http://www.schillerinstitute.org/fid_97-01...971_vattel.html  
by Robert Trout
The myth that the founding of American Republic was based on the philosophy of John Locke could only have been maintained, because the history of Leibniz's influence was suppressed. The American Revolution was, in fact, a battle against the philosophy of Locke and the English utilitarians. Key to this struggle, was the work of the Eighteenth-century jurist, Emmerich de Vattel, whose widely read text, The Law of Nations, guided the framing of the United States as the world's first constitutional republic. Vattel had challenged the most basic axioms of the Venetian party, which had taken over England before the time of the American Revolution, and it was from Vattel's The Law of Nations, more than anywhere else, that America's founders learned the Leibnizian natural law, which became the basis for the American System.
Vattel shows that the nature of man requires that society be organized to develop agape(happiness by reason) in its members. In a section which is a remarkable predecessor to the proof developed two hundred years later by Lyndon LaRouche, Vattel demonstrates that man's ability to provide for himself through technology developed by creative reason, defines human nature as fundamentally different from animal nature. Reason, or the capacity to develop new technologies through scientific discovery, allows mankind to survive and perfect himself, while animal nature is based merely on sense impressions. Vattel attacks the absurd notion, that human nature could be defined by looking at an isolated individual. The potential for speech and reason is inherent within each individual, but can only be developed through the education of the young by others. Therefore, man must work for the perfection of creative reason in himself, and in others, for society to flourish. He writes,

"Man is so formed by nature, that he cannot supply all his own wants, but necessarily stands in need of the intercourse and assistance of his fellow-creatures, whether for his immediate preservation, or for the sake of perfecting his nature, and enjoying such a life as is suitable to a rational being. This is sufficiently proved by experience. We have instances of persons, who, having grown up to manhood among the bears of the forest, enjoyed not the use of speech or of reason, but were, like the brute beasts, possessed only of sensitive faculties. We see moreover that nature has refused to bestow on men the same strength and natural weapons of defense with which she has furnished other animals—having, in lieu of those advantages, endowed mankind with the faculties of speech and reason, or at least a capability of acquiring them by an intercourse with their fellow-creatures. Speech enables them to communicate with each other, to give each other mutual assistance, to perfect their reason and knowledge; and having thus become intelligent, they find a thousand methods of preserving themselves, and supplying their wants. Each individual, moreover, is intimately conscious that he can neither live happily nor improve his nature without the intercourse and assistance of others. Since, therefore, nature has thus formed mankind, it is a convincing proof of her intention that they should communicate with, and mutually aid and assist each other.
Hence is deduced the establishment of natural society among men. The general law of that society is, that each individual should do for the others everything which their necessities require, and which he can perform without neglecting the duty that he owes to himself: a law which all men must observe in order to live in a manner consonant to their nature, and conformable to the views of their common Creator,— a law which our own safety, our happiness, our dearest interests, ought to render sacred to every one of us." (The Law of Nations, Preliminaries, Sec. 10)

Since men can live "consonant to their nature" only by the development of their creative potential through collaboration with others, a society which does not develop the emotion of agape in its members, is self-destructive. Vattel leaves no doubt that he is diametrically opposed to the doctrines espoused by the Enlightenment philosophers such as Hobbes, Locke, and Jeremy Bentham. These doctrines, which the British oligarchy promoted, argued that the best society is achieved by each individual merely following his individual greed. Vattel writes, "It is easy to conceive what exalted felicity the world would enjoy, were all men willing to observe the rule that we have just laid down. On the contrary, if each man wholly and immediately directs all his thoughts to his own interest, if he does nothing for the sake of other men, the whole human race together will be immersed in the deepest wretchedness. Let us therefore endeavor to promote the general happiness of mankind: all mankind, in return, will endeavor to promote ours, and thus we shall establish our felicity on the most solid foundations." (Preliminaries, Sec. 10)
Vattel elaborates a program for national economic development, which centers on the increase of the productive powers of labor. This makes possible the increase in the population density, which is a necessity for a successful society. However, economic development is only a means to allow the people to labor after their principal duty, and that is their own perfection.
The question of private property shows how the different natural law hypotheses of Locke and Vattel, lead to totally different conceptions of how society should be governed. John Locke's absurd formulation is, that the origin of private property can be traced back to antiquity, to a primitive man picking up acorns under a tree. According to Locke, an individual's private property is merely the result of his past labor. Locke concludes from this, that the rights of private property are sacred and cannot be regulated by society.[19]

Vattel locates the origin of private property in the increase in the population density, which necessitated the development of agriculture, to supersede a hunting and gathering society. "If each nation had, from the beginning, resolved to appropriate to itself a vast country, that the people might live only by hunting, fishing, and wild fruits, our globe would not be sufficient to maintain a tenth part of its present inhabitants." (Book I, Chap. XVIII, Sec. 209) The advancement of society, to a more advanced mode of production, required that land be cultivated, with private property the best means for doing this.

"Society has the need and, therefore, the right to regulate private property, to ensure development. Nations which claim uninhabited areas must develop them, for their claims to be valid, and the landed aristocracy is not allowed to hold large tracts of land without cultivating them. In addition, since government must provide direction to society to ensure the development of the productive powers of the nation, if the owners of a corporation act in a fashion that injures society, or which will ruin the corporation, the sovereign has the duty to constrain the prodigal."
"How happy would mankind be, were these amiable precepts of nature everywhere observed! Nations would communicate to each other their products and their knowledge; a profound peace would prevail all over the earth, and enrich it with its invaluable fruits; industry, the sciences, and the arts would be employed in promoting our happiness, no less than in relieving our wants; violent methods of deciding contests would be no more heard of; all differences would be terminated by moderation, justice and equity; the world would have the appearance of a large republic; men would live everywhere like brothers, and each individual be a citizen of the universe. That this idea should be but a delightful dream! Yet it flows from the nature and essence of man. (Book II, Chap. I, Sec. 16)