There are a few programs that are the real workhorse in the UNIX toolbox. Epicureans were atomists and accordingly thought that there is nothing but atoms and void. Hot and cold, for example, are opposites, and there are processes of becoming between the two. Zeno of Citium c. With fist clenched and hand sharply canted, the upward circular backfist strike may be used against the testicles, solar plexus, or jaw.
Welcome to Let’s Do It!
Save the page and run it in a browser. Make sure the page is selected in the Files workspace before you run it. Enter two whole numbers and then click the Add button. Earlier you saw a basic example of how to create an ASP. NET server code using the Razor syntax — that is, the programming language rules. You'll probably need to familiarize yourself only with how WebMatrix code is added to markup in.
In server code blocks, you'll often want to output text and markup to the page. If a server code block contains text that's not code and that instead should be rendered as is, ASP.
NET needs to be able to distinguish that text from code. There are several ways to do this. These options are useful when you don't want to render an HTML element as part of the output.
Again, you could also precede each line individually with the: When you output text as shown in this section — using an HTML element, the: As noted earlier, ASP. NET does encode the output of server code expressions and server code blocks that are preceded by , except in the special cases noted in this section.
To break a statement onto the next line, at the end of the line add a space and then the continuation character. Continue the statement on the next line. You can wrap statements onto as many lines as you need to improve readability. The following statements are the same:. However, you can't wrap a line in the middle of a string literal. The following example doesn't work:. Comments let you leave notes for yourself or others.
Within code blocks you can use the Razor syntax comments, or you can use ordinary Visual Basic comment character, which is a single quote ' prefixed to each line. A variable is a named object that you use to store data. You can name variables anything, but the name must begin with an alphabetic character and it cannot contain whitespace or reserved characters.
In Visual Basic, as you saw earlier, the case of the letters in a variable name doesn't matter. A variable can have a specific data type, which indicates what kind of data is stored in the variable. And there are many other data types you can use. However, you don't have to specify a type for a variable. In most cases ASP. NET can figure out the type based on how the data in the variable is being used.
Occasionally you must specify a type; you'll see examples where this is true. To declare a variable without specifying a type, use Dim plus the variable name for instance, Dim myVar. To declare a variable with a type, use Dim plus the variable name, followed by As and then the type name for instance, Dim myVar As String. NET can usually determine a data type automatically, sometimes it can't. Therefore, you might need to help ASP. NET out by performing an explicit conversion.
Even if you don't have to convert types, sometimes it's helpful to test to see what type of data you might be working with. The most common case is that you have to convert a string to another type, such as to an integer or date. The following example shows a typical case where you must convert a string to a number.
As a rule, user input comes to you as strings. Even if you've prompted the user to enter a number, and even if they've entered a digit, when user input is submitted and you read it in code, the data is in string format. Therefore, you must convert the string to a number. In the example, if you try to perform arithmetic on the values without converting them, the following error results, because ASP.
NET cannot add two strings:. To convert the values to integers, you call the AsInt method. If the conversion is successful, you can then add the numbers. Converts a string that has a decimal value like "1. NET, a decimal number is more precise than a floating-point number. Converts a string that represents a date and time value to the ASP. An operator is a keyword or character that tells ASP. NET what kind of command to perform in an expression. Visual Basic supports many operators, but you only need to recognize a few to get started developing ASP.
The following table summarizes the most common operators. Depending on context, either assigns the value on the right side of a statement to the object on the left side, or checks the values for equality.
Used to group expressions, to pass parameters to methods, and to access members of arrays and collections. Reverses a true value to false and vice versa. Typically used as a shorthand way to test for False that is, for not True.
You'll often work with file and folder paths in your code. Here is an example of physical folder structure for a website as it might appear on your development computer:. Virtual folder paths always use forward slashes. The virtual path of a folder doesn't have to have the same name as the physical folder; it can be an alias. On production servers, the virtual path rarely matches an exact physical path. When you work with files and folders in code, sometimes you need to reference the physical path and sometimes a virtual path, depending on what objects you're working with.
NET gives you these tools for working with file and folder paths in code: You use this method any time you need a complete physical path. A typical example is when you're reading or writing a text file or image file on the web server. You typically don't know the absolute physical path of your site on a hosting site's server, so this method can convert the path you do know — the virtual path — to the corresponding path on the server for you. You pass the virtual path to a file or folder to the method, and it returns the physical path:.
This is very handy because you can move pages around in a site, and any links they contain to other pages won't be broken. It's also handy in case you ever move your website to a different location. Here are some examples:.
If the website is http: NET will treat these paths when the page runs:. You won't actually see these paths as the values of the variable, but ASP. NET will treat the paths as if that's what they were. When the page runs, ASP. NET server code lets you perform tasks based on conditions and write code that repeats statements a specific number of times that is, code that runs a loop.
Coined by Simon Furman in issue 9 of the Generation 2 comic to refer to the Combaticons. It presumably is meant to refer to all the Scramble City-style teams except possibly the Seacons, as their combined forms consist of six robots not five, so they could possibly be fusilateral hexocombiners I guess It may also apply to the Predacons, but it doesn't matter because nobody uses this term anyway.
Yet another obscure term for combiners first used by Simon Furman via Wheeljack in the " Devastation Derby! As mentioned above, most combiners form a super robot.
However, there are many other types of combining in the Transformers multiverse. In the Energon franchise, most of the Autobot characters were able to combine with each other in pairs much like Victory ' s Multiforce. These combined forms can probably be considered Super Robots.
The combined form was simply controlled by whichever Autobot was "on top". Make whatever jokes you will. Generation 1 contains many examples of combined alternate modes , including Reflector , Dreadwing , Big Powered , the Battlestar , and the Double Targetmasters. The Micromaster Combiners are made up of Transformers whose altmodes combine into vehicles, with one partner being the front and another the rear.
The combined forms do not have specific names. These altmode combiners should not be confused with the Micromaster "Sixcombiners", six-robot teams who combine to form a Super Robot. The Power Core Combiners use a different type of combining method.
Instead of using 5 robots, the combined final robot is formed by one "Commander" type robot, and 4 different drones that form the arms and legs. Not all cases of multiple things attaching to each other are combiners. As mentioned above, many Super Robots—which are formed through a conglomeration of parts—are not combiners. Energon Landmine , for example. A similar case can be found in Transformers who have two or more "components" which combine into a single entity. G1 Sky Lynx has lynx and dino-bird components, G1 Omega Supreme has tank, base, and rocket components, and Magmatron has three dinosaur components.
However, all of these components are considered to be "part of" the overall Transformer, even through they can act independently. The Duocons are another case of this sort. All of these examples are not combiners because there is only one Transformer involved in each of them, regardless of how many bodies that Transformer may simultaneously operate.
Such robots are occasionally referred to as "Reverse Combiners" within the fandom. Confusing things further are the comics which treated Sky Lynx and the Duocons as triple changers, able to transform between the combined mode and the ones for individual components without any parts separating off.
Sometimes a smaller Transformer will attach to and enhance a larger Transformer in some way. Although these examples do include more than one Transformer or a Transformer and a fleshling , they are not considered "combiners". The simplest justification for this is that, in these cases, the "combined" form is almost exactly the same in appearance as the non-combined form. And sometimes things just combine for no real reason at all.
Just deal with it. We hate it, oh God yes, but there it is. The Constructicons were designed and built by Shockwave as the first combiner team. They were given life through Creation Matrix energy stored in Optimus Prime 's head. The Constructicons had considerable difficulty coordinating together as Devastator in their first mission. The Special Teams were first conceived within Buster Witwicky 's mind shortly after the human had relinquished control of the Creation Matrix to Optimus Prime.
Shockwave was able to view this data remotely and prepare for their development. The combining Predacons were summoned to Earth from Cybertron by Megatron. The Predacons were again summoned to Earth by Shockwave. Gone but Not Forgotten! They had the ability to combine. They later came under the command of Ratbat.
Darkwing and Dreadwind combined to form Dreadwing. They appeared to keep their individual personalities in their combined mode instead of merging their minds. On Cybertron, the Constructicons were existing Transformers who were brainwashed by Megatron to become Decepticons. Megatron also adapted them with the ability to combine into Devastator to challenge Omega Supreme. Omega Supreme pursued the Constructicons for millions of years.
The Stunticons and Aerialbots were built from scratch and given personality by Vector Sigma. They were designed with the ability to combine. The Key to Vector Sigma, Part 2 Starscream installed the Combaticons ' personality components into junked military vehicles.
This brought the vehicles to life with the ability to combine. Starscream's Brigade The Protectobots became part of the Autobot forces on Earth and were able to combine. The Revenge of Bruticus.
Years later, the Predacons appeared as combiners under the command of the Quintessons. An intellectually enhanced Grimlock created the Technobots with the ability to combine. Combining technology was the brainchild of the Decepticon warlord Deathsaurus , Bruticus's Wings Universe profile who debuted the technology about nine million years ago on his new recruits, the Combaticons, giving them the ability to combine into Bruticus.
Part 5 Later, Megatron defeated Deathsaurus to become sole leader of the Decepticons, stealing Deathsaurus's technology to augment his Constructicons with the ability to form Devastator.
Battle Lines, Part 5. After becoming the new Decepticon leader, Starscream was pressed into the service of Unicron bargaining that the Chaos Bringer bestow upon the power to combine with his inner circle. When Unicron attacked Cybertron, Optimus Prime attempted to use the Matrix of Leadership to destroy Unicron only to be met by Starscream — now calling himself "Megascream" — who combined with his troops and attempted to destroy Optimus.
The Prime was saved by Hot Rod who teleported his leader away and opened the Matrix saving Cybertron while destroying himself and Megascream. Combination was taken for granted and combiners were commonplace. About half the characters are combiners, depending how you count. No special explanation of their origin was offered. Experiments in combining were conducted both before and during the early phase of the civil war, in a process known as mass intellect.
However, the combined forms suffered in that the stronger minds tended to drown out the weaker ones. Following the failure of the planetary engine turbines, the Constructicons turned their attention to the mass intellect process.
They eventually developed a hyper vortex processor that managed to preserve the individuals minds in the combined whole. Testing the process on themselves, the Constructicons combined into Devastator. While the Constructicons were able to preserve their minds, Devastator was hampered by the need of all six Constructicons to agree on a course of action, which was usually destroy the Autobots. As a result, the combined intellects of the Constructicons did not translate to Devastator, who instead suffered serious mental disabilities.
Despite this, Devastator's destructive capabilities greatly pleased Megatron, and he ordered the Constructicons to continue their experiments. This article on a faction , government , organization or subgroup , is a stub and is missing information. You can help Transformers Wiki by expanding it. Optimus Prime could combine with his trailer to form a Super Mode robot.
With this ability at his disposal, he beat the tar out of every Decepticon at least once. Then a new magic mushroom appeared: During a battle with the Decepticons, the Autobots were totally getting slagged by Megatron 's new tactician Thrust and his 'henchman' Tidal Wave.
Right when it seemed hopeless, a space shuttle fell from the sky and combined with Optimus to form Jet Optimus. Needless to say, Megatron was rather surprised. The Decepticons kept trying to beat the Autobots and miserably failed each time, frequently due to this new team-up, which also helped the Autobots survive and win the Unicron Battles.
A third magic mushroom appeared late on in the series literally out of nowhere. Prime's new 'shroom, named Overload , formed a large pair of cannons on top of Super Optimus's shoulders. Overload's additional firepower, combined with the already impressive firepower of the Requiem Blaster, enabled Optimus to destroy the being known as Sideways.
The Decepticons were not without their own combiner; Tidal Wave was able to combine with Megatron to form additional armor and a back-mounted rocket pack. The only practical upshot of this is that Megatron could now fly, which came in handy from time to time. A fourth weapon existed as a dark clone of the Star Saber, wielded by the evil Nemesis Prime. The non-flying members of the evil Speed Chaser Team could form the Magnawing aircraft to transport themselves around.
During this period, one couldn't swing a dead cybercat without hitting a combiner, as every Autobot, save for the Omnicons, was capable of merging with another, or with an augmenting portion of his vehicle mode. Then the three Maximus teams arrived, giving the Decepticons two five-part combiners and the Autobots one. Optimus Prime and Wing Saber attempted to combine in the Chaar asteroid belt but failed so they gave up. Lands where the surplus of product over labour is only middling are suitable for free peoples; those in which the soil is abundant and fertile and gives a great product for a little labour call for monarchical government, in order that the surplus of superfluities among the subjects may be consumed by the luxury of the prince: I am aware that there are exceptions; but these exceptions themselves confirm the rule, in that sooner or later they produce revolutions which restore things to the natural order.
General laws should always be distinguished from individual causes that may modify their effects. If all the South were covered with Republics and all the North with despotic States, it would be none the less true that, in point of climate, despotism is suitable to hot countries, barbarism to cold countries, and good polity to temperate regions.
I see also that, the principle being granted, there may be disputes on its application; it may be said that there are cold countries that are very fertile, and tropical countries that are very unproductive. But this difficulty exists only for those who do not consider the question in all its aspects. We must, as I have already said, take labour, strength, consumption, etc. Take two tracts of equal extent, one of which brings in five and the other ten. If the inhabitants of the first consume four and those of the second nine, the surplus of the first product will be a fifth and that of the second a tenth.
The ratio of these two surpluses will then be inverse to that of the products, and the tract which produces only five will give a surplus double that of the tract which produces ten. But there is no question of a double product, and I think no one would put the fertility of cold countries, as a general rule, on an equality with that of hot ones. Let us, however, suppose this equality to exist: To get this equality of product, what a difference there must be in tillage: But, where more hands are needed to get the same product, the superfluity must necessarily be less.
Consider, besides, that the same number of men consume much less in hot countries. The climate requires sobriety for the sake of health; and Europeans who try to live there as they would at home all perish of dysentery and indigestion.
Some attribute the sobriety of the Persians to the fact that their country is less cultivated; but it is my belief that their country abounds less in commodities because the inhabitants need less. If their frugality," he goes on, "were the effect of the nakedness of the land, only the poor would eat little; but everybody does so. Again, less or more would be eaten in various provinces, according to the land's fertility; but the same sobriety is found throughout the kingdom.
They are very proud of their manner of life, saying that you have only to look at their hue to recognise how far it excels that of the Christians. In fact, the Persians are of an even hue; their skins are fair, fine and smooth; while the hue of their subjects, the Armenians, who live after the European fashion, is rough and blotchy, and their bodies are gross and unwieldy. The nearer you get to the equator, the less people live on. Meat they hardly touch; rice, maize, curcur, millet and cassava are their ordinary food.
There are in the Indies millions of men whose subsistence does not cost a halfpenny a day. Even in Europe we find considerable differences of appetite between Northern and Southern peoples.
A Spaniard will live for a week on a German's dinner. In the countries in which men are more voracious, luxury therefore turns in the direction of consumption.
In England, luxury appears in a well-filled table; in Italy, you feast on sugar and flowers. Luxury in clothes shows similar differences. In climates in which the changes of season are prompt and violent, men have better and simpler clothes; where they clothe themselves only for adornment, what is striking is more thought of than what is useful; clothes themselves are then a luxury.
At Naples, you may see daily walking in the Pausilippeum men in gold-embroidered upper garments and nothing else. It is the same with buildings; magnificence is the sole consideration where there is nothing to fear from the air. In Paris and London, you desire to be lodged warmly and comfortably; in Madrid, you have superb salons, but not a window that closes, and you go to bed in a mere hole.
In hot countries foods are much more substantial and succulent; and the third difference cannot but have an influence on the second. Why are so many vegetables eaten in Italy? Because there they are good, nutritious and excellent in taste. In France, where they are nourished only on water, they are far from nutritious and are thought nothing of at table.
They take up all the same no less ground, and cost at least as much pains to cultivate. It is a proved fact that the wheat of Barbary, in other respects inferior to that of France, yields much more flour, and that the wheat of France in turn yields more than that of northern countries; from which it may be inferred that a like gradation in the same direction, from equator to pole, is found generally.
But is it not an obvious disadvantage for an equal product to contain less nourishment? To all these points may be added another, which at once depends on and strengthens them. Hot countries need inhabitants less than cold countries, and can support more of them.
There is thus a double surplus, which is all to the advantage of despotism. The greater the territory occupied by a fixed number of inhabitants, the more difficult revolt becomes, because rapid or secret concerted action is impossible, and the government can easily unmask projects and cut communications; but the more a numerous people is gathered together, the less can the government usurp the Sovereign's place: The advantage of tyrannical government therefore lies in acting at great distances.
With the help of the rallying-points it establishes, its strength, like that of the lever, 26 grows with distance. The strength of the people, on the other hand, acts only when concentrated: The least populous countries are thus the fittest for tyranny: T HE question "What absolutely is the best government? But if it is asked by what sign we may know that a given people is well or ill governed, that is another matter, and the question, being one of fact, admits of an answer.
It is not, however, answered, because everyone wants to answer it in his own way. Subjects extol public tranquillity, citizens individual liberty; the one class prefers security of possessions, the other that of person; the one regards as the best government that which is most severe, the other maintains that the mildest is the best; the one wants crimes punished, the other wants them prevented; the one wants the State to be feared by its neighbours, the other prefers that it should be ignored; the one is content if money circulates, the other demands that the people shall have bread.
Even if an agreement were come to on these and similar points, should we have got any further? As moral qualities do not admit of exact measurement, agreement about the mark does not mean agreement about the valuation. For my part, I am continually astonished that a mark so simple is not recognised, or that men are of so bad faith as not to admit it. What is the end of political association? The preservation and prosperity of its members. And what is the surest mark of their preservation and prosperity?
Their numbers and population. Seek then nowhere else this mark that is in dispute. The rest being equal, the government under which, without external aids, without naturalisation or colonies, the citizens increase and multiply most, is beyond question the best. The government under which a people wanes and diminishes is the worst. Calculators, it is left for you to count, to measure, to compare. A S the particular will acts constantly in opposition to the general will, the government continually exerts itself against the Sovereignty.
The greater this exertion becomes, the more the constitution changes; and, as there is in this case no other corporate will to create an equilibrium by resisting the will of the prince, sooner or later the prince must inevitably suppress the Sovereign and break the social treaty.
This is the unavoidable and inherent defect which, from the very birth of the body politic, tends ceaselessly to destroy it, as age and death end by destroying the human body.
There are two general courses by which government degenerates: Government undergoes contraction when it passes from the many to the few, that is, from democracy to aristocracy, and from aristocracy to royalty.
To do so is its natural propensity. Indeed, governments never change their form except when their energy is exhausted and leaves them too weak to keep what they have. If a government at once extended its sphere and relaxed its stringency, its force would become absolutely nil, and it would persist still less.
It is therefore necessary to wind up the spring and tighten the hold as it gives way: The dissolution of the State may come about in either of two ways. First, when the prince ceases to administer the State in accordance with the laws, and usurps the Sovereign power. A remarkable change then occurs: So that the moment the government usurps the Sovereignty, the social compact is broken, and all private citizens recover by right their natural liberty, and are forced, but not bound, to obey.
The same thing happens when the members of the government severally usurp the power they should exercise only as a body; this is as great an infraction of the laws, and results in even greater disorders.
There are then, so to speak, as many princes as there are magistrates, and the State, no less divided than the government, either perishes or changes its form. When the State is dissolved, the abuse of government, whatever it is, bears the common name of anarchy. To distinguish, democracy degenerates into ochlocracy , and aristocracy into oligarchy; and I would add that royalty degenerates into tyranny; but this last word is ambiguous and needs explanation. In vulgar usage, a tyrant is a king who governs violently and without regard for justice and law.
In the exact sense, a tyrant is an individual who arrogates to himself the royal authority without having a right to it.
This is how the Greeks understood the word "tyrant": In order that I may give different things different names, I call him who usurps the royal authority a tyrant , and him who usurps the sovereign power a despot. The tyrant is he who thrusts himself in contrary to the laws to govern in accordance with the laws; the despot is he who sets himself above the laws themselves. Thus the tyrant cannot be a despot, but the despot is always a tyrant.
S UCH is the natural and inevitable tendency of the best constituted governments. If Sparta and Rome perished, what State can hope to endure for ever? If we would set up a long-lived form of government, let us not even dream of making it eternal. If we are to succeed, we must not attempt the impossible, or flatter ourselves that we are endowing the work of man with a stability of which human conditions do not permit.
The body politic, as well as the human body, begins to die as soon as it is born, and carries in itself the causes of its destruction. But both may have a constitution that is more or less robust and suited to preserve them a longer or a shorter time. The constitution of man is the work of nature; that of the State the work of art. It is not in men's power to prolong their own lives; but it is for them to prolong as much as possible the life of the State, by giving it the best possible constitution.
The best constituted State will have an end; but it will end later than any other, unless some unforeseen accident brings about its untimely destruction. The life-principle of the body politic lies in the sovereign authority. The legislative power is the heart of the State; the executive power is its brain, which causes the movement of all the parts.
The brain may become paralysed and the individual still live. A man may remain an imbecile and live; but as soon as the heart ceases to perform its functions, the animal is dead. The State subsists by means not of the laws, but of the legislative power. Yesterday's law is not binding to-day; but silence is taken for tacit consent, and the Sovereign is held to confirm incessantly the laws it does not abrogate as it might.
All that it has once declared itself to will it wills always, unless it revokes its declaration. Why then is so much respect paid to old laws? For this very reason.
We must believe that nothing but the excellence of old acts of will can have preserved them so long: This is why, so far from growing weak, the laws continually gain new strength in any well constituted State; the precedent of antiquity makes them daily more venerable: T HE Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.
The people in assembly, I shall be told, is a mere chimera. It is so to-day, but two thousand years ago it was not so. Has man's nature changed? The bounds of possibility, in moral matters, are less narrow than we imagine: Base souls have no belief in great men; vile slaves smile in mockery at the name of liberty.
Let us judge of what can be done by what has been done. I shall say nothing of the Republics of ancient Greece; but the Roman Republic was, to my mind, a great State, and the town of Rome a great town. The last census showed that there were in Rome four hundred thousand citizens capable of bearing arms, and the last computation of the population of the Empire showed over four million citizens, excluding subjects, foreigners, women, children and slaves.
What difficulties might not be supposed to stand in the way of the frequent assemblage of the vast population of this capital and its neighbourhood. Yet few weeks passed without the Roman people being in assembly, and even being so several times. It exercised not only the rights of Sovereignty, but also a part of those of government.
It dealt with certain matters, and judged certain cases, and this whole people was found in the public meeting-place hardly less often as magistrates than as citizens. If we went back to the earliest history of nations, we should find that most ancient governments, even those of monarchical form, such as the Macedonian and the Frankish, had similar councils.
In any case, the one incontestable fact I have given is an answer to all difficulties; it is good logic to reason from the actual to the possible. I T is not enough for the assembled people to have once fixed the constitution of the State by giving its sanction to a body of law; it is not enough for it to have set up a perpetual government, or provided once for all for the election of magistrates.
Besides the extraordinary assemblies unforeseen circumstances may demand, there must be fixed periodical assemblies which cannot be abrogated or prorogued, so that on the proper day the people is legitimately called together by law, without need of any formal summoning. But, apart from these assemblies authorised by their date alone, every assembly of the people not summoned by the magistrates appointed for that purpose, and in accordance with the prescribed forms, should be regarded as unlawful, and all its acts as null and void, because the command to assemble should itself proceed from the law.
The greater or less frequency with which lawful assemblies should occur depends on so many considerations that no exact rules about them can be given. It can only be said generally that the stronger the government the more often should the Sovereign show itself. This, I shall be told, may do for a single town; but what is to be done when the State includes several?
Is the sovereign authority to be divided? Or is it to be concentrated in a single town to which all the rest are made subject? Neither the one nor the other, I reply. First, the sovereign authority is one and simple, and cannot be divided without being destroyed. In the second place, one town cannot, any more than one nation, legitimately be made subject to another, because the essence of the body politic lies in the reconciliation of obedience and liberty, and the words subject and Sovereign are identical correlatives the idea of which meets in the single word "citizen.
I answer further that the union of several towns in a single city is always bad, and that, if we wish to make such a union, we should not expect to avoid its natural disadvantages. It is useless to bring up abuses that belong to great States against one who desires to see only small ones; but how can small States be given the strength to resist great ones, as formerly the Greek towns resisted the Great King, and more recently Holland and Switzerland have resisted the House of Austria?
Nevertheless, if the State cannot be reduced to the right limits, there remains still one resource; this is, to allow no capital, to make the seat of government move from town to town, and to assemble by turn in each the Provincial Estates of the country. People the territory evenly, extend everywhere the same rights, bear to every place in it abundance and life: Remember that the walls of towns are built of the ruins of the houses of the countryside.
For every palace I see raised in the capital, my mind's eye sees a whole country made desolate. T HE moment the people is legitimately assembled as a sovereign body, the jurisdiction of the government wholly lapses, the executive power is suspended, and the person of the meanest citizen is as sacred and inviolable as that of the first magistrate; for in the presence of the person represented, representatives no longer exist.
Most of the tumults that arose in the comitia at Rome were due to ignorance or neglect of this rule. The consuls were in them merely the presidents of the people; the tribunes were mere speakers; 30 the senate was nothing at all. These intervals of suspension, during which the prince recognises or ought to recognise an actual superior, have always been viewed by him with alarm; and these assemblies of the people, which are the aegis of the body politic and the curb on the government, have at all times been the horror of rulers: When the citizens are greedy, cowardly, and pusillanimous, and love ease more than liberty, they do not long hold out against the redoubled efforts of the government; and thus, as the resisting force incessantly grows, the sovereign authority ends by disappearing, and most cities fall and perish before their time.
But between the sovereign authority and arbitrary government there sometimes intervenes a mean power of which something must be said. A S soon as public service ceases to be the chief business of the citizens, and they would rather serve with their money than with their persons, the State is not far from its fall. When it is necessary to march out to war, they pay troops and stay at home: By reason of idleness and money, they end by having soldiers to enslave their country and representatives to sell it.
It is through the hustle of commerce and the arts, through the greedy self-interest of profit, and through softness and love of amenities that personal services are replaced by money payments. Men surrender a part of their profits in order to have time to increase them at leisure. Make gifts of money, and you will not be long without chains.
The word finance is a slavish word, unknown in the city-state. In a country that is truly free, the citizens do everything with their own arms and nothing by means of money; so far from paying to be exempted from their duties, they would even pay for the privilege of fulfilling them themselves.
I am far from taking the common view: I hold enforced labour to be less opposed to liberty than taxes. The better the constitution of a State is, the more do public affairs encroach on private in the minds of the citizens.
Private affairs are even of much less importance, because the aggregate of the common happiness furnishes a greater proportion of that of each individual, so that there is less for him to seek in particular cares. In a well-ordered city every man flies to the assemblies: Good laws lead to the making of better ones; bad ones bring about worse.
As soon as any man says of the affairs of the State What does it matter to me? The lukewarmness of patriotism, the activity of private interest, the vastness of States, conquest and the abuse of government suggested the method of having deputies or representatives of the people in the national assemblies.
These are what, in some countries, men have presumed to call the Third Estate. Thus the individual interest of two orders is put first and second; the public interest occupies only the third place. Sovereignty, for the same reason as makes it inalienable, cannot be represented; it lies essentially in the general will, and will does not admit of representation: The deputies of the people, therefore, are not and cannot be its representatives: Every law the people has not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.
The people of England regards itself as free; but it is grossly mistaken; it is free only during the election of members of parliament. As soon as they are elected, slavery overtakes it, and it is nothing. The use it makes of the short moments of liberty it enjoys shows indeed that it deserves to lose them. The idea of representation is modern; it comes to us from feudal government, from that iniquitous and absurd system which degrades humanity and dishonours the name of man. In ancient republics and even in monarchies, the people never had representatives; the word itself was unknown.
It is very singular that in Rome, where the tribunes were so sacrosanct, it was never even imagined that they could usurp the functions of the people, and that in the midst of so great a multitude they never attempted to pass on their own authority a single plebiscitum.