David Rousseau's Flaws

I have been given a blank society, three manuscripts, and the chance to mold civilization into its best incarnation. Between my three options of authors to promote to the status of God, I would personally put Rousseau first. This is due to my own specific set of morals that prioritizes societal equality over economic success. Were I to believe that an abundance of wealth is what makes a society the “best,” I would eagerly choose to follow Mandeville’s vision; were I to believe that keeping wealth is what makes it “best,” then I would follow Locke’s. Instead, I chose Rousseau, despite the flaws in his plan, because it does not give up on the idea of equality. Making life equal for everyone is a difficult, probably impossible task, but that

Division of wealth is not a simple thing, and no doubt Rousseau’s plan would have tremendous flaws when implemented. What is more important than that, however, is the mere opening for equality to flourish. Mandeville laughs it out of his writing, dismissing it as useless; Locke acknowledges its virtue, and then makes it each individual person’s business whether they are equal or not. Rousseau is the only one of the three to shut down property as the war-mongering principle that it is. Ownership and competition drive people’s focus inwards and feeds their inherent selfishness. When we instead work for the good of the people around us, instead of promoting ourselves at the expense of others, I believe we have a better society than Mandeville’s Bees. There is no way for me to know for certain – I have not lived in that society. I would rather take the risk and find out how it works than to condemn the majority of this civilization to a life of poverty under wealthy, democratically-approved overlords. It is my belief that it is not my place to promote any kind of system where I might come out wealthier than anyone else, and that is what guides my choice to make Rousseau