Politics

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

  • Downloads：3059
  • Type：Epub+TxT+PDF+Mobi
  • Create Date：2021-07-09 07:16:04
  • Update Date：2025-09-24
  • Status：finish
  • Author：James Fitzjames Stephen
  • ISBN：0865971110
  • Environment：PC/Android/iPhone/iPad/Kindle
  • Download

Summary

Students of political theory will welcome the return to print of this brilliant defense of ordered liberty。 Impugning John Stuart Mill’s famous treatise， On Liberty， Stephen criticized Mill for turning abstract doctrines of the French Revolution into “the creed of a religion。”

Only the constraints of morality and law make liberty possible， warned Stephen， and attempts to impose unlimited freedom， material equality， and an indiscriminate love of humanity will lead inevitably to coercion and tyranny。 Liberty must be restrained by custom and tradition if it is to endure; equality must be limited to equality before the law if it is to be just; and fraternity must include actual men， not the amorphous mass of mankind， if it is to be real and genuine。

Please note: This title is available as an ebook for purchase on Amazon， Barnes and Noble， and iTunes。

Download

Reviews

Ah Poozi ，

LibertyInstrumental value to serve the well-being of society， not a value in and of itself。 Relationship of liberty and restraint - “。。。if restraints are minimized， if the largest possible measure of liberty is accorded to all human beings， the result will not be equality but inequality。。。”Liberty of acquiring property is most important。 EqualityEquality under the law vs。 social egalitarianism。 Relationship between liberty and equality （property rights versus inequality of results） - “Liberty of LibertyInstrumental value to serve the well-being of society， not a value in and of itself。 Relationship of liberty and restraint - “。。。if restraints are minimized， if the largest possible measure of liberty is accorded to all human beings， the result will not be equality but inequality。。。”Liberty of acquiring property is most important。 EqualityEquality under the law vs。 social egalitarianism。 Relationship between liberty and equality （property rights versus inequality of results） - “Liberty of action leads to inequality of results， an inequality that can be eliminated， if at all， only by constant governmental interference in the various liberties of individuals to pursue their own ends。”Fraternity “It is not love that one wants from the great mass of mankind， but respect and justice。”Misunderstanding of human nature - “[Mill] appears to believe that if men are all freed from restraints and put。。。 on an equal footing， they will naturally treat each other as brothers and work together harmoniously for their common good。 I believe that many men are bad， a vast majority of men are indifferent， and many good， and that the great mass of indifferent people sway this way or that according to circumstances。。。”Lies of Humanitarianism - “Humanity is only I writ large， and love for Humanity generally means zeal for MY notions as to what men should be and how they should live。” 。。。more

Mike Horne ，

There are books that I don't really understand when I finish them， but they make me think alot。 This is one。 A Victorian lawyer attacking John Stuart Mill。 I have made the argument that laws are not based on protecting people's rights but on stopping things we find morally repugnant。 He agrees！ There are books that I don't really understand when I finish them， but they make me think alot。 This is one。 A Victorian lawyer attacking John Stuart Mill。 I have made the argument that laws are not based on protecting people's rights but on stopping things we find morally repugnant。 He agrees！ 。。。more

Drew Norwood ，

James Fitzjames Stephen wrote this book to address the view of liberty， equality， and fraternity advanced by John Stuart Mill。 Though the slogan for which the book is named is most well known for its association with the French Revolution， Stephen was more concerned with the seemingly plausible， and therefore more dangerous， defense of it by Mill， primarily in “On Liberty。”  Stephen addresses each of these terms individually and shows how badly they have been mangled。 He exposes the hollowness o James Fitzjames Stephen wrote this book to address the view of liberty， equality， and fraternity advanced by John Stuart Mill。 Though the slogan for which the book is named is most well known for its association with the French Revolution， Stephen was more concerned with the seemingly plausible， and therefore more dangerous， defense of it by Mill， primarily in “On Liberty。”  Stephen addresses each of these terms individually and shows how badly they have been mangled。 He exposes the hollowness of the popular sentiment they are meant to convey and the specious ethical system undergirding them。 The first and most lengthy section is devoted to the cry for “liberty”。  He makes it clear that to advocate the popular view of “liberty”—liberty for liberty’s sake—is to take up a new “religious dogma” which cannot easily be tacked on to Christianity， or any other religious or ethical system。 Stephen cuts the heart out of the libertarian argument， commonly known as the “harm principle” or “non-aggression principle。” He weighs the ethical system lurking beneath the “harm principle” and finds it wanting。 The “religious dogma of liberty” is only attainable “when men have become completely indifferent to each other—that is to say， when society is at an end。”  The fact is， we must answer the question as both citizens and individuals， personally as well as politically: “Are these doctrines [of Christianity] true？ This is the vital question of all。 。 。 Upon this hang all religion， all morals， all politics， all legislation—everything which interests men as men。 Is there or not a God and a future state？ Is this world all？” We cannot avoid this question though Mill and liberalism makes the attempt。  It is a sad reality of the fallen world we live in， but an unavoidable one: that there are groups within society who are “all wanting to go different ways。 Mr。 Mill would like each to take his own way。 The advice is most attractive， and so long as the differences are not very apparent it may appear to be taken， but all the voting in the world will not get the couples off。。。 We are thus brought to the conclusion that in morals as well as in religion there is and must be war and conflict between men。 The good man and the bad man， the men whose goodness and badness are of different patterns， are really opposed to each other。 There is a real， essential， eternal conflict between them。” After critiquing the libertarian view of “liberty，” Stephen next moves on to expose the flaws of egalitarianism。 His main point here is succinctly stated in one sentence: “Though goodness is various， variety is not in itself good。" Taking as granted equality before the law and before God， what other type of equality is meant by the egalitarian？ The world we live in is full of natural inequality。 There are highly gifted artists and the average sort， world class athletes and the rest， men and women of various intellect and skill in every field， not to mention people of various ages at every moment （children always have less political rights than adults）。 These inequalities are observable facts that must be admitted。 And when it is admitted， it leads to Stephen’s qualification: “Upon the whole， I think that what little can be truly said of equality is that as a fact human beings are not equal; that in their dealings with each other they ought to recognize real inequalities where they exist as much as substantial equality where it exists。。。Equality， therefore，。。。is a word of relation。 It tells us nothing definite unless we know what two or more things are affirmed to be equal and what they are in themselves， and when we are informed upon these points we get only statements about matters of fact， true or false， important or not， as it may be。” Lastly， Stephen takes on the humanism embodied in the word “fraternity，” which equates to “worship and service of humanity”—the modern-day equivalent of which is a “love wins”/“COEXIST”-type position。 The problem with this view is that it answers nothing and satisfies no one。  For it begs the question: how do you love your neighbor？ And to what purpose？ “[F]raternity implies love for someone—a desire to promote someone’s happiness。 But what is happiness？ In particular， is anything which can properly be called virtue essential to it？—if so， what is virtue—the way of life which becomes a man？ Every answer which can be given to these questions depends upon the further question， What are men？ Is this life all， or is it only a stage in something wider and larger？” Once again， as with the question of liberty， “[t]he solution of all moral and social problems lies in the answer we give to the questions， What am I？ How am I related to others？”Addendum: There are several noteworthy passages from the book。On liberty for liberty’s sake: “that the utmost conceivable liberty which could be bestowed upon them would not in the least degree tend to improve them。 It would be as wise to say to the water of a stagnant marsh， ‘Why in the world do not you run into the sea？ you are perfectly free。 There is not a single hydraulic work within a mile of you。 There are no pumps to suck you up， no defined channel down which you are compelled to run， no harsh banks and mounds to confine you to any particular course， no dams and no floodgates; and yet there you lie， putrefying and breeding fever， frogs， and gnats， just as if you were a mere slave！’ The water might probably answer， if it knew how， ‘If you want me to turn mills and carry boats， you must dig proper channels and provide proper waterworks for me。’” On the practical atheism involved in most legislation: “The real opinion of most legislators in the present day， the opinion in favour of which they do， in fact， exercise coercion， is the opinion that no religion is absolutely true， but that all contain a mixture of truth and falsehood， and that the same is the case with ethical and political systems。。。Coercion as to religion will therefore chiefly occur in the indirect form， in the shape of treating certain parts—vital parts， it may be—of particular systems as mischievous and possibly even as criminal falsehoods when they come in the legislator’s way。”On separation of church and state: “To turn Churches into mere voluntary associations， and to sever the connection between them and the State， is on the part of the State an act not of neutrality but of covert unbelief。 On the part of the Churches which accept it， it is a tacit admission of failure， a tacit admission that they have no distinct authoritative message from God to man， and that they do not venture to expect to be recognised as institutions to which such a message has been confided。”On the unprofitable discussion of abstract liberty: “Discussions about liberty are in truth discussions about a negation。 Attempts to solve the problems of government and society by such discussions are like attempts to discover the nature of light and heat by inquiries into darkness and cold。 The phenomenon which requires and will repay study is the direction and nature of the various forces， individual and collective， which in their combination or collision with each other and with the outer world make up human life。 If we want to know what ought to be the size and position of a hole in a water pipe， we must consider the nature of water， the nature of pipes， and the objects for which the water is wanted; but we shall learn very little by studying the nature of holes。 Their shape is simply the shape of whatever bounds them。 Their nature is merely to let the water pass， and it seems to me that enthusiasm about them is altogether thrown away。” 。。。more

Charles Haywood ，

Among the many idols of our age， there is one that rules them all: John Stuart Mill’s harm principle， the belief that an individual’s choices may never be legitimately hampered， by anyone at all， except if he is harming others。 Bizarrely， this idea， radical in 1860 when Mill published "On Liberty，" has now even been enshrined as the core principle of our Constitution， at least if you believe Anthony Kennedy and the majority of the Supreme Court。 This book， of which you have probably never heard， Among the many idols of our age， there is one that rules them all: John Stuart Mill’s harm principle， the belief that an individual’s choices may never be legitimately hampered， by anyone at all， except if he is harming others。 Bizarrely， this idea， radical in 1860 when Mill published "On Liberty，" has now even been enshrined as the core principle of our Constitution， at least if you believe Anthony Kennedy and the majority of the Supreme Court。 This book， of which you have probably never heard， was published in 1873 and is regarded as the best contemporaneous refutation of Mill。 Maybe it is， but its refutation is too narrowly based and accepts far too many of Mill’s premises。 It is a start to overthrowing the golden calf， but only a start。James Fitzjames Stephen was a man of a type instantly recognizable and now wholly disappeared， the Englishman confident in English superiority。 He was a lawyer， then judge， with a sideline in journalism， consisting mostly of political analyses masquerading as book reviews （a terrible practice， as everybody knows）。 For the most part he is forgotten today， but perhaps he is coming back， if not into fashion， at least into view。 Oxford University Press， for example， has recently begun releasing annotated volumes of his works。 Perhaps as post-liberalism gains traction， he will become more prominent。 We will see。Stephen has little in common with conservatives， of his time or our time， of any stripe。 He is a religious skeptic， and he makes no claim that any moral system is better than another， even if he pretty obviously thinks English morality is the most expedient and the “Hindoos” and “Mahomaddans” several steps below。 He is that nineteenth-century classical liberal commonplace， a convinced utilitarian， whose own heroes are Jeremy Bentham， for how to evaluate societal structures， and Thomas Hobbes， for how to view human nature。 His argument with Mill is also strictly utilitarian; he does not accuse Mill of immorality or of leading innocents， or society， astray with his philosophy， but rather of inexpediency （which Stephen equates with injustice） and Pollyannaism。 Not in whole—Stephen himself notes that he often agrees with Mill， on utilitarianism especially， and was impressed by all his writings until he reflected more on them。 But on the core conclusions to be reached， especially about liberty， Stephen thinks Mill is wrong on the numbers， on the costs as weighed against the benefits。Still， Stephen was， most of all， a realist， which is the dividing line between today’s Left （and their fellow travelers） and the effective Right。 And at least in this book， which aspires to destroy the pillars of Mill’s thought in "On Liberty，" "Utilitarianism，" and "The Subjection of Women，" Stephen aligns with many conclusions of modern post-liberals。 So， if no conservative， he may be a wingman， and that is all that one can really ask for in these days of looming battle。Refuting Mill is an uphill climb， not because his arguments are good （in fact， they are often criticized by philosophers across the political spectrum as vague， contradictory， and unconvincing）， but because they are sweet。 Mill’s core desire was that not just law， but all of society， in no way disapprove of any behavior as immoral， and if a person did disapprove of another’s behavior， that he keep his mouth shut。 This was self-dealing， of course， since Mill was unhappy that his own adultery was stigmatized by the society of the time， no doubt one of the core reasons he wrote "On Liberty，" and he was an eccentric， so he celebrated eccentricity。 But a part of every person wants unbridled liberty， even if we know it’s bad for us。 In a famous Simpsons sketch， when his wife tells Homer Simpson he needs to spend more time with the kids rather than on enjoying himself， he guzzles a jar of mayonnaise mixed with vodka， and responds: “That’s a problem for future Homer！ Man， I don’t envy that guy！” Homer embodies the basic tenor of Mill’s views on liberty。Throughout his book， Stephen goes to great lengths to precisely delineate Mill’s arguments and to be directly responsive。 Not for Stephen any slippery sophistry or comfortable vagueness。 In fact， since this is a reprint of the second edition， published in 1874， he extensively footnotes objections from his chief critics， and responds in detail to them。 He starts by outlining his basic objection to “Liberty， Equality， Fraternity。” That was most famously the slogan of the French revolutionaries of 1789， but Stephen correctly takes it as much more， as “the creed of a religion，” the “Religion of Humanity，” manifested not only in Mill， but in Comte’s Positivism and already embedded， in Stephen’s time， into all aspects of European life。 “It is one of the commonest beliefs of the day that the human race collectively has before it splendid destinies of various kinds， and that the road to them is to be found in the removal of all restraints on human conduct， in the recognition of a substantial equality between all human creatures， and in fraternity or general love。” Stephen rejects all of this。 “[W]hen used collectively the words do not typify， however vaguely， any state of society which a reasonable man ought to regard with enthusiasm or self-devotion。” Proving this， that the costs of such a society outweigh its benefits， is the object of Stephen’s book。Turning to each piece of the slogan in turn， Stephen begins by talking about Mill’s doctrine of liberty “in general。” After quoting Mill’s own definition of liberty， and noting Mill’s tendency to make assertions rather than offer proofs， he points out that the core of Mill’s belief is that it is always unjustified to attempt to modify another’s conduct by appealing to his fears， other than for self-protection。 This， of course， is wholly opposed to the usual （until the modern day） view of morality， which is that fear of “disapprobation by neighbors” properly constrains a wide range of behavior， with fear of the criminal law playing a de minimis role。 Stephen correctly points out that most human action is a form of self-protection， and that Mill’s extreme doctrine would “condemn every existing system of morals，” and also correctly points out that is Mill’s （unexpressed） goal。 And while Mill explicitly denied that his principle applied to children or to the “backward races，” because they lack the necessary “superior wisdom” to guide themselves， he believed that for advanced societies， “free discussion” was all that was necessary for socially beneficial results to be universal， or nearly universal。 Stephen objects; it is entirely clear that some grown Englishmen have superior wisdom to others， and human nature means free discussion unconstrained by stigma will result in large-scale bad behavior and conflict。 The solution， embodied in every human society and proven to work， is compulsion。Compulsion should be used， but when？ Stephen examines this with a strictly utilitarian eye; he is not interested in specific morality， although he pays occasional lip service to Christianity。 In his view， compulsion aimed at good objects， which is calculated to obtain those objects and at not too-great an expense， is both desirable and necessary。 Not all compulsion is desirable， but Mill is wholly wrong that all compulsion is undesirable。 He could only be right if he could show that “compulsion must always be a greater evil in itself than the absence of any objects which can possibly be obtained by it。” Mill， of course， makes no attempt to show any such thing; he offers only sonorous assertions and unsupported conclusions。 Stephen then spends quite a few pages applying this principle to different specific situations， with real-life examples。 He also discusses the imposition of moral beliefs derived from religion， with which Stephen has no quarrel， pointing out the obvious fact， made real in the present day， that “European morality is in fact founded upon religion， and the destruction of the one must of necessity involve the reconstruction of the other。 Many persons in these days wish to retain the morality which they like， after getting rid of the religion in which they disbelieve。 Whether they are right or wrong in disturbing the foundation， they are inconsistent in wishing to save the superstructure。” Social intolerance toward those who contradict the moral beliefs of society， from wherever those beliefs are derived， is beneficial and necessary。Stephen rejects the obvious rejoinder， that he must therefore love “the Inquisition and the war which desolated the Netherlands and Germany for about eighty years，” and be a devotee of Joseph de Maistre。 Rather， he believes that criminal punishments， “prison， the stake， and the sword” are usually the wrong tool。 However， if a thought has real value， it will persist in the face of social disapprobation， and once triumphant， it will be far more strongly rooted than if it was simply adopted as sweeter。 This distinction between criminal law and what would today be called stigma is core to Stephen’s thought—not that the criminal law cannot be used to enforce morality， but its use should be reserved for appropriate and limited purposes， due to the criminal law being a “rough engine，” and in any case the vast majority of moral compulsion can and does rely on social stigma， not the law。 Thus， most of Stephen’s defenestration of Mill revolves around the defense of stigma as a socially beneficial set of feelings and actions。 Anthony Kennedy would shudder in horror if he read any of this。Stephen devotes a whole chapter to liberty as it relates to thought and discussion， and another as it relates to morals， seeing this as the core of his disagreement with Mill， since it appears （wrongly， he says） that thought and discussion cannot harm others。 He lists Mill’s four reasons why freedom of thought and expression ought never to be constrained， and rejects them all， then excoriates Mill’s famous celebration of “individuality” and “experiments in life。” Mill thought those would lead to general excellence and massive increases in social benefit， not by coercion， but by the masses recognizing their superiors and voluntarily choosing to follow their “pointing the way。” Stephen thought it would leave the vast majority of men adrift and wallowing in vice。 “Habitual exertion is the greatest of all invigorators of character， and restraint and coercion in one form or another is the great stimulus to exertion。” No coercion leads to stagnation and vice。 Virtue does not create followers; “The way in which the man of genius rules is by persuading an efficient minority to coerce an indifferent and self-indulgent majority， which is quite a different process [from Mill’s]。” Variety by itself is worthless; “Mr。 Mill 。 。 。 confounds the proposition that variety is good with the proposition that goodness is various。” Look around the world of 2019 and you tell me who was right。Stephen applies a similar analysis to coercion in morals。 This is the heart of the book， at least for a present-day reader。 But it is also the one that shows why we are at the pass we are today。 Much of the chapter relies on reductio ad absurdum。 How could it possibly be， Stephen asks， that public disapprobation could not attend a group of men who organize to seduce women， or not attach to fornicators， or adulterers， or public drunkards？ In Mill’s mind， for example， public drunkenness is fine; it is only if the drunkard cannot pay his bills that he may be stigmatized。 True， Stephen says， the “employment [of compulsion] is a delicate operation，” whether of the criminal law or of social stigma， but that does not mean it should never be employed， when the benefits exceed the costs。 “The object is to make people better than they would be without compulsion。” We must keep in mind that people differ along many axes， we need neither indifference nor compulsion to total conformity， but “a compromise between the two。” If we hew too much to Mill， “one of the principal motives to do well and one of the principal restraints from doing ill would be withdrawn from the world。”So far， so good。 But then Stephen admits that which is true—not only should we guard against excessive “meddlesomeness” by “busybodies，” and be cautious about exercising compulsion without due evidence， but “You cannot punish anything which public opinion， as expressed by the common practice of society， does not strenuously and unequivocally condemn。 To try to do so is a sure way to produce gross hypocrisy and furious reaction。 To be able to punish， a moral majority must be overwhelming。” And here we see why partisans of the harm principle have been so successful， because movement toward their position is a one-way ratchet， a feedback loop ending in moral agnosticism （except of the greatest sin of all， denying the harm principle， since anything can be tolerated except intolerance）。At first glance Stephen seems to think the opposite， suggesting that the moral standard， and the law protecting it， “may gradually be increased in strictness as the standard rises。” He notes that England in his day punishes homosexual acts （i。e。， “practices which in Greece and Rome went almost uncensured”） with “utmost severity，” and “it is possible the time may come when it may appear natural and right to punish adultery， seduction， or possibly even fornication， but the prospect is， at present， indefinitely remote， and it may be doubted whether we are moving in that direction。” But if you described the world of 2019 to Stephen I suspect he would not be surprised。 Shocked， perhaps， but if you extend his own thoughts forward， where we are today is actually the logical endpoint。 This is especially true if you note that Stephen pleads that “Legislation and public opinion ought in all cases whatever scrupulously to respect privacy。” What he meant by privacy was not what today’s Supreme Court says is privacy， which is merely the embodiment of Mill’s harm principle。 Yet if you combine shifts in public opinion with the supremacy of actual privacy， it is difficult to conclude that any form of moral compulsion can survive over time， given human nature and the sweet taste of vice。[Review completes as first comment。] 。。。more

Daniel ，

A fantastic book to read。 It is unfortunate that many people have not heard of this book， but have heard of its counter—On Liberty by John Stuart Mill。 This book is a direct rebuttal to Mill’s version of liberty and morality。 If you read On Liberty， you must read Liberty， Equality， Fraternity to see some impressive and insightful critiques。

Jim ，

Anyone who has seen or read Les Miserables， probably knows that the French Revolution gave birth to the rallying cry， “Liberty， Equality， Fraternity”。 But this idea still resonates today。 This document is really a critique of John Mill’s “On Liberty”。 It was written at a time that was far less politically correct and， therefore， offers a number of honest insights and arguments。 What struck me most was the argument that the advantages of each of the three ideologies contained in the title are oft Anyone who has seen or read Les Miserables， probably knows that the French Revolution gave birth to the rallying cry， “Liberty， Equality， Fraternity”。 But this idea still resonates today。 This document is really a critique of John Mill’s “On Liberty”。 It was written at a time that was far less politically correct and， therefore， offers a number of honest insights and arguments。 What struck me most was the argument that the advantages of each of the three ideologies contained in the title are often exaggerated and the disadvantages are ignored。The author - James F。 Stephen’s work encompasses two thoughts throughout。 The first of these is the view that human being’s self-interests conflict。 These conflicting interests cause us to arrive at different ideas of what is best and conceptions of what is good。 I love the analogy of two men。 One believes in God， the other does not。 They are not likely to form the same conception of happiness。 Further， their promotion of happiness toward others may be contradictory。 The second feature is the idea that social order depends upon the imposition of force。 Social order， in this view， requires the control of morality， law， and religion。 Liberty cannot exist without some restraints。 But the rule of law is a moral quest。This is not a fun read。 It is considered scholarly and if you are not in the right frame of mind， you’ll likely fall asleep after 2 paragraphs。 But it does provide several enlightening lessons。58 out of 100 。。。more

Elliot Kaufman ，

Excellent， broadening book in response to JS Mill。

Michael Percy ，

I discovered this book while reading something about Mill。 It was a critique of Mill's On Liberty and it presents a number of arguments that are hard to fault， but also a number of arguments that， if spoken today， would require endless apologies and may even require one to step down as a politician。 Nevertheless， Stephen was a lawyer （and later a notable judge） and at times he could be verbose， at other times insightful， at still others rather strange。 Yet his critique of Mill leaves me with ple I discovered this book while reading something about Mill。 It was a critique of Mill's On Liberty and it presents a number of arguments that are hard to fault， but also a number of arguments that， if spoken today， would require endless apologies and may even require one to step down as a politician。 Nevertheless， Stephen was a lawyer （and later a notable judge） and at times he could be verbose， at other times insightful， at still others rather strange。 Yet his critique of Mill leaves me with plenty of food for thought。 He argues in the same way I have listened to conservatives argue against a Bill of Rights for Australia。 There is a modicum of liberalism in the English sense of the word， and I might be presumptuous and say in a similar vein to Edmund Burke。 When I read Mill， I felt like I was reading my own education in summary。 When I read Stephen， I feel like I am getting an education。 Some suggest that Liberty， Equality， Fraternity was James Fitzjames Stephen's masterpiece， and apparently Oxford is reproducing his works in several volumes。 Stephen didn't disagree with utilitarianism nor liberalism， but he did disagree with the extremes of liberalism that Mill advocated， and especially against the emancipation of women as outlined in Mill's On the Subjection of Women。 Stephen's arguments were deeply rooted in his conception of the evidence observed in nature， rather than an idealism as characterised by Mill。 Yet Stephen's conclusion displays another form of idealism， and I couldn't help thinking that it was a rather weak way of summing up， rather like an undergraduate essay that lost its argument and tries to finish in an upbeat fashion。 Yet there were many lessons to be gleaned from Stephen， and the Liberty Fund's inclusion of this work as an important contribution is well-founded， despite history's favouring Mill。 I must admit that it took me a while to get through this， and the combination of wordy ideas and arguments， along with rather fine print， made this somewhat of an exercise in discipline rather than enlightenment。 And I am all the wiser for doing so。 。。。more

Reference

google book https://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&q=Liberty, Equality, Fraternity

hathitrust digital library https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/ls?q1=Liberty, Equality, Fraternity&field1=ocr&a=srchls&ft=ft&lmt=ft

The British Library https://bll01.primo.exlibrisgroup.com/discovery/search?query=any,contains,Liberty, Equality, Fraternity&tab=LibraryCatalog&search_scope=Not_BL_Suppress&vid=44BL_INST:BLL01&lang=en&offset=0