationalization

Historical Evidence of Women’s Influence on Morality

Humboldt claims that history supports this view, showing a strong correlation between the respect given to women in a society and that society’s overall moral character.

The Complexity of Marriage and State Intervention

Humboldt uses marriage as an example to illustrate the problems with state intervention in personal matters:

  1. The effects of marriage vary greatly depending on individual characteristics.
  2. State attempts to regulate such a deeply personal union through laws or institutions can have detrimental consequences.
  3. The state tends to focus solely on outcomes like population growth and child-rearing, neglecting the importance of personal inclination and emotional bonds.

The Paradox of Regulation and Natural Outcomes

Interestingly, Humboldt notes that careful studies have shown that monogamous, lasting unions between one man and one woman are actually best for population growth. Moreover, such arrangements naturally arise from genuine, undistorted love.

Humboldt argues that the fundamental error lies in attempting to legislate something that should arise naturally from inclination. He suggests that:

  1. The state should loosen restrictions on marriage
  2. Ideally, the state should remove itself entirely from regulating marriage
  3. Marriage should be left to the free will of individuals and the various contracts they might establish

Addressing Concerns About Social Disorder

While acknowledging that such a hands-off approach might cause concern about disrupting family structures or preventing their formation altogether, Humboldt remains unconvinced. He argues that:

  1. Experience often shows that social customs bind people where laws do not
  2. The idea of external compulsion is fundamentally at odds with a relationship based on inclination and inner duty, like marriage
  3. Coercive institutions often fail to achieve their intended purposes

The Broader Impact of State Intervention

Humboldt extends his critique beyond marriage to state intervention in general:

  1. State care for citizens’ positive welfare is harmful because it must be applied to a diverse population, resulting in measures that fit individuals poorly
  2. It hinders the development of individuality and human uniqueness

The Interconnectedness of Human Development

Humboldt emphasizes the deep interconnection between all aspects of human cultivation, particularly in the moral realm. He argues for a delicate balance:

  1. People should connect with each other without losing their individuality
  2. These connections should open pathways between individuals without transforming one person into another
  3. Each person should compare and modify what they possess based on what they receive from others, without suppressing their own nature

The Art of Human Interaction

Humboldt proposes a highest principle for the art of social interaction:

  1. Strive to understand the innermost uniqueness of others
  2. Utilize this understanding while maintaining deep respect for the other’s individuality
  3. Influence others primarily by revealing and comparing oneself to them

He laments that this art of interaction has been largely neglected.

Conclusion: The Dangers of State Intervention

Humboldt concludes by reiterating the dangers of state intervention in citizens’ welfare:

  1. It’s difficult to accurately weigh the benefits against the costs, especially in terms of restricted freedom
  2. Restrictive measures create complex, unforeseen consequences
  3. The means required often detract from achieving the actual goal

He argues that these drawbacks are inherent to state intervention and cannot be entirely eliminated, even with careful implementation.

The Unintended Consequences of Extensive State Intervention

The Strain on State Resources

When a state takes on extensive responsibilities for its citizens’ welfare, it faces several challenges:

  1. It requires significantly more revenue.
  2. It needs more complex systems to maintain political security.
  3. The various parts of society become less naturally cohesive, requiring more active state involvement.

This situation demands a careful calculation, often neglected, of whether the state’s natural resources are sufficient to meet these increased needs. If this calculation is incorrect and there’s a real imbalance, new artificial measures must be implemented to stretch resources, a problem plaguing many modern states.

The Bureaucratic Burden

A particularly concerning issue is the complexity this adds to state administration:

  1. It requires an incredible number of detailed procedures to avoid chaos.
  2. It occupies a large number of people in bureaucratic roles.
  3. Most of these roles involve dealing with symbols and formulas rather than real-world issues.

This situation has several negative consequences:

Note: Humboldt’s critique of bureaucracy remains relevant in modern discussions about government efficiency and the role of the state.

The Cycle of Increasing Complexity

This system tends to perpetuate and expand itself:

  1. Administrators focus more on form than substance.
  2. They implement “improvements” that often complicate matters further.
  3. This leads to new forms, new complexities, and often new restrictive regulations.
  4. These changes naturally result in hiring even more administrative staff.

The result is a vicious cycle: in most states, the number of civil servants and the size of registries increase decade by decade, while the freedom of citizens decreases.

The Paradox of Oversight

Such a system requires meticulous oversight and honest administration, as opportunities for error and dishonesty multiply. This leads to:

  1. Attempts to have everything pass through as many hands as possible.
  2. Efforts to eliminate even the possibility of mistakes or fraud.

However, this approach has negative consequences:

Distorted Priorities

As these administrative tasks gain importance (which they must for the sake of consistency), it distorts our view of what’s truly important:

  1. It skews our perspective on what’s significant versus insignificant.
  2. It alters our understanding of what’s honorable versus contemptible.
  3. It blurs the line between ultimate goals and subordinate objectives.

The Neglect of Human Development

In a state overly focused on positive welfare:

  1. People are neglected for the sake of things.
  2. Potential is overlooked in favor of results.
  3. The state resembles a collection of tools for action and enjoyment rather than a community of active, fulfilled individuals.

This approach may aim at happiness and enjoyment, but it misses a crucial point: true human fulfillment comes from moments of greatest strength and unity of self, even if these moments also bring us closest to profound suffering.

A Call for Balance

Humboldt argues for a different approach:

  1. Recognize that both joy and pain shape the human experience.
  2. Understand that attempting to eliminate all suffering is futile and counterproductive.
  3. Appreciate that even moments of personal destruction can bring a kind of ecstasy to those who truly understand life’s depths.

While Humboldt acknowledges that he may be accused of exaggerating these drawbacks, he insists that it’s crucial to understand the full potential impact of extensive state intervention. The degree and nature of state involvement will, of course, affect the severity of these issues.

Footnote: Humboldt’s critique of overzealous state intervention resonates with modern debates about the proper role of government in society. While his views may seem extreme to some contemporary readers, they offer valuable insights into the potential pitfalls of an overly paternalistic state.

The Limits of State Action: Balancing Freedom and Welfare

The Potential Benefits of Limited Government

If we were to fully implement the principles I’ve outlined, we might see remarkable benefits:

  1. A significant reduction in human suffering
  2. Better management of natural disasters
  3. Mitigation of hostile tendencies among people
  4. A healthier approach to life’s pleasures

However, I won’t dwell on these potential outcomes. My goal is to present ideas for more mature minds to consider and evaluate.

The Core Principle: Minimal State Intervention

If I were to distill the essence of my argument, it would be this:

The state should refrain from any effort to directly promote the positive welfare of citizens. It should not go beyond what’s necessary to protect them from each other and from external threats. The state should limit individual freedom only for these purposes and no others.

The Problem with State-Driven Welfare

I fundamentally disagree with the state actively pursuing citizens’ welfare. Therefore, I won’t discuss specific methods for doing so. However, it’s worth noting that attempts to restrict freedom for the sake of welfare can take many forms:

  1. Direct methods: Laws, incentives, and rewards
  2. Indirect methods: The ruler becoming a major property owner or granting monopolies to certain citizens

All these approaches, though varying in degree and nature, bring disadvantages.

The State vs. Private Individuals: A Crucial Distinction

One might argue that the state should be allowed to do what any individual can do: offer rewards, provide support, or own property. However, there’s a fundamental difference between state and private action:

  1. Private influence is naturally limited by competition, the division of wealth, and mortality.
  2. State influence faces no such natural constraints.

This is why the principle that the state should only concern itself with security matters is so crucial.

The Unique Position of the State

Private individuals and the state act from different motivations:

  1. When a private citizen offers incentives, it’s for personal gain. This aligns with the interests of other citizens due to economic interdependence.
  2. The state, however, acts on ideas and principles that often don’t translate well to reality, even with careful calculation.

Even when the state acts from what it perceives as citizens’ interests, its perspective is often detached from the everyday realities people face.

The Broader Perspective: Economic Considerations

We must also consider whether the areas from which we’re proposing to remove state involvement can thrive independently. This would require a detailed analysis of various sectors like agriculture, industry, and commerce, examining the advantages and disadvantages of freedom and self-regulation in each.

While I lack the expertise for such an in-depth analysis, I believe it’s not strictly necessary for our discussion. However, such a study, especially if historically grounded, would be valuable in two ways:

  1. It would lend more weight to these ideas.
  2. It would help assess the feasibility of implementing these principles in existing states, where unrestricted application might be challenging.

The Power of Intrinsic Motivation

Generally speaking, any endeavor is better pursued for its own sake rather than for its consequences. This is deeply rooted in human nature; often, what we initially choose for its utility eventually becomes intrinsically rewarding.

This stems from the fact that humans prefer activity to passive possession, but only when that activity is self-directed. Even the most industrious person would prefer leisure to forced labor.

The Importance of Freedom and Property Rights

The concept of property is intimately linked with the idea of freedom. Our most energetic activities are motivated by a sense of ownership. Achieving any significant goal requires unity of purpose, as does preventing or mitigating major calamities like famines or floods.

However, this unity can be achieved through national institutions rather than state apparatuses. The key is to give parts of the nation, and the nation as a whole, the freedom to form agreements and associations.

National Institutions vs. State Institutions

There’s a crucial difference between national institutions and state institutions:

  1. National institutions have only indirect power.
  2. State institutions have direct power.

This means national institutions offer more freedom in forming, modifying, and dissolving associations. Historically, many state associations likely began as national ones. However, experience shows the dangers of combining security provision with other objectives.

The Problem of Representation

Even if the state were to operate strictly based on a social contract, it would still rely on representation. A representative of many cannot perfectly convey the opinions of each individual represented. Yet, as we’ve discussed, the consent of each individual is crucial.

This issue also rules out decision-making by majority vote in a state that involves itself in citizens’ positive welfare. Those who disagree would have no recourse except to leave the society entirely, which is nearly impossible if leaving the society means leaving the state.

The Virtue of Smaller, Specific Associations

It’s better to form specific associations for particular purposes than to create broader ones for undefined future scenarios. While this might sometimes hinder achieving certain goals, it’s worth noting that what’s harder to create often proves more durable, as it’s formed from long-tested strengths coming together.

The Dangers of Large Associations

In general, larger associations are less beneficial. The more an individual acts for themselves, the more they develop. In a large association, one can easily become a mere tool. These associations can also lead to symbols replacing substance, which always hinders personal growth.

Consider, for example, institutions for the poor. Don’t they often stifle genuine compassion, hopeful but undemanding requests, and trust between individuals? Isn’t a beggar who’d prefer a year of comfortable care in a hospital to the chance of encountering not just a charitable hand, but a caring heart, somewhat diminished as a person?

Conclusion: The Value of Slower, More Organic Progress

I concede that without the large-scale collective efforts of recent centuries, we wouldn’t have made such rapid progress. However, perhaps we should question the value of this speed. Might the fruit have ripened more slowly without these massive endeavors, but yielded a more nourishing harvest? This is a question worth pondering as we consider the proper role and limits of state action.

Security Against External Threats and Internal Conflicts

The Necessity of State Involvement in Security

I believe we can now move past the previous objection. Two other points remain to be examined later:

  1. Is it possible to maintain security with the limited state involvement I’ve proposed?
  2. Does providing the state with necessary resources for its operations inevitably lead to more intrusion into citizens’ lives?

The State’s Role in Ensuring Negative Welfare: Security

The state’s responsibility for citizens’ security is crucial and forms its primary purpose. This leads us to a fundamental principle, which we’ll explore and refine further:

The state’s main objective and focus should be maintaining security against both external enemies and internal conflicts.

This principle is well-supported by historical evidence. In early civilizations, kings primarily served as military leaders in wartime and judges during peace.

The Paradox of Early Monarchies

Interestingly, despite our modern associations, the earliest forms of government in freedom-loving societies were often monarchies. This was true in Asia, ancient Greece, Italy, and even among the liberty-oriented Germanic tribes1.

This seeming contradiction can be explained:

  1. The choice of a monarchy often indicated the highest level of freedom among those choosing it.
  2. Truly free people saw the need for a leader or arbiter but didn’t fear that this person would become a tyrant.
  3. The concept of someone having the power to subjugate others’ freedom was alien to them.

The Evolution of Leadership and Power

It’s worth noting that the language and approach of modern monarchs differ significantly from the “honey-sweet” words of kings described by Homer and Hesiod2. This shift reflects changing perceptions of power and leadership over time.

The Impact of War on National Character

Returning to our main topic, let’s consider how war affects a nation’s spirit and character. Despite its horrors, war has historically been one of the most impactful phenomena in shaping human development. It’s an extreme situation that tests and strengthens active courage against danger, labor, and hardship.

This fortitude, once developed, manifests in various ways throughout civilian life, giving strength and diversity to society. Without such challenges, we risk becoming weak and one-dimensional.

Alternative Challenges in Modern Society

Some might argue that there are other ways to develop such strength:

  1. Physical dangers in various occupations
  2. Moral challenges faced by statesmen or independent thinkers

However, I can’t shake the belief that just as all things spiritual are a refined form of the physical, these alternatives lack the visceral impact of actual conflict.

The Fading Impact of Historical Memory

While the legacy of past conflicts can inspire courage, its influence diminishes over time:

  1. Memories of past struggles recede further into history
  2. Fewer people in each generation are directly affected by these memories
  3. The impact on those who are affected weakens

Other dangerous professions like seafaring or mining may pose similar risks, but they lack the societal impact of warfare.

Conclusion: The Complex Role of Conflict in Societal Development

While we shouldn’t glorify war, we must recognize its historical role in shaping national character and resilience. As we move away from direct conflict, we face the challenge of finding new ways to develop the strength and diversity that were once forged in the crucible of war.

The Complex Role of War in Society

The Allure of War: Glory and Power

While other dangerous professions lack certain elements, war uniquely combines the ideas of greatness and glory. This notion isn’t purely imaginary—it’s rooted in the concept of overwhelming power.

Consider how we approach natural disasters:

As the saying goes, “No mere mortal should measure themselves against the gods.”1 Survival isn’t the same as victory. What fate grants us kindly, or what human courage or sensitivity merely utilizes, isn’t truly a product or proof of superiority.

The Psychological Appeal of War

In war, each side believes:

  1. They have justice on their side
  2. They’re avenging some wrong

Even the most cultivated person can’t deny that the natural human instinct values cleansing one’s honor above merely gathering life’s necessities.

Comparing Heroic Deaths

I’m not suggesting that a fallen soldier’s death is more noble than, say, that of the brave Pliny2, or less celebrated figures like Robert and Pilatre du Rozier3. However, such examples of civilian heroism are rare. We must ask: would these civilian acts of bravery even exist without the precedent set by warfare?

The Power of Extreme Examples

Consider the Spartans at Thermopylae. What impact does such an example have on a nation? This kind of courage and self-sacrifice can manifest in any life situation, but we shouldn’t fault people for being most moved by its most vivid expression. Such extreme examples tend to have the broadest impact.

The Complexity of Valuing Life and Death

Despite all the talk of evils worse than death, I’ve yet to see someone truly enjoying life in abundance who—without being a fanatic—despised death. This attitude was even rarer in antiquity, where people valued tangible things over reputation, and the present over the future.

The Ideal Warrior

My comments about warriors apply to those who, unlike the philosophers in Plato’s Republic4, take life and death at face value. I’m referring to warriors who, with the highest ideals in mind, put the highest stakes on the line.

War as a Crucible for Character

The most interesting and formative situations are those where extremes intersect. Where is this more evident than in war, where personal inclination and duty, individual and civic obligations, seem to be in constant conflict? Yet, when the cause is just defense, all these conflicts find resolution.

The Purpose of War in Society

My view on why war can be beneficial and necessary also suggests how the state should approach it:

  1. The spirit it generates should be allowed to flow freely through all members of the nation
  2. This argues against standing armies
  3. Modern warfare, unfortunately, is far from the ideal that would be most useful for human development

The Drawbacks of Standing Armies

When a soldier must become almost machine-like, sacrificing their freedom, it’s even more pronounced in our modern way of warfare. Here, individual strength, bravery, and skill matter far less. How detrimental must it be when significant portions of nations are kept in this mechanical existence, not just for a few years, but often for their entire lives, in peacetime, just for the possibility of war?

The Paradox of Military Progress

Ironically, as the theory and technology of warfare have advanced, its benefits for those involved have declined. While the art of war has made incredible progress in modern times, the noble character of warriors has become rarer. The highest beauty of the warrior spirit now exists mainly in ancient history.

The Corruption of Warrior Virtues

Our standing armies bring war into the midst of peace. Martial courage is only admirable when combined with the finest peaceful virtues, and military discipline is only respectable when paired with the highest sense of freedom. When separated—as often happens with soldiers armed in peacetime—the former easily degenerates into slavery, and the latter into savagery and lawlessness.

A Balanced View of Standing Armies

I should note that I’m not entirely dismissing standing armies. They have undeniable benefits that counterbalance their faults. They’re part of a whole shaped not by human design but by the sure hand of fate. A complete picture would need to show how they interact with other aspects unique to our age, sharing in both the blame and the credit for what distinguishes us.

The State’s Role in War

To be clear, I’m not suggesting that the state should periodically instigate wars. Instead:

  1. The state should grant freedom, as should neighboring states
  2. Human nature, with its inherent passions, will inevitably lead to conflicts
  3. If war doesn’t arise, we can be sure that peace isn’t forced or artificially maintained

In such a case, peace will indeed be a more beneficial gift to nations, just as the peaceful farmer is a more pleasant image than the bloody warrior.

The Ideal of Progressive Peace

Ideally, as humanity progresses from generation to generation, future ages should become more peaceful. But this peace must arise from the inner strength of beings; humans, free humans, must become peaceful of their own accord.

Current Reality vs. Ideal

Currently—as one year of European history proves—we enjoy the fruits of peace, but not of peacefulness. Human powers, constantly striving for infinite effectiveness, either unite or fight when they encounter each other. Whether this struggle takes the form of war, competition, or some other variant depends mainly on their refinement.

Conclusion: The State’s Approach to War

If I were to draw a principle from this reasoning for my ultimate goal, it would be:

The state should:

  1. Not promote war in any way
  2. Not forcibly prevent it when necessity demands
  3. Allow its influence on spirit and character to spread freely throughout the nation
  4. Particularly refrain from any positive institutions to train the nation for war

If such institutions (like citizen weapon training) are absolutely necessary, they should be directed not just to impart the bravery, skill, and subordination of a soldier, but to instill the spirit of true warriors, or rather noble citizens, always ready to fight for their homeland.

The Extent of State Intervention in Public Security

The Scope of State Action

The state’s involvement in public security can vary in its extent:

  1. It may only investigate and punish violations of citizens’ rights and direct infringements on state rights.
  2. It might also monitor actions that only affect the individual, viewing citizens as owing their abilities to the state, and thus considering self-harm as a form of theft from the state.

This section will address all state measures intended to promote public security. It will also naturally include policies aimed at citizens’ moral well-being, as these often overlap with security concerns.

Methodology: A Process of Elimination

I’ll continue with the approach used so far:

  1. First, assume the broadest possible state activity.
  2. Then, gradually examine what should be removed.
  3. We’re now left with only security concerns to address.

Even within the realm of security, we’ll follow the same process:

  1. Consider security measures in their most extensive form.
  2. Gradually narrow down to principles that seem most appropriate.

While this method might seem slow and detailed, it ensures we:

The Push for Moral Intervention

Recently, there’s been a strong push for:

Personally, I’m glad that such freedom-restricting measures are becoming less common and less feasible in most states.

The Flawed Comparison to Ancient Greece and Rome

People often cite Greece and Rome as examples, but a closer look at their systems shows why these comparisons don’t work:

  1. They were republics, not monarchies.
  2. Their institutions supported free constitutions, inspiring enthusiasm that offset the downsides of restricting private freedom.
  3. Citizens enjoyed greater freedom in other areas, trading some liberties for active participation in government.

The Modern Context: Why Ancient Methods Don’t Apply

In our predominantly monarchical states, the situation is very different:

  1. Ancient moral methods (national education, religion, moral laws) would be less effective and more harmful.
  2. Many practices attributed to ancient lawmakers were often just existing cultural norms being formalized.
  3. As cultures became more refined, only shadows of these institutions remained.

The Current State of Human Development

Humanity has reached a stage where further progress depends on developing individuals, not masses. Therefore, institutions that hinder individual development and force people into groups are more harmful now than in the past.

The Problem with State-Directed Education

Public education—that is, education organized or directed by the state—is problematic for several reasons:

  1. It tends to promote a uniform approach, which goes against the need for diverse individual development.
  2. Any restrictions are especially damaging when applied to moral education.
  3. Education should be tailored to the individual, which is difficult in a state-run system.

The Value of Natural Social Integration

There’s value in allowing people to enter society as they are, shaped by their circumstances:

  1. It creates a productive tension between the role assigned by the state and the individual’s chosen path.
  2. This “conflict” can lead to personal growth and gradual changes in state structure.
  3. This process is diminished when citizens are molded from childhood to fit a predetermined role.

The Ideal: Balancing Human and Citizen Roles

It’s beneficial when the roles of human and citizen align, but only if:

However, it ceases to be beneficial when the human is sacrificed for the citizen. While this might eliminate some conflicts, it also strips away what people sought to secure by forming a state in the first place.

A Proposal for Human Development

My suggestion would be:

  1. Start with the freest possible education, focused on human development rather than civic roles.
  2. Allow fully developed individuals to then enter the state.
  3. Let the state’s constitution be tested against these well-rounded individuals.

This approach would:

The Limitations of Public Education in Monarchies

In our monarchical systems:

  1. There’s no clear, singular civic form to mold people into (unlike in ancient republics).
  2. This is actually beneficial for human development.
  3. The state only requires obedience to laws and productive, non-harmful activity from citizens.
  4. Public education in this context, focusing on creating ideal subjects rather than complete humans, lacks a clear goal.

The Futility of Balanced State Education

Attempting to create a balance of all virtues through state education is problematic:

  1. It either fails to make progress or results in a lack of individual energy.
  2. Private education, focusing on specific aspects, actually achieves better balance through exposure to varied life experiences.

The Impracticality of Neutral State Education

Even if public education tried to be neutral and only encourage the development of individual strengths:

  1. This is nearly impossible to implement, as unified systems inevitably produce uniform effects.
  2. The benefits of such a system would be questionable at best.

If the goal is simply to prevent children from going uneducated, it would be easier and less harmful to:

The Limitations of Public Education and State Involvement in Religion

The Ineffectiveness of Public Education in Shaping Morals

Public education often fails to achieve its intended goal of reshaping morals according to the state’s preferred model. While education’s influence is undoubtedly significant, it’s overshadowed by the circumstances that shape a person throughout their life. When these factors don’t align, education alone cannot overcome them.

The True Purpose of Education

Education should aim to develop well-rounded individuals, not mold citizens into predetermined forms. This can be achieved without state intervention. In fact, free societies tend to see:

Therefore, there’s no need to worry about a lack of careful family education or useful communal educational institutions in a free society.

The Futility of State-Directed Moral Education

If public education tries to impose a specific form on people, it does little to prevent law-breaking or enhance security. This is because:

Any attempt to mold character in a specific way can lead to its own excesses. When an entire nation is shaped in one particular manner, there’s no counterbalancing force, leading to a lack of equilibrium.

The Danger of Excessive Influence

Even if public education could fully achieve its goals, it would exert too much influence. Maintaining necessary security in a state doesn’t require completely reshaping morals.

The Role of the State in Education

Public education seems to fall outside the proper limits of state action. The state should protect educational progress but not directly manage it. The most favorable constitution and laws that allow each person to find their place might be the only education a people should expect from their government.

Religion and the State: A Historical Perspective

States have long used religion as a means of influencing adult citizens throughout their lives. In ancient times, religion was deeply intertwined with the state. The advent of Christianity, with its universal deity, weakened this connection but created new challenges.

The Problematic Nature of State Involvement in Religion

Any state involvement in religion inevitably leads to:

  1. Favoring certain beliefs over others
  2. A degree of control over citizens’ thinking

It’s nearly impossible for the state to promote religiosity in general without promoting specific religious views.

The Complex Relationship Between Religion and Morality

Religion and morality are not inseparably linked:

What truly impacts morality is not the content of religious systems, but how individuals internally adopt them.

The State’s Use of Religion: A Critique

State promotion of religion at best produces lawful actions, but this shouldn’t be enough. The state should aim for citizens who willingly follow laws, not just outwardly conform to them. Moreover, this outcome is uncertain and can be better achieved through other means.

Using religion as a tool of the state brings significant disadvantages that outweigh any potential benefits. Crucially, the state has no access to what truly affects morality: the internal process by which individuals adopt religious concepts.

Conclusion

Therefore, everything related to religion lies outside the proper sphere of state action. The state should not attempt to use religion as a means of moral education or social control.

The Limitations of State Involvement in Religion

The Inevitability of Restricting Freedom

Even the mildest forms of state involvement in religion inevitably lead to some degree of restriction on individual freedom. Whether it’s outright coercion, mere encouragement, or simply providing easier access to religious ideas, there’s always an imbalance that favors the state’s perspective, subtly limiting freedom.

The Nature and Impact of Religion

Religion, as it relates to morality and happiness, is fundamentally rooted in human emotion and desire. It’s not about rational understanding of religious truths or historical belief in revelations. Instead, it stems from a need within the soul.

The Evolution of Religious Concepts

  1. In primitive cultures, religion is primarily based on fear and hope related to natural phenomena.
  2. As cultures develop, people seek to understand a higher perfection, leading to more complex religious ideas.
  3. Even in the earliest societies, leaders often claimed divine origins, showing a universal human tendency to connect with the divine.

The Variety of Religious Conceptions

Religious concepts vary widely based on cultural ideas of perfection:

The Subjective Nature of Religion

Religion is deeply personal, based on each individual’s unique perspective. While we might try to evaluate different religions based on their concepts of perfection, this is ultimately impossible because religious experience varies so much from person to person.

The Potential Benefits of Religious Belief

For many, belief in a deity can have positive effects:

The Independence of Morality from Religion

However, these benefits don’t mean morality is inseparable from religion:

Tolerance and Respect

It’s crucial to recognize that morality doesn’t inherently depend on religion. This understanding should promote tolerance and respect for diverse worldviews, whether religious or secular.

A Balanced Perspective

While religious beliefs can have positive impacts, they can also lead to negative outcomes. It’s important to acknowledge both the potential benefits and drawbacks of religious and non-religious worldviews.

The Complex Relationship Between Religion, Morality, and the State

Moving Beyond Historical Examples

It’s unpleasant to dwell on the negative historical examples of state involvement in religion. Instead, let’s examine the nature of morality itself and how it relates to both religious feelings and formal religious systems.

Morality’s Independence from Religion

The core principles of morality—what we consider right and wrong—don’t fundamentally depend on religious ideas. This is true for both:

  1. What morality prescribes as duty
  2. What gives moral laws their force and makes them compelling to follow

Some might argue that separating morality from religion makes moral will less pure. However, in a practical discussion based on real-world experience, we can set aside this philosophical concern.

The Origins of Moral Behavior

The qualities that make an action a moral duty come from two main sources:

  1. The nature of the human mind
  2. The specific application of moral principles to human relationships

While religious feelings can strongly reinforce these moral duties, they are neither the only nor the most universally effective way to encourage moral behavior. The effectiveness of religion in promoting morality depends heavily on individual personality.

Different Approaches to Morality

People approach morality differently based on their personality:

  1. The Rational Thinker: Some people are primarily driven by reason. They understand the relationships between actions and their consequences and make decisions accordingly. These individuals don’t need religious motives to act morally.

  2. The Emotional Responder: Others are more driven by feelings, quickly translating thoughts into emotions. Within this group, there’s a wide range of responses:

    • Those who feel a strong need to connect with others may find religious ideas highly motivating.
    • Some have such a deep, coherent understanding of ideas and feelings that they develop a strong, independent character. These individuals might not need or want the sense of surrendering to a higher power that often characterizes religious influence.

The Subjective Nature of Religious Experience

The situations that lead people to turn to religious ideas vary greatly:

This latter group is particularly interesting. They’re strong enough to face hardship without seeking external help, but they also have a deep appreciation for feeling loved. They naturally connect the idea of enjoying life with the idea of a loving creator.

Intellectual and Emotional Roots of Religious Seeking

Sometimes, the desire for religious ideas comes from a more intellectual or emotional source:

  1. The Limits of Human Perception: We can only understand the world through our senses, which means we never directly experience the true essence of things. This limitation can create a longing for deeper understanding.

  2. The Search for Meaning: Throughout life, we strive to uncover hidden truths and hope for more direct understanding in future stages of existence.

  3. The Desire for Unity: Some seek a belief in a being that encompasses all others and exists, perceives, and creates without intermediaries.

  4. Finding Meaning in the Material World: Others prefer to focus on the tangible world, finding satisfaction in connecting the physical and metaphysical aspects of nature, seeking deeper meaning in what they can directly experience.

Different Paths to Understanding

People find meaning in different ways:

  1. Order in Complexity: Some are most impressed by the idea of wise order within a vast, diverse, and sometimes conflicting universe. These individuals are often drawn to the idea of a single being creating, ordering, and maintaining the world.

  2. Individual Potential: Others are more focused on the power of individuals. They’re drawn to the idea that the nature of individuals, as they develop and interact, creates its own harmony—a harmony in which both the mind and heart can find peace.

The Personal Nature of Religious Experience

These examples illustrate that true religiosity and religious systems arise from the deepest parts of a person’s emotional makeup. While there are some universal intellectual concepts in religious ideas (like purpose, order, and perfection), how these ideas affect people varies greatly depending on individual character and emotions.

Implications for State Policy

Given that religious feeling is so deeply personal and varies so much from person to person, any attempt by the state to use religion to influence morality must be carefully considered. The effectiveness of such efforts will depend not on the specific content of religious teachings, but on how individuals personally connect with and believe in those ideas.

This understanding should inform how we approach the question of whether the state should use religion to influence citizens’ morals. Any moral education provided by the state will be most useful when it encourages the inner development of abilities and inclinations, rather than trying to impose beliefs from the outside.

Fostering Religious Freedom and Intellectual Inquiry

The State’s Limited Role in Religious Matters

The legislator should limit their actions to two key areas when it comes to religion:

  1. Removing obstacles that prevent people from engaging with religious ideas
  2. Encouraging a spirit of free inquiry

Going beyond these boundaries can be counterproductive. If the state tries to actively promote religiosity, guide religious thought, or protect specific religious ideas, it hinders spiritual growth and the development of intellectual faculties. Demanding faith based on authority rather than genuine conviction may lead to outward compliance with laws but fails to cultivate true virtue.

The Incompatibility of Mandated Religion and Genuine Virtue

True virtue is incompatible with religion that is imposed or believed solely on the basis of authority. It requires independence and personal conviction. Some might argue that even if state-promoted religious principles only produce lawful behavior rather than true virtue, isn’t that enough to justify their spread, even at the cost of freedom of thought?

This argument is flawed for several reasons:

  1. The state’s purpose is fulfilled when its laws are obeyed. The legislator’s duty is to create wise laws and ensure citizens follow them.
  2. The concept of virtue discussed here applies mainly to a small segment of society—those with the time and resources to dedicate to inner development. The state must consider the larger population, much of which may be incapable of achieving such a high degree of morality.

The State as a Means, Not an End

It’s crucial to remember that the state’s organization is not an end in itself but a means for human development. Therefore, it’s not enough for a legislator to simply ensure their decrees are followed. The methods used to achieve this compliance must also be good, or at least harmless.

Beyond Mere Compliance: The Importance of Citizens’ Voluntary Efforts

The state is a complex machine, and laws alone—which must be simple, general, and few in number—cannot sufficiently manage it. Much depends on the voluntary, coordinated efforts of citizens. Compare the prosperity of cultured, enlightened nations with the poverty of crude, uneducated peoples to see the truth in this.

Aligning State and Citizen Interests

Those who have studied state institutions have always aimed to make the state’s welfare align with citizens’ individual interests. The goal is to create a state that functions like a machine powered by its own internal mechanisms, not requiring constant external intervention.

If modern states can claim an advantage over ancient ones, it’s primarily in their greater realization of this principle. Even their use of religion as an educational tool is evidence of this approach.

The Limitations of Religion as a State Tool

However, religion—when used merely to produce good actions through specific doctrines or to influence morals through positive guidance—is still an external, intervening tool. The legislator’s ultimate goal should be to elevate citizens’ development to the point where they find all the motivation they need to support the state’s purpose in the idea of how state institutions benefit their individual aims.

This level of understanding requires enlightenment and high intellectual development, which cannot flourish where free inquiry is restricted by law.

Questioning the Necessity of State-Sanctioned Religion

Many believe that without specific, widely accepted religious doctrines or state oversight of citizens’ religion, external peace and morality cannot exist, and that it would be impossible for civil authorities to maintain the rule of law. This belief leads people to disregard the considerations mentioned earlier.

However, the influence of religious doctrines adopted in this manner, and of any religiosity promoted by state arrangements, requires stricter and more precise examination.

The Limited Efficacy of Religious Rewards and Punishments

For the less educated segments of society, the ideas of future rewards and punishments are often considered the most impactful religious truths. However, these concepts:

Their influence is diminished by anything that weakens the vividness of imagination. Additionally, these expectations are distant and, even in the minds of the most devout, uncertain. Ideas of subsequent repentance, future improvement, and hoped-for forgiveness—which certain religious concepts greatly encourage—further reduce their effectiveness.

Comparing Religious and Civil Penalties

Given these factors, it’s hard to understand how these religious ideas could be more effective than the concept of civil penalties, which are:

This would be especially true if citizens were familiarized with the consequences of moral and immoral actions from childhood, just as they are with religious concepts.

The Positive Aspects of Religious Belief

Undeniably, even less enlightened religious concepts can have a more noble effect on a large part of the population:

Conditions for Positive Religious Influence

However, for religion to have these effects:

  1. It must be fully integrated into one’s system of ideas and feelings, which is difficult when free inquiry is hindered and everything is reduced to faith.
  2. There must already be a sense of better feelings present; religion often springs from an as-yet undeveloped inclination towards morality, which it then reinforces.

The Complex Relationship Between Religion and Morality

While no one would completely deny religion’s influence on morality, two key questions arise:

  1. Does this influence depend on specific religious doctrines?
  2. Is the influence so decisive that morality and religion are inseparably connected?

Both questions, I believe, must be answered in the negative.

The Inherent Appeal of Virtue

Virtue aligns so closely with humans’ original inclinations that it may not be necessary to seek new motivations for virtuous actions. Instead, we should focus on giving freer and more unhindered effectiveness to the motivations already present in the soul:

Balancing New Motivations with Potential Harm

If we wanted to go further and add new motivational tools, we must not one-sidedly forget to weigh their benefits against their potential harm. The damage of restricted freedom of thought is multifaceted and has been discussed extensively.

The Far-Reaching Impact of Free Inquiry

The benefit of free inquiry extends to our entire way of not just thinking, but also acting. A person accustomed to judging truth and error for themselves and others, without regard to external circumstances, develops:

This contrasts with someone whose investigations are constantly guided by circumstances unrelated to the investigation itself.

Self-Reliance vs. Dependence

Investigation and the conviction that arises from it is self-activity; belief is trust in foreign strength, foreign intellectual or moral perfection. Therefore:

It’s true that faith, where it completely dominates and stifles any doubt, can produce an even more invincible courage and more enduring strength—as the history of all zealots teaches us. However, this strength is only desirable where an external, specific outcome requiring only mechanical action is needed. It’s not suitable where one expects:

This strength itself is based on the suppression of all individual activity of reason.

The Value of Free Inquiry and Its Impact on Morality

Doubt as a Tool for Growth

Doubt is only troubling to those who rely on blind faith, not to those who engage in personal investigation. For the latter, results are far less important than the process itself. During investigation, one is aware of their mind’s activity and strength, recognizing that true perfection and happiness lie in this mental vigor. Rather than being discouraged by doubts about previously held beliefs, they rejoice in their increased ability to recognize errors that were once hidden.

Faith, on the other hand, can only find interest in the end result, as there’s nothing more to be gained once a “truth” is accepted. Doubts raised by reason torment the believer because they don’t serve as new paths to truth, as they do for the critical thinker. Instead, they only strip away certainty without offering a means to regain it.

The Dangers of Overvaluing Specific Beliefs

This reflection leads to the observation that it’s unwise to place too much importance on individual conclusions or to believe that many other truths or beneficial consequences depend on them. This approach can too easily lead to stagnation in inquiry. Paradoxically, even the most liberal and enlightened claims can work against the very foundation of free thought that allowed them to emerge in the first place.

Note: Humboldt is emphasizing the importance of the process of free inquiry over the specific conclusions reached. This is a key principle of Enlightenment thinking that remains relevant today.

The State’s Role in Maintaining Order Without Restricting Thought

The state has ample means to uphold laws and prevent crimes without restricting intellectual freedom. It should:

  1. Address sources of immoral actions within the state structure itself
  2. Enhance police oversight of committed crimes
  3. Implement appropriate punishments

By doing so, the state can achieve its goals without infringing on freedom of thought.

The Power of Intellectual Freedom in Promoting Security

We must not forget that intellectual freedom itself, and the enlightenment that thrives under its protection, is the most effective means of promoting security. While other measures only prevent outward manifestations of crime, freedom of thought influences inclinations and attitudes. It creates an inner harmony of will and effort, rather than merely forcing external compliance.

Valuing Inner Development Over External Actions

When will we finally stop valuing the external consequences of actions more highly than the inner mental state from which they flow? When will a leader emerge who, like Rousseau was for education, redirects the focus of legislation from external physical outcomes to the inner development of individuals?

The Universal Value of Intellectual Freedom

We must not believe that this intellectual freedom and enlightenment are only for a select few, while being useless or even harmful to the majority whose energies are consumed by the necessities of life. The very idea of denying any person the right to be fully human is degrading to humanity itself.

No one is so lowly cultured that they are incapable of reaching a higher level. Even if more enlightened religious and philosophical ideas cannot directly reach a large portion of citizens, and even if we must present truth in a different guise to appeal to their imagination and heart rather than their cold reason, the expansion of scientific knowledge through freedom and enlightenment still trickles down to benefit even the humblest individuals in society.

The Importance of How Religion is Experienced

To give this reasoning more general applicability, we must remember that religion’s influence on morality depends far more—if not entirely—on the form in which religion exists within a person, rather than on the content of its doctrines. State interventions can only affect this content, while the way in which religion takes root in an individual is largely beyond its reach.

The Counterproductive Nature of State Intervention in Belief

Even if the state could reshape people’s way of thinking and feeling to suit its purposes (which is demonstrably impossible), it would be wrong to do so. The state should not use people as mere means to its ends, disregarding their individual purposes. The independence of morality from religion, which I’ve attempted to demonstrate, shows that such intervention is unnecessary.

Freedom as the Fertile Ground for Genuine Religion and Morality

If anything can prepare a fertile ground in citizens’ souls for religion, if anything can make deeply internalized religion beneficially impact morality, it is freedom—which always suffers, even if only slightly, from positive state intervention. The more diverse and individual a person’s development, the higher their feelings soar, the more easily their gaze shifts from the narrow, changing circle around them to that which contains the infinity and unity underlying those limitations and changes.

The freer a person is, the more self-reliant they become, and the more benevolent towards others. Nothing leads to the divine as much as benevolent love, and nothing makes the absence of divinity so harmless to morality as self-reliance—the strength that is sufficient in itself and limits itself.

Conclusion: The State Should Not Intervene in Religious Matters

Therefore, I believe I can assert the principle that everything concerning religion lies outside the scope of state action. Preachers and religious services in general should be arrangements made by communities, free from any special state supervision.

The State’s Approach to Shaping Morality and Its Limitations

Laws and Regulations as Tools for Moral Guidance

States often resort to specific laws and regulations to reshape societal morals in line with their goal of promoting security. However, this approach has inherent limitations in directly fostering morality and virtue. Such measures typically focus on:

  1. Prohibiting certain actions by citizens that are considered immoral (even if they don’t directly harm others)
  2. Regulating behaviors that might lead to immoral conduct

A prime example of this approach is laws restricting luxury or excess.

The Problem of Excessive Sensuality

It’s undeniable that one of the most common sources of immoral and even illegal actions is an overemphasis on sensual pleasure in one’s life. This manifests as a mismatch between desires and the means to satisfy them within one’s circumstances. When people practice moderation and contentment, they’re less likely to violate others’ rights or disrupt their own peace and happiness in pursuit of excess.

The State’s Interest in Regulating Sensuality

Given this, it seems logical for the state to try to keep sensuality—which is often at the root of conflicts between people—in check. The state might view suppressing sensuality as much as possible as the easiest way to achieve this goal.

Note: Humboldt is describing the state’s perspective here, not necessarily endorsing it.

A More Nuanced Approach: Examining the Role of Sensuality

However, if we stay true to the principles we’ve discussed earlier—always evaluating the methods the state can use against the true interests of individuals—we need a more thorough examination. We must investigate the influence of sensuality on human life, development, activity, and happiness. This exploration will:

  1. Attempt to portray the inner workings of active and pleasure-seeking individuals
  2. Illustrate more clearly the harmful or beneficial effects of restriction and freedom on people

Only after this analysis can we properly assess the state’s authority to positively influence citizens’ morals in the most general sense, and conclude this part of our inquiry.

The Vital Role of Sensual Experiences

Sensual feelings, inclinations, and passions are among the first and most intense expressions in human beings. Before culture refines them or the energy of the soul takes a different direction, these sensual experiences play crucial roles:

  1. They infuse the soul with a vivifying warmth
  2. They spur individuals to action
  3. They bring life and ambition to the soul
  4. When unfulfilled, they drive people to be active and inventive in making plans
  5. When satisfied, they promote a free and unhindered flow of ideas

In general, sensual experiences set our ideas in greater and more varied motion, revealing new perspectives and previously unnoticed aspects of life.

The Complex Interplay of Body and Mind

It’s worth noting that the way we satisfy these sensual desires impacts our physical body and organization, which in turn affects our soul in ways we can only observe in the results, not the process.

Variations in Sensual Influences

The influence of sensual experiences varies in intensity and nature of effect. This variation depends on:

  1. Their strength or weakness
  2. Their “kinship” with the non-sensual—how easily they can be elevated from animal pleasures to human joys

For example, the eye lends matter the form of shape, which is rich in enjoyment and fertile for ideas. The ear gives us the proportional temporal sequence of sounds.

Note: Humboldt goes on to discuss the nature of different sensory experiences and their impact on human development and creativity, particularly focusing on music and visual arts. He argues that while visual arts might provide more precise information, music has a unique power to engage and energize the soul.

In essence, Humboldt is making a case for a nuanced understanding of sensuality and its role in human development, rather than outright suppression. He suggests that the state’s approach to regulating morality through laws might be overly simplistic and potentially counterproductive.

The Interplay of Sensuality and Spirituality in Human Development

The Power of Physical Sensation

Nothing is closer to us than our own bodily sensations. When these sensations are involved, the impact on us is at its highest. However, just as disproportionate strength in matter can suppress delicate form, the same often happens here. A proper balance must be struck between the two.

When this balance is off, it can be restored by either:

  1. Enhancing the power of one element
  2. Reducing the strength of the other

However, it’s always wrong to develop through weakening, unless the strength is artificial rather than natural. Where it’s natural, never restrict it. It’s better for it to destroy itself than to wither away slowly.

Note: Humboldt acknowledges the complexity of this topic and the difficulty in finding other works that address it from his specific perspective.

The Mysterious Connection Between Sensuality and Non-Sensuality

While I’ve attempted to discuss sensual perception on its own, it’s impossible to completely separate it from non-sensual elements. A mysterious bond connects the sensual and non-sensual worlds. Even if we can’t see this connection, we can sense it.

This dual nature of the visible and invisible worlds, our innate longing for the latter, and our feeling of sweet necessity for the former, are the foundation of:

The true goal of human wisdom seems to be an eternal striving to unite these two in a way that minimizes conflict between them.

The Aesthetic Sense: Bridging the Sensual and Spiritual

Everywhere, we can recognize this aesthetic sense, through which:

The ongoing study of this “physiognomy of nature” is what truly forms the human being. Nothing has such a widespread effect on our entire character as the expression of the non-sensual in the sensual – the sublime, the simple, the beautiful – in all the works of nature and art that surround us.

The Impact of Sensuality on Human Endeavor

If the ultimate aim of our most human efforts is to discover, nurture, and create what is truly existent (though eternally invisible in its primal form) in ourselves and others, then we come a step closer to this when we contemplate the image of its ever-active energy.

We communicate with it in a language that is often difficult and misunderstood, but also often surprises us with the most certain premonitions of truth. Meanwhile, the form – if I may say so, the image of that energy – is further removed from the truth.

The Role of Beauty and the Sublime

It is on this foundation that beauty, and even more so the sublime, flourishes. The sublime brings humans even closer to divinity. The necessity of pure, purposeless pleasure in an object, without concept, confirms its descent from and kinship with the invisible.

The feeling of inadequacy in the face of an overwhelming object combines, in the most humanly divine way, infinite greatness with submissive humility. Without beauty, humans would lack love for things for their own sake. Without the sublime, we would lack the obedience that spurns any reward and knows no base fear.

Note: Humboldt goes on to discuss how the study of beauty cultivates taste, while the sublime fosters well-balanced greatness. He emphasizes the importance of both in developing a harmonious character and in pursuits such as scientific inquiry and moral development.

The Interplay of Aesthetics and Morality in Human Development

The Role of Beauty in Moral Action

At first glance, it might seem that introducing aesthetic considerations could compromise the purity of moral will. This could indeed be the case if beauty were meant to be the primary motivation for moral behavior. However, the true purpose of aesthetic sensibility is different:

  1. It helps uncover more nuanced applications of moral law that cold, unrefined reason might miss.
  2. It allows humans to experience the most fulfilling emotions while pursuing virtue.

Note: Humboldt argues that aesthetic sensibility complements rather than replaces moral reasoning.

The Harmony of Virtue and Happiness

The more I reflect on this topic, the less I believe this distinction is merely subtle or fanciful. Humans naturally seek pleasure and want to unite virtue with happiness, even in the most challenging circumstances. Yet, the human soul is also capable of recognizing the grandeur of moral law. It cannot resist the power that compels it to act, and when filled with this feeling, it acts without regard for pleasure. This is because it never loses the awareness that no amount of hardship could force it to behave differently.

Cultivating Moral Strength

The soul gains this strength through a process similar to what I described earlier: through powerful inner drive and various external conflicts. All strength – the raw material, so to speak – originates from our sensual nature. Even when far removed from its source, it still rests upon it.

The Path to Human Ideals

Those who continually strive to:

These individuals can nurture the satisfying awareness that they are on the right path, approaching the ideal that even the boldest human imagination dares to envision.

The Dual Nature of Sensuality

While sensuality is interwoven throughout human life and activities with beneficial effects, it’s also the source of many physical and moral problems. It’s morally beneficial only when properly balanced with the exercise of mental faculties. When it gains harmful dominance:

Note: Humboldt cautions against simplistic judgments of what’s “unnatural,” arguing that truly unnatural behavior is that which thwarts humanity’s general purpose of continuous self-improvement.

The Dangers of State Intervention in Morality

While it might be tempting for the state to combat moral corruption through laws and institutions, such measures would ultimately be counterproductive. A state where citizens are compelled to follow even the best laws might be peaceful and prosperous, but it would resemble a group of well-fed slaves rather than a union of free individuals bound only by the limits of justice.

The Ineffectiveness of External Moral Compulsion

There are many ways to produce certain actions or attitudes, but none lead to true moral perfection. Methods like:

These may create habits, but they don’t enhance the power of the soul or clarify one’s understanding of their purpose and worth. They don’t strengthen the will to overcome dominant inclinations. In short, they don’t contribute to genuine, intrinsic perfection.

The Value of Moral Struggle

Paradoxically, even moral corruption has some beneficial consequences. Humans must navigate extremes to find the middle path of wisdom and virtue. Trying to interfere with this natural order risks creating moral evil in an attempt to prevent physical harm.

The Resilience of Human Virtue

The danger of moral corruption is often overstated. Consider these points:

  1. Humans are naturally inclined towards benevolent rather than selfish actions.
  2. Freedom enhances strength and leads to a kind of generosity, while coercion stifles strength and leads to selfish desires.
  3. People left to their own devices may take longer to develop correct principles, but these become more deeply ingrained in their behavior.
  4. State institutions, by trying to unify diverse interests, create conflicts that lead to transgressions.
  5. The effectiveness of consistent law enforcement and appropriate punishment has never been fully tested in practice.

Conclusion: The State’s Limited Role in Moral Development

Given these considerations, along with the earlier arguments against state action for positive ends, it becomes clear that:

The state must completely refrain from any direct or indirect attempt to influence the morals and character of the nation, except as an unavoidable consequence of other absolutely necessary measures. Everything that might promote this aim, especially any special supervision of education, religious institutions, sumptuary laws, etc., lies wholly outside the limits of its activity.

IX. A Closer Look at the State’s Role in Ensuring Security

Revisiting the Concept of Security

As we near the conclusion of this investigation, it’s crucial to review our progress and clarify the concept of security. Let’s break this down:

  1. We’ve established that the state should not intervene in matters unrelated to citizens’ security, both external and internal.
  2. Security has been identified as the primary focus of state action.
  3. We’ve determined that the state should not attempt to shape the nation’s morals or character in pursuit of security.

At this point, one might think we’ve fully answered the question of where the state should limit its activities. We’ve restricted state action to maintaining security and specified that it shouldn’t try to mold the nation to fit state goals.

The Complexity of Defining Security

However, the concept of security is broad and complex, requiring further examination. While we’ve mentioned protection from foreign threats and from fellow citizens, this definition is too vague.

Consider the spectrum of actions:

The scope of “security” can vary widely depending on which points on these spectrums we include.

The Importance of Precise Boundaries

The exact definition of security is crucial. If it’s too broad or too narrow, we risk blurring all boundaries of state action. Without a precise definition, we can’t properly limit state power.

Areas Needing Further Exploration

We must also examine more closely the methods the state can use. While we’ve discouraged attempts to reshape societal morals, there’s still much to clarify:

  1. How far can restrictive laws extend beyond directly harmful actions?
  2. To what extent can the state prevent crimes by removing opportunities, without shaping citizens’ character?

Overzealous security measures can ironically threaten freedom, leading some thinkers to advocate for broader state responsibility for citizen welfare.

Acknowledging Limitations of the Discussion So Far

I must admit that up to this point, I’ve primarily identified large areas clearly outside state purview, rather than precisely defining the boundaries in contentious areas. This task remains, and even if I don’t fully succeed, I aim to clearly explain why.

Defining Security

Let’s attempt a more precise definition:

Citizens are secure in a state when they can exercise their rights—both personal and property rights—without illegal interference from others.

In other words, security is the certainty of lawful freedom.

What Constitutes a Threat to Security?

Security is not threatened by all actions that hinder a person’s activities or enjoyment of property, but only by those that do so unlawfully. This distinction is crucial and flows directly from our earlier reasoning.

The Scope of State Protection

The state must protect:

  1. All citizens equally
  2. The state itself

The extent of state self-protection depends on how broadly we define its purpose. Based on our discussion, the state should only seek security for the power it’s been granted and the resources allocated to it.

Limitations on State Action

The state should not restrict actions by which a citizen might withdraw themselves or their property from the state, provided they’re not violating any laws or in a special relationship with the state (e.g., during wartime). The state union is a means to an end—human flourishing—and shouldn’t sacrifice individuals except in extreme circumstances.

Types of Security Threats

Security can be threatened by:

  1. Actions that directly infringe on others’ rights
  2. Actions whose consequences are likely to infringe on rights

The state must prohibit both types, with some modifications we’ll explore. When such actions occur, the state should:

This gives rise to police, civil, and criminal laws.

Special Considerations: Vulnerable Populations

We must also consider those to whom our general principles don’t fully apply—minors and those with mental impairments. The state has a special duty to protect these vulnerable groups, which may require different approaches.

In conclusion, while we’ve outlined the broad areas of state action regarding security, the precise boundaries in contentious areas still require careful examination.

X. State Oversight of Citizens’ Actions Affecting Only Themselves (Police Laws)

Understanding “Police Laws”

The term “police laws” is somewhat ambiguous, but generally refers to regulations that:

  1. Prevent actions that might indirectly harm others’ rights
  2. Restrict activities that often lead to law-breaking
  3. Maintain the state’s power and ability to function

We’ll focus on the first type here, setting aside laws aimed at citizens’ welfare.

Limits on State Intervention

According to our principles, the state should only prohibit actions that reasonably threaten its own rights or those of its citizens. Importantly:

Defining Rights Infringement

Rights are infringed when:

Rights are not infringed when:

Example: “Offensive” Actions

This principle eliminates restrictions on actions deemed offensive to religion or morals. While such behavior may be immoral, it doesn’t violate rights if:

Even if such actions might “corrupt” others’ virtue or reason, restricting them would infringe on freedom. People must use their own willpower and judgment to resist negative influences.

Balancing Security and Character Development

While these situations can cause problems, they also have benefits:

Special Cases: Expert Knowledge

Some situations require specialized knowledge that not everyone possesses. To prevent exploitation of ignorance, citizens should be able to seek state guidance. Examples include doctors and lawyers.

In these cases, the state should:

  1. Offer voluntary examinations for practitioners
  2. Provide certification for those who pass
  3. Inform citizens about certified experts

However, the state must not:

Limits on Certification

This certification should only apply to fields where:

  1. The work affects only external factors, not a person’s inner life
  2. Evaluation requires highly specialized knowledge that’s difficult for average citizens to acquire

Overstepping these bounds risks making citizens overly dependent on the state and discouraging self-reliance.

Example: Religious Teachers

Certification would be inappropriate for religious teachers because:

Conclusion

Even in appropriate cases, such certification systems should only be implemented when clearly desired by the citizenry.

The Limits of State Intervention in Personal Matters

Freedom vs. State Control

In a society of free individuals who have cultivated their own liberty, extensive state oversight is unnecessary. While some regulation might be needed, it’s important to remember that any system of control can be misused.

Core Principles of State Action

Let’s revisit the fundamental principle: The state should not actively promote citizens’ positive welfare. This includes matters of life and health, except when these are threatened by others’ actions. The state’s role is to ensure security, not to micromanage well-being.

When Should the State Intervene?

State intervention might be justified only when:

  1. Security is at risk due to deception exploiting ignorance
  2. The deception is clear and provable
  3. The potential harm is significant

However, even in these cases, we must be cautious. The possibility of deception can actually sharpen people’s judgment and encourage prudence. In general, it’s better to limit prohibitive laws to cases where someone acts without or against another’s consent.

Balancing Freedom and Security

When considering state intervention, we must weigh several factors:

Finding the right balance is challenging, and there’s no one-size-fits-all solution. Each situation requires careful consideration of its specific context.

Natural Law and Personal Responsibility

From a natural law perspective, we should only prohibit actions where:

  1. Someone directly interferes with another’s rights
  2. Harm results from clear negligence
  3. The potential for harm is so obvious that ignoring it is inexcusable

In other cases, harm is considered accidental, and the actor isn’t obligated to provide compensation.

The State’s Role in Prevention

The state has a legitimate interest in preventing harm, not just punishing it after the fact. This can justify some restrictions on potentially dangerous activities, even if they don’t always cause harm.

A Proposed Guideline for State Action

To protect citizens’ security, the state may prohibit or restrict actions that:

  1. Directly affect only the actor but
  2. Have consequences that violate others’ rights, diminish their freedom or property (with or without consent), or
  3. Are likely to cause such violations

When assessing this likelihood, consider:

Any restrictions beyond this scope, or based on other considerations, exceed the proper limits of state action.

Community Self-Regulation

Ideally, as society becomes more enlightened, communities will develop their own voluntary agreements to manage potentially dangerous activities. These self-imposed rules are preferable to state mandates because:

  1. They arise from genuine need
  2. They’re more likely to be followed
  3. They preserve individual autonomy and character development

The state should aim to create conditions where such community-driven solutions can flourish.

Against Forced Positive Obligations

The state should not force citizens to take positive actions for others’ benefit, even with compensation. This is because:

  1. The value of actions or property varies greatly between individuals
  2. True compensation is often impossible to determine
  3. It infringes on personal autonomy and can breed resentment

Instead, fostering a climate of freedom tends to make people more willing to help each other voluntarily.

Conclusion

While there may be exceptions, the general rule should be minimal state intervention in personal matters. This approach promotes security while preserving the freedom and character development essential to a thriving society.

The Limits of State Intervention in Personal and Contractual Matters

Natural Obstacles vs. Human-Made Restrictions

Nature doesn’t remove every obstacle in our path. Challenges often invigorate our energy and sharpen our intelligence. The only truly harmful obstacles are those created by human injustice. Stubbornness, for example, can be temporarily overcome by laws but is only truly improved through freedom.

The State’s Role in Protecting Rights

The state should limit itself to protecting pre-existing human rights, such as freedom and property, from being sacrificed for others’ benefit. It should intervene only when absolutely necessary.

Regulating Shared Resources

Many regulations concern actions within shared spaces or resources, like roads, rivers, or public squares. Restrictions in these areas are less problematic because all co-owners have a right to object to misuse.

Handling Disputes and Contracts

When it comes to actions directly affecting others, the state’s role becomes more complex:

  1. Addressing Rights Violations: The state must intervene when one person infringes upon another’s rights, either against their will or without consent. It should:

    • Stop the harmful action
    • Compel the offender to compensate the victim
    • Protect the offender from private revenge

  2. Enforcing Agreements: For actions taken with mutual consent, such as contracts:

    • The state should generally uphold valid agreements
    • It must also protect against unfair or overly restrictive contracts

Balancing Contract Enforcement and Personal Freedom

The state has a dual responsibility:

  1. Maintain valid agreements to ensure security in transactions
  2. Deny legal protection to unjust agreements and prevent people from binding themselves too restrictively

This is particularly important for long-term or personal service contracts, which can unduly limit an individual’s freedom and development.

Guidelines for Contract Validity

Contracts should be considered invalid or unenforceable if:

  1. They reduce a person to a mere tool for another’s purposes (e.g., slavery)
  2. They involve promises beyond one’s control (e.g., matters of feeling or belief)
  3. They infringe on others’ rights or pose a danger to society

Facilitating Contract Dissolution

For personal service contracts or those creating ongoing relationships, the state should make dissolution easier. This prevents decisions made at one point from overly restricting future choices and personal growth.

Property Contracts vs. Personal Service Contracts

Conclusion

The state’s role in regulating personal actions and contracts is delicate. It must balance protecting agreed-upon rights with preserving individual freedom and potential for growth. This approach aims to maintain social order while fostering the conditions for personal development and societal progress.

Balancing Personal Freedom and Contractual Obligations

Personal Relationships and Contracts

When a contract creates a deeply personal relationship that affects one’s entire lifestyle, rather than just specific actions, it should be possible to terminate at any time without needing to provide reasons. Marriage is a prime example of this.

For less intimate but still personally restrictive relationships, the state should set a time limit. This limit should be based on:

  1. The extent of the restriction
  2. The nature of the agreement

During this period, neither party could unilaterally end the contract. However, after this time, the contract shouldn’t be automatically enforceable, even if the parties initially agreed to waive this protection.

Protecting Individual Freedom

This approach might seem like an unnecessary legal protection that shouldn’t be forced on people. However, it doesn’t prevent people from entering lifelong commitments. Instead, it limits one person’s ability to force another into a situation that hinders their personal growth and self-realization.

This is particularly important because these cases (especially marriage, when it’s no longer mutually desired) are only a matter of degree away from situations where one person becomes merely a tool for another’s purposes.

The State’s Role in Contract Regulation

The state, representing society’s collective will, has the right to draw the line between just and unjust contractual obligations. It’s often only possible to determine if a contract’s restrictions truly reduce someone to a mere means for another’s ends on a case-by-case basis.

Limits on Contractual Freedom

It’s a fundamental legal principle that people can only make binding agreements about things they truly own: their actions and possessions. A key part of the state’s role in ensuring citizens’ security is enforcing this principle.

The Problem with Wills and Testaments

However, this principle is often ignored in matters of inheritance and wills. All rights should directly relate to living persons; rights over property only exist insofar as people’s actions connect them to that property. When a person dies, their rights should logically end.

While alive, people can dispose of their property as they wish, gifting it or restricting their own use of it. But they shouldn’t have the power to make binding decisions about how their property should be used after their death, or how future owners should act.

The Negative Impact of Inheritance Laws

The current system of wills and inheritance laws, which combines intricate Roman legal concepts with the domineering aspects of feudalism, restricts the freedom necessary for human development. It allows one generation to dictate rules to the next, perpetuating outdated practices and prejudices. This system shifts focus from personal growth to material possessions, as property becomes the only way to exert control beyond death.

Moreover, the freedom to make wills often serves less noble human impulses like pride, desire for control, and vanity. It’s more commonly used by the less wise and less virtuous, as wiser individuals hesitate to make decisions for unknown future circumstances, and better people avoid unnecessarily restricting others’ choices.

A Balanced Approach to Inheritance

While these arguments suggest abolishing wills entirely, this creates its own problems. A state-mandated system of inheritance could give the government too much power and influence. Generally, the diverse and changing wills of individuals are preferable to a uniform, unchanging state system.

There’s also value in allowing people the satisfaction of benefiting others after their death, and completely removing this might lead to other issues, such as a lack of care for property.

A Proposed Solution

A potential compromise could distinguish between two aspects of wills:

  1. Who will be the immediate next owner of the property?
  2. How should that person use the property, who should inherit it next, and what rules should govern its future use?

The drawbacks mentioned earlier primarily apply to the second category, while the benefits relate to the first.

If laws ensure a fair distribution through measures like mandatory portions for close relatives, there’s little risk in allowing people to choose their immediate heirs. This approach preserves the positive aspects of wills while mitigating their negative impacts.

The prevalence of wills under this system could also serve as an indicator to lawmakers about the appropriateness of intestate succession laws, allowing for adjustments as societal norms change.

Balancing Inheritance Laws and Personal Freedom

A Proposed Compromise for Wills

To address the issues with wills and inheritance, we could consider a system that:

  1. Allows people to choose who will inherit their property after death (with the exception of mandatory portions for close relatives).
  2. Prohibits them from dictating how the heir should manage or use that property.

This approach might be misused to circumvent the second restriction. To prevent this, legislation should include specific safeguards, such as:

Simplifying Inheritance Laws

Many complications in current inheritance law stem from outdated Roman legal concepts, such as the idea that the heir “represents” the deceased. This leads to unnecessary restrictions on freedom. By focusing on the simple principle that a testator can only name their heir(s), we can avoid these issues.

In cases where no heir is named, the state should establish clear intestate succession laws. However, these laws should not aim to achieve specific social goals (like maintaining family prestige or redistributing wealth). Instead, they should be based on straightforward legal principles, such as recognizing pre-existing co-ownership rights among family members.

Contracts and Their Effect on Heirs

A related issue is how contracts made by the deceased should affect their heirs. The principle should be:

Even with these limitations, there’s still a risk of binding future generations through contracts. To mitigate this, the state could:

  1. Prohibit contracts that extend beyond the lifetime of the parties involved, or
  2. Facilitate the separation of property rights in cases where complex, binding relationships have been created.

Legal entities like corporations or associations can create similar problems to those caused by wills. They often outlive their original members and can restrict the freedom of future participants. To address this, the state should:

  1. Treat each legal entity as simply the current collection of its members, not as a separate, immortal being.
  2. Ensure that current members can decide how to use collective resources by majority vote.
  3. Carefully distinguish between true members and those who are merely employed by the entity (a common mistake in debates about religious organizations).

General Principles for State Action

Based on this reasoning, we can establish the following principles for state involvement in matters of security and personal interactions:

  1. Prohibit Harm: The state should forbid actions that infringe on others’ rights or property without their consent. It should compel compensation for damages but prevent private revenge.

  2. Limit Consensual Actions: Even for actions agreed to by all parties, the state should impose the same limits as on individual actions (as discussed earlier).

  3. Enforce Valid Agreements: The state should enforce rights and obligations arising from agreements, but only when:

    • The parties were capable of making informed decisions
    • The subject was within the transferring party’s rights to dispose of
    • The decision was made freely
    • No third party is unfairly restricted

  4. Facilitate Exit from Restrictive Agreements: For valid contracts that severely limit personal freedom, the state should make it easier to end the agreement, even against one party’s wishes. The more the agreement restricts inner development, the easier it should be to terminate:

    • For agreements deeply tied to personal feelings, allow termination at any time
    • For other restrictive agreements, allow termination after a set period, based on the degree of restriction and nature of the agreement

Inheritance Laws and Personal Freedom: Striking a Balance

Proposed Guidelines for Wills and Inheritance

  1. Allow individuals to name their immediate heir(s) without imposing conditions on how the inherited property should be used.
  2. Prohibit any further dispositions beyond naming the heir(s).
  3. Establish clear intestate succession laws and mandatory portions for close relatives.

Contracts and Their Impact on Heirs

  1. Contracts that alter the estate’s composition should be binding on heirs.
  2. Personal obligations or specific actions required by the deceased should not transfer to heirs.
  3. The state should consider:
    • Limiting the duration of contracts that create restrictive relationships between parties to the lifetime of those involved.
    • Making it easier for heirs to terminate such agreements.

General Principles for Civil Legislation

These guidelines aim to provide a framework for civil legislation in matters of security. However, the complexity of real-world scenarios makes it challenging to address every possible situation.

  1. Limited Intervention: The state should only step in to replace the parties involved, without its own interests.
  2. Consent-Based Action: The state should not intervene if the wronged party chooses not to pursue their rights.
  3. Clarity in Laws: The state must ensure laws are clear and well-publicized to prevent misunderstandings.
  1. Truth-Seeking Limitations: Only pursue the truth to the extent requested by the party entitled to do so.
  2. Restricted Means: Use only methods that individuals could use outside of state involvement when resolving disputes.
  3. State Power Boundaries: The state’s added authority should only secure and support the application of these methods.

Civil vs. Criminal Proceedings

Judicial Responsibilities

  1. Prevent either party from being completely obstructed or delayed by the other’s actions.
  2. Oversee the parties’ conduct during the process to ensure it aligns with the common goal.

Consequences of Neglecting These Principles

Balancing Formalities and Freedom

Recommendations for Legislation

Laws should:

  1. Introduce formalities only to ensure transaction validity and prevent fraud
  2. Require formalities only when necessary given the specific circumstances
  3. Prescribe rules that are not overly burdensome to follow
  4. Avoid formalities in cases where they would make transactions practically impossible

Balancing Security and Freedom: Principles for State Action

  1. The State’s Role in Resolving Disputes

    • The state’s primary duty is to investigate and resolve legal disputes between citizens.
    • It should act as an impartial mediator, protecting against unjust claims and enforcing just ones.
    • The state must follow the will of the parties involved, as long as it’s legally grounded, while preventing any unlawful actions.

  2. Decision-Making Process

    • Judges must base their decisions on legally established evidence and criteria.
    • This necessitates laws that define specific characteristics for legal transactions.

  3. Crafting Laws for Legal Transactions

    • Lawmakers should focus on: a. Ensuring the authenticity of legal transactions b. Facilitating evidence gathering for court proceedings c. Avoiding overly burdensome regulations that hinder business d. Refraining from regulations that would effectively halt transactions

Criminal Law and Punishment

  1. Actions Punishable by the State

    • The state should only punish actions that threaten citizens’ security.
    • All such actions deserve appropriate punishment due to their significant harm to society.

  2. Limits on State Intervention

    • Actions that only affect the individual or occur with mutual consent should not be punished.
    • Exceptions may be made in cases where there’s a high risk of abuse (e.g., assisted suicide).

  3. Determining Appropriate Punishments

    • It’s challenging to set universal limits on punishment severity due to varying cultural and temporal contexts.
    • Generally, milder punishments are preferable when equally effective.
    • Milder punishments: a. Cause less direct harm b. Deter crime in a more dignified manner c. Maintain a stronger sense of moral disapproval

  4. Effectiveness of Punishments

    • The impact of punishment depends on how criminals perceive it.
    • A well-graduated system of punishments can be effective regardless of the absolute severity of the highest punishment.

  5. Considering Local Conditions

    • Punishment severity should be balanced against other potential hardships citizens face.
    • In a free society with greater prosperity, punishments can be milder without losing effectiveness.

  6. Avoiding Certain Types of Punishment

    • Punishments involving dishonor or infamy should be avoided.
    • The state cannot control citizens’ opinions of one another.
    • While the state may withhold its own trust or respect from criminals, it shouldn’t formally declare them dishonorable.

Key Takeaway

The most universally applicable principle is that the harshest punishment should be as mild as possible while still being effective, considering local circumstances.

The Complexities of Punishment and Honor in State Action

Problems with Punishments Affecting Honor

  1. Inconsistency in Application

    • Such punishments assume a consistency in wrongdoing that rarely exists in reality.
    • Even when mildly worded as “the state’s justified mistrust,” these punishments are often too vague, leading to potential misuse.
    • They may cover more cases than necessary due to the principle of consistency.

  2. Overgeneralization

    • The types of trust we can have in a person vary greatly depending on the situation.
    • It’s rare for a single crime to make someone untrustworthy in all aspects of life.
    • However, a general declaration of untrustworthiness affects all areas of a person’s life.

  3. Severity of Social Exclusion

    • The feeling of losing one’s fellow citizens’ trust can make life itself seem undesirable.
    • This punishment is often harsher than intended.

Practical Difficulties in Implementation

  1. Scope of Application

    • Logically, mistrust should follow any demonstration of untrustworthiness.
    • This could lead to an extremely wide application of such punishments.

  2. Duration of Punishment

    • It’s challenging to determine how long such a punishment should last.
    • Even if a judge sets a specific time limit, it’s unclear how to ensure that trust is regained after this period.

  3. State Influence on Public Opinion

    • It goes against the principles discussed in this essay for the state to try to direct citizens’ opinions in any way.

Proposed Alternative Approach

  1. Focus on Specific Protections

    • The state should limit itself to protecting citizens from suspicious individuals.
    • This can be done through explicit laws that disqualify individuals with certain convictions from specific positions or roles (e.g., holding office, serving as witnesses or guardians).

  2. Avoid Broad Declarations

    • The state should refrain from making general declarations of mistrust or loss of honor.

  3. Time Limits on Restrictions

    • It would be easier to set a specific time after which such restrictions no longer apply.

  4. Maintain Some Punitive Options

    • The state should still be allowed to use punishments that appeal to a sense of honor when appropriate.

  5. Limit Scope of Punishment

    • Punishments must never extend beyond the criminal to affect their children or relatives.
    • This principle is supported by both justice and fairness.

Key Takeaway

While it’s challenging to set universal standards for the absolute measure of punishments, it’s crucial to establish clear principles for their relative severity. This ensures a fair and effective justice system that respects individual rights while maintaining social order.

Principles of Punishment and Crime Prevention in State Action

Graduated Punishment Based on Harm

  1. Severity of Punishments

    • Harsher punishments should be reserved for crimes that directly violate others’ rights.
    • Milder penalties should be applied to actions that only potentially lead to such violations, even if the laws preventing these actions are important.

  2. Avoiding Arbitrary Perception

    • This approach helps prevent citizens from feeling that the state treats them arbitrarily.
    • Such perceptions often arise when harsh punishments are imposed for actions with only indirect or unclear impacts on public safety.

  3. Prioritizing State Security

    • The harshest punishments should be for crimes directly attacking the state itself.
    • The rationale is that those who don’t respect state rights are unlikely to respect fellow citizens’ rights, which depend on state protection.

Application of Punishment

  1. Consideration of Intent

    • Punishment should be proportional to the degree of intent or culpability in committing the crime.

  2. Focus on Rights Violation

    • The core principle is that punishment should be based on the degree to which the criminal disregarded others’ rights.

  3. Judicial Discretion

    • Judges should be empowered to modify general punishments based on the specific circumstances and intent in individual cases.

Treatment of Suspects and Criminals

  1. Rights Protection

    • Clear distinction must be made between suspects and convicted criminals.
    • Even convicted criminals retain their human rights and only lose citizen rights through due legal process.

  2. Ethical Investigation

    • The use of deception in investigations should be as prohibited as torture.
    • While some might argue that criminals forfeit certain rights, such tactics are unworthy of the state’s dignity.

  3. Benefits of Fair Treatment

    • Open and fair treatment of criminals can positively impact national character.
    • Countries like England, with more noble legal systems, demonstrate these benefits.

Crime Prevention

  1. Balancing Prevention and Freedom

    • While crime prevention is a noble goal, it’s crucial to consider its impact on individual freedom.

  2. Causes of Crime

    • Crimes often result from a perceived imbalance between desires and legitimate means to fulfill them.
    • This imbalance can stem from excessive desires or insufficient legitimate resources.

  3. State’s Role in Prevention

    • The state might aim to: a) Improve conditions that lead to crime b) Limit inclinations that lead to law-breaking c) Strengthen moral reasoning and ethical feelings d) Reduce opportunities for crime through legislation

  4. Caution in State Intervention

    • Direct state intervention to improve individual circumstances, while seemingly beneficial, can have negative consequences:
      • It may undermine personal moral development
      • It requires state involvement in citizens’ private lives
    • In a well-structured state, such dire circumstances should be rare and often resolvable through voluntary citizen action.

  5. Natural Consequences

    • Sometimes, it’s better for the state not to intervene, allowing natural consequences to unfold from an individual’s actions.

Balancing Freedom and Control

  1. Challenges in Less Restricted Societies

    • In freer societies, desires may become more expansive, potentially increasing the need for crime prevention.
    • However, increased respect for others’ rights in such societies may counterbalance this trend.

  2. Complexity of Intervention

    • While some state intervention might seem necessary, it’s crucial to carefully weigh the benefits against the potential infringements on personal liberty.

The State’s Role in Crime Prevention and Moral Improvement

The Dangers of State Intervention in Morality

While the state might aim to improve citizens’ morals to prevent crime, this approach is neither necessary nor advisable. The reasons against such intervention, which I’ve explored earlier, apply fully here. The key difference is that instead of trying to reform morals in general, the state now aims to influence only the behavior that threatens law compliance. However, this distinction actually increases the drawbacks:

  1. Limited Effectiveness: By targeting only specific behaviors, this approach is less likely to achieve its goal, failing to justify the harm it causes.

  2. Invasion of Privacy: It requires the state to meddle in individuals’ private actions.

  3. Potential for Abuse: It grants power to state officials to monitor citizens’ behavior, which can lead to various abuses.

The Pitfalls of State Surveillance

Even with the best intentions and most humane laws, a system of state surveillance would be both useless and harmful:

  1. Violation of Personal Freedom: Every citizen should be free to act as they choose, as long as they don’t break the law. They should be able to assert their right to approach the edge of legality without interference.

  2. Hindrance to Personal Development: Interfering with this freedom violates individuals’ rights and hampers the development of their abilities and individuality.

  3. Oversimplification of Morality: The forms that moral and law-abiding behavior can take are infinitely diverse. When a third party decides that certain behaviors will lead to illegal actions, they’re imposing their limited perspective.

The Value of Natural Consequences

Even if state intervention prevents a specific crime, it’s better for both the individual and society to allow natural consequences:

  1. Learning from Experience: It’s more beneficial for a potential offender to face the consequences of their actions and learn from the experience.

  2. Societal Benefit: While a prevented crime might seem to protect social peace, the subsequent punishment serves as a more effective lesson and warning.

  3. Genuine Respect for Rights: Allowing natural consequences fosters genuine respect for others’ rights, which is the foundation of all civil peace and security.

Unintended Consequences of Intervention

State intervention often fails to achieve its intended effects:

  1. Redirection of Desires: Instead of addressing the root causes of criminal behavior, it often just redirects unlawful desires.

  2. Increased Secrecy: It can lead to greater efforts to conceal unlawful intentions, potentially making the situation worse.

The Limits of State Influence

While it’s beneficial for citizens to positively influence each other’s morality through example and persuasion, the state is ill-equipped to mandate such influence:

  1. Laws vs. Virtues: Laws should prescribe enforceable duties, not recommend virtues. Attempting the latter can actually diminish the appeal of voluntary virtue.

  2. Coercive Nature of State Advice: Any request or advice from the state, even if theoretically optional, is often perceived as a command in practice.

  3. Undue Influence: Various circumstances and inclinations might compel people to follow state advice against their better judgment.

Conclusion

The state should limit itself to vigilant oversight of actual or planned law violations. Any attempt to preemptively prevent crimes by influencing citizens’ behavior or morality lies outside the proper scope of state action and risks infringing on personal freedom.

The State’s Role in Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice

Vigilant Prosecution and Consistent Punishment

The state must be diligent in ensuring that:

  1. No crime goes undetected
  2. No detected crime goes unpunished
  3. No crime receives a lighter sentence than the law demands

This approach is crucial because citizens’ firm belief that they cannot violate others’ rights without facing proportionate consequences serves as:

The Power of Natural Consequences

This method of allowing natural consequences to unfold is the most dignified way to influence human behavior. Instead of directly forcing or guiding people’s actions, we should let them experience the natural results of their conduct. This approach respects human agency while still shaping behavior.

Simplifying Crime Prevention

Instead of complex crime prevention strategies, I propose a straightforward system:

  1. Well-crafted laws
  2. Carefully calibrated punishments that consider:
    • Local circumstances
    • The moral severity of the crime
  3. Thorough investigation of every law violation
  4. Elimination of any possibility of reducing court-imposed sentences

While this simple method may work slowly, it is effective, preserves freedom, and positively influences citizens’ character.

Implications for Criminal Justice

This approach has several important implications:

  1. The executive’s power to pardon or reduce sentences should be abolished.
  2. The state’s methods for detecting crimes or preventing planned ones must not infringe on citizens’ freedom or domestic security.
  3. The state can appoint supervisors for public areas prone to crime and establish prosecutors to pursue suspicious individuals.
  4. Laws can require citizens to assist in crime prevention and reporting, but:
    • This should be framed as a duty, not incentivized with rewards
    • Exceptions should be made for those who would have to betray close relationships to comply

Transparency in Criminal Law

All criminal laws, including both sentencing guidelines and procedural rules, must be fully publicized to all citizens. Some argue against this, claiming it allows potential criminals to weigh the benefits of crime against the punishment. However, this argument is flawed for several reasons:

  1. It’s unethical for the state to withhold information about potential punishments.
  2. Transparent laws set clear expectations and limits on state power.
  3. Secrecy in criminal procedures could create fear of unjust state actions.

The state must never rely on citizens’ ignorance of their rights or distrust in the government’s respect for those rights.

Core Principles of Criminal Law

Based on this reasoning, I propose these fundamental principles for criminal law:

  1. Punishment of lawbreakers is a key method for maintaining public safety.
  2. The state may punish any action that violates citizens’ rights or breaks its laws.
  3. The harshest allowable punishment should be the mildest possible given the circumstances. Other punishments should be proportional to the criminal’s disregard for others’ rights.
  4. Criminal laws apply only to those who break them intentionally or negligently, and only to the degree that they demonstrated disrespect for others’ rights.
  5. In criminal investigations, the state may use any appropriate means to achieve its goals, but must not:
    • Treat suspects as if already proven guilty
    • Violate the human and civil rights that must be respected even in criminals
    • Engage in any immoral actions

Parental Responsibilities and Children’s Rights

The Core Duty of Parents

Parents have a fundamental obligation to raise their children to full maturity. This duty is the source of all parental rights, which exist solely as necessary conditions for fulfilling this responsibility. Children retain all their inherent rights, including:

Limits on Restricting Children’s Freedom

Parents may only restrict their children’s freedom to the extent necessary for:

  1. The child’s own education and development
  2. Maintaining the newly formed family relationship

These restrictions must be limited to the time required for the child’s development. Children should never be forced into actions with long-term or lifelong consequences beyond this period, such as:

The End of Parental Authority

Parental authority naturally and completely ends when the child reaches maturity.

Specific Parental Obligations

Parents’ duties include:

  1. Providing personal care for the child’s physical and moral well-being
  2. Supplying the necessary means for the child to begin an independent life, guided by their own choices (within the limits of their individual circumstances)

Children’s Obligations

Children, in turn, must do everything necessary to enable their parents to fulfill these duties.

The State’s Role in Protecting Children’s Rights

The state must safeguard children’s rights in relation to their parents. To do this, it should:

  1. Establish a legal age of maturity, which may vary based on:

    • Climate
    • Historical era
    • Individual circumstances (e.g., situations requiring more mature judgment)

  2. Prevent parental authority from exceeding its proper bounds through careful oversight

  3. Avoid prescribing specific methods of education or upbringing

  4. Focus on keeping parents and children within their legally defined boundaries

  5. Generally trust parents to fulfill their duties without requiring constant accountability

  6. Intervene only in cases of actual or imminent neglect of parental duties

Guardianship After Parental Death

When parents die, the state must clearly define:

Guardians assume parental duties and rights but require closer state supervision due to their less intimate relationship with the child. Regular accountability may be necessary for guardians.

Community Involvement in Guardianship

The state should delegate specific oversight to local communities, as their measures are likely to be:

The state should maintain overall supervision to ensure the wards’ safety.

Additional Protections for Minors

The state must go beyond merely protecting minors from external attacks. It should:

  1. Declare invalid any actions by minors that could be harmful to them
  2. Punish those who take advantage of minors
  3. Require compensation for damages caused to minors

This may make certain actions punishable that would otherwise be outside the law’s purview (e.g., sexual relations with a minor).

As human actions require varying degrees of judgment, and maturity develops gradually, it’s advisable to establish different stages of minority for the validity of various actions.

Provisions for the Mentally Ill

Similar principles apply to the mentally ill or intellectually disabled, with some key differences:

General Principles for Protecting Vulnerable Individuals

  1. Those lacking full use of their mental faculties or who have not reached the necessary age require special care for their physical, intellectual, and moral well-being.

  2. The state must set the duration of minority based on national circumstances, using physical maturity as a general guideline.

  3. The state should establish multiple stages, gradually increasing minors’ freedom and reducing supervision.

  4. State oversight should ensure parents and children fulfill their mutual obligations without overstepping their rights.

  5. In case of parental death, the state must regulate guardian appointment and qualifications, preferring selection by the deceased parents, remaining relatives, or the local community.

  6. To protect minors, the state should invalidate potentially harmful actions they take independently and punish those who exploit them.

  7. Similar principles apply to the mentally ill, with adjustments for their specific circumstances and the potential temporary nature of their condition.

Review and Reflection on State Action

Summary of Key Points

I have now examined all the areas in which the state must extend its activities. For each, I’ve attempted to establish the highest principles. If this attempt seems inadequate, or if you find many important legislative matters missing, please remember that my intention was not to create a comprehensive theory of legislation—a task beyond my abilities and knowledge. Instead, my goal was to highlight the perspective from which legislation, in its various branches, should either extend or limit state action.

Three Main Sources of Legislation

Just as legislation can be divided by its subjects, it can also be categorized by its sources. This categorization might be even more fruitful, especially for lawmakers themselves. In my view, there are only three main sources or perspectives from which the necessity for laws becomes apparent:

  1. The nature of actions and their consequences: Legislation should determine citizens’ actions and their necessary outcomes, based on principles of justice.

  2. The specific purpose of the state: This includes the limits within which the state should confine its activities, or the extent to which it decides to expand them.

  3. The means necessary for the state’s existence: This covers what’s needed to maintain the entire state structure and make it possible to achieve its purpose.

Every conceivable law must primarily belong to one of these perspectives. However, no law should be enacted without considering all three. Indeed, the one-sidedness of view is a significant flaw in many laws.

Essential Preparatory Work for Legislation

From these three perspectives, three crucial preparatory tasks emerge for any legislation:

  1. A comprehensive general theory of law.
  2. A complete development of the state’s purpose, or more precisely, a clear definition of the limits within which it must keep its activities.
  3. A theory of the means necessary for a state’s existence, including both internal stability and the possibility of action (i.e., a theory of politics and finance).

It’s worth noting that only the first of these is eternal and unchangeable, like human nature itself. The others allow for various modifications.

Potential Conflicts in State Systems

If modifications to state systems are made based on circumstantial factors rather than comprehensive considerations—for example, if a state has a fixed political system or unalterable financial arrangements—the second aspect mentioned above can become severely constrained, and often the first aspect suffers as well. Many state defects likely stem from these and similar conflicts.

Limitations of This Analysis

I hope I’ve sufficiently clarified my intention in attempting to establish these principles of legislation. However, even within these limitations, I’m far from satisfied with the success of this attempt. While the overall correctness of the principles may face fewer objections, they certainly lack necessary completeness and precise definition. To establish even the highest principles, especially for this purpose, it’s necessary to delve into the most exact details. This wasn’t possible here given my intention, and although I strived to do this internally as preparatory work for what I wrote, such an effort never fully succeeds.

Core Principle: Individual Development

Despite these limitations, I hope what I’ve said is sufficient to make my primary intention in this entire essay even clearer: The most important perspective of the state must always be the development of individual citizens’ powers in their individuality. Therefore, it should never make anything a subject of its activity except what individuals cannot procure for themselves—namely, the promotion of security. This is the only true and infallible means of harmoniously linking the seemingly contradictory elements of the state’s overall purpose and the sum of all individual citizens’ purposes through a firm and lasting bond.

Applying Theory to Reality: The Challenges of Political Reform

The Gap Between Theory and Practice

When we develop theories about human society and governance, it’s natural to want to see these ideas put into practice. This desire stems from our innate need to see tangible results, rather than just abstract concepts. It’s especially strong in those who genuinely care about social progress. However, this urge to implement theoretical ideas immediately can sometimes lead to unintended negative consequences.

The Dangers of Hasty Implementation

Ironically, rushing to apply theories can sometimes be more harmful than either:

  1. A cooler, more detached approach
  2. A passionate embrace of ideas without immediate concern for their practical application

This is because truth, when it takes root deeply even in just one person, tends to spread its beneficial effects gradually and quietly. In contrast, ideas forced into immediate action often change shape during implementation and fail to influence thinking in the long term.

The Need for Caution

For these reasons, we must be extremely cautious when trying to apply even the most seemingly solid and consistent theories to real-world situations. This is why, before concluding this work, I want to carefully examine how the principles I’ve outlined might be translated into reality. This examination serves two purposes:

  1. To guide potential implementation
  2. To clarify that I’m not trying to dictate immediate real-world policies or criticize existing ones that may contradict my ideas

The Challenge of Changing Existing Systems

When reforming any current system, we must recognize that a new state of affairs must follow the existing one. Every situation humans find themselves in, every object that surrounds them, creates a fixed mental framework. This framework can’t be arbitrarily changed, and trying to force it into an unsuitable new shape will both fail to achieve the intended goal and destroy existing capabilities.

Lessons from History

Looking at major historical revolutions, we can see that most arose from periodic shifts in human thought. This becomes even clearer when we consider the forces behind all changes in the world:

  1. Human forces (the most significant for societal change)
  2. Forces of physical nature (less important due to their uniformity)
  3. Forces of non-rational creatures (relatively insignificant in this context)

The Nature of Human Development

Human capability can only express itself in one particular way during any given period, but this expression can be modified in countless ways. This leads to a kind of one-sidedness in any moment, but creates an image of remarkable versatility over a series of periods.

Each state of human development is either:

This means that the previous state, along with how it’s modified, determines how new circumstances will affect people. The power of this determination is so great that it often transforms the very nature of these new circumstances.

The Nature of Human Progress and Social Reform

The Inherent Value of Human Experience

Every occurrence on Earth can be considered beneficial because it’s the inner strength of humans that masters all experiences, regardless of their nature. This inner strength, in all its expressions, can only act positively—though to varying degrees—as each experience provides it with either more power or more refinement.

A New Perspective on History

Perhaps the entire history of humankind could be viewed as a natural sequence of revolutions in human capability. This approach might not only be the most instructive way to study history but could also guide those who aim to influence people. It would show which paths can successfully lead human potential forward and which demands should never be placed upon it.

The Power of Human Inner Strength

Just as this inner strength of humans deserves primary consideration due to its impressive dignity, it also demands attention through the power with which it subjects all other things to itself.

Principles for Implementing Social Change

Anyone attempting the difficult task of weaving a new state of affairs into the existing one must never lose sight of this inner strength. Here are some key principles to follow:

  1. Allow full impact of the present: First, one must wait for the full effect of the present circumstances on people’s minds. Trying to cut this process short might change the external form of things, but never the inner attitudes of people. These unchanged attitudes would then transfer to anything new forcibly imposed upon them.

  2. Extremes are closely linked: Don’t assume that the more fully you let the present circumstances play out, the more resistant people will become to a new state of affairs. In human history, extremes are often closely connected. Any external condition, if left to continue undisturbed, works towards its own downfall instead of becoming more entrenched.

  3. Work with human nature: This principle aligns with human nature, both for active individuals who easily move on when they’ve exhausted their engagement with something, and for passive individuals, in whom prolonged pressure may dull their strength but also make them feel the pressure more acutely.

The Wise Approach to Change

Without directly altering the current state of affairs, it’s possible to influence people’s spirit and character, giving them a direction that no longer fits the current situation. This is what a wise reformer will attempt to do.

Only through this approach is it possible to implement a new plan in reality exactly as it was conceived in theory. Any other method will not only cause damage by disturbing the natural course of human development but will also be modified and distorted by remnants of the previous state that persist in reality or in people’s minds.

The Timing of Reform

Once this obstacle is removed and the newly decided state of affairs can exert its full effect despite the preceding conditions and the current situation they’ve created, nothing should stand in the way of implementing the reform.

General Principles for All Reforms

The most general principles for any theory of reform might be:

  1. Always implement principles of pure theory in reality, but never before reality in its entirety no longer hinders these principles from producing the effects they would always produce without any foreign admixture.

  2. To facilitate the transition from the current state to the newly decided one, allow every reform to originate, as much as possible, from people’s ideas and minds.

The Complexity of Real-World Implementation

While these theoretical principles are based on human nature and assume only ordinary levels of capability, they consider humans in their essential form, unaffected by specific circumstances. However, humans never exist in this pure state; circumstances have always given them a positive form that deviates to a greater or lesser extent from the ideal.

Therefore, when a state seeks to expand or limit its activities according to correct theoretical principles, it must pay special attention to this real-world form of its citizens.

The Challenge of Freedom

The discrepancy between theory and reality in this aspect of state administration will generally manifest as a lack of freedom. While it might seem that removing restrictions is always possible and beneficial, we must remember that what constrains strength on one side also provides material to occupy its activity on the other.

Humans are more inclined towards dominion than freedom. A structure of dominion pleases not only the ruler who builds and maintains it, but even the serving parts are elevated by the thought of being members of a whole that extends beyond the powers and duration of individual generations.

The Path to True Freedom

Where this view prevails, energy will fade, and laxity and inactivity will arise if people are forced to act only for themselves, only within the space their individual powers encompass, only for the duration they live. True freedom requires a higher degree of culture, one that finds more joy in activity that creates powers and leaves the generation of results to those powers themselves, rather than in activity that directly produces results.

This degree of culture is the true maturity of freedom. However, this maturity is never found in its perfection and will, in my conviction, always remain foreign to sensual humans who so readily go out of themselves.

The Statesman’s Task

What, then, should a statesman do who wants to undertake such a change?

  1. In every step taken anew, not as a consequence of the existing situation, strictly follow pure theory unless there’s a circumstance in the present that would change the theory or nullify its consequences wholly or in part if grafted onto it.

  2. Allow all existing restrictions on freedom to remain in place until people show by unmistakable signs that they view these as constricting fetters, that they feel their pressure, and are thus ripe for freedom in this respect; then remove these restrictions without delay.

  3. Promote maturity for freedom by every means possible.

The Importance of Freedom in Fostering Freedom

The last point is undoubtedly the most important and, in this system, the simplest. Nothing promotes this maturity for freedom to the same degree as freedom itself. Those who have often used this very lack of maturity as a pretext to continue oppression might not acknowledge this claim. But it follows, I think, irrefutably from the nature of humans themselves.

Lack of maturity for freedom can only arise from a lack of intellectual and moral powers. This deficiency is countered only by increasing these powers, and this increase requires practice, and practice requires freedom that awakens self-activity.

The Gradual Path to Freedom

Of course, giving freedom doesn’t mean loosening fetters that the bearer doesn’t yet feel as such. But for no person in the world, however neglected by nature or degraded by circumstance, is this the case with all the fetters that oppress them.

Therefore, one should loosen restrictions gradually, in the same sequence as the feeling of freedom awakens, and with each new step, one will accelerate progress. Great difficulties may still arise in recognizing the signs of this awakening. However, these difficulties lie not so much in theory as in execution, which never allows for specific rules but is, here as everywhere, solely the work of genius.

A Theoretical Approach to Implementation

In theory, I would try to clarify this admittedly very complex matter as follows. The legislator must keep two things in mind:

  1. The pure theory, spun out into the most precise detail.
  2. The state of individual reality that he is meant to transform.

The legislator must not only have a thorough and complete overview of the theory in all its parts, but must also envision the necessary consequences of each individual principle in their full scope, in their manifold interweaving, and in their mutual dependence on one another, if not all principles can be realized at once.

The Practical Application of Theory to Reality

Assessing the Current State

The legislator must also—and this task is undoubtedly much more challenging—inform themselves about the current state of reality. This includes understanding:

  1. All the restrictions the state imposes on citizens
  2. The limitations citizens impose on themselves under state protection
  3. The consequences of these restrictions

Both of these perspectives—the theoretical ideal and the current reality—must be carefully compared.

Determining the Right Time for Change

The appropriate moment to implement a theoretical principle in reality is when this comparison shows that:

  1. The principle would remain unchanged after implementation
  2. It would produce the same effects as outlined in the theoretical model

If this isn’t entirely possible, it should at least be foreseeable that any shortcomings could be addressed as reality moves closer to the theory. This ultimate goal of complete alignment should constantly guide the legislator’s vision.

Challenges in Implementation

This approach might seem strange or even impractical. One could argue that these “pictures” of theory and reality can’t be accurately maintained, let alone precisely compared. While these objections have merit, they lose much of their force when we consider that:

  1. Theory always demands freedom
  2. Reality, when it deviates from theory, always shows constraint
  3. The reason for not exchanging constraint for freedom can only be impossibility

This impossibility can arise from two sources:

  1. The people are not yet receptive to freedom
  2. The situation is not conducive to freedom

In either case, granting freedom might destroy results without which neither freedom nor existence itself can be conceived, or it might fail to produce the beneficial effects that typically accompany it.

The Process of Evaluation

To judge these factors, one must envision both the current and the changed state in their entirety, carefully comparing their forms and consequences. This difficulty diminishes when we consider that:

  1. The state can’t make changes until citizens show signs of readiness
  2. It can’t remove restrictions until their burden becomes oppressive
  3. The state’s role is largely that of an observer

When the opportunity to remove a freedom restriction arises, the state need only calculate the possibility or impossibility and be guided by necessity.

The Principle of Gradual Change

Given these considerations, I propose the following principle:

The state must bring the actual state of affairs closer to the correct and true theory regarding the limits of its effectiveness, to the extent that possibility allows and true necessity does not prevent it.

This possibility depends on:

  1. People being sufficiently receptive to the freedom that theory always teaches
  2. This freedom being able to produce the beneficial effects it always brings when unobstructed

The opposing necessity arises when suddenly granted freedom would destroy results without which not only further progress but existence itself would be endangered.

Both these factors must always be judged through careful comparison of the present and changed situations and their respective consequences.

Applying the Principle

This principle emerges from applying the general reform approach discussed earlier to this specific case. Reality hinders the principles of pure theory from producing their natural effects when:

  1. There’s a lack of receptivity to freedom
  2. The necessary results would suffer from its implementation

I won’t add anything further to elaborate on this principle. While I could classify possible real-world situations and demonstrate its application, doing so would contradict my own principles. As I’ve said, any such application requires an overview of the whole and all its parts in their precise interconnection, and such a whole can’t be established through mere hypotheses.

The Role of Necessity

Combining this rule for the state’s practical conduct with the laws developed in the preceding theory, the state should always be guided by necessity. The theory allows the state to care only for security, as achieving this goal is impossible for individuals alone and therefore necessary. The rule of practical conduct binds the state strictly to the theory unless present circumstances force a deviation.

Thus, it is the principle of necessity towards which all the ideas presented in this essay ultimately strive. In pure theory, only the characteristics of natural humans determine the limits of this necessity; in practice, the individuality of real humans is added.

The Supremacy of Necessity

This principle of necessity should, in my view, be the highest rule for any practical effort directed at humans. It’s the only principle that leads to certain, indubitable results. The useful, which can be opposed to it, doesn’t allow for pure and certain judgment. It requires calculations of probability which, aside from being inherently fallible, risk being thwarted by the slightest unforeseen circumstances.

Necessity, on the other hand, imposes itself powerfully on our feelings, and what necessity commands is always not only useful but indispensable. Moreover, while the useful, with its infinite degrees, always requires new and new arrangements, limiting oneself to what necessity demands leaves greater scope for individual strength, thereby reducing the need for such arrangements.

Positive vs. Negative Measures

Care for the useful mostly leads to positive measures, while care for the necessary mostly leads to negative ones. Given the strength of human self-activity, necessity rarely arises except to free from some constraining fetter.

For all these reasons—and many others that a more detailed analysis could add—no other principle is as compatible with respect for the individuality of self-active beings and the care for freedom that springs from this respect.

Ensuring Compliance with Laws

Finally, this is the only infallible means of giving power and authority to laws: letting them arise solely from this principle. Many ways have been proposed to achieve this end, particularly trying to convince citizens of the goodness and usefulness of laws. However, even granting the goodness and usefulness in a specific case, people are convinced of the usefulness of an institution only with difficulty. Different views produce different opinions on this, and inclination itself works against conviction, as everyone, however gladly they may embrace what they recognize as useful, always resists what is forced upon them.

Under the yoke of necessity, however, everyone willingly bows their neck. Where a complicated situation already exists, insight into what is necessary is more difficult; but precisely by following this principle, the situation becomes simpler and this insight easier.

Conclusion

I have now traversed the field I set out for myself at the beginning of this essay. Throughout, I have been animated by the deepest respect for the inner dignity of human beings and the freedom which alone is fitting for this dignity. May the ideas I have presented, and the expression I have given them, be worthy of this sentiment.

Footnotes

  1. For the following notes, I had no other materials at my disposal than those already used by Schlesier (Memories of W. v. Humboldt I. p. 151, 152, 155-157). These materials consist of a number of printed Humboldt letters, particularly to Forster; Erfurt, June 1, 1792 (Works I. p. 293 ff.) and to Schiller; Erfurt, May 3, 1792, Auleben September 12, 1792, December 7, 1792, January 14 and 18, 1793; the first five of the letters that are shared in the “Correspondence between Schiller and W. v. Humboldt, Stuttgart and Tübingen 1830”. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5 ↩6 ↩7 ↩8 ↩9

  2. Reprinted: Works I. p. 301 ff. ↩ ↩2 ↩3 ↩4 ↩5

  3. Issues 10, 11, 12. Reprinted in Works I. p. 312-342. The 6th section, which appeared in No. 12 “on public state education,” is missing its first few pages. ↩ ↩2

  4. In Plato’s “Republic,” the philosopher describes an ideal society where the guardians (warriors) are educated to view death not as something terrible, but as its opposite. ↩

Previous Post
Minimum Viable Brother: Combat Sports and Social Cohesion
Next Post
Generative AI Cope