Week+1+-+Rousseau


 * __Week 1 - Rousseau.__**
 * Afton Carlson:** In book three, chapter eighteen, which deals with the topic of checking usurpations of the government, Rousseau writes, "Grotius even thinks that each man can renounce his membership of his own State, and recover his natural liberty and his goods on leaving the country.  1 It would be indeed absurd if all the citizens in assembly could not do what each can do by himself." It seems essential to Rousseau's political philosophy that the social contract is something that is entered into voluntarily, and can be abandoned at the discretion of one of its members (but not during a moment of duress). Clearly the option of abandoning one's citizenship is not available to most people in this country. If this is the case, then have we lost some efficacy in our ability to check a usurpation? If this recourse is not available to the citizens of a country who are at odds with its system of governance, is that same government without a //final// check and the citizen without his or her ultimate recourse?

Cody Witko: In Book three, at the end of chapter three, Rousseau writes "If, in the different states, the number of supreme magistrates should be in inverse ratio to the number of citizens, it follows that, generally democratic government suits small States, aristocratic government those of middle size, and monarchy great ones." This conclusion follows the argument from chapter two, book three, in which he claims there to be three wills: the general will (of the sovereignty which is the weakest), the corporate will ( of the government or magistrate), and the will of the individual (which is the strongest). He furthers his argument by stating a monarchal government is granted absolute force because the fact that there is one individual in control morphs the corporate will with the individual will. This combination of wills allows for the most active government: "IF the whole government is in the hands of one man, the particular and the corporate will are wholly united, and consequently the latter is at its highest possible degree of intensity. But, as the use to which the force is put depends on the degree reached by the will, and as the absolute force of the government is invariable, it follows that the most active government is that of one man." We can follow from this that Rousseau holds that the more people put in charge of executive power, the more difficult it is to furnish activity. From this reason we deduce why a monarchy is most effective for a larger state, it can, in essence, be the most effective. Yet my intuitively I immediately find this hard to believe. Although I can not disagree that a monarchy may be the most active/powerful and effective government, the question of representation arises. Ideally, I would think that with a larger body politic, the government would then want to compensate with more officials in order to reproduce an accurate display of what the general will is. How can a monarchal government come close to representing what the will of even a small number of people are, let alone millions? Although Rousseau says afterwards that he is only "speaking of the relative strength of government, and not of its rectitude: for... the more numerous the magistracy, the nearer the corporate will comes to the general will." Yet this seems counterintuitive also. Wouldn't a monarchy as described above always have most force and activity due to the meshing of will no matter what the size of the sovereign? In fact, it would seem possible that a monarch may have the least amount of force in a large state due to the simple ideas of rebellion and of being overthrown.


 * __Kristopher Kinzler:__** In book 4 ch. 1 Rousseau argues that the will is indestructible. He says that the general will is sensed by all the members of the state and when something goes against the current everyone will feel it and decide what is necessary to maintain the general will. In essence, the state will create a law in favor of the general will. "A state so governed needs very few laws; and, as it becomes necessary to issue new ones, the necessity is universally seen." **Universally seen** is hopeless because there is no way in hell when you put something up to a vote it will ever be unanimous. He also says in book 2 ch. 6 (titled "Law") "But when the whole people decrees for the whole people...That is what I call a law." The decreeing in this case is made by each member of a state by their singular vote. How can it ever be argued that a law, being voted on and needing 100% of the votes, ever be possible? If a state is merely trying to ensure that the general will is always obtainable by all members of the state than wouldn't a law be overstepping its bounds by forcing future circumstances to adhere to a law made for a different time?


 * Susan Thomas**: In Rousseau's "Social Contract", I.7, last paragraph, Rousseau states, "In order, therefore, that the social pact may not be an empty formula, it tacitly includes the commitment, which alone can give force to the others, that anyone who refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the entire body; this means nothing else than that he will be forced to be free, for such is the condition by which, by giving each citizen to the homeland, protects him against all personal dependence, a condition which determines the workings of the political machine, and which alone renders legitimate civil commitments, whic hwould otherwise be absurd, tyrannical, and subject to the most enormous abuses." It is my understanding that this passage refers to instances of law enforcement and punishment. I find the phrase "forced to be free" interesting. I understand that he means, by this, that the person who is being "compelled to obey" (according to the note) is protected from the arbitrary wills of other individuals and allows him to enjoy the civil and moral liberties provided by the state. If the person willingly cooperates, I can see how this works; however,the passage is specifically referring to "anyone who refuses to obey", so my question regards them. Does this passage also guarantee the same "freedom" for them? Does jail time, for example and paradoxically, guarantee this person's freedoms? If so, how? Is the goal of jail time to preserve liberty for the offender or for society or both? Do we expect jail time to change a person's heart?


 * Bryce Blankenship:**

In Section 4, chapter two, Rousseau says the following: "There is only one law which by its nature requires unanimous assent. This is the social pact: for the civil association is the most voluntary act in the world; every man having been born free and master of himself, no one else may under any pretext whatever subject him without his consent. To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he is not born a man" (152). A few questions immediately come to mind. First, what exactly on the most basic level is this ‘social pact’ that is referenced. Is it the agreeing to a social contract with the Commonwealth, or the Sovereign? And when pushed further, who comes up with the definition of the ‘social pact’? The answer to this question seems to allude to there being those who decide what the social pact is, thus not allowing for their //involvement// in it, but rather, their //overseeing// of it. Secondly, the last bit of the quote is interesting as well. “To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he not born a man.” Wasn’t that the logic used on the ownership of slaves at the onset: that they are not fully man, thus the justification of them being slaves? And a concurring question: what constitutes being ‘fully-man?’ If the answer is ‘by exercising our freedom’—which I believe Rousseau would attend to—there are problems in the fulfillment of the sufficiency of that answer.

Brian Malone:
====Midway through the 1st part of book 4 Rousseau states, “But when the social bond begins to be relaxed and the State to grow weak, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and the smaller societies to exercise an influence over the larger, the common interest changes and finds opponents: opinion is no longer unanimous; the general will ceases to be the will of all; contradictory views and debates arise; and the best advice is not taken without question.” I see this as a criticism of cliques in government and I think it is very applicable to todays government in the united states where we have two main parties and then those parties are broken into different group ideals under one banner and they never get anything done because they are separate in ideals but still “together” in title therefore making it impossible to get anything done for the people and letting the government fall apart. I am wondering If the class thinks the same or it they feel by this he means that by falling apart it makes room for something new and possibly better. I think that since he says that the the will is "no longer unanimous" then he would say it needs to be put back on the right path. ====

**Travis Dawson:**In Rousseau's "Social Contract", 1.7, fourth paragraph from the bottom, Rousseau wrote, "Again, the Sovereign being formed wholly of the individuals who compose it, neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs; and consequently the sovereign power need give no guarantee to its subjects, because it is impossible for the body to wish to hurt all its members. We shall also see later on that it cannot hurt any in particular. The Sovereign, merely by virtue of what it is, is always what it should be." Ok, So basically Rousseau claims that the Soverign is the manifestation of the common will of those who compose it, and because no man can will against oneself so it holds true that the general will could not will against its members. Thus the Sovereign is always as it should be.My question that arises from this is, in the modern world does that still ring true? Rousseau wrote the Social Contract in 1762, in a time before mass media and mass communication. In modern society where a tiny minority has the power of being the gatekeepers to all the information we are constantly bombarded with through the television, radio, etc, is it not theoretically possible that a powerful few can manipulate the public's will to the extent that the will of all becomes skewed enough to change the general will enough to benefit the few at the expense of the many? And if so, it doesn't it stand to reason that the Sovereign can be corrupted and is not always as it should be?

**Brendan O'Donnell:** In Book III, Chapter 1, Rousseau states that “ … as the growth of the State gives the depositaries of the public authority more temptations and chances of abusing their power, the greater the force with which the government ought to be endowed for keeping the people in hand, the greater too should be the force at the disposal of the Sovereign for keeping the government in hand. I am speaking, not of absolute force, but of the relative force of the different parts of the State.” I agree with Rousseau’s analysis that the government needs more power to effective act as intermediary between the Sovereign and the people as the population of the people grows. I further agree that as the power of the government increases, the temptations for corruption of public authority greatly increase and that the people need an effective way to control the government. So, applying this to the United States today, what force should be at the disposal of the people to keep the government in hand? Is this the role of the press? Do we need an uncensored internet? Are these actual powers, though, or do the people need something greater to effectively stop government corruption?

**Tim Johnson:** __The Social Contract__, Book II, Chapter 1 (There is no verse number; my apologies): "This does not mean that the commands of the rulers cannot pass for general wills, so long as the Sovereign, being free to oppose them, offers no opposition. In such a case, universal silence is taken to imply the consent of the people. This will be explained later on." The instant I read these lines, I was forcibly reminded of the so-called "Silent Majority" Nixon famously referenced. In his case, however, Nixon was not implying //universal// silence; rather, he was rejecting the seeming preponderance of public opinion (mass protests against the Vietnam War) in favor of what he believed the majority of Americans actually wanted. One wonders, in this case, whether Nixon represents "the ruler" or "the Sovereign" to Rousseau? It seems that he ought to be the ruler, so did his will to continue combat operations in Vietnam not represent a general will given the protests that members of the Sovereign put forth? If it didn't, would Rousseau not tell us that that will was in the wrong?

While Rousseau believes that the general will is not corrupted or destroyed, he believes that it is drastically changed in a seemingly negative manner. Each person now focuses on the 'advantage of the State' instead of his own personal interests. This leads me to question the rationality of large government body. It seems that Rousseau hits the nail on the head when he shows the process of a growing government/society (shown in the above quote). The larger the State, the more convoluted the politics seem to become. What is the best size for a State then? Can States only function in the true interest of the individual if they are small and 'simple'? Even if a State is small and 'simple' does it entail that individual interest will be followed? I feel like Rousseau gives the small group of men too much credit in the sense that they can have a single will and all other wills brought up will profit everyone. I think that the 'common good' is a very difficult thing to strive for in any size of government because corruption exists in a single man as much as it does in a larger group of men.
 * Beth Ropski:** In 4.1 of __The Social Contract__, Rousseau writes: "As long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being. In this case, all the springs of the State are vigorous and simple and its rules clear and luminous; there are no embroilments or conflicts of interests; the common good is everywhere clearly apparent, and only good sense is needed to perceive it... A State so governed needs very few laws; and, as it becomes necessary to issue new ones, the necessity is universally seen. The first man to propose them merely says what all have already felt, and there is no question of factions or intrigues or eloquence in order to secure the passage into law of what every one has already decided to do, as soon as he is sure that the rest will act with him... But when the social bond begins to be relaxed and the State to grow weak, when particular interests begin to make themselves felt and the smaller societies to exercise an influence over the larger, the common interest changes and finds opponents: opinion is no longer unanimous; the general will ceases to be the will of all; contradictory views and debates arise; and the best advice is not taken without question."

In Book II.1, Rousseau says “ The Sovereign may indeed say: “I now will actually what this man wills, or at least what he says he wills”; but it cannot say: “What he wills tomorrow, I too shall will” because it is absurd for the will to bind itself for the future, nor is it incumbent on any will to consent to anything that is not for the good of the being who wills. If then the people promises simply to obey, by that very act it dissolves itself and loses what makes it a people; the moment a master exists, there is no longer a Sovereign, and from that moment the body politic has ceased to exist.” Does this attribute itself also to the idea of a constitution? If a constitution is the binding of the will of the Sovereign to the State for the future, it is absurd to do so? And further, if the State reaches the point laid out in book IV.1, and it comes to reason that the State is corrupt, should the Sovereign have the right to change it? As I understood from the reading, the Sovereign gives mandate to the State, and they should exist as one, so in the idea of free speech, is the Sovereign speaks and wills the State to change or even end its current form, should the State be unable to intervene for its own survival?
 * Randall Gunn**:

**Ryan Braun** "Were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic. So perfect a government is not for men." Rousseau III.IV

So we in America must make due with a republic -- what Rousseau would call an elective aristocracy. Rousseau considers an elective aristocracy the best kind of aristocracy, but Rousseau also says that as a state grows in size, the number of magistrates should shrink proportionately (until you only have one and your government becomes a monarchy). Rousseau is not explicit about which types of government are best suited for which sizes of states. It might be assumed from his section on democracy that such a system should be limited to states of ten thousand citizens or less (and even then, democracy is vulnerable to civil war), so that option is clearly out the window for the United States. At what point does a monarchy become favorable to an elective aristocracy? Would the United States, with its hundreds of millions of citizens, be better off under the governance of a single person?

 Jordan Howser:  In the eighth chapter of his first book Rousseau writes "   The  passage from the state of nature to the civil state produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked". First, on a note relatively unrelated to this passage, the social contract theory never discusses the issue of people born into a state based on a social contract. I have often wondered about this issue and never found a suitable answer. The social contract is based on the idea that all people bound to this contract have agreed to its terms. Those born into have no say in that terms of the contract. But getting to the selected quote, the assumption behind it is that in a state of nature morality does not exist. I think this is a mistake and reduces morality to being something that is codified or agreed upon by a group. In a world completely void of states or collectives, it is true that it is unlikely that we have individuals refusing to kill one another because they see murder as morally wrong, but it is far from impossible. From this, my question is 'Can actions be deemed morally or immoral, or be the same inherently, in a state of nature?' **Tyler Morrison:** In 2.3, Rousseau, when discussing the 'general will' of the people he states that: "If, when properly informed, the people were to come to its decisions without and communication between its members, the general will would always emerge from the larger number of small differences, and the decision would always be good." He the goes in to say that "but when there are intrigues, and partial associations arise at the expense of the greater one, then the will of each of these associations becomes general in relation to its members and particular in relation to the state: it can be said then that the number of voters is no longer the same as the number of men, but only the same as the number of associations. I'm assuming when he talks about theses 'associations' that he is merely stating that if there is an influence over the individual members of society towards the end of some sort of agenda, then the opinions of the individual are smoothened by this 'association' or potential agenda. My question is: by what means does a citizen become informed? It seems to me that through the process of becoming "informed" an individual must be exposed to potential influences, from which an opinion can be established. He speaks negatively of the partial associations that arise at the expense of the greater good, but isn't it possible that these associations work towards //informing// the members of society? Once an individual becomes under such //negative// influences, I think that it can be said that they have bettered their own opinion, therefore, the 'general will' of the people has been bettered.

**Aly Lamar:** I admire a society created by Rousseau's social contract, one in which man "loses" his "//natural// liberty" but "in return he acquires //civil// liberty." (Book I Chpt. VIII) However, in response to how man can be "both free and forced to conform to wills that are not his own," Rousseau clarifies that "the citizen gives his consent to all the laws, including those which are passed in spite of his opposition," further explaining that the "constant will of all the members of the State is the general will" and that "each man, in giving his vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general will is found by counting votes." (Book IV Chapter II) I wonder then how our poorly efficient democratic society of the U.S. today, where less than half of the "men" registered to vote turn out to "state his opinion," can get back to a general will that truly represents the Sovereign. Would Rousseau say that "liberty is no longer possible" for the U.S. since "the qualities of the general will" cease to represent the Sovereign? How would Rousseau convince the non-voting participants, for example, that "to dwell within its territory is to submit to the Sovereign"? (Book IV Chapter II)

=
In Part 1 of Book II Rousseau introduces us to the term "common good" in the following passage "THE first and most important deduction from the principles we have so far laid down is that the general will alone can direct the State according to the object for which it was instituted, i.e., the common good: for if the clashing of particular interests made the establishment of societies necessary, the agreement of these very interests made it possible." There is a sense in which this passage points out that we all have interests and they are constantly conflicting. The logical extension would be that our governmental system balances out our conflicting conceptions of the “common good”. Our competing values, therefore, are constantly in flux as no one person can dominate in a system that embodies Justice. In the different prescriptions he gives later for the three different types of government we could say that the most Just society is the one that chooses the proper way to balance these unique interests and values to achieve the “common good”. What interests do we find for the "common good" which unifies the United States of America today? 245 years ago? Is there a universal "common good" that all humanity places above all others or are they competing conceptions by different societies? Are the Republican Party & Democratic Party focusing on the same "common good" with different pathways, different common goods, one does while the other doesn't or neither in the sense we live in a plutocracy? What confines or measure how we define the "common good" according to Rousseau? ======

In III.9, Deputies or Representatives, Rousseau says “The better constituted a State is, the more public affairs outweigh private ones in the minds of the citizens. There is, indeed, a much smaller number of private affairs, because the amount of general prosperity makes each individual more prosperous, and less remains to be sought by individual exertions. In a well governed city-state every one hastens to the assemblies; under a bad government no one budges to attend them, because no one takes an interest in the proceedings; they know in advance that the general will will not prevail, because private concerns have become al-absorbing. Good laws pave the way for better ones; bad laws lead to worse ones. As soon as any one says about the affairs of the State, “Why should I care?” the State is gone.” Several questions arise upon reading this paragraph. Rousseau seems to say that the demise of the legitimate State will follow if private interest subverts the general will. Do we not experience some of this with our own government today, with corporate lobbyists working to get legislation passed that benefits a private interest, while not necessarily in accordance with the general will? Also, Rousseau here seems to be saying that it is necessary for the governed to participate in their government. When people do not see reason to vote, is the general will is absent from the equation? Does that make those laws passed illegitimate? Rousseau at the end of II.1 says “This does not imply that the orders of the leaders cannot pass for decisions of the general will, so long as the sovereign, free to oppose them, refrains from doing so. In such a case the consent of the people should be inferred from the universal silence.” This may support the idea that laws passed by representatives is illegitimate.
 * Ben Gearheard**:

   [[ima         [[[FDFD     [//I removed this link because it was stretching out the page. Consider using a url shortener like bitly.com or goo.gl - Ryan Braun//]
 * Emily McCormick:** What I continue to think back to is whether or not I agree with Rousseau when he claims that a state is passive and a sovereign is active. In Book I, Chapter VI, he says "This public person, so formed by the union of all other persons, formerly took the name of city,1 and now takes that of Republic or body politic; it is called by its members State when passive, Sovereign when active, and Power when compared with others like itself." At any given time, to be a dependent member of the state don't you have to be obeying the general will? Later on Rousseau in Book II, Chapter I Rousseau claims that "universal silence is taken to imply the consent of the people." So if the people aren't actually displaying obvious acts on behalf of the state, they are still exercising the general will as established by the sovereign. Silence is an act of consent. So my question is, to be considered and recognized as part of the state, aren't you still acting?