1. Rousseau’s political theory definitely could lead to totalitarianism because he is suggesting that a government control practically all aspects of its citizens’ lives in order to save them from themselves and their corrupt nature. Because Rousseau claims that people are “spoiled” by civil society, and that civil society does nothing to protect the equality or individual freedoms of man, he believes that it is government who has the duty and the power to force people to act moral in order to achieve Rousseau’s idea of a virtuous society. It is Rousseau’s goal to use the power of the state to suppress selfishness and to force people into social harmony. Rousseau desires a governmental system of direct democracy in order to prevent a government …show more content…
Rousseau mentions that because of these circumstances, the people and the government will be in contention with one another, with the government sometimes acting against the general will of the people. In this case, Rousseau suggests the formation of a tribune in order to mediate these conflicts. Furthermore, Rousseau’s governing system necessitates that the people participate in attending assemblies, and that these people need to vote not according to their own interests, but according to what is best for everyone. Rousseau does suggest that there be a system of checks in a government, but unlike other proponents of a system of check and balances, Rousseau believes that the government should be checked, not by other parts of the government, but by the populace who, along with a proper political education, will, in Rousseau’s mind, have the best interests of the community in mind. There are many problems with the idea and institution of a direct democracy, however. For example, there is nothing to guarantee that people will educate themselves or else attempt to participate in governing
On the other hand, Rousseau, his view of the problem of factionalism started from a conception that the factionalism would affect to the discernment of the general will of the people,then,the interest of the society as a whole would not attain if the general will was contaminate with faction. Secondly,I will consider the solution that they use to deal with the problem arising from fraction. Both of them raised distinctly different solutions to deal with,however,they had a common intent to quell against the faction. With regard to Rousseau’s view ,the solution which was able to deal with the problem arising from fraction was the direct democracy.
In any case of failure to protect the rights, the people were in their complete right to overthrow the government (Doc 2 & Pg. 630) In agreement, Rousseau believed that the government’s power also comes from the consent of the people, which he included in his book, The Social Contract. (Pg. 632) Rousseau included much more ideas that incorporated political aspects, but he also his thought about
Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.
The Primary objective of all leaders should be to control citizens. A society that allows authority to be challenged will never succeed. This source depicts an authoritarian or totalitarian view of what a governing body should look like. The author suggests that the primary objective of government should be the “control of the citizens”, and therefore that the individuals should entirely obey said government.
Rousseau’s beliefs coincided with the beliefs of other Enlightenment thinkers. This is shown when he writes, “Duty and interest thus equally require the two contracting parties [the people and the government] to aid each other mutually” (Document 3). In that period of history, it was typical for people to be ruled by a monarch and they had very little say, if any, in the laws and policies that impacted their day to day life. Rousseau felt that the system was outdated and it made citizens feel as if they were living in someone else’s home rather than their own, so he theorized that by fabricating a system in which the government and the people are forced to work together, it creates a sense of unity and equality. This works because “ … an offense against one of its members is an offense against the body politic.
Rousseau and Burke differ on the amount of power a government can have and both their reasoning make sense. Rousseau’s optimistic and idealistic nature is an inspiring one indeed, however, Burke seems to represent a more realistic examination. This is until Rousseau delves further into his blueprint, breaks down the mechanisms of the state, and outlines what makes a good government in his eyes. Rousseau outlines three main components of the state: the government, the sovereign, and the people. There are certain responsibilities assigned to the three roles in society.
Rousseau, who lived for some time as a calvinist, later became a Catholic believer, but after a while he became a Calvinist again. Rousseau passed away on July 2, 1778 in France-Ermenonville. Throughout his 66-year career, Jean-Jacques Rousseau has been regarded as one of the world's most important writers and philosophers by his literary works, as well as his philosophical ideas and political theories. Rousseau's state understanding is clearly revolutionary. According to him, the state is based on the authoritarian sovereignty - as it is in the classical defense of divine favor - monarchical sovereignty - and in the authoritarian sovereignty - which Hobbes is in Leviafhan - which is a lot of free from hegemony, on the contrary to the free union of the citizens.
The document implements Rousseau's idea by allowing people to elect representatives or
However, I think it is important to remember Rousseau’s concept of perfectibility and understand that because of this trait it was almost inevitable that humans would eventually become social. Yet, it is not inevitable that humans would become politically unequal, as that is a direct result of government institutions. As well, Rousseau himself in further writings even expresses the hope that a new form of social contract could help to ease some of the political inequalities that plague contemporary society. This then suggests that the cause for these issues is not rooted in being social, for it is possible to live among others in a setting where equality has been institutionalized. Rather, the problem lies with corrupt and capitalist governments that serve to perpetuate inauthenticity and private
He based his beliefs off of the ideas that all men are created good-natured, but society corrupts them. Unlike some other French Enlightenment thinkers, Rousseau believed that the Social contract was not a willing agreement. He also said that no man should be forced to give up their natural rights to a ruler. He came up with the solution that people should “give up” their natural rights to the community for the public’s good. He believed in a democratic government.
He states that hierarchy actually does not exist in the state of nature, as it alienates and chains most of the population. Because of this hierarchy, anyone under property owners and the wealthy consequently suffer and do not benefit from the modern social contract. This displaces power and puts a strong emphasize on one’s political life which in return only benefits individual interests. This despotic society where one class rules everything and corrupts the masses, through a liberal social contract, is what Rousseau deemed the most destructive
Rousseau, one of the most leading philosophers during the Enlightenment, had indeed left many of legendries behind. Not only his writings had caused many of the reactions at that time, but also influenced many writers’ aspects of the French Revolution and the overall understanding of inequality and the General Will. As one of the chief political theorists during the French Revolution who was also influenced by Rousseau’s ideas, Abbe Sieyes, published the pamphlet, “What is the Third Estate?” in 1789. This pamphlet was one of the documents that changed the world and lit the flame toward the French Revolution, as characterized by Joe Janes, a University of Washington professor (Janes).
This paper examines both Jean-Jacques Rousseau and James Madison remark concerning ‘ factions ’ as the potential destructive social force to the society. To layout and examine, this paper will first outline and discuss on Rousseau’s understanding of factions in The Social Contract,and Madison’s discussion on factionalism in the Federalist Papers 10.But there are many component surrounded with their view’s on ‘factions’,so it is important to consider together. Firstly,I will consider the definition and the element surrounded with their view on factions. With regard to Jean-Jacques Rousseau in The Social Contract,he believes that the society can only function to the extent that people have interest in common.
The French Revolution was undoubtedly influenced by the political theorists of the Enlightenment. The ideas of two French political theorists in particular are easily seen throughout the French Revolution, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Baron Montesquieu. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s thoughts and texts, such as the Social Contract, instilled the entitlement of basic human rights to all men. Rousseau’s concepts on rights combined with Baron Montesquieu’s ideas on government provided the backbone of a radical movement in the French Revolution known as the Terror. When one delves into the beginnings of the French Revolution, the motives and actions of the National Assembly, and the Terror of the French Revolution, one can obviously see the influence of two Enlightenment political theorists, Rousseau and Montesquieu.
In this paper I will argue that while Locke believed entrance into a political society would limit an individual’s freedom in regards to what he described as “property”, Rousseau believed that an individual would gain greater freedom by entering into a political society because, whereas Locke understood individuals in the state of nature to be living in perfect freedom, Rousseau believed those in the state of nature were slaves to their own nature and thus incapable of being free.