Historical Philosophy: Attempts to Elevate Society from the State of Nature

History has a long list of philosophers and revolutionary thinkers, each with their own postulations about elevating communities and their people from the state of nature. Thomas Hobbes suggests the people elect a sovereign and then follow his every order without question. His philosophies would allow the people to set their country in motion, but would restrict their influence on the nation-state once the government is established. However, Hobbesian politics makes for a well controlled nation-state, one in which the people are forced into obedience. John Locke stylized a government in which the people were in charge. They elected a leader, but the people also had the option to change said leader should the circumstances call for it. However, the majority is then always in power and this allows "little people" of the nation-state to be forgotten with ease. However, history also gave the world Jean-Jacques Rousseau, a thinker who found great fault with government as a leader.

Rousseau called for a government to operate off of the consensus of the "general will" of the people. General will is the inalienable, infallible, indivisible and absolute will of the people as a whole.¹ More simplistically, if one was to acknowledge the people of a nation-state as one unit, the general will would be the will of said unit, and all individual wills shall be ignored when making decisions and judgments for the nation-state. Although no specific definition of the general will is provided to the reader, this definition can be inferred based on Rousseau's statement "This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuses."²

Rousseau chooses the general will as his tool for judgment because it is the most fair. Dealing with general will eliminates the influence of money and does not give way to the majority. Rousseau mentions the labor of a miner and compares it to that of a farmer. He makes mention of the fact that they both do the same amount of work, but that the miner will earn more money because his product is valued higher than that of the farmer. In a hierarchical society, the weight of the miner's opinion would be greater than that of the farmer, even though they both do the same amount of work, and are affected equally by the law.³

When a law giver takes the majority into consideration, everyone else is forgotten, or forced to grin and bear it.⁴ This method also does not address the fact that the desire of the majority is not always the best course for the nation-state. Taking the general will into consideration, however, accounts for the welfare of all citizens, and always provides the most favorable outcome.

Without question, this is the best course of action. Rousseau shows foresight when he says that the will of a hundred men should not allow the will of ten to be lost. Just because a majority agrees with a decision, does not mean that decision was best for the nation-state.

On March 20, 2003 the United States made

Operation Iraqi Freedom official. President George W. Bush presented Congress with CIA intelligence that Iraq possessed Weapons of Mass Destruction to convince them of a clear and present danger in Iraq. After winning the vote of Congress, President George W. Bush sent the U.S. military into Iraq. Congress is supposed to be representative of United States citizens. Since the majority of the U.S. Congress voted in favor of the war, by convention this means that the majority of the United States voted in favor of the war. In 2008, however, the United States economy appears to be in a recession and over 4,000 soldiers have died. We have also learned that there were never any Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, however six years later the U.S. is still occupying the country. This is a very clear example of the will of the majority not representing what is best for the nation-state.

If the United States Government operated off of the general will of the people things would be different. Although it cannot be said with certainty that the U.S. would have never gone into Iraq, it can be said that it would not still be occupying Iraq. The general will of the United States is to deal with all issues domestic. Such issues include bringing up the value of the dollar, repairing the housing market and policing U.S. citizens. All of these things ensure the life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that U.S. citizens are promised in the Constitution. It is probable that the general will called for the U.S. to enter Iraq to insure that the country was a not a threat to U.S. citizens. However, once it was determined that there was not an immediate threat, the general will will probably returned to domestic issues.

One of the main reasons that Rousseau's philosophies are so difficult to implement is that it is very difficult to determine the general will of a people. Judging by majority is simple; the only thing the government needs to do is count votes and decides accordingly. Unfortunately, general will is not determined by a machine or mathematical formula. There is no machine or systematic methodology determining the general will and so the most a government can do is make an attempt. These attempts have turned in to what is now known as socialism and communism. These governmental systems have forced societies to be leveled to one class.

Citizens with these types of governments have different jobs, but are allotted the same wages. All of the citizens are forced into the same religion and in certain places are allowed a certain number of children, and said children must be of the sex the state mandates. In other words, if it is determined that a citizen has too many boys in their family their next child must be a girl. If the child is not a girl then the child will be taken away.

Although many people have tried, Rousseau's philosophies have not yet been fully realized. Karl Marx developed communism, but when it was implemented people disapproved of it. History even shows Senators in the U.S. that were condemning public officials stating that they were communist. This is because the implementation of Communism resulted in a restriction on the liberties that citizens had. This falls shy of Marx's vision. Marx simply wanted a level playing field for all citizens so that each person had the same opportunities; however the result of the implementation was oppression and an unfair government.

Until someone is able to develop a means of measuring the general will of a people it will be difficult for a government to operate based on Rousseau's politics. However, if such an instrument is ever developed and governments used it as a means of functioning the world would see a steady increase in the number of citizens that are happy with their lives and proud of their country. However, until such instrumentation is developed, Rousseau's philosophies are nothing more than a utopian dream.

[1] Rousseau, Social Contract: Book I (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm) Ch. 7

[2] Ibid.

[3] Rousseau, On the Origin Of Inequality (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/ineq_04.htm) Part 2

[4] Rousseau, Social Contract: Book I (http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon_01.htm) Ch. 5