On whether America still exists

1127 Words3 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Social contract by rousseau 1000 words

Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s critique of representative governments in The Social Contract raises important questions about our own government. Clearly the United States allows representatives for groups of people in the law making process, so do we, as a nation, still exist? I think I can safely say without citations that we do, indeed, still exist. However, to leave the question answered like that would be naive and uneducational. For that reason, I will delve deeper into Rousseau’s arguments to decipher what he is driving at when he writes, “...as soon as a nation appoints representatives, it is no longer free; it no longer exists.”(101) Hopefully America will still exist in the end. The key to Rousseau’s argument on representation is his notions of the general will, sovereignty, and on the role of the government. I will first go through these ideas, then I will demonstrate their importance in Rousseau’s assertion, and finally I plan to show what implications all of these have on the American “democracy.” The first area that I will cover is the most abstract of Rousseau’s arguments and the most ambiguous in practice, that being the general will. The general will of the people refers to the sum of the differences of all opinions regarding the common interest. Accordingly, “...the general will is always right and always tends to the public advantage.”(31) By defining the general will to be the calculating of the social good, the standard of what is right, it becomes tautologically true that the general will is always right. With this limited notion of the general will, the next step is to introduce sovereignty. Once the Social Contract is agreed to, an absolute power is given to the body politic and, “...it is the same power w... ... middle of paper ... ... based on the direct democracy that he demands for the general will. Rousseau might possibly have realized that his theories would not work in practice. With Peter the Great he chastised him for, in essence, not being God, for Peter could not create out of nothing. He expects a lot out of people, and even more out of the government. He never does explain just how the general will can be decided upon. For Rousseau would not agree with majority rules, minority obeys, but one could hardly find a better system to do what he wants. So finally it seems that America does still exist, as does our democracy (with all of its representatives). Rousseau’s argument still exists, though, and is a heed of warning to those that do not take part in their government, for even in a country with 250 million people, whether we have a good government or a bad one always depends on us.

Show More
Related

  • Influence Of Rousseau On American Democracy

    1362 Words  | 3 Pages

    “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. Those who think themselves masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they.” Jean-Jacques Rousseau opened his 1762 book The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right (Du contrat social) with this now famous quote, and with it rejecting the governments of his time. Rousseau’s radical ideas on government would later become a rallying point of the French Revolution, despite him having died several years before. Some of his ideas would even come to influence the creation of America’s constitution, yet American Democracy has, in many ways, become the exact opposite of the ideas Rousseau advocated as being the ideal government.

    Read More

  • Lord of the Flies

    1148 Words  | 3 Pages

    Jean-Jacques Rousseau was a man of philosophy, music, and literature. His philosophy was that humanity will do what’s best for the state as a whole, rather than the general “every man for himself” philosophy. He says that while we do have a piece of that individualistic philosophy, it is when they are in a healthy state that they value fairly the collective good for everyone around them, and express the general sense of good will. Rousseau believes that people will recognize that the will of all is the common good, but that in itself raises the questions as to the validity ...

    Read More

  • Locke and Rousseau

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    ...eing mandated for protection. Rousseau’s conception of liberty is more dynamic. Starting from all humans being free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the thorough enslavement of humans, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau’s strong and independent natural man. Subsequently, Rousseau tries to reacquaint the individual with its lost freedom. The trajectory of Rousseau’s freedom is more compelling in that it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. It perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to largely unnoticeably deprived, and as something that changes and requires active attention to preserve. In this, Rousseau’s conception of liberty emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke’s despite the Lockean interpretation dominating contemporary civil society.

    Read More

  • Marx (The Communist Manifesto) and Rousseau

    2059 Words  | 5 Pages

    To understand the Rousseau stance on claims to why the free republic is doomed we must understand the fundamentals of Rousseau and the Social Contract. Like Locke and Hobbes, the first order of Rousseau’s principles is for the right to an individual’s owns preservation. He does however believe that some are born into slavery. His most famous quote of the book is “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” (Rousseau pg 5). Some men are born as slaves, and others will be put into chains because of the political structures they will establish. He will later develop a method of individuals living free, while giving up some of their rights to...

    Read More

  • Rousseaue and the Ideal Society

    349 Words  | 1 Pages

    For Rousseau society itself is an implicit agreement to live together for the good of everyone with individual equality and freedom. However, people have enslaved themselves by giving over their power to governments which are not truly sovereign because they do not promote the general will. Rousseau believed that only the will of all the people together granted sovereignty. Various forms of government are instituted to legislate and enforce the laws. He wrote, "The first duty of the legislator is to make the

    Read More

  • French Revolution VS American Revolution

    1328 Words  | 3 Pages

    John Locke expressed that “All mankind…being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions” Locke’s view, which also was the idea of Enlightenment ideals, enlightened both American people and French people fought for their freedoms from absolute monarchs, and sought ways to firm their equality and natural right to life, liberty, and property during the eighteenth century. American revolution began as a conflict between thirteen colonies in the North America and the British Empire, and ended as the creation of the United State of America. French revolution was unleashed by the risk of France’s old regime and ended in 1799 when Napoleon staged a coup and seized power. Both American Revolution and French Revolution began with the same goals, which was the creation of a new government, but these were achieved in different ways: the American Revolution was a revolt that affirming the independence of the American to against Britain, while the French Revolution was civic wars among the people who turning France into a constitutional monarchy. In this paper, I will argue though the strategy of two revolutions might have been different, the outcome of their successful revolutions led to the creation of their Declarations, which defined the future of their government. A close look of their similarities and differences shows what led to their creation.

    Read More

  • A Comparison Of Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Burke And Marx

    1335 Words  | 3 Pages

    Rousseau suggests that the first convention must be unanimous, and the minority has no obligation to submit to the choice of the majority, “as the law of majority rule is itself established by convention and presupposes unanimity at least once” (Rousseau, 172). For Locke and Hobbes, one’s self-preservation (and the protection of his property, which is quite synonymous to self-preservation to Locke) is the first principle , and if it is threatened, one has the rights to leave the “body politic” or rebel. Moreover, one also has the right to decide whether he wants to stay under the government when he grows to a certain age . Such arguments give the minority a passive freedom: their voice may not be powerful to change the society, but they can at least leave the society that is against them. Furthermore, Rousseau disapproves factions within a state, especially big ones, as their wills, namely the majority’s wills, potentially nullify the general will . His continual emphasis that the general will should represent the entire people indicates his concern for the

    Read More

  • Rousseau's Argument Against Thrasymachus Essay

    663 Words  | 2 Pages

    Inferably, Rousseau admitted that only legitimate powers ought to be obeyed. But what is legitimate power? Where does it come from? If it all comes from God, how can w...

    Read More

  • Compare and Contrast Locke and Rousseau

    570 Words  | 2 Pages

    Rousseau and Locke differ slightly on how the question of sovereignty should be addressed. Rousseau believed that men would essentially destroy themselves due to their "mode of existence"(more explanation of what is meant by "mode of existence"?) (Rousseau 39) and therefore must enter into a government that controls them. However, this control is in the form of direct participation in democracy where people have the ability to address their opinions, and thus sovereignty is in the control of the people. Unlike Rousseau, Locke believed firmly in the fact that government should be split up into a legislative branch and a ruling branch, with the legislative branch being appointed as representatives of the people. He contends that people give up the power of their own rule to enter into a more powerful organization that protects life, liberties, property, and fortunes. The two differ significantlyin that Rousseau wanted a direct or absolute form of democracy controlled by the people, while Locke prefered an elected, representative democr...

    Read More

  • Comparison Of Jean-Jacques Rousseau And James Madison

    550 Words  | 2 Pages

    In terms of Rousseau’s theory, people can not be represented, and it is difficult to achieve a real democracy. Rousseau thinks that the essential element of democracy is political participation. Even though people are bounded by general will, and the rule of majority is accepted; as long as they

    Read More

  • The Pros And Cons Of Representative Democracy

    1166 Words  | 3 Pages

    The self respect of all humans depends on assurance that the government they obey has a moral right to be obeyed otherwise what if it turns from authority to naked force. Humans have been offended by power by a demand of obedience unsupported by any reference to moral right that has caused feeling of offense and disobedience. Political obligation is based on consent subordinates government to freedom through “general will” and “will of all”. According to Rousseau “will of all” is sum of all particular wills that considers only the common interest, which must be directed toward the good of everyone. The point that human beings are essentially united tells that a government can legitimately claim obedience only when its commands represent the true, ultimate interest of all the people through general will. The theory of the general upholds that even though a law does not rest on individual’s consent, it may yet command contributions to individuals’ real good and thus enhance his/her

    Read More

  • Locke And Rousseau: Breaking The State Of Law In The Civil Society

    725 Words  | 2 Pages

    The right of revolution was provided to those in Locke’s society as he did not believe in giving the government absolute power. He was against this because an absolute monarch does not provide separate powers to file grievances in the event that an appeal of injury was needed. Locke believed in the rule of the majority. If the majority felt that the government was not protecting their natural rights or acting in their best interest they had a right and a duty to engage in revolution. Rousseau believes in republicanism where they are ruled by the will of the people. Once everyone in this society agrees to the contract, the general will is made and agreed upon by all in the society, and everyone must abide by said will. Rousseau believed the more active we are in society, the

    Read More

  • Analysis: We Can Force People To Be Free

    2204 Words  | 5 Pages

    First, I outlined my arguments about why being forced to be free is necessary. My arguments supporting Rousseau’s ideas included; generally accepted ideas, government responsibility, and responsibility to the government. Second, I entertained the strongest possible counterargument against forced freedom, which is the idea that the general will contradicts itself by forcing freedom upon those who gain no freedom from the general will. Lastly, I rebutted the counterargument by providing evidence that the general will is always in favor of the common good. In this paper I argued in agreement Rousseau that we can force people to be

    Read More

  • General Will and Rousseau's Social Contract

    1787 Words  | 4 Pages

    By submitting himself to the power of a sovereign, man would be protected by that same power, thereby gaining his liberty. Rousseau’s version of the state of nature differs greatly. He makes no mention of the constant fear which Hobbes believed would control man’s life in the state of nature, rather he describes the setting as pleasant and peaceful. He described the people in this primitive state as living free, healthy, honest and happy lives, and felt that man was timid, and would always avoid conflict, rather than seek it out. Building from this favorable description of the state of nature, why would man want to enter into a social contract of any kind? If Rousseau was so fond of the state of nature, why would he be advocating any form of social organization? The answer is two fold. Firstly, Rousseau recognized that 18th century Europe was indeed very civilized, and that it would be impossible for man to shake off these chains and return to a state of nature.

    Read More

  • Rousseau and the Positive Theory of Liberty

    2262 Words  | 5 Pages

    Rousseau was a major Genevan philosopher, writer, and composer of the 18th-century during the Romanticism era. His political philosophy was heavily influenced by the French Revolution and the American Revolution and also influenced his overall development of modern political, sociological and educational thought. Some of Rousseau’s famous works include the Social Contract or Du contractual (1762) and Emile (1762). Firstly, before establishing whether or not Rousseau’s theory of liberty is characterized as positive, it is important to begin defining what Liberty actually is. The Oxford dictionary defines liberty as ‘the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions imposed by authority on one’s behavior or political views’ (Oxford Dictionaries ).

    Read More

More about On whether America still exists

Open Document