An Overview of Rousseau's Beliefs

Before being awoken to the concepts of greed and "passions" which we can regard as amoral by the existence of a political system, people were inherently good and acted in their own best interests with physical freedom- the freedom to do anything at any time. Having been awoken to the concepts of selfishness and the other passions which come with a political system (such as the idea of property, which Rousseau states itself could not have singularly and immediately come into being, but must have been achieved by ancient man through some sequence of ideas) it is now impossible for people to return to the state of nature, that is physical freedom, because people would live with all the greed and selfishness bred into them by politics without any of the protection from harm offered by a government or collective existence wherein people would be responsible for their actions.

If nothing else Rousseau's work is meant to completely rewrite the social contract proposed by Hobbes. Rather than trading freedom for protection of a totalitarian or authoritarian Leviathan, Rousseau's citizen's trade the basic physical freedom for the freedom of self-control, morality, and to be part of the ruling body of a state- to essentially write the laws that they are to follow. Rousseau's Leviathan is the citizenry, rather than a singular individual.

Rousseau also believes that reluctant citizens should be forced to be free. To be free Rousseau says we need to enter into the social contract, which allows us to fully realize our freedom through self-control and morality; to not want to be a part of society (and the social contract) one violates the contract and detrimentally takes away their own personal freedom.

In Rousseau's democratic nation the state always comes first, and the individual second- quite the opposite of America.

Book II

The common goal of a society should be the common good of all its participants, as anything that affected one person negatively would (in theory) affect all of them in an equally negative way. The common good comes from the general will of the people, which is the sovereign. The sovereign is the absolute authority and voice of the law, all citizens acting together collectively. The sovereign is the general will and the all the laws it creates. Rousseau makes a distinction between the general will and the will of all. The latter being identical to the general will only a healthy state where everyone wishes the common good, and being something different and possibly more sinister in a state where some citizens are primarily concerned with themselves, or members of the society aren't given a voice.

Rousseau also believes that wrongdoers (thieves, murderers, etc.) who violate the laws of the state, are also violating the social contract- and should therefore be punished the maximum extent the sovereign declares is right. In this, Rousseau advocates both the death penalty and exile. Rousseau makes an allowance to pardon criminals, but it is important to remember that the presence of a criminal element is the sign of an unhealthy state.

Like Hobbes, Rousseau believes in a natural law inherited by God for which a divine justice will ultimately be carried out, but unlike Hobbes, Rousseau does not believe that holy law is binding, and he knows people will ignore and break it. Political Law, Rousseau states, is an abstract expression of the general will which can be enforced not upon the sovereign but upon its individual pieces. The existence of civil society hinges on the existence and enforcement of laws. Rousseau however acknowledges the fact that the entire body politic cannot be expected to sit down and write up the laws that are best for them, either for deliberation or the fact that people generally just don't always know what is best for them.

Rousseau answers this problem with the office of the Legislator. The Legislator is undeniably difficult to find. Ideally the Legislator is a person with almost absolute power and no desire to rule, he is markedly intelligent and must show incredible insight into people in order to gauge the general will and make laws accordingly. Rousseau; "Gods would be needed to give men laws."

In the Discourse on Inequality, he asserts that it is bad government, and not human nature, that is the source of our evil. Here, he suggests that good government, or rather good laws, can make good people. People who agree voluntarily and as a group to abide by certain restrictions that will benefit all of them will likely become better people as a result.

To add to the difficulty of acquiring a legislator, a state can truly only accept laws in a very limited period of time. Apply laws too soon and you will discover the people are not yet ready to accept guidance, apply them too late and the people are too stuck in their own prejudices. The final condition Rousseau lists for the establishment of laws within a state is that it must be enjoying a period of peace and plenty, since the formation and establishment of laws leaves it momentarily vulnerable.

"All laws should pursue the principles of freedom and equality. By "equality," Rousseau does not mean that everyone should be exactly the same, but that differences in wealth should not unbalance the state. Within the guidelines of these general principles, however, there is a lot of room for maneuvering. Each state has different needs and interests, and there is not one "right" way that all states must follow. Each state should have laws that harmonize with its natural circumstances.

Rousseau distinguishes four different classes of law. (1) Political Laws, or Fundamental Laws, which are the main subject of The Social Contract. These determine the relationship the body politic has with itself, the fundamental structure of the state. (2) Civil Laws, which deal with individuals in relation with each other or with the body politic as a whole. (3) Criminal Laws, which deal with cases where the law is broken. And most importantly, (4) the morals, customs, and beliefs of the people. These determine the quality of the people and the success of the more rigid, written laws."

Book III

There is no manifest social contract between a government and its people, because people do not completely surrender themselves to a government the way they do with a sovereign or a regent. In a large state, each individual will be only a small part of the sovereign, and so each individual will be less inclined to follow the general will and more inclined to follow his or her own particular will. In order to keep so many people in line, the government will need to be able to exercise a great deal of power. Thus, the larger the population, the greater force the government must have relative to each individual.

Any magistrate in government will have to exercise three different kinds of will: his individual will that pursues his own interests, the corporate will that expresses the will of the government, and the general will that expresses the will of the people as a whole. The fewer magistrates there are, the more the corporate will shall resemble particular wills, and the stronger and more active relative to the people it will be. With a great many magistrates, the corporate will shall resemble the general will, but it will also be relatively weaker and less active. In a large state, where a strong government is needed, fewer magistrates are desirable.

Rousseau expresses serious reservations about monarchy, just as he does about democracy. Monarchy is tremendously efficient, since all power rests in the hands of one man. However, this can be dangerous, as the corporate will becomes nothing more than a particular will. If a king wants his power to be absolute, it is in his best interests to keep the people he governs in harsh subjection so that they can never revolt. Monarchies are best suited to large states, where a number of ranks of princes and underlings can be assigned. However, a monarch will rarely assign these positions wisely, and few monarchs have the strength to govern large states single-handedly. There is also a problem of succession: if kings are elected, these elections are prone to serious corruption, and if there is a hereditary succession, there is the constant risk of incompetent rulers. Rousseau also notes that each successive king will have a different agenda, meaning that the state will not keep a fixed course. For all these reasons and more, it is difficult to find a good king.

I. The Legislator: Founding Paradoxes

The Republic must be incredibly small and the differences between rich and poor must also be small. Preconditions must already be in place, you cannot attempt to bring them about yourself otherwise there is revolutionary or totalitarian violence, which is what Rousseau stands against. We must be implicitly clear about what Rousseau is arguing. Rousseau does not argue, as Voltaire believed, that we need a return to Nature.

The mysteries and preconditions of the General Will aside, Rousseau's vexation is how can a general democracy be possible? All laws must benefit and burden all citizens equally, and the number of laws, naturally, must be very small. Rousseau's understanding of democracy is exacting and his credentials are "unrivaled". The mysterious figure of the social contract is the Legislator (Book II, Ch.6 p.162).

"... laws are the conditions of social interaction... those subjected to the laws ought to be their authors."

"... [regulation] belongs to no one but those who are the association of each other."

To found a democratic system of sovereignty- the tasks of designing which would be so difficult the people cannot do it. Rousseau alleviates this conundrum by the necessity of a legislator (Pg 164).

For a wise man to speak about government to the people he would not be understood, and each individual finds it difficult to realize what benefit he gains from laws. For an emerging people to be capable of appreciating statehood, the effect must become the cause. The social spirit which the body advocates must preside over the body of law. Good laws presuppose good citizens, who presuppose good laws. Because you have neither to begin with and need both, the people are incapable of an immediate founding, the people then need a Legislator.

It is difficult to reconcile the ideas of freedom and a Legislator. The Legislator must be of superior intelligence, and knowledgeable of human nature and vices while being separate and distinct from them. "Gods would be needed to give men laws." Rousseau is taking men as they are and laws as they might be, and realizes that people are self-interested and during a founding people would push for laws which explicitly benefit them. Therefore during the founding the people require a Legislator, which is an explicit violation of the Rousseau-ian concept of freedom which goes hand in hand with Rousseau's democratic republic. The office of the Legislator, which constitutes the republic, does not appear in the constitution, the office is not a magistracy or a position which holds dominion over other men. The Legislator must carry out the task assigned it while educating people to be good citizens and implementing good laws. The Legislator has no use of force or reason, so he must have recourse so that the people subjected to his laws may bear with public felicity the right and reason of the Legislator's laws.

So, how can Rousseau put forth the idea of a Legislator when he is so specific and adamant about freedom? P.163 of Rousseau- ref Greeks, and Polish Reform movement. "The Government of Poland"

Rousseau says he sees many lawmakers but no Legislators, the reason for this is that Legislators are venerated over centuries and realized only by the greatest minds hundreds of years later as Legislators. People give Laws to themselves by way of giving themselves Legislators, which are easily recognized in the United States as the Founding Fathers. Despite evidence to the contrary George Washington is credited as the father of this country, despite the realization of Madison and Hamilton as the chief minds of the constitution. Even in the beginning of Rousseau's democratic republic it is possible that the people are completely sovereign, and the Legislator may not be more than a founding myth, like those which Machiavelli deemed necessary to a sovereign republics survival. Divine law and meaning can always be rearranged, but an inherently good founding myth survives despite all social change if the system the spirit represents remains in control and continues to preside over the people and the legislations they pass.

Rousseau on Poland

Among other issues, Rousseau addresses his belief that small states can prosper while large states slip into anarchy or despotism. He recommends that surpassing any constitutional reforms, the most important reform Poland could make would be the adoption of a federal system. Specifically, Rousseau advocates a federation of the existing voivodships. In recommending the creation of smaller states, Rousseau recognizes the imminent First Partition with the words: "If you wish to reform your government, then, begin by narrowing your frontiers, though perhaps your neighbors intend to do that for you."

Based on your knowledge of Rousseau, how would you define a democracy?

Democracy is the system of representation in which the majority opinion of the people is expressed in the laws created by the government with the consent of the ruled. In a democracy laws can always be challenged by opposing parties in front of arbiters of the government, and any ruling made by an arbiter, unless overturned directly by the government itself, becomes a footnote to the law, allowing the basic structure provided by the legislators and people to take on extended meanings and interpretations, or prohibiting them from doing so. Legislators write the laws, arbiters interpret the laws and enforce the laws, and in situations where a law is to become a strict moral or principal which all people must adhere to, all people should be allowed to vote on a law (or Amendment to the constitution). A democracy must be incredibly dynamic- the government itself must be allowed to change dynamically, while also expediting necessary social changes which are essential to the survival of an evolving society. The political order's role is to service the needs of the nation it rules in terms of physical, social, and political policy.

What would be its fundamental values and basic institutions?

A democracy's first obligation is to itself, to ensure that the laws and social changes it institutes, or social policies it maintains, are in the best interest of the society. A democracy's self-loyalty ensures that it will always act in the kindest and most sensible way possible to its people, for fear of riots, revolt, or civil war. A democracy's second obligation is to education, so that it might one day be possible for all people to become so enlightened on the subject of individual rights, the concepts of right and wrong, and purpose for which their governmental system exists, that the legislators and laws of a democratic order will one day become impractical- they will be replaced by an engendered sense of moral identity in the individual, which will adhere to legislation and be upheld by the arbiters.

Rousseau said that for a democracy to be successful it must be of a moderate size, too big or too small and you are destined to fail. However Rousseau is incorrect; a large democracy can survive, particularly in the modern age, by allowing direct representation on smaller district scales, and encouraging elective representation on the national scale, as we see in America. However, the difficulties America faces with such a system are the predictable ones, people often feel disenfranchised because they cannot go and meet face to face with their elected officials, and there is no guarantee that if they even did travel (what would sometimes be hundreds of miles) to see their official, he would be genuinely concerned with their issue.