Man was born free, and he is everywhee in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they. How did this transformation come about? I do not know. How can it be made legitimate? That question I believe I can answer.
In 1762J.J. Rousseau wrote 'The Social Contract'. It is a political philosophy proposing a system of government with regards to ruler(s) and the people whom are governed.
In JJ's theory, the social contract is one between the ruler and the people (who make up the general will). Succinctly, the people give up certain freedoms, with the knowledge that on entrance into a society the ruler will provide them with certain securities eg military force/police force, judicial system, the rule of law etc. (All of which are merit goods, ie goods that are important, but would not be provided if left to the free market). In return for these freedoms the ruler(s) must rule with the general will of the people in mind. If either side breaks his part of the contract, they lose their rights, either their liberties as citizens, or their mandate to rule.
At the heart of this idea is 'The General Will'. Rousseau believed that the wants of the populus could be scientifically measured and that the majority of the population would fall within these parameters. The people who fell outside this, those who deviated from the norm, would have to be excluded from society and be forced to leave.
Interestingly enough the idea of the General Will has been cited by both liberlas and totalitarian dictators alike. Liberlas liking the idea of freedoms being gauranteed by the contract. Dictators manipulating it, by claiming to know what the general will of the nation is better than the people themselves:
I propose that despite the seemingly liberal western societies, most of us on here(AG) live in, our system is more akin to Rousseau's General Will than we realise.
At the heart of this idea is 'The General Will'. Rousseau believed that the wants of the populus could be scientifically measured and that the majority of the population would fall within these parameters. The people who fell outside this, those who deviated from the norm, would have to be excluded from society and be forced to leave.
This seems to me to be a limited reading of what Rousseau meant by the general will. It is often described as a majority consensus or, more simply, what most people want. However Rousseau says the general will is something normative that the people might not even be aware of. This consideration means that we don't have direct access to the general will; this is why Rousseau advocates an omnipotent leader with limitless power. Bear in mind that Rousseau was vehemently opposed to social institutions and claimed that social order simply pushed mankind farther away from a state of nature that was the only true state of freedom. Any freedom in a social structure, according to Rousseau, is simply an illusion that comes to fruition by the fact that people are getting to vote on things. Then again, my reading of Rousseau is just one of many. More importantly, though, given your reading of J-J, what does your conclusion imply?
Then again, my reading of Rousseau is just one of many.
Personally I take Roussea's theory as one of compromise. His theory tries to maintain order, whilst at the same time offering freedoms to rulers and citizens. Whilst natural law is seen to be ideal, it is impractical in its implementation, especially at the time of writing.
More importantly, though, given your reading of J-J, what does your conclusion imply?
My belief is that this form of contractualism is flawed with regards to modern society. The current political system in most Western nations is incompatible with JJ's ideas, and yet current systems seem to resemble his ideas in many ways.
Conclusion? To maintain order, there must be absolute rulers. Alternatives? Decentralise government, give individual power back to the people.
I apologise if my original post was somewhat simplistic. It is difficult to explain the finer details of JJ to people who have not read his work without causing confusion.
