Opinions on Rousseau's social contract?

[Anonymous No.14432023]

I really don't know how I feel about this book. It's almost like he keeps contradicting himself in every other chapter. In the first "book", he talks about how peaceful life is not always a good life, so we can't justify a monarchy because it keeps a state peaceful. Then later he says that it is justified for the monarchy to steal people's money so that the county does not become unequal and thus unstable. I don't know guys... If someone knows more about Rousseau's views, then please explain is he a dumbass?

[Anonymous No.14432389]

It doesn't make sense, the concept is entirely retarded and makes for an unusable liberal ontology. Instead of using nonsense like the social contract to justify government just acknowledge that society exists as a result of the government and any notion of justifying government can only exist because of the government's society so there is no need to justify anything, it justifies itself.

[Anonymous No.14432397]

one line from it really sticks with me:
>Remember that the walls of towns are built entirely out of the ruins of the houses of the countryside! For every palace I see raised in a capital, my mind’s eye sees a whole country made desolate.

[Anonymous No.14432642]

>>14432397
The book has some really good quotes.
>finance is a slave's word

[Anonymous No.14433148]

book good

[Anonymous No.14433159]

>>14432389
>society exists as a result of the government
Uh what

[Anonymous No.14433205]

Beginning of the end for Western civilization

[Anonymous No.14433381]

>>14433205
no

[Anonymous No.14433440]

His idea of a social contract just seems strange, and I don't really understand why he couldn't just admit the reality of the situation, which is that whatever society exists, exists because the most powerful elements within that society wills it so. Laws, institutions and such are only as real or as legitimate as the ability of the people who believe in them to violently enforce them. Machiavelli knew this, as did Nietzsche, Carl Schmitt and even Leo Strauss.

[Anonymous No.14433619]

>>14433440
Rousseau was trying to figure out what would be a lawful way of forming a state and he thought that the law (and human rights) can't just come from those who have the power to oppress. If that was the case, then rights are just what those in power want to do to the people and thus is a useless concept.

[Anonymous No.14433647]

>>14432023
his prose is godlike

[Anonymous No.14433800]

>>14433159
As if there's ever been a successful society that wasn't built by an authority.

[Anonymous No.14434111]

>>14432023
what rousseau wanted to do with the social contract was to preserve an equality and liberty between citizens free from arbitrary domination. to do this, he needed a method of transforming 'natural liberty' and 'natural equality' into 'civil liberty' and 'civil equality'—the solution he came up with was a social contract founded on 'the general will'. the general will is 'the good will of all directed towards the good of all', and is meant to serve as the sovereign of any political community. what this basically means is that if any decision made by the government is to be legitimate, it must be in accords with the general will: that is, the good of all, as any rational individual would will it if they were free if their particular will. by submitting to the general will, each citizen is equal with each other (because everyone has submitted to it, from beggar to prince), and retains their freedom as the general will is necessarily their own 'best' will. the general will is to be contrasted with the particular will and the corporate will, which are wills made by individual or corporate interests towards their own end, at the expense of the rest of the community; the reason rousseau didn't like hobbes' social contract is because he thought it was founded only on the particular will of each individual towards their own self-preservation, with no regards to the good of all. to be clear, this talk about the general and particular will relates to political matters, not everyday life. it would be kant who made it an individual maxim. so in the case of the transfer of property, it is wrong for the monarch because they are operating on self interest at the expense of all (particular will), whereas transfer of property made under the general will is definitionally for the good of all, and hence legitimate. rousseau is notoriously contradictory on certain issues, or at least he is accused of being. if you have any other questions, feel free to ask.

[Anonymous No.14434320]

>>14434111
thank you!

[Anonymous No.14434711]

>>14434320
no worries, i hope you enjoy the book. rousseau is one of the most interesting political philosophers

[Anonymous No.14434800]

His state of nature concept is dumb and in denial, so most of what extrapolates from there isn't valuable, but his breakdowns on the merits and failures of political systems are interesting, though shouldn't be foundational of anything. Not essential, unlike Hobbes.

[Anonymous No.14434879]

>>14434800
>His state of nature concept is dumb and in denial
what do you think is dumb about it?

[Anonymous No.14434910]

>>14433440
Because it's not really his idea. All of these guys are just culminations of humanists of their time. He's just trying to slot it into his thought by convention.

[Anonymous No.14435147]

>>14432023
my least favotite part of rousseau but it's still better than hobbes and locke imo

[Anonymous No.14435157]

>>14434111
this seems accurate

[Anonymous No.14435519]

>>14433800
>>14434111
>>14434711
>>14434800

[Anonymous No.14435710]

>>14433440
The mighty hath no power but by the opinion of the people

[Anonymous No.14435731]

>>14434111
Thank you anon. But I have a few questions
. How would one determine what the general will is? And how would one one enforce it? The only way I can think of is through a general authority that will have to force it's will upon the people, either peacefully or violently. This will then destroy the notion of the general will, because the will is being enforced by a select group, instead of the general population. To my mind the whole line of thinking you've just described falls apart when applied to large groups of people, where there's simply too many people to manage yo be able to have an underlying 'general will'. How would you, or Rousseau explain this?

[Anonymous No.14435821]

first Rousseau was a typical snow-flake, just had to make himself special boy by finding "something new" by being contrarian.
the whole book is based on "ought" argument, like "the will of the people" give SC it's moral legitimacy. worst part is still the totally ludicrous "history of man", that only some deranged liberal could come up with

[Anonymous No.14436438]

>>14435731
>How would one determine what the general will is? And how would one one enforce it?
its quite clear that not even rousseau thought that this idea could be implemented perfectly, or at all. the general will is found primarily in the legislative aspect of government. how the general will is applied here is a complete bullshit hand wave by rousseau, and even he admits it is, in the form of the mysterious figure of the great "lawgiver" (think Moses, Solon, Lycurgus, etc.) that creates laws by a higher wisdom that elevate the people yet are also in accords with their "true will". as for how one would enforce it, the government is meant to act as a an intermediate body that executes the general will (as known by the legislature) in the specific matters of everyday operation. as i understand it, the general will here is as much an attitude towards making governmental decisions as it a literal "will" of everyone that is to be tallied. you can compare it to rawl's veil of ignorance, smith's impartial observer, or even kant's categorical imperative—as a principle to be consulted when making a particular decision. ideally, the government should be thinking "is the decree i am passing in the interest of all?" and "could i reasonably argue to any individual that this decree effects that it is for the good of all?". now, rousseau, in line with aristotle, thought that "one always wants one’s good, but one does not always see it". that is to say, no one every wills what they think is bad for them, but they may be misguided in what they consider good. taking this idea to the general will: with the proper use of reason, the general will can never err nor need enforcement, because people, if properly oriented away from selfish desires (misguided good) towards the good of all (what is their "true" desire), they will always pursue it. likewise, the government should make right actions with right reason.
>The only way I can think of is through a general authority that will have to force it's will upon the people, either peacefully or violently. This will then destroy the notion of the general will, because the will is being enforced by a select group, instead of the general population.
rousseau himself readily admits that this ideal form of the general will can only apply to a small community, and lists Corsica as the only country left in europe which could implement it (which is funny, considering some future events). as for it being enforced by violence, he is infamous for saying that some people will need to be "forced to be free" but this is to be enforced by the body politic as a whole. as mentioned, rousseau has no good answer as to how this state of government is to come about, and the one he gives is the semi-divine "lawgiver". but honestly, the applicability of his ideas is the least interesting part of rousseau.
anyway, i'm going to sleep now. i might write more if the thread is still up tomorrow morning as my answer is a little lackluster.

[Anonymous No.14436483]

>>14435821
yikes

[Anonymous No.14437343]

>>14432389
But this is even worse.

[Anonymous No.14437457]

>>14432023
>It's almost like he keeps contradicting himself in every other chapter
Because he is. His entire political philosophy is an ad hoc justification for his dissipated personal life and general irresponsible behavior towards friends, family, countrymen etc.

>social contract
It might be interesting as a voluntarist basis for government, but as a descriptive account of power and government it's complete nonsense.