Reflections after reading [[The Age of Revolution]]. In the modern world, where all words of positive meaning have amalgamated into one (republicanism, democracy, liberalism) it's easy to forget that they were distinct. During the post-Napoleonic period of 1815-1848, in a contradictory stage where the bourgeois and aristocracy coexisted, these ideas were diametrical. Aristocracy, bourgeoisies, and the middle class could compromise in the liberal state with the property-franchise requirement. Constant's observation that commerce, not political liberty (in the ancient sense), is the primary concern of people is pertinent. In this view, one only needs two things - *the rule of law* and *individual liberty*. The rule of law provides a consistent system. One's life is akin to a game that one can strategize and execute one's play. Individual liberty expands the space of moves that an individual can make in such a society. This applies not just for the upper class (aristocrats and bourgeois) but the middle class also. Under the property-franchise requirement, the middle class may already be enfranchised. Even if they are not, the system (either a constitutional monarchy or an enlightened despot) can allow sufficient liberty concerning the middle class - of property, of commercial activities, of pursuit of happiness.