Rousseau

- Goal: set of institutions that allow you to really be free

- In order for people to really be free, people had to identify with the laws, but also
had to merit that identification - thus, the laws had to be consistent with the general
will
- Freedom:
o Rejects Hobbes and Locke’s narrow account of freedom
o Rousseau: We are free when we follow the laws of our own making - we have
to be citizens and subjects
- Rejection of the idea that, as Hobbes argued, you could alienate your sovereignty
and create an absolutist government. Not just any form of collection decision will do
- he describes what the conditions that the legitimate regime has to achieve for it to
warrant the power that it has.
o A regime is not legitimate just because it has power - power is not the only
condition for a regime to be powerful.
o Regime has to meet some independent standard of right action: the general
will or the common good
- Common mistake: Rousseau arguing in favour of direct democracy like Athens
- In virtue of the fact that we may mistake what justice is, we need some external
standard.
- Laws have to be general and can only be made by the sovereign
o Only the sovereign can make laws
o Problem: when we make laws, we have to use some specificity (e.g. self-
defence vs homicide - justified killing, or US v Cox)
 Need a body/institution that will allow the governing regime to
manage the specific instances that arise, government exercising
judgement

- Distinction between sovereign and the government

o Sovereign makes the law vs government that enforces the law
o Sovereign cannot be represented (vs Hobbes who said that there is a people
that hasn’t come together, then via their creation of the Leviathan and
sovereign, they are instituted as a people)
 The people and the sovereign cannot be represented, no one can act
in place of the sovereign
 “Sovereignty for the same reason that it is inalienable … cannot be
represented” - “there is no intermediate possibility … they are merely
its stewards”
 What about elections? He rejects the idea that what these
people represent is our sovereignty. “Every law the people has
not ratified in person is void … as soon as they are elected
slavery takes over …”
 One way that the body of people can make these generalised
decisions is that they are not going to participate together as a party
 or a faction - he felt that if these groups prevailed, we would vote in
favour of these interest groups
 Given all of the way we behave, how are we going to make these
general decisions? -
 With the exception of the first decision which must be
unanimous, the people needs a majority rule - cannot make all
the others unanimously
 “How are the opponents at once free and subject to laws they
have not agreed to?”
 “The constant will of all the members of the State is the
general will; by virtue of it they are citizens and free …”
o What is the answer that would be consistent with the
general will? We each do that (“each man, in giving his
vote, states his opinion on that point; and the general
will is found by counting votes…”) - I should relate to
the body in such a way that I will change my view if it is
inconsistent with the general will - “If my particular
opinion had carried the day I should have achieved the
opposite of what was my will; and it is in that case that
I should not have been free…”
o Have to believe in the legitimacy of the system * - is
this plausible?
o He draws a distinction between your opinion of what’s right vs the general
will
 Similar to structure of authority - your judgement, decision
procedure, authority, content of decision, your action etc.
 It matters not only that institutions are organised in a particular way,
but also that our moral psychology is organised in a particular way -
we need to undergo a change in making this social contract such that I
can believe that decisions are consistent with the general will
 Only plausible in small social group
 More homogenous
 Need small group for levels of trust needed
- Government:
o The sovereign can choose any form of government he wants - as long as he
doesn’t alienate the subjects
o Best form of government depends on the country/society that we have
o “were there a people of gods, their government would be democratic …”
o In a true democracy, the demands are too strong.
o His concern: not going to be able to be concerned about the general welfare
if you are concerned about private interests
 Cannot let private interests interfere public affairs
o Government will always be corrupt in some way because they’re dealing with
specific cases - thus we need to separate institutions of government and
sovereignty.
o Lottery is too democratic - prefers something more aristocrat like elections
  Election wasn’t an indication of rule by the people - rather, it is rule by
the elite
- What keeps the regime in balance and recognise the common good is morality
o What keeps the government doing what they are doing is moral
transformation
o In some ways, this morality precedes good institutions
 Two institutions: censor and civil religion (provide people a set of
behaviour and norms …)
 If good moral precede good legislation, and receive the morals
through the institutions of the new regime, where do the good morals
come from?
- When you think about the laws he talks about, he is talking about the most
important laws in the community, not so much the more practical laws
- 2 major criticisms of Rousseau’s work:
o 1. There is no such thing as a common good or general will
 This external standard he describes doesn’t exist - and even if it did
we could never know it
 Schumpeter: “there is first no such thing as a common good that
the … this is not due primarily to … but to the much more
fundamental fact that … the idea of the common good
presupposes …”
o 2. (berlin - two concepts of liberty and …)
 Liberty of the Ancients (only way to be free is to participate in the
making of the laws) vs Liberty of the Moderns (where you are not
impeded, you are free - you are free in the private sphere)
 Liberty of the Moderns is consistent with the fact that we live in large,
diverse states
 The division of labour (not all governing all the time) that
allows us to prosper
 We are not suited for the liberty that Rousseau sets out for us
 Not only is Rousseau’s idea unfeasible, but by suggesting that
the work of the state is to change people’s psychology, he is
justifying efforts by the government to change who we are. If
the government was wrong about the common good - it would
be tyrannical government of the worst kind.

Like Plato, Rousseau thinks - only put on this world once and argues for a real political
utopia