WEBVTT

NOTE Jean-Jacques Rousseau

1
00:00:00.000 --> 00:00:07.760
Before I get to the subject of this afternoon's lecture, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, I wanted to

2
00:00:07.760 --> 00:00:12.240
make a couple of additional points on Locke.

3
00:00:12.240 --> 00:00:21.360
One, I didn't discuss, I said a good deal about Locke's second treatise on government,

4
00:00:21.360 --> 00:00:28.380
but I didn't say anything about the first treatise on government, which is, no one ever

5
00:00:28.380 --> 00:00:38.820
The first treatise on government was a reply to a work called Patriarcha by Sir Robert

6
00:00:38.820 --> 00:00:47.540
Filmer, who was a defender of absolute monarchy, who was quite popular with the supporters

7
00:00:47.540 --> 00:00:57.900
of Charles I. He had died I think in the 1650s, but his book was reissued by some of the people

8
00:00:57.900 --> 00:01:04.780
Who Supported Charles II, who supported a very strong role for the king.

9
00:01:04.780 --> 00:01:13.220
I should say one reason Locke issued, when he issued the two treatises, it was anonymous.

10
00:01:13.220 --> 00:01:19.460
Although a lot of people knew he wrote the book, he never acknowledged this.

11
00:01:19.460 --> 00:01:27.980
Even after he died, he never acknowledged being the author.

12
00:01:27.980 --> 00:01:36.580
One reason for this was Algernon Sidney also wrote an attack on Filmer, and he was executed,

13
00:01:36.580 --> 00:01:37.580
although not for that reason.

14
00:01:37.580 --> 00:01:41.820
In those cases, if you wanted to write an attack on Sir Robert Filmer, you had to be

15
00:01:41.820 --> 00:01:44.860
pretty careful about it.

16
00:01:44.860 --> 00:01:56.060
What Filmer's contention was, was that the reason the king had authority was that originally

17
00:01:56.060 --> 00:02:01.500
when God created the world, Adam had had governmental authority.

18
00:02:01.500 --> 00:02:08.260
The first man had governmental authority and he passed this on to his descendants through

19
00:02:08.260 --> 00:02:16.020
Line of Seth, and then this was passed on and on down to the currently existing kings.

20
00:02:16.020 --> 00:02:25.140
Now, Filmer didn't, interestingly, Filmer denied Aristotle's contention that some people

21
00:02:25.140 --> 00:02:26.740
were slaves by nature.

22
00:02:26.740 --> 00:02:33.140
He didn't hold that, but he thought that just because of his historical argument, also the

23
00:02:33.140 --> 00:02:38.400
The argument that fathers have authority in their family and that political power is like

24
00:02:38.400 --> 00:02:46.020
that, so it's passed on to the present kings.

25
00:02:46.020 --> 00:02:50.340
No one thinks Spielmer's argument is any good.

26
00:02:50.340 --> 00:02:57.460
The only person I think of an exception to that, my late friend Mel Bradford, University

27
00:02:57.460 --> 00:03:02.780
of Dallas, once wrote an article, it was in a Festschrift for Frederick Wilhelmsen, saying

28
00:03:02.780 --> 00:03:08.220
Something that he thought that Filmer had the better of the argument, but most people

29
00:03:08.220 --> 00:03:09.220
don't think so.

30
00:03:09.220 --> 00:03:18.900
So, Locke, in his very long first treatise, denied all of Filmer's contention, said no,

31
00:03:18.900 --> 00:03:24.780
first of all, we have no reason to think that any of the present kings, they can't show

32
00:03:24.780 --> 00:03:30.100
any direct dissent from Adam, and even if they could, it wouldn't make any difference

33
00:03:30.100 --> 00:03:34.900
And the reason is because we have no reason to think political power passed in that way.

34
00:03:34.900 --> 00:03:40.820
We don't have Adam's authority in the family, it was nothing like that of a political ruler,

35
00:03:40.820 --> 00:03:44.740
family rule, political ruler, completely different things.

36
00:03:44.740 --> 00:03:49.820
And then there's also some question of what was the authority of Adam in his own family.

37
00:03:49.820 --> 00:03:57.260
It was the authority of the husband and the father in the family, I mentioned that last

38
00:03:57.260 --> 00:03:58.260
time.

39
00:03:58.260 --> 00:04:05.820
Another point I wanted to make about Locke, in the question period, Roderick Long raised

40
00:04:05.820 --> 00:04:15.260
the very interesting point that Locke says not only that we surrender to the community

41
00:04:15.260 --> 00:04:22.500
the right, our right to enforce the law of nation, but we also surrender as much of our

42
00:04:22.500 --> 00:04:31.620
Our liberty is needed to preserve the rest, so the question comes up, does this give supporters

43
00:04:31.620 --> 00:04:41.600
of a stronger, non-limited government some Lockean argument for restricting liberty?

44
00:04:41.600 --> 00:04:47.100
They could say, well, we're just, people have given up as much liberty as they need to preserve

45
00:04:47.100 --> 00:04:48.100
the rest.

46
00:04:48.100 --> 00:04:54.980
It seems to me, this passage is more plausibly interpreted this way, if you give up your

47
00:04:54.980 --> 00:05:00.420
right to enforce the law of nature, it might be the case in the state of nature, you would

48
00:05:00.420 --> 00:05:07.980
have chosen particular instances not to enforce the law of nature at all, say you see somebody

49
00:05:07.980 --> 00:05:12.900
say assaulting somebody else and you decide you're just going to pass by, you don't want

50
00:05:12.900 --> 00:05:22.100
to Get Involved. And it could turn out that if the government now has this role of enforcing

51
00:05:22.100 --> 00:05:30.220
law of nature, they could, in pursuit of defense, say, require you to help them out or say there's

52
00:05:30.220 --> 00:05:39.820
an invasion, they might require you to bear arms and defend the country. So I think this

53
00:05:39.820 --> 00:05:47.820
When it's said to preserve the rest, what it's meant here is something like ancillary to enforcing the law of nature.

54
00:05:47.820 --> 00:05:57.820
It's supplementary to this, rather than meaning that the government can simply rearrange people's rights in order somehow to maximize liberty.

55
00:05:57.820 --> 00:06:04.340
If it's said to preserve the rest, that suggests, at least to me, that there's a pre-existing

56
00:06:04.340 --> 00:06:10.860
pattern of rights and what the government is supposed to be doing is preserve that as

57
00:06:10.860 --> 00:06:14.100
much as possible, say, from invasions.

58
00:06:14.100 --> 00:06:24.380
And that said, we can now turn to Rousseau, who lived from 1712 to 1778.

59
00:06:24.380 --> 00:06:35.460
Rousseau was born in Geneva, which was an independent city-state in Switzerland.

60
00:06:35.460 --> 00:06:42.980
The states were joined in some kind of loose confederation, but Geneva was really largely

61
00:06:42.980 --> 00:06:45.780
self-governed at that time.

62
00:06:45.780 --> 00:06:53.620
And Rousseau attached a lot of importance to the fact that he was born in Geneva.

63
00:06:53.620 --> 00:07:03.880
He remembered when he was growing up, he had memories of festivals in which all the people

64
00:07:03.880 --> 00:07:12.300
would join in for patriotic celebration, there would be music and dancing.

65
00:07:12.300 --> 00:07:18.720
He thought this was extremely important and he thought this should be recreated as much

66
00:07:18.720 --> 00:07:39.720
in the social contract and elsewhere he talks about the need to have public festivals and have music that would attach great importance to music, having the proper music to educate the people and proper habits.

67
00:07:39.720 --> 00:07:49.480
He himself, at one point, had lost his citizenship, his Genevaan citizenship, because he converted

68
00:07:49.480 --> 00:07:57.520
to Catholicism, and Catholics weren't allowed to be citizens of Geneva, but then he renounced

69
00:07:57.520 --> 00:08:04.160
Catholicism and he regained his citizenship, but I think he continued to sign himself as

70
00:08:04.160 --> 00:08:14.480
This citizen of Geneva, even when he was no longer entitled to call himself that, so a

71
00:08:14.480 --> 00:08:27.680
minor thing as legal propriety would not stop Rousseau from doing what he wanted.

72
00:08:27.680 --> 00:08:39.840
Rousseau, in his youth, somehow became involved with a Swiss convert to Catholicism named

73
00:08:39.840 --> 00:08:55.360
Madame de Warren. She encouraged him to convert to Catholicism, and I think it was because

74
00:08:55.360 --> 00:09:00.360
The Theory of Money and Credit

75
00:09:00.360 --> 00:09:06.360
The Theory of Money and Credit

76
00:09:25.360 --> 00:09:32.160
about, she replaced him with a younger man. She tended to do that, then he had to leave

77
00:09:32.160 --> 00:09:40.840
and go elsewhere. He made his way to Paris, and he became friends with some of the leading

78
00:09:40.840 --> 00:09:49.140
French intellectuals, including Denise Diderot and Voltaire and D'Alembert, some of the leading

79
00:09:49.140 --> 00:09:51.140
The Theory of Money and Credit

80
00:10:19.140 --> 00:10:26.660
is considered inflammatory. Rousseau describes he was on a visit to Diderot and he rested

81
00:10:26.660 --> 00:10:34.260
a while and he said he was overcome by a vision and he said he could never write what he had

82
00:10:34.260 --> 00:10:38.660
learned in that vision. He wished he could express even a part of what he had gotten

83
00:10:38.660 --> 00:10:48.300
in that vision. This vision in 1749 was rather formative, was formative for his later works.

84
00:10:48.300 --> 00:10:56.700
He wrote shortly thereafter two important works, the Discourse on the Arts and Sciences

85
00:10:56.700 --> 00:11:04.460
and the Discourse on Inequality, that I'll be talking about in a short while, but I just

86
00:11:04.460 --> 00:11:09.220
want to first just give a sort of narrative of his life.

87
00:11:09.220 --> 00:11:20.220
After he wrote those essays, he was also, his main work was, his profession was, he

88
00:11:20.220 --> 00:11:27.980
was a music copyist, he earned most of his income copying music, and he developed a new

89
00:11:27.980 --> 00:11:36.940
system of musical notation, which wasn't very successful, but he had greater success, he

90
00:11:36.940 --> 00:11:46.620
was a popular composer of operas, one of which the King, King Louis XV liked very much. And

91
00:11:46.620 --> 00:11:54.780
he, besides composing operas, he also wrote one of the most popular novels, the Nouvelle

92
00:11:54.780 --> 00:12:03.800
Eloise, which was a bestseller for its time. And so he, while he was doing besides this,

93
00:12:03.800 --> 00:12:10.040
He continued his work as a political theorist, including writing his most famous work, which

94
00:12:10.040 --> 00:12:19.240
is the one I'll be talking about most, The Social Contract, which came out in 1762.

95
00:12:19.240 --> 00:12:26.040
He continued all sorts of literary works, including his famous Confessions and his last

96
00:12:26.040 --> 00:12:30.720
work, The Reveries of a Solitary Walker.

97
00:12:30.720 --> 00:12:42.040
He was an extremely productive writer, as if that wasn't enough. He was also a botanist,

98
00:12:42.040 --> 00:12:47.920
one of the best botanists of his time, and he collected all sorts of plants and wrote

99
00:12:47.920 --> 00:12:56.640
about them. He was one of the best observers and recorders of nature of his time. Although,

100
00:12:56.640 --> 00:13:02.520
As I hope to show, he had some, from a libertarian point, very wrong-headed ideas.

101
00:13:02.520 --> 00:13:06.600
He was an extremely talented writer.

102
00:13:06.600 --> 00:13:12.480
He was also, he had quite a few personality quirks.

103
00:13:12.480 --> 00:13:19.760
If followers of Thomas Sase will forgive me, he was rather definitely paranoid, at least

104
00:13:19.760 --> 00:13:23.020
at some points in his life.

105
00:13:23.020 --> 00:13:30.380
He thought there was a conspiracy of nearly everyone, including people who claimed to

106
00:13:30.380 --> 00:13:37.900
be his friends, to destroy his reputation.

107
00:13:37.900 --> 00:13:44.620
One time he had been befriended by the great Scottish philosopher David Hume, and he visited

108
00:13:44.620 --> 00:13:53.860
Hume, but he quarreled with Hume and then he considered Hume as somebody who was trying

109
00:13:53.860 --> 00:14:03.580
to destroy him also. He didn't have a very conventional family life. He married a serving

110
00:14:03.580 --> 00:14:12.300
woman named Therese Levesseur and had five children with her, but he gave them all up

111
00:14:12.300 --> 00:14:19.580
to a Foundling Hospital. He didn't raise any of his children himself, so although he sometimes

112
00:14:19.580 --> 00:14:26.820
wrote in his books about the benefits of family affection, it wasn't something he practiced

113
00:14:26.820 --> 00:14:37.540
in his own life. If we look at Rousseau's thought, I think one of the key themes is

114
00:14:37.540 --> 00:14:49.580
that he rejected a basic principle of economics, or at least to a large extent rejected it.

115
00:14:49.580 --> 00:14:56.940
And the principle is one that, if you're familiar with the works of Murray Rothbard, has developed

116
00:14:56.940 --> 00:15:02.060
this extensively, is the benefits of the division of labor.

117
00:15:02.060 --> 00:15:08.220
If we think we all had to produce everything we needed for ourselves, we wouldn't be able

118
00:15:08.220 --> 00:15:09.500
to get anywhere.

119
00:15:09.500 --> 00:15:15.760
Say you had to produce all your own food or grow everything for yourself.

120
00:15:15.760 --> 00:15:21.680
Very few people would be able, the earth couldn't support very many people, and people would

121
00:15:21.680 --> 00:15:26.340
have to live their lives on a very poor basis.

122
00:15:26.340 --> 00:15:34.180
You'd be spending all your time just trying to stay alive, I mean, not only that, say,

123
00:15:34.180 --> 00:15:39.580
you wouldn't be able without just on your own, say, if you got sick, you wouldn't be

124
00:15:39.580 --> 00:15:42.940
able to go to a doctor and get any medication.

125
00:15:42.940 --> 00:15:48.180
You would just have to rely on your own devices to cure yourself.

126
00:15:48.180 --> 00:15:55.020
You wouldn't be able to rely on any police agencies to protect you, you'd have to do

127
00:15:55.020 --> 00:15:57.220
do everything by yourself.

128
00:15:57.220 --> 00:16:00.700
This wouldn't be a very good state to be in.

129
00:16:00.700 --> 00:16:07.060
We would clearly want to say with Hobbes, even if we didn't agree with him on what the state

130
00:16:07.060 --> 00:16:12.940
of nature is like, it would clearly be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short, what we wouldn't

131
00:16:12.940 --> 00:16:14.140
want to be in it.

132
00:16:14.140 --> 00:16:21.580
But Rousseau didn't agree with this at all, remembering the two discourses I mentioned,

133
00:16:21.580 --> 00:16:30.740
Discourses on Inequality, Discourses on Arts and Sciences, he thought quite the contrary

134
00:16:30.740 --> 00:16:41.700
that when a primitive man had not developed a division of labor, then people were much

135
00:16:41.700 --> 00:16:49.060
happier. It wasn't that because we have a division of labor we're able to get all sorts

136
00:16:49.060 --> 00:16:56.680
of Goods and Services We Couldn't Get If We Were Just By Our Own, This Makes Us All Better

137
00:16:56.680 --> 00:17:05.500
Off. Rousseau said, no, this isn't right. Now, how could he have said that? Well, he

138
00:17:05.500 --> 00:17:13.620
said, first of all, it's true that if you have a division of labor, you can get all

139
00:17:13.620 --> 00:17:23.500
All sorts of things you couldn't get before, but when this happens, people have, along

140
00:17:23.500 --> 00:17:30.780
with the extra goods, they develop all sorts of extra desires that they didn't have before.

141
00:17:30.780 --> 00:17:36.900
So you always have, it turns out that you can have more things available to you, but

142
00:17:36.900 --> 00:17:40.860
You always keep wanting more and more.

143
00:17:40.860 --> 00:17:44.060
So you're not really any better off.

144
00:17:44.060 --> 00:17:49.060
You're not, in fact, you're worse off because it turns out in the primitive state, you're

145
00:17:49.060 --> 00:17:53.300
not getting very much, but you're satisfied.

146
00:17:53.300 --> 00:18:01.940
You know that's pretty much all that's available, but in the division of labor, modern world,

147
00:18:01.940 --> 00:18:06.740
you know there are all sorts of things available that you can't have that you want, so this

148
00:18:06.740 --> 00:18:12.020
This makes you feel very bad.

149
00:18:12.020 --> 00:18:25.220
Even worse, supposing, before you have a division of labor, people are, even if they find it

150
00:18:25.220 --> 00:18:32.620
hard to produce things for themselves, they're not dependent on anyone else, but in the more

151
00:18:32.620 --> 00:18:38.100
For a developed economy, you are dependent on other people.

152
00:18:38.100 --> 00:18:49.100
Say, if I had to rely on people, if I had to, is now, if I couldn't rely on other people,

153
00:18:49.100 --> 00:18:56.940
I wouldn't be able to eat anything, since I don't have any of the agricultural tools

154
00:19:26.940 --> 00:19:40.620
No thought that everyone naturally has a certain amount of self-love. Everyone cares about

155
00:19:40.620 --> 00:19:55.940
himself. He calls this amour de soi. But he says once we have people who aren't self-sufficient,

156
00:19:55.940 --> 00:20:05.940
were dependent on others, then people are very much dependent on how other people view them.

157
00:20:05.940 --> 00:20:15.940
People say, your self-esteem depends very much on whether other people think well of you.

158
00:20:15.940 --> 00:20:26.940
So, people are concerned with their reputation.

159
00:20:26.940 --> 00:20:29.940
Now, you say, well, what's wrong with this?

160
00:20:29.940 --> 00:20:39.940
Well, Rousseau thought this makes people too faced because they'll do what they think will be required to get other people to like them,

161
00:20:39.940 --> 00:20:44.940
but this won't reflect their true personality.

162
00:20:44.940 --> 00:21:02.940
So, the developed economy, division of labor really makes people worse off because it makes them deceptive, they become, as they say, two-faced.

163
00:21:02.940 --> 00:21:09.020
you can't you're there people are necessarily insincere people are no

164
00:21:09.020 --> 00:21:16.260
longer transparent to each other because people have inner motives that others

165
00:21:16.260 --> 00:21:21.300
are unable to discern so you would know even if someone has a certain appearance

166
00:21:21.300 --> 00:21:26.460
you would think to yourself well is the person really like that you would say

167
00:21:26.460 --> 00:21:30.500
the other person might be trying to deceive me so I can't really trust him

168
00:21:30.500 --> 00:21:39.500
so people become mistrustful of each other in this situation. There's this feeling that

169
00:21:39.500 --> 00:21:48.060
you don't really know what other people are like. There's a very good book on this theme

170
00:21:48.060 --> 00:22:00.060
by Jean Starabinsky

171
00:22:00.060 --> 00:22:07.060
on the theme of transparency in Rousseau.

172
00:22:07.060 --> 00:22:17.060
So, in particular, what enables this state of affairs,

173
00:22:17.060 --> 00:22:24.500
I say, where we have division of labor to develop and where people are insincere and

174
00:22:24.500 --> 00:22:34.220
they're not transparent to each other, is what enables us to develop is individual property.

175
00:22:34.220 --> 00:22:44.260
If we, in the primitive state of affairs, people just used what was available as they

176
00:22:44.260 --> 00:22:56.100
Rousseau says whoever first fenced off an area and said this is mine was a great criminal

177
00:22:56.100 --> 00:23:03.380
because by doing so he set in motion this whole process of division of labor and developed

178
00:23:03.380 --> 00:23:11.980
economy in which people become much worse off, they're no longer transparent, they're

179
00:23:11.980 --> 00:23:27.980
That's the bad side. Let's say a bit more about how Rousseau thought human beings began.

180
00:23:27.980 --> 00:23:40.980
As Rousseau saw matter, when human beings first arose, people really were largely solitary.

181
00:23:40.980 --> 00:23:45.420
They came together occasionally for a person of reproduction and you would have perhaps

182
00:23:45.420 --> 00:23:51.860
small groups of people would live together, but people were largely solitary so they weren't

183
00:23:51.860 --> 00:23:59.660
dependent on other people, they weren't at all dependent on other people.

184
00:23:59.660 --> 00:24:02.500
People were not hostile to each other.

185
00:24:02.500 --> 00:24:07.740
On the contrary, people had a feeling of compassion for each other.

186
00:24:07.740 --> 00:24:13.580
They would, if they saw someone suffering, their tendency would be to help them out.

187
00:24:13.580 --> 00:24:20.740
People were basically compassionate, so human beings were really good, but they didn't have

188
00:24:20.740 --> 00:24:24.860
any developed consciousness.

189
00:24:24.860 --> 00:24:37.100
They found, they lived by, just by hunting or fishing, sometimes cultivating small areas.

190
00:24:37.100 --> 00:24:48.160
They didn't really require much effort for them to live, so it was, in Rousseau's opinion,

191
00:24:48.160 --> 00:24:49.160
they were very happy.

192
00:24:49.160 --> 00:24:57.860
Now, it's interesting, of course, what Rousseau was saying was completely speculative, but

193
00:24:57.860 --> 00:25:05.980
there are cultural anthropologists who think this view that he had was pretty largely correct.

194
00:25:05.980 --> 00:25:17.020
There's one, Marshall Solons, who has argued that this is a correct picture thing, although

195
00:25:17.020 --> 00:25:34.740
it may be that he holds this view, maybe Solons holds this view just because he's a disciple

196
00:26:04.740 --> 00:26:25.940
I'll write with Rousseau because that made them even happier. There was a famous essay by Arthur Lovejoy, it was a great intellectual historian, who said that you can't really say that the primitive people that Rousseau described, they aren't really human beings at all.

197
00:26:25.940 --> 00:26:30.540
All we can take is some sort of evolution, we can take it kind of as an evolutionary

198
00:26:30.540 --> 00:26:36.060
stage in which it could be perhaps some higher anthropoids were in that state.

199
00:26:36.060 --> 00:26:40.380
Now what ruined this idyllic state?

200
00:26:40.380 --> 00:26:50.060
Rousseau thought that population had gotten out of hand, people reproduced too much to

201
00:26:50.060 --> 00:26:58.660
to maintain this kind of life where people could just, say, hunt and just get what they need to live fairly easily.

202
00:26:58.660 --> 00:27:07.060
If you had more people around, they couldn't maintain themselves in such a lifestyle, so this required a more organized life.

203
00:27:07.060 --> 00:27:16.060
Things were alright for a while until property came on the scene and then that ruined things.

204
00:27:20.060 --> 00:27:30.300
Now, you might think from this that Rousseau, given that he had this view, would say, well,

205
00:27:30.300 --> 00:27:38.140
what we have to do is get rid of the arts and sciences and try to go back to this primitive

206
00:27:38.140 --> 00:27:41.260
stage, then we could all be happy.

207
00:27:41.260 --> 00:27:46.100
But he didn't, that wasn't his view at all, I mean, that wouldn't really be a very sensible

208
00:27:46.100 --> 00:27:47.100
view.

209
00:27:47.100 --> 00:27:54.700
Well, that state of affairs, even if Rousseau is right about that people would be happier

210
00:27:54.700 --> 00:27:59.780
living in that state of affairs, that could support only very few people.

211
00:27:59.780 --> 00:28:06.540
So we'd have to get rid of nearly everybody if we wanted to try to go back to that.

212
00:28:06.540 --> 00:28:13.580
Furthermore, once we'd gotten out of that state, we wouldn't be able to recreate this

213
00:28:13.580 --> 00:28:21.860
primitive kind of mentality, that the innocence that people had then couldn't be regained,

214
00:28:21.860 --> 00:28:32.660
so we're pretty much stuck with human mentality the way it is as we have it.

215
00:28:32.660 --> 00:28:39.700
So what Rousseau said was, is there something we can do, as he says in Social Contract,

216
00:28:39.700 --> 00:28:50.140
making men as they are, but laws as they could be. So his aim wasn't to change people back

217
00:28:50.140 --> 00:28:55.620
to some primitive state, but he would say, given that we have human beings in a certain

218
00:28:55.620 --> 00:29:05.260
way, how can we make things better? How can we remedy these defects of the modern world

219
00:29:05.260 --> 00:29:15.380
where people are dominated by a more proper, they're dominated by their need to put on

220
00:29:15.380 --> 00:29:22.460
appearances for each other that they can't be sincere, they're dependent on each other.

221
00:29:22.460 --> 00:29:28.260
So in the, as Rousseau says at the beginning of Social Contract, man is born free but he's

222
00:29:28.260 --> 00:29:36.700
Everywhere in Chains, and what he wants to do is, he wants to come up, he says, can he

223
00:29:36.700 --> 00:29:43.260
justify the transition that people have gotten into in getting into civilized life?

224
00:29:43.260 --> 00:29:48.900
He says, if we could do this, what we would be doing, could we come up with some way in

225
00:29:48.900 --> 00:30:01.220
in which people would create a government which they would be giving up their liberties

226
00:30:01.220 --> 00:30:08.140
to the government, but each one would be as free as he was before once he'd given up these

227
00:30:08.140 --> 00:30:09.140
things.

228
00:30:09.140 --> 00:30:15.260
So, again, Rousseau surprised expectations.

229
00:30:15.260 --> 00:30:20.860
You would think, well, if people want to try to be as free as possible, they would want

230
00:30:20.860 --> 00:30:24.620
to give up as little liberty as possible to the government.

231
00:30:24.620 --> 00:30:31.660
I shouldn't say to the government, because, as it turns out, the government has a very

232
00:30:31.660 --> 00:30:37.300
special meaning in Rousseau's work.

233
00:30:37.300 --> 00:30:44.500
What we're really giving up is to the common will, what he calls in the book the general

234
00:30:44.500 --> 00:30:45.500
will.

235
00:30:45.500 --> 00:30:50.620
But you would think that Rousseau would say we want to give up as little of our liberty

236
00:30:50.620 --> 00:30:55.060
as possible, but Rousseau, again, is a very paradoxical writer.

237
00:30:55.060 --> 00:31:01.340
He surprises expectations and says, well, no, what he claims to have to come up with

238
00:31:01.340 --> 00:31:07.660
is the way in which each person will give up everything to this body, this entity, the

239
00:31:07.660 --> 00:31:14.580
general will, and in return will find that he's as free as before. So Rousseau has set

240
00:31:14.580 --> 00:31:19.860
himself a very tall order, saying each of us can give up everything, but we'll still

241
00:31:19.860 --> 00:31:30.620
be free once we do it. And then the question is, will he be successful in this very daring

242
00:31:30.620 --> 00:31:37.700
Banking Enterprise. I'll let you in on the result he isn't.

243
00:31:37.700 --> 00:31:46.700
All right. What he does, first of all, before he gets to his own views on the proper, the

244
00:31:46.700 --> 00:31:54.460
general will, he refutes or attacks earlier theories of the origin of the state. Now,

245
00:31:54.460 --> 00:32:07.100
He tends a bit to fall perhaps into this fallacy. He'll say there are so and so many views possible

246
00:32:07.100 --> 00:32:17.500
of the origin of the state A, B, C, and D. I've shown that A, B, and C are all wrong.

247
00:32:17.500 --> 00:32:25.660
That Leaves D, which is my view. So we should accept that one. And this isn't such a good

248
00:32:25.660 --> 00:32:31.700
way of arguing, because first of all, he would have to show that all those alternatives,

249
00:32:31.700 --> 00:32:38.020
those alternatives are exhaustive. There couldn't be other alternatives. But even if those are

250
00:32:38.020 --> 00:32:42.620
the alternatives, it could turn out that all the theories are wrong. Who says we have to

251
00:32:42.620 --> 00:32:58.620
We have to have a satisfactory theory of the origins of state authority, because now they're all wrong, so the fact, if it is a fact that he's successful in refuting some of the theories, doesn't show that his view is correct.

252
00:32:58.620 --> 00:33:11.860
One of the views he attacks is one that I mentioned before in connection with Locke,

253
00:33:11.860 --> 00:33:25.020
one held by Filmer that the political power comes from the human family, just as the father

254
00:33:25.020 --> 00:33:31.460
has authority in the family. The political ruler has authority somewhat like a father

255
00:33:31.460 --> 00:33:36.900
over his people. But Rousseau made short work of this theory in an argument similar

256
00:33:36.900 --> 00:33:43.200
to Locke. He was very familiar with Locke and also with Hobbes and practically everybody,

257
00:33:43.200 --> 00:33:49.500
all the classical authors. He was a very well-read writer. He just said, well, no, just as Locke

258
00:33:49.500 --> 00:33:55.300
The political authority isn't at all like that of a family.

259
00:33:55.300 --> 00:34:04.900
The father of a family is motivated by affection for his children, and then his authority lapses

260
00:34:04.900 --> 00:34:10.900
after the children become adults, and this is nothing like the situation in conventional

261
00:34:10.900 --> 00:34:20.620
and Politics, where the government isn't motivated by affection for the people.

262
00:34:20.620 --> 00:34:34.900
He mentions also the theory held by Hobbes that people are in such a bad state of affairs

263
00:34:34.900 --> 00:34:43.220
In a state without government people are constantly at war with each other, people are hostile

264
00:34:43.220 --> 00:34:47.900
to each other, that they set up a government to get out of this bad state of affairs.

265
00:34:47.900 --> 00:34:53.380
But he said, this is wrong because it assumes that there's some kind of constant human

266
00:34:53.380 --> 00:35:01.260
nature that make people at odds with each other, and in fact, what people's nature

267
00:35:01.260 --> 00:35:06.340
The theory, as far as their hostility to others or how peaceful they are, very much depends

268
00:35:06.340 --> 00:35:09.720
on the social conditions.

269
00:35:09.720 --> 00:35:22.340
So, people might be that way in certain historical periods, but that's not a constant that explains

270
00:35:22.340 --> 00:35:27.820
why government exists, because people need not be like this.

271
00:35:27.820 --> 00:35:37.420
I should say, as usual, there's a Straussian view, which says, as you might expect, Rousseau

272
00:35:37.420 --> 00:35:45.540
is like Locke, a secret Hobbesian, and he really does hold that the state of nature

273
00:35:45.540 --> 00:35:47.380
is pretty Hobbesian.

274
00:35:47.380 --> 00:35:53.380
Even if people don't have to be in that state, they pretty much are in that state, the Hobbesian

275
00:35:53.380 --> 00:35:54.380
state of nature.

276
00:35:54.380 --> 00:35:59.660
And so this does explain how government comes about.

277
00:35:59.660 --> 00:36:14.780
There's this very good Straussian author on Rousseau, Hillel Gilden, who has a book on

278
00:36:14.780 --> 00:36:19.540
the social contract where he gives this view.

279
00:36:19.540 --> 00:36:33.940
Now, another view that Rousseau gives is, he says, here he mentions Grotius. Grotius just

280
00:36:33.940 --> 00:36:40.660
appealed to various historical events, especially described in the Bible, on how, say, people

281
00:36:40.660 --> 00:36:54.660
The people had been captured in war in order not to be killed and had accepted the rule of their conquerors.

282
00:36:54.660 --> 00:37:03.660
So Rousseau says the problem with Grotius is he has no distinction between what happened and what should happen.

283
00:37:03.660 --> 00:37:07.660
He just accepts whatever happened in the past is valid.

284
00:37:07.660 --> 00:37:14.380
He doesn't say, is this the right thing to do or not, he just said, well, I have some

285
00:37:14.380 --> 00:37:19.900
historical precedents that such and such happened, so this gives a basis for government.

286
00:37:19.900 --> 00:37:30.300
That isn't a good way of doing things.

287
00:37:30.300 --> 00:37:38.860
Now what Rousseau argued was that we should explain the origins of the state in this way.

288
00:37:38.860 --> 00:37:53.380
We imagine a group of people, everyone surrenders all his rights and liberty to everyone else.

289
00:37:53.380 --> 00:37:59.300
So it's somewhat a bit like the community and lock system, except you surrender not

290
00:37:59.300 --> 00:38:06.420
Not just your right to enforce the law of nature, but you surrender everything to the community.

291
00:38:06.420 --> 00:38:20.640
But the community then decides everything by everyone having the same will.

292
00:38:20.640 --> 00:38:27.700
So everyone is as free as before because the community is all sort of acts as one.

293
00:38:27.700 --> 00:38:35.660
And so, you end up with each person not having rights and liberties, but better off than

294
00:38:35.660 --> 00:38:41.220
he was before, because in the state of nature, he had no way of ensuring that he'd have

295
00:38:41.220 --> 00:38:42.820
any rights and liberties protected.

296
00:38:42.820 --> 00:38:51.340
But if you have everyone is unified in one entity, and they all act together, they all

297
00:38:51.340 --> 00:39:08.220
All have a unified will, so-called general will, volontaire, général.

298
00:39:08.220 --> 00:39:17.900
So if you have everyone acting together in a unified will, then no one is subject to

299
00:39:17.900 --> 00:39:25.340
to anybody else. Everyone is, so we have, so gets what he wants, because everyone has

300
00:39:25.340 --> 00:39:32.500
surrendered everything to the general will, but you're as free as you were before, because

301
00:39:32.500 --> 00:39:38.020
you're all acting, you all have the same will, so you all want the same thing, and you're

302
00:39:38.020 --> 00:39:47.860
as free as you were before. Now, the difficulty here is, why would it be the case that everyone

303
00:39:47.860 --> 00:39:50.860
Why would everybody have the same will?

304
00:39:50.860 --> 00:39:53.860
Why would everybody will the same thing?

305
00:39:53.860 --> 00:40:02.860
It doesn't seem very plausible that everybody has the will to do the identical thing all the time.

306
00:40:02.860 --> 00:40:04.860
So how can Rousseau say this?

307
00:40:04.860 --> 00:40:14.860
Well, he says what you imagine is it isn't to say that everybody decides we all have the same preferences in food

308
00:40:14.860 --> 00:40:16.860
or we all want the same kind of house.

309
00:40:16.860 --> 00:40:37.860
It's that what the general will does is limited to general laws. All it can do is pass laws that don't refer to any particular person by name or description.

310
00:40:37.860 --> 00:40:45.860
They just pass certain general regulations. And everyone wants these general regulations.

311
00:40:45.860 --> 00:40:49.940
So, this is how you achieve the unanimity.

312
00:40:49.940 --> 00:40:55.140
Now, to some extent, this reduces the problem because it isn't that we have to get people

313
00:40:55.140 --> 00:41:01.340
agreeing on absolutely everything, so we now have people have to agree just on the general,

314
00:41:01.340 --> 00:41:03.780
these general laws.

315
00:41:03.780 --> 00:41:06.500
But it seems doesn't the problem just come back?

316
00:41:06.500 --> 00:41:12.580
Why should we think that everyone would agree on the general laws?

317
00:41:12.580 --> 00:41:22.580
Well, here Rousseau says this, he says, you have to get people in the right frame of mind for this agreement.

318
00:41:22.580 --> 00:41:32.580
Specifically, you can't have people getting together in factions, because if you could have, say, interested groups,

319
00:41:32.580 --> 00:41:38.580
then they wouldn't be voting what would be in the interests of all.

320
00:41:38.580 --> 00:41:48.340
all. You just have to imagine there are no groups or factions. Each person then votes

321
00:41:48.340 --> 00:41:57.340
just separately on what he thinks would be in the general interest. So, in that way,

322
00:41:57.340 --> 00:42:05.100
we will get everybody voting the same way. If you say, well, that's ridiculous, people

323
00:42:05.100 --> 00:42:34.100
Rousseau thinks somehow the personal differences will cancel out, say one person might think, make a mistake, but this will be balanced by somebody else making a mistake in some other direction, and what will result if everybody votes separately will be the general will, which will be a correct statement of what will be in everyone's interest.

324
00:42:34.100 --> 00:42:35.100
Everyone's Interest

325
00:42:35.100 --> 00:42:43.300
Now, it still seems to be a problem, though, is that supposing what Rousseau says is right,

326
00:42:43.300 --> 00:42:49.180
then the result will be the correct general law in everybody's interest.

327
00:42:49.180 --> 00:42:53.460
But it doesn't follow that everybody has supported that.

328
00:42:53.460 --> 00:42:56.860
What about the people who didn't?

329
00:42:56.860 --> 00:43:04.220
It just turns out that, say, there's a majority who supports doing things one way, some other

330
00:43:04.220 --> 00:43:11.080
people vote the other way, so we say, well, the general will is to do such and such.

331
00:43:11.080 --> 00:43:13.700
What about the people who voted the other way?

332
00:43:13.700 --> 00:43:19.700
So remember Rousseau's argument is, if everybody votes the same way, everybody wants

333
00:43:19.700 --> 00:43:26.420
the same thing, so we're as free as we were before because we're all doing what we want

334
00:43:26.420 --> 00:43:36.060
We're better off because we're now protected by the whole social order.

335
00:43:36.060 --> 00:43:40.980
We're not just dependent on ourselves to secure our liberties.

336
00:43:40.980 --> 00:43:44.140
We have the whole social order behind us.

337
00:43:44.140 --> 00:43:47.640
But as I say, how does he then get around the problem?

338
00:43:47.640 --> 00:43:52.460
This works if it does work only if everybody votes the same way, everybody wants the same

339
00:43:52.460 --> 00:43:53.460
way.

340
00:43:53.460 --> 00:44:08.460
Well, he says, if it turns out that after the vote, what you wanted isn't the way the general will turns out, what the majority voted,

341
00:44:08.460 --> 00:44:18.460
then what you wanted isn't what you really wanted. What you really wanted is what the general will wanted.

342
00:44:18.460 --> 00:44:28.380
Now, the general will can make you do what the decision of the majority, because this

343
00:44:28.380 --> 00:44:34.260
is what you really want, even though you don't think so, but you really do want this.

344
00:44:34.260 --> 00:44:43.140
So as Rousseau says, you can be forced to be free by doing this.

345
00:44:43.140 --> 00:44:52.280
I want to, it sounds like a ridiculous view, and I want to, though, ask, can we say anything

346
00:44:52.280 --> 00:44:53.280
in favor of it?

347
00:44:53.280 --> 00:44:58.240
I mean, after all, Rousseau, whatever one may think of him, was certainly not a stupid

348
00:44:58.240 --> 00:44:59.240
person.

349
00:44:59.240 --> 00:45:00.980
He was extraordinarily intelligent.

350
00:45:00.980 --> 00:45:03.540
How could he have thought that?

351
00:45:03.540 --> 00:45:13.460
I want to mention two arguments that have been given, I think, by philosophers I think are

352
00:45:13.460 --> 00:45:15.700
interesting to look at in this connection.

353
00:45:15.700 --> 00:45:22.700
One was by a philosopher I mentioned in an earlier lecture when I was discussing Plato's

354
00:45:22.700 --> 00:45:31.040
Republic, the Oxford philosopher H. A. Pritchard, and he had an essay where he discusses his

355
00:45:31.040 --> 00:45:37.820
general will argument, it was in a discussion of T.H. Green's lectures on principles of

356
00:45:37.820 --> 00:45:47.240
political obligation. Now, he took the general will or what's called a real will argument

357
00:45:47.240 --> 00:45:57.760
to go something like this. If we say, we want to say, sometimes we want to say people find

358
00:45:57.760 --> 00:46:03.920
and the conflict between the right thing to do, what's the moral thing to do, and what's

359
00:46:03.920 --> 00:46:06.640
in their interest.

360
00:46:06.640 --> 00:46:12.160
This would say, as we have said in the case, suppose we think that what the general will

361
00:46:12.160 --> 00:46:17.600
does is the right course of action.

362
00:46:17.600 --> 00:46:22.280
We say what the individual who's voting in the minority wants to act in his own interest.

363
00:46:22.280 --> 00:46:26.520
So how can we reconcile self-interest with morality?

364
00:46:26.520 --> 00:46:33.340
How can it be the case that if I act in my own interest, I'm always acting in accord

365
00:46:33.340 --> 00:46:42.020
with morality? So Pritchard said, well, it sometimes turns out that morality, at least

366
00:46:42.020 --> 00:46:48.020
in the surface, requires us to act against our own interests. So the way then we can

367
00:46:48.020 --> 00:46:56.040
To reconcile the two, according to Pritchard, people in the Rousseauian tradition, such

368
00:46:56.040 --> 00:46:57.040
as T.H.

369
00:46:57.040 --> 00:47:04.420
Green and Dennis, say self-interest and morality are identical, because really people should

370
00:47:04.420 --> 00:47:08.320
be taken as ultimately identical.

371
00:47:08.320 --> 00:47:14.500
We appear to have different bodies, but we're really all the same person.

372
00:47:14.500 --> 00:47:18.860
So this is one way, I think, of understanding Rousseau's contention.

373
00:47:18.860 --> 00:47:28.380
He's saying people in the society really become unified into one entity, one sort of collective

374
00:47:28.380 --> 00:47:38.360
mind, and if, say, a physical individual finds himself at variance with what the general

375
00:47:38.360 --> 00:47:47.600
The general rule requires him to do what it wants.

376
00:47:47.600 --> 00:47:53.720
It isn't really, the general rule really isn't restricting him, it's just sort of requiring

377
00:47:53.720 --> 00:48:00.560
kind of a subordinate part of a single entity to actually cord with the whole entity.

378
00:48:00.560 --> 00:48:06.120
So if you take, one way to make sense of Rousseau is to take him in this very collectivistic

379
00:48:06.120 --> 00:48:07.880
way.

380
00:48:07.880 --> 00:48:14.580
But I don't think, I hope you would agree with me, this isn't a very plausible view.

381
00:48:14.580 --> 00:48:21.600
Why should we think that all of us or all people in a society form part of a single

382
00:48:21.600 --> 00:48:23.080
entity in this way?

383
00:48:23.080 --> 00:48:31.540
Now there's a better argument for a general will, a real will position, found in a chapter

384
00:48:31.540 --> 00:48:39.780
in the book by the idealist philosopher Brann Blanchard called Reason and Goodness.

385
00:48:39.780 --> 00:48:45.620
I'm going to say a bit about this because I think this is the most plausible argument

386
00:48:45.620 --> 00:48:48.860
I found for this position.

387
00:48:48.860 --> 00:48:59.380
Blanchard says this, he says, well, we all want to do what's rational and we all want

388
00:48:59.380 --> 00:49:01.380
The Theory of Money and Credit

389
00:49:29.380 --> 00:49:41.380
We all have the same will. We all want what the general will wants, simply because we all want to be rational, and what being rational is, is what the general will wants.

390
00:49:41.380 --> 00:49:49.380
So we all have the same will, namely to do what is rationally required.

391
00:49:49.380 --> 00:50:12.380
Now, I think this is, as I say, I think it's a more interesting argument than the one Pritchard ascribes to Greene and Rousseau, because Pritchard is a very negative critic of theirs, he doesn't favor the general will doctrine at all, and Blanchard is an advocate of it, he's trying to put it in the best of light as possible.

392
00:50:12.380 --> 00:50:24.380
I think we can see Blanchard's argument doesn't work. Let me just put this down, this way.

393
00:50:42.380 --> 00:51:09.380
I think we can take the basic argument that Blanchard is suggesting, the way of interpreting

394
00:51:09.380 --> 00:51:14.980
So, it's saying people want to be rational, people want to do the right thing, so I want

395
00:51:14.980 --> 00:51:22.660
to be rational, so I find out rationality requires me to do X, in this case, to do what

396
00:51:22.660 --> 00:51:28.380
the general will says, so therefore I want to do what the general will says.

397
00:51:28.380 --> 00:51:38.580
Now, this argument is formally valid, but it could turn out that when I find out that

398
00:51:38.580 --> 00:51:46.740
Rationality Requires X, it could be that that would induce me to drop the first premise.

399
00:51:46.740 --> 00:51:54.260
It could be when I find, oh, rationality is going to require me to do this, like to enlist

400
00:51:54.260 --> 00:52:03.340
in the armed forces, defend the, say, defend Geneva from an impending French invasion.

401
00:52:03.340 --> 00:52:08.540
Maybe I'd say, oh, I don't want to do that. Let's forget about rationality for a while.

402
00:52:08.540 --> 00:52:16.700
It's too hard on me. So it doesn't follow that once you see what rationality is required,

403
00:52:16.700 --> 00:52:25.380
that you're going to go along with it. Furthermore, supposing you did accept the argument, there

404
00:52:25.380 --> 00:52:33.260
would still be a very definite sense in which you wouldn't be doing what you wanted, mainly

405
00:52:33.260 --> 00:52:41.620
Even if you say, well, it's some kind of, your conscious desires don't reflect your real self,

406
00:52:41.620 --> 00:52:46.700
still you do have this desire not to do what the general will says.

407
00:52:46.700 --> 00:52:48.540
You voted the other way.

408
00:52:48.540 --> 00:52:55.000
So at least in some sense you don't want to do what the general will says, and it's merely

409
00:52:55.000 --> 00:53:03.720
playing with words to say that you really do, at least in a sense in which if you say

410
00:53:03.720 --> 00:53:09.800
you want something, it's not the case that you don't want it.

411
00:53:09.800 --> 00:53:15.160
You can't say that here, even if this argument worked, which I don't think it does, it would

412
00:53:15.160 --> 00:53:21.560
then just be the case in one sense you want what the general will says, in another sense

413
00:53:21.560 --> 00:53:50.040
One wonders, having thought about this, how could Rousseau have made the claim that each

414
00:53:50.040 --> 00:53:55.640
Each person, by surrendering to the general will, is just as free as he was before.

415
00:53:55.640 --> 00:54:05.040
It seems like this claim doesn't get him very far, and I think we could see two things

416
00:54:05.040 --> 00:54:17.220
that could explain how Rousseau could have fallen into fallacy, and I think another thing

417
00:54:17.220 --> 00:54:28.860
makes the claim less surprising than we might think.

418
00:54:28.860 --> 00:54:35.760
If we say, well, how could Rousseau have possibly thought that people are free under the conditions

419
00:54:35.760 --> 00:54:41.840
he set out, because after all, you could end up not, say you turned out you kept being

420
00:54:41.840 --> 00:54:47.280
Being outvoted, you could turn out, you'd be free in the Rousseauian sense, even if

421
00:54:47.280 --> 00:54:54.360
you never, practically never got to do what you wanted, you always lose the votes.

422
00:54:54.360 --> 00:55:01.880
Well, Rousseau, remember when he was talking about what's wrong with the developed economy,

423
00:55:01.880 --> 00:55:08.400
why we like the primitive, why you like the primitive state, fears better, he was concerned

424
00:55:08.400 --> 00:55:14.460
And with people being dependent on others, and what he had in mind was you're dependent

425
00:55:14.460 --> 00:55:18.600
on particular other people.

426
00:55:18.600 --> 00:55:26.080
So here it isn't that you're dependent on any one person or other, it's just you're

427
00:55:26.080 --> 00:55:33.320
dependent on everybody, you're dependent on the whole social body of which you're a constituent

428
00:55:33.320 --> 00:55:37.400
part, you have an equal part to everybody else.

429
00:55:37.400 --> 00:55:42.480
So somehow I think this is the fallacy, a key fallacy in Rousseau's argument, he thought

430
00:55:42.480 --> 00:55:50.920
somehow this meant you weren't dependent because you're not dependent on a particular person,

431
00:55:50.920 --> 00:55:54.000
you're just dependent on the social body.

432
00:55:54.000 --> 00:56:02.560
And I think we can see the same fallacy in many political proposals today.

433
00:56:02.560 --> 00:56:13.920
For example, sometimes people defend conscription, forcing people to enlist in the army by saying

434
00:56:13.920 --> 00:56:23.120
this is democratically voted, as if somehow, if the fact that it isn't that a dictator

435
00:56:23.120 --> 00:56:28.520
is telling you you have to be in the army, it's that there's somehow a vote for it,

436
00:56:28.520 --> 00:56:37.600
If you had one of the votes that go into the conscription law, somehow this means that

437
00:56:37.600 --> 00:56:43.160
you're free because it isn't a particular person ordering you to do this.

438
00:56:43.160 --> 00:56:52.200
And I think this is certainly not a correct view of freedom to adopt.

439
00:56:52.200 --> 00:56:57.800
You're just as involuntarily in the army if you don't want to be there.

440
00:56:57.800 --> 00:57:03.160
If you're there because of a vote, and if you were there because you got orders from

441
00:57:03.160 --> 00:57:10.660
some king or dictator, I remember there was a letter I once saw by the political theorist

442
00:57:10.660 --> 00:57:18.860
Benjamin Barber, who very much likes the Swiss style of collective decision-making.

443
00:57:18.860 --> 00:57:24.320
He defended conscription, so somebody wrote in and said, I think it was in Descent Magazine,

444
00:57:24.320 --> 00:57:31.120
which is a socialist periodical. Somebody said, oh, conscription is really a form of slavery,

445
00:57:31.120 --> 00:57:36.080
and he got very upset. He said, oh, how can you possibly say this is just the kind of thinking

446
00:57:36.080 --> 00:57:43.360
we have to get away from, as if there had been a democratic vote for something that

447
00:57:43.360 --> 00:57:53.880
settled the question. Now, I said that I think is a fallacy. Falling into that fallacy could

448
00:57:53.880 --> 00:58:02.200
of Account for Rousseau's line of thought, why he thought that, how could he say that

449
00:58:02.200 --> 00:58:08.320
people are free even if they're, turns out they're not doing what they want.

450
00:58:08.320 --> 00:58:17.240
Now I think another thing that could mitigate the enormity of Rousseau's claim is, remember

451
00:58:17.240 --> 00:58:27.240
What he's saying is that people will find that they're as free as they were before, before getting into this.

452
00:58:27.240 --> 00:58:29.240
They surrendered everything to general will.

453
00:58:29.240 --> 00:58:33.240
But then we have to ask, well, how free were they before?

454
00:58:33.240 --> 00:58:39.240
It could turn out they're not very free before, say, if they were in something like a...

455
00:58:39.240 --> 00:58:59.240
They couldn't, by hypothesis, really protect their rights in the state fairs before the general will, so they're not really free, really very free to begin with, so if they're no more free than they were as free as they were before, it isn't perhaps that much of a claim.

456
00:58:59.240 --> 00:59:11.240
I think he would be being rather tricky, so maybe he was a secret student. The Straussians are right, after all.

457
00:59:11.240 --> 00:59:21.240
I mean, if you took him this way, he wouldn't really, in saying that people would be as free as before, he wouldn't really be making a very strong claim.

458
00:59:21.240 --> 00:59:34.520
And I said we have to distinguish, when I said I first talked about setting up the government,

459
00:59:34.520 --> 00:59:40.920
but I said, then I said I shouldn't really say government because this is a special term

460
00:59:40.920 --> 00:59:43.720
in Rousseau's thinking.

461
00:59:43.720 --> 00:59:52.520
Now, Rousseau didn't call the entity constituted by the general will, didn't call that the

462
00:59:52.520 --> 00:59:53.520
government.

463
00:59:53.520 --> 01:00:04.320
The general will just handles, makes rules that apply universally, but the general will

464
01:00:04.320 --> 01:00:11.680
doesn't handle day-to-day legislation and executive policy.

465
01:00:11.680 --> 01:00:35.680
So the government, in the sense we have it, say we talk about the U.S. government or government of countries, what handles day-to-day affairs in a state isn't the general will, is the general will chooses particular people to form the government, and they don't have to choose a democracy, according to Rousseau.

466
01:00:35.680 --> 01:00:48.200
In fact, he thought that democracy could only work for a very small society.

467
01:00:48.200 --> 01:00:54.840
In larger societies, he thought the best type of government was an elective aristocracy.

468
01:00:54.840 --> 01:01:00.960
A hereditary aristocracy wasn't very good, that would be one, but the best would really

469
01:01:00.960 --> 01:01:04.040
be an elective aristocracy.

470
01:01:04.040 --> 01:01:13.980
Then he has rather hard to understand mathematical formulas for just how big the government should

471
01:01:13.980 --> 01:01:16.680
be, how many people should be in it.

472
01:01:16.680 --> 01:01:29.040
He thinks, on the one hand, if you have a large society, then if you have the government

473
01:01:29.040 --> 01:01:36.120
is too small, then it won't be able to control the large society. You just have too few people.

474
01:01:36.120 --> 01:01:39.920
They won't be able to handle, if they have this problem, day-to-day administration of

475
01:01:39.920 --> 01:01:45.640
justice, for example, they won't be able to administer justice if there is a whole lot

476
01:01:45.640 --> 01:01:53.240
of people and just a few people in the government. So you need a larger government if there are

477
01:01:53.240 --> 01:02:00.240
more people in the society, so you have a larger number of people, in the form of general will, have a larger government.

478
01:02:00.240 --> 01:02:06.240
On the other hand, if you have too large a government, that tends to be inefficient.

479
01:02:06.240 --> 01:02:13.240
Say, if you have a monarch, there's just one person he decides on the policy,

480
01:02:13.240 --> 01:02:21.240
so that's much more efficient than if you have to get a whole lot of people to agree on things.

481
01:02:21.240 --> 01:02:31.040
Remember, this is unlike the general will. This is day-to-day policy, so Rousseau arrives

482
01:02:31.040 --> 01:02:38.120
at the result that the size of the government should be the square root of the number of

483
01:02:38.120 --> 01:02:44.400
people in the society. I can't say I understand how he arrives at that result, but that's

484
01:02:44.400 --> 01:03:14.400
What He Says. Now, we have a further addition, there's a further point that's rather, I think, a very important point in the political theory, is we have, so far we have the general will, and it's supposed to be voting on what's the general laws that are in everybody's interest, and then what it arrives at will be turned out to be what everybody

485
01:03:14.400 --> 01:03:32.800
How do we know which general laws to vote on?

486
01:03:32.800 --> 01:03:39.240
If Rousseau is right, whatever way they vote will give the general will, but that doesn't

487
01:03:39.240 --> 01:03:41.120
give them the agenda to vote on.

488
01:03:41.120 --> 01:03:45.840
How will they know what are the general laws they're supposed to think about?

489
01:03:45.840 --> 01:03:52.880
Here Rousseau brings in the figure of the legislator, and this is not someone who's

490
01:03:52.880 --> 01:03:53.880
in the government.

491
01:03:53.880 --> 01:04:01.840
This is an outside person, sometimes from outside the society, who Rousseau considers

492
01:04:01.840 --> 01:04:10.240
a genius, someone who attracts people to him by his powers of persuasion.

493
01:04:10.240 --> 01:04:19.560
And he's able to propose to the people, without forcing them, the proper laws that they should

494
01:04:19.560 --> 01:04:20.560
pass.

495
01:04:20.560 --> 01:04:32.000
Rousseau has in mind people like Kyrgyz, who was one of the founders of Sparta, and Moses,

496
01:04:32.000 --> 01:04:36.520
who had legislation, who proposed the legislation for the people of Israel.

497
01:04:36.520 --> 01:04:44.360
They did have political authority also, but Rousseau's legislator wouldn't, he would

498
01:04:44.360 --> 01:04:53.080
just be someone dependent, who would be relying on his powers of persuasion, he would be superior

499
01:04:53.080 --> 01:04:57.600
to everyone else in his intellect, and people would look up to him.

500
01:04:57.600 --> 01:05:05.280
I suspect that Rousseau thought his own books would act in that way on other people, and

501
01:05:05.280 --> 01:05:21.280
and he hoped that other people would learn from his books and put him in the position and treat him as if he were the legislator, even if not in person, just by following what he said in his writings.

502
01:05:21.280 --> 01:05:39.760
In order to have a general will of the kind Rousseau wanted, you would need a fairly small

503
01:05:39.760 --> 01:05:49.600
society. As I said, Rousseau had views on how the government should vary in relation

504
01:05:49.600 --> 01:05:59.240
How many people in the society? But even within those limits didn't go all that far. Once

505
01:05:59.240 --> 01:06:03.920
you had more than a certain number of people, Rousseau doesn't specify exact limits, once

506
01:06:03.920 --> 01:06:11.800
you had more than a certain number of people, you really couldn't get, very unlikely you

507
01:06:11.800 --> 01:06:18.480
get the required consensus that would be needed for general will. So Rousseau wanted a fairly

508
01:06:48.480 --> 01:07:07.480
I think Hannah Arendt is supposed to have said that Rousseau suffered from policy envy.

509
01:07:07.480 --> 01:07:28.160
So, additionally, one of the things that would secure required unity and proper good morals

510
01:07:28.160 --> 01:07:36.600
and manners among the people, education would have to be very carefully regulated and like

511
01:07:36.600 --> 01:07:44.620
Like Plato in both the ideal city of the Republic, Callipolis, the ideal city, the best city

512
01:07:44.620 --> 01:07:51.940
of the laws, Magnesia, like Plato, Rousseau favored censorship.

513
01:07:51.940 --> 01:07:57.840
He wrote, there was a letter he wrote to D'Alembert, one of the figures of the French Enlightenment,

514
01:07:57.840 --> 01:08:03.800
which he very much defends censorship in Geneva.

515
01:08:03.800 --> 01:08:10.200
He said, we shouldn't, it's wrong, people are having too many stage plays, these are

516
01:08:10.200 --> 01:08:11.200
very bad.

517
01:08:11.200 --> 01:08:18.120
It's better to have not stage plays, but festivals in which people participate themselves.

518
01:08:18.120 --> 01:08:25.720
And furthermore, it's very important to regulate the music that people listen to, because if

519
01:08:25.720 --> 01:08:31.240
they listen to the wrong kind of music, this can get people very upset, and then they won't

520
01:08:31.240 --> 01:08:36.280
be in the right frame of mind for proper politics.

521
01:08:36.280 --> 01:08:46.480
The writer, Alan Bloom, who was a follower of Strauss, was also very devoted to Rousseau,

522
01:08:46.480 --> 01:08:56.720
continues this theme very much in his famous attack on current American education, the

523
01:08:56.720 --> 01:08:58.600
closing of the American mind.

524
01:08:58.600 --> 01:09:04.400
He devotes a great deal of attention to what he considers the dangers of rock music, how

525
01:09:04.400 --> 01:09:07.440
this has corrupted youth.

526
01:09:07.440 --> 01:09:11.960
People wondered when they read this, well, if he doesn't like this kind of music, why

527
01:09:11.960 --> 01:09:14.000
is he getting so upset about it?

528
01:09:14.000 --> 01:09:15.600
Why is it such a big deal?

529
01:09:15.600 --> 01:09:23.200
You see, in doing this, he's following very much in Rousseau's footsteps.

530
01:09:23.200 --> 01:09:25.720
This is a very Rousseauian theme.

531
01:09:25.720 --> 01:09:34.680
The music that people listen to is really helping to determine their life. Music is

532
01:09:34.680 --> 01:09:43.440
one of the keys to Rousseau's thought. And Rousseau thought that contemporary French

533
01:09:43.440 --> 01:09:52.920
music was too corrupt, it was too artificial, and he wrote a tax on it, and he defended

534
01:09:52.920 --> 01:10:03.040
Italian music and opera is much better because it wasn't as hyper-refined, it was much better.

535
01:10:03.040 --> 01:10:10.120
This got him into a lot of trouble with the French musicians at the time and kind of prevented

536
01:10:10.120 --> 01:10:20.520
him from being as successful in his musical work as he might have been otherwise.

537
01:10:20.520 --> 01:10:33.000
So, as you see, the society Rousseau depicted in The Social Contract is one that isn't very

538
01:10:33.000 --> 01:10:34.560
friendly to liberty.

539
01:10:34.560 --> 01:10:41.520
It's one where there's kind of a forced unity, and then we say that people are really free

540
01:10:41.520 --> 01:10:46.840
because they're doing what, according to him, they really want to be.

541
01:10:46.840 --> 01:10:56.320
There's an additional aspect to Rousseau's work that's also covered in the social contract.

542
01:10:56.320 --> 01:11:04.120
This is his chapter on civil religion.

543
01:11:04.120 --> 01:11:12.360
As we've seen in previous lectures, religion is a very key theme in the political philosophies.

544
01:11:12.360 --> 01:11:17.400
What is the Proper Role of Religion in Society?

545
01:11:17.400 --> 01:11:26.120
Now, Rousseau, as he does for the origins of society, goes through different theories,

546
01:11:26.120 --> 01:11:30.520
ones that he rejects, different views that he rejects before giving his own view.

547
01:11:30.520 --> 01:11:44.840
Now he first says, in the ancient world, the gods were very closely tied to the city. Each

548
01:11:44.840 --> 01:11:53.680
city really had its own gods. You would find, say among the Greeks, the gods were really

549
01:11:53.680 --> 01:11:59.800
the same one, different cities, but there would be minor variations. So each city would

550
01:11:59.800 --> 01:12:06.320
to have its own special deity to which it would be devoted.

551
01:12:06.320 --> 01:12:20.280
There is a great famous book later in the 19th century by the historian Foustel de Collage

552
01:12:20.280 --> 01:12:26.360
that develops, if you very much defend it, sort of showing how the ancient city was tied

553
01:12:26.360 --> 01:12:29.360
to the gods in a very close way.

554
01:12:29.360 --> 01:12:36.360
Now Rousseau, you might think from what I've said about his wanting to go back to the ancient Greeks, you might think he would endorse this, but he doesn't.

555
01:12:36.360 --> 01:12:43.360
He said, well, you know, we can't accept this because, after all, this polytheistic view isn't true.

556
01:12:43.360 --> 01:12:48.360
There aren't these separate gods for each city, so we have to reject that.

557
01:12:48.360 --> 01:12:57.800
Then the second view we consider is kind of a mild form of Christianity, one that doesn't

558
01:12:57.800 --> 01:13:00.200
have very strict dogmas.

559
01:13:00.200 --> 01:13:09.080
Somehow you have a view where you believe in universal brotherhood and you think Jesus

560
01:13:09.080 --> 01:13:15.800
was kind of a supreme person, but you're not really committed to any theological dogmas.

561
01:13:15.800 --> 01:13:31.800
Rousseau doesn't like this view very much either. He says, what's wrong with this is that it separates people's religious views from their political life.

562
01:13:31.800 --> 01:13:39.660
If people just think politics is just one sphere of life and they have a higher allegiance

563
01:13:39.660 --> 01:13:49.640
namely to religion, and this also could lead to people not being wholehearted, if say there's

564
01:13:49.640 --> 01:13:57.120
a war between one state and another, then people who hold this religious view might

565
01:13:57.120 --> 01:14:22.120
In holding these views, Rousseau is clearly influenced by Machiavelli, who, in his discourses on Livy, has this same view.

566
01:14:22.120 --> 01:14:31.840
So, what Rousseau proposes instead, instead of saying that this mild version of Christianity

567
01:14:31.840 --> 01:14:41.160
or having separate gods in the city, he says what we have instead, we have a religion consisting

568
01:14:41.160 --> 01:14:46.400
of a few articles that everyone has to believe in.

569
01:14:46.400 --> 01:14:54.800
And one is that there is a God, a single God, who is the creator of the world, second, that

570
01:14:54.800 --> 01:15:01.440
people have immortal souls and have, there's rewards and punishments after death.

571
01:15:01.440 --> 01:15:06.840
Remember, this is quite similar to one of Locke's arguments.

572
01:15:06.840 --> 01:15:14.620
Locke says morality is dependent in this way, on this belief, and Rousseau has this also.

573
01:15:14.620 --> 01:15:25.400
So he says also people who hold to those are free then to hold particular, more detailed

574
01:15:25.400 --> 01:15:31.920
religious views of their own, so long as they're tolerant of others, of other religions.

575
01:15:31.920 --> 01:15:40.660
You couldn't have, say, if a religion says that you can only achieve salvation by joining

576
01:15:40.660 --> 01:15:47.980
in that church, then that isn't allowed because that would contribute to disunity in the state.

577
01:15:47.980 --> 01:15:53.340
You could only have religions that accepted the fundamental articles, including being

578
01:15:53.340 --> 01:16:02.340
tolerant of others. Now, what happens if you say someone doesn't agree with that, or then

579
01:16:02.340 --> 01:16:17.340
If he, first he could be admonished, but if he said that, if he agreed, if he said alright, he did agree, but then acted against that, then Rousseau holds, he could be put to death.

580
01:16:17.340 --> 01:16:25.580
you sort of you you really don't you have to really accept this these articles of

581
01:16:25.580 --> 01:16:34.620
civil religion or you didn't if you and if you say you do and you they turn you

582
01:16:34.620 --> 01:16:39.860
don't then you'd be executed you remember where this this proposal comes

583
01:16:39.860 --> 01:16:46.020
from it's similar to Plato's laws with the nocturnal council you have number

584
01:16:46.020 --> 01:16:53.380
in that, but there's also a civil theology of quite similar kind. So I think here again

585
01:16:53.380 --> 01:17:06.020
Rousseau is showing a strong platonic influence. So what Rousseau has come up with is really,

586
01:17:06.020 --> 01:17:12.340
when he talks about people being free, it's really an attempt somehow to reconstruct a

587
01:17:12.340 --> 01:17:22.340
and the version of platonic politics and people would be free only in a very unusual sense of the term.

588
01:17:22.340 --> 01:17:37.580
Let me see, Rousseau, I should say, one thing also I should mention on Rousseau's system.

589
01:17:37.580 --> 01:17:45.900
Given his views, I mentioned he had on property, one wouldn't expect that property would fare

590
01:17:45.900 --> 01:17:55.780
very well, individual property would fare very well in the state that described in the social

591
01:17:55.780 --> 01:17:58.700
contract, and indeed it doesn't.

592
01:17:58.700 --> 01:18:02.500
Sometimes in Rousseau's work, he's more favorable to private property.

593
01:18:02.500 --> 01:18:10.700
For example, in an article he wrote for the Encyclopedia, a great multi-volume work of

594
01:18:10.700 --> 01:18:15.820
the French Enlightened, he wrote the article on political economy for them.

595
01:18:15.820 --> 01:18:22.100
Here he's fairly sympathetic to private property. Other times he's very much opposed. For example,

596
01:18:22.100 --> 01:18:29.180
he wrote suggestions, considerations for the government of Corsica. The Corsican authorities

597
01:18:29.180 --> 01:18:36.980
made the mistake of asking him for proposals on how they could write a constitution. He

598
01:18:36.980 --> 01:18:42.300
had some suggestions. Here he suggests maybe it would be better to do away with private

599
01:18:42.300 --> 01:18:48.980
Property Altogether and Have Everything in Common. So what his usual position, when he

600
01:18:48.980 --> 01:18:57.980
has a social contract, is you would have some individual property but you couldn't have

601
01:18:57.980 --> 01:19:03.340
very large inequalities because this would interfere with the formation of the general

602
01:19:03.340 --> 01:19:12.020
will. So individual property would be quite limited. Again, this is a theme found in Plato's

603
01:19:12.020 --> 01:19:19.340
laws and also in the Republic. So in conclusion then I don't think Rousseau

604
01:19:19.340 --> 01:19:26.940
can be really put in the classical liberal libertarian tradition. All right,

605
01:19:56.940 --> 01:19:58.940
to Rousseau et al.

606
01:19:58.940 --> 01:20:02.940
And hopefully everybody listened to your presentation.

607
01:20:02.940 --> 01:20:06.940
They're clear on the authoritarian aspects, which I agree with,

608
01:20:06.940 --> 01:20:08.940
and I see the platonic side that you spoke about.

609
01:20:08.940 --> 01:20:10.940
I just would like to remind that Rousseau,

610
01:20:10.940 --> 01:20:15.940
he makes a devastating critique of representative government.

611
01:20:15.940 --> 01:20:19.940
That his, in my understanding of the concept of a social contract,

612
01:20:19.940 --> 01:20:25.940
is that if not a state, would it be a plan to found a polity

613
01:20:25.940 --> 01:20:52.940
And the reason why it might be a path to a greater freedom, or at least, and I agree with your comment, equal to the freedom that people previously had before, is because he sees himself as hopefully increasing the more direct participation in government as distinct from representative government.

614
01:20:52.940 --> 01:21:03.940
He has all these ideas about consciousness and everything that makes him seem like he's concerned that maybe people can't govern themselves and he has this idea about civil religion and all that.

615
01:21:03.940 --> 01:21:14.940
But what I understand he's saying about the theater besides censorship is that when people get emotionally excited about observing cultural representation,

616
01:21:14.940 --> 01:21:22.340
And they're moved emotionally by a drama, say, that talks about people's self-governing capacities.

617
01:21:22.340 --> 01:21:28.340
He said, no, no, no, no. Just because they're emotionally excited and you see an action film or you see a great drama,

618
01:21:28.340 --> 01:21:34.340
they're seeing politics for government as outside themselves.

619
01:21:34.340 --> 01:21:43.340
And so his critique, as I understand it in the literature, is that the problem with popular culture doesn't have to be rock and roll music,

620
01:21:43.340 --> 01:21:53.340
Like Blum said, is that people see what you say, the division of labor that reinforces the idea of representative government.

621
01:21:53.340 --> 01:22:06.340
And the division of labor, what's bad about it is it creates a state and civil society dichotomy where citizenship is thought to be separate from state power.

622
01:22:06.340 --> 01:22:08.340
And I think he's a critic of that.

623
01:22:08.340 --> 01:22:36.340
And so the idea of social contracts, if we don't see it as a state and we see it as a project of an enhanced associational life, it's still flawed, but it could have a certain libertarian aspect, and certain scholars like Robert Paul Wolfe and C.L.R. James have seen Musso in a more anarchistic light, which doesn't mean that they haven't missed all the things they're speaking of, which was very important.

624
01:22:36.340 --> 01:23:06.340
Well, thank you. That was, if I may say, an excellent comment. The gist of it, as I understand it, was that in my talk, I stressed the authoritarian aspects of Rousseau, but there are also libertarian aspects, or at least aspects of Rousseau in which he's more in sympathy with libertarianism. Specifically, that

625
01:23:06.340 --> 01:23:14.460
Rousseau is a critic of representation, both in the theater and in government.

626
01:23:14.460 --> 01:23:21.380
He wants to stress the value of popular participation, say, in the government, instead of saying

627
01:23:21.380 --> 01:23:27.460
letting our representatives do everything for us or viewing action movies or listening

628
01:23:27.460 --> 01:23:28.460
to music.

629
01:23:28.460 --> 01:23:43.460
We are involved ourselves in various associations and it is further suggested that there are scholars such as Robert Paul Wolf and CLR James who have written on this theme.

630
01:23:43.460 --> 01:23:54.660
I think there is certainly a measure of truth to that, and I did mention that Rousseau criticizes

631
01:23:54.660 --> 01:23:59.220
people going to the theater instead of participating in the festivals themselves, and you're certainly

632
01:23:59.220 --> 01:24:07.000
right that Rousseau wanted to limit the authority of the government, you know, that would be

633
01:24:07.000 --> 01:24:11.820
not ourselves, the ones who were handling the day-to-day administration, as against

634
01:24:11.820 --> 01:24:19.100
and the general will, but I think the popular participation, remember, is people getting

635
01:24:19.100 --> 01:24:22.940
all together and voting for general policy.

636
01:24:22.940 --> 01:24:29.260
So I don't think it gives adequate stress to the individual, the individual liberties.

637
01:24:29.260 --> 01:24:38.460
This was a theme that the great 19th century classical liberal Benjamin Constant had in

638
01:24:38.460 --> 01:24:45.260
where he distinguished liberty of the ancients and modern sort of the ancient liberty would

639
01:24:45.260 --> 01:24:50.020
be stressing this kind of popular participation, but Constant didn't reject that altogether

640
01:24:50.020 --> 01:24:58.740
but he pointed out the need for more emphasis on individual liberty.

641
01:24:58.740 --> 01:25:05.300
I would just say, since you mentioned Barbara Wolf, I think, Robert Paul, this isn't really

642
01:25:05.300 --> 01:25:10.980
Directly on Rousseau. One book, I think everyone should read, is a very good book on political

643
01:25:10.980 --> 01:25:18.460
philosophy. It's the one by Robert Paul Wolf called In Defense of Anarchy. I'll just put

644
01:25:18.460 --> 01:25:27.460
that down. I should say also, if you look at Rousseau's last work, The Reveries of a

645
01:25:27.460 --> 01:25:34.940
Solitary Walker, it appears he isn't altogether satisfied with the position he took in social

646
01:25:34.940 --> 01:25:47.940
because here he seems to stress not political participation but just his own grasp of what the sentiment of existence, sort of an individual, quite an individual thing.

647
01:25:47.940 --> 01:25:59.940
He's in touch with himself and he seems there to be stressing that as the kind of the most important thing that he's grasped his own sentiment or feeling of existence.

648
01:25:59.940 --> 01:26:12.940
He really, I don't think he really had a statement set up as the one he describes in the social contract. I don't think he would have really fitted in very well in it. Rodman.

649
01:26:29.940 --> 01:26:31.940
to someone else.

650
01:26:31.940 --> 01:26:35.940
It's going to be alienating the liberty to someone else,

651
01:26:35.940 --> 01:26:37.940
then you're not free.

652
01:26:37.940 --> 01:26:40.940
So they think, well, the way the community comes in,

653
01:26:40.940 --> 01:26:43.940
they think, if I just go by myself,

654
01:26:43.940 --> 01:26:46.940
alienating my liberty to the community of no one else

655
01:26:46.940 --> 01:26:48.940
but what I'm going to say to the community.

656
01:26:48.940 --> 01:26:52.940
But if all the members of the community alienate their liberty

657
01:26:52.940 --> 01:26:55.940
to give all the plethora of themselves to the community,

658
01:26:55.940 --> 01:26:58.940
then there's no longer distinction between the rule

659
01:26:58.940 --> 01:27:03.940
The Community as a whole, they're taking authority over all these individual groups.

660
01:27:03.940 --> 01:27:11.940
So somehow, and this is something that worked, but this is an idea that that way you haven't really lost any freedom

661
01:27:11.940 --> 01:27:14.940
because there's no real distinction between the giver of the liberty and the receiver of it.

662
01:27:14.940 --> 01:27:19.940
All these people are getting into this sort of collective body.

663
01:27:19.940 --> 01:27:23.940
And then they would leave to whatever is in the interest of that collective body.

664
01:27:23.940 --> 01:27:25.940
And that's why it can't just be the authority will.

665
01:27:25.940 --> 01:27:51.940
The suggestion was that perhaps we can take Rousseau's argument in this way and say how could he have thought that people were still free if they, given his view of general will, is that instead of each person hasn't alienated his liberty to any particular person,

666
01:27:51.940 --> 01:28:00.700
If you take a person who has alienated his liberty to the whole community, if one person

667
01:28:00.700 --> 01:28:03.820
would do that and nobody else did, then he wouldn't be free.

668
01:28:03.820 --> 01:28:11.460
But if you imagine everybody doing that, everyone has alienated his liberty to the whole community,

669
01:28:11.460 --> 01:28:17.600
then maybe you thought somehow people were still free because there'd be no real distinction

670
01:28:17.600 --> 01:28:21.500
between the individuals and the collective body.

671
01:28:21.500 --> 01:28:28.860
So I think that is probably what he meant and I think the problem there is, as I tried to

672
01:28:28.860 --> 01:28:34.340
bring out in the lecture, is that he's left with the fact that even if there is this kind

673
01:28:34.340 --> 01:28:40.260
of unification taking place in some sense, even if he's right about that, you still haven't

674
01:28:40.260 --> 01:28:48.580
gotten rid of the individual will, sort of the down-to-earth individual, and that will

675
01:28:48.580 --> 01:28:54.860
can still be very much in conflict with what the general will wants.

676
01:28:54.860 --> 01:28:59.740
So even Rousseau is right, he's still wrong.

677
01:28:59.740 --> 01:29:08.100
So there's a very good book on Rousseau by David Gaultier where he brings out this point

678
01:29:08.100 --> 01:29:15.540
that Rousseau really wasn't able to come up with a sense of freedom that fully satisfied

679
01:29:15.540 --> 01:29:22.540
himself. Even his own standards. Anybody else? Yeah.

680
01:29:45.540 --> 01:30:06.020
The question was, regardless of how you feel about Hobbes or Locke, that they take very

681
01:30:06.020 --> 01:30:11.980
consistent positions, but it seems that Rousseau isn't consistent, in fact, it was suggested

682
01:30:11.980 --> 01:30:22.820
is incoherent, so why is it that Rousseau is viewed as an important thinker? What's

683
01:30:22.820 --> 01:30:34.620
the big deal about Rousseau? Well, I think there are a couple things. One is, although

684
01:30:34.620 --> 01:30:41.720
Although he certainly has positions that don't fit well with each other, he has interesting

685
01:30:41.720 --> 01:30:42.720
arguments.

686
01:30:42.720 --> 01:30:50.120
I mean, if you look, say, at the way, at social contracts, you see, he was certainly no dummy.

687
01:30:50.120 --> 01:30:55.120
He had very carefully worked out arguments.

688
01:30:55.120 --> 01:30:59.720
Some of them, they don't always fit with each other.

689
01:30:59.720 --> 01:31:12.720
They are interesting and they've been extremely influential, especially in the French Revolution later writers have looked at him.

690
01:31:12.720 --> 01:31:19.720
I think one reason you ask, why is he influential with people outside this room?

691
01:31:19.720 --> 01:31:26.720
Well, he really formulated some of the key arguments that critics of capitalism have used.

692
01:31:26.720 --> 01:31:42.720
sort of that division of labor alienates people from themselves or that people are not really free if they're dependent on others in the market.

693
01:31:42.720 --> 01:31:50.720
He also had a major influence on the moral philosophy of Immanuel Kant, who thought extremely highly of him.

694
01:31:50.720 --> 01:31:55.580
and I suppose one reason if you could ask your same if you want to ask the same

695
01:31:55.580 --> 01:31:59.120
question about Kant I don't know that you would but if you take Kant as an

696
01:31:59.120 --> 01:32:04.520
important thinker you would have a good reason to take Rousseau was important

697
01:32:04.520 --> 01:32:10.000
also well I think we're out of time though so thank thanks very much