Is General Will Compatible With Individual Freedom Politics Essay

Is General Will Compatible With Individual Freedom Politics set aboutJean-Jacque Rousseau wrote at a time before great social and policy-making change in Europe. His texts remain one of the classic concepts of political theory. His belles-lettres have been thought of by homoy as, the bible for the French rotation for his foresight and perhaps predictions for the violence and terror that followed. His text, The Social slenderize (1762) is make up of 4 books. In Books 1 and 2 he aimed to channelise the problem of political morality and the theory of institutions in Books 3 and 4. Rousseau was a defender of democracy, an advocate for individual liberty and an egalitarian.Rousseau begins with the famous opening lines, work force are born(p) waive, yet everywhere are in fetter He starts by explaining the bureau in which men are destined to the chains of accomplished society which restrain the natural right of man to an fair game independent immunity. He believed that civil society does not extend man the granting immunity, liberty and equality that were promised to him when joining society. Rousseau believed that the alone way to retard these shackles from becoming uncomfortable would be by the collective creation of a body in society forming a single ordain, the popular send. When tell the question it is important to understand the conception of the tower of the general result to see if it is compatible with the freedom of the individual. The general testament is expressed by the sovereign (either an individual with a unified will or a collective body in society). The definition and purpose of this general will is to act in the needs and desires of the collective and to sustain the common mature for all people. Rousseau explains, The English people believed itself to be free. It is greatly mistaken it is free only during the election of the ingredients of Parliament. Once they are elected, the populace is enslaved it is nothing . To Ro usseau the idea of the general will is one of free debate in an manufacture of individuals and equals of what is of common interest. In Chapter 15 of Book 3 he puts earlier the idea that reign cannot be represented, because it consists of the general will and the general will cannot be represented . J. Plamenatz (1992) gives this reason for Rousseaus argument for direct as apposed to interpreter democracy. Every citizen in Rousseaus ideal society should make the laws themselves and not entrust this job in the places of others. This was Rousseaus third principle. In essence general will gives every individual in the collective the freedom to vote how he pleases in the assembly and ultimately everyone has a say in the caterpillar track of the society as the democracy is direct. However, Rousseau retains that general will should not be the desire of the individual will, but what will be beneficial for everyone.Rousseau excessively believed that whoever went against chaseing the ge neral will ought to be en labored to do so by the whole body. This means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free . What Rousseau means by this is that by people having the contract to adhere to the social contract and by having to adjoin the benefit of the general will, theyre gaining freedom. This is in contrast to Hobbes and Locke who believed laws were created to stop us wandering from the path of civil obedience and referred to as hedges. Rousseau asserts that it is the process of law making that sets us free. His signalise argument was that if we are the authors of the law then we could manifest our own freedom and independence.According to Rousseau we are all born free and have the power to be free but to achieve this Rousseau believed we have to build a social government that does not enslave us. It could be argued that Rousseaus idea of the rule of the general will, is compatible with the freedom of the individual. This is because Rousseau described the fl avour of there existence 2 different types of freedom. There is social freedom and a ad hominem freedom. He also refers to personal freedom as the state of nature. Rousseau say that freedom was only r individuallyable when the populace obeyed the laws it set itself. J. Plamenatz (1992) describes this by explaining ideally we would say, I alone have made the law that I obey but that this is im practicable and instead the most we can hope for is that each should say, I obey the law that we have made rather than I obey the law that they have made. This ideal is that every citizen should identify himself with the union that makes the law . Rousseau bellied that the ability to follow these rules and laws would only be possible once one recognised themselves as a part and member of the community of lawmakers.Rousseau had previously discussed the first explanatory problem of the origins of how we became unfree, when we are born naturally free in the state of nature. He wrote about thi s in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755). It is in The Social Contract (1762) that he explained the second problem, the justificatory problem and suggested an answer. Rousseau asserted that power only becomes legitimate once the people consent to it and. He said, Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the peremptory direction of the general will and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the wholeIn conclusion, Iain Hampsher-Monk writes in A History of Modern Polticial Thought that, part of the main, objective of the general will, therefore is its constant tendency to equality . He says that the notion of obeying ourselves is a difficult one to understand, however he explains that in this way of setting and obeying our own rules, tyranny can be guarded against . Whilst some(prenominal) scholars have regarded Rousseaus political thought as pointing towards totalitarianism, (as he advocates complete subservience to the state) many others regard him as a firm liberal and a defender of freedom and equality. For this reason it is believed that Rousseaus idea of the rule of the general will is compatible with the freedom of the individual, as in Rousseaus state the popular sovereignty effectively governs themselves by legitimising the chains of society and reconciling sovereignty , freedom and authority.