Class Notes (806,449)
Canada (492,253)
POLSCI 2O06 (114)


52 Pages
Unlock Document

McMaster University
Political Science
James Ingram

Jan 17 John Locke Review Chp 5 Theory of property Hobbes-we needed a ruler to tell us the law Locke-if we look at nature and scripture we can find out what is just or unjust..nature of law..God Hobbes-no just or unjust Locke-one of the most important rights is property Chp 2-rights to liberty Chp 5 –you have a right to what is yours Hobbes would say the ruler gave it you Locke-you have a natural right because you have put work into it and a right to defend it Big justification of social order In America, great wealth but everyone poor because they have not discovered money Money makes us wealthier The justification for stealing the caroliners Is that they’re making it better The land only becomes my when i mix my labour with it, when i have cultivated it And stole it because the people there, the native Americans, were not using it Were not using it for agriculture Through commercial economy, everyone benefits Improvement through trade and investment: modern day capitalism you have a right to property..God gave them to you Inconvenience to state of nature: if someone violates your rights, you need to punish them yourself You can have a whole functioning economy in the state of nature You can develop currency and property rights without the existence of government If you look at the relationships between countries, they are relationships of state of common govt You can conduct trade and do business even in the absence of govt authority To have govt may be more convenient but is not necessary It might be inconvenient to protect your rights but you can do it..for what is just Chap 6-9 Chp 6 sir Robert filmore Even if all power were like father over son, it wouldn’t work..parental power does not conclude the need for one ruler Parental power directed toward a purpose: child’s upbringing Every parent hope child will become fully independent and make own decisions...then parent authority disappears Argument against absolute authority Power should only be used for a purpose being served So govts power should be limited by the purpose it is meant to serve Locke arguing against the theory of absolutism (hobbes) Locke redefines freedom and equality For hobbes, freedom is whatever the law says you can’t do..freedom is the silence of the law Wherever the law doesn’t tell you what you must do, you are free That part of life that the law hasn’t touched For locke, freedom to do what you’re free to do it as long as it’s not prohibitive Freedom for men under government is to have a standing rule to live by Incl. Hobbes freedom Freedom is doing what you want but also having the structure to do things Relationship between law and freedom=does not prevent you but guardrail on highway Laws make it easier to get along with others Laws should make us more free..give us more freedom For hobbes, any law is a restriction on your freedom Therefore not all governments are equal..under some you can be free, under others not Why join civil society (society under govt not state of nature)? The state of war=when someone invades my rights or threatens my property or person An absolute ruler is one who has declared war on his subjects If someone tried to subject me to their power, without my consent, that person has declared war on me Just like the monarchy A ruler is only a ruler if he decides everything But Locke believes someone who decides for others is a declaration of war -- Civil society = where someone enforces justice We need a govt to enforce our rights The reason u left state of nature was to be bound by rules, and submit yourself to a ruler, then you are not bound by rules, but submitted yourself to one person’s will Rather than submit yourself to one person’s judgement,...because that is enslavement... So need to free him We only got out of state of nature because of a weasel and fox... Para 93 Certain advantages to being in society but there are two stages when submitting to a ruler: Don’t hand rights over to ruler but to the public/society/community If we hand our rights over to community, how does community agree on what to do? chp 8 para 95-96 we will decide things democratically community protects rights and property but if we all decide things together we can’t protect everyones rights ie poor wouldn’t care for the property of the rich locke needs to show we have all consented to govt and only obligated to govt to the extent it has carried out the purposes agreed to Jan 17 tutorial – Melinda of civil government little power in govt govt takes over responsibility to mandate laws govt grants more rights and freedoms govt protect society regulate “common good” of the state of nature god gave it to us we can take but only as much as we need so there is enough for the next person leave state of nature and advance into civilization to be free equality in state of nature land should be used to its potential divine right – God’s will anarchy is the state of nature compare Hobbes take on the state of nature to Locke hob- constant struggle within state of nature hob-more pessimistic locke-more unrealistic of the state of war right to 1. Yourself 2. Your property 3. Anything you made with your labour war on your own subjects locke advocates for revolt hobbes-ruler can only rule if they have complete control of slavery can never be a slave voluntarily natural liberty vs social liberty (ruled by commonwealth) freedom from absolute power=so its impossible to become a slave except in war (captives) slavery only accepted if you have a death sentence you can choose to become a slave instead of property you take land, add your labour, becomes your land god gave us land to use it and make us prosper don’t take more than you need everything in common but should be productive don’t acquire so many goods that they will spoil = money will not spoil jan 22 Writing for the earl of shaftesbeary Issue of slavery, only in chp 4..historical institution of transatlantic slavery Trying to convince England to dismiss totalariasm Wants England to reject absolutism...absolute ruling .................... Arguments of theorists are bigger than how Locke made them === Show how arguments work and use lockes point of view === Wrote as propaganda..wanted to be understood so repetitive Chp 10-15 Parallel to US = how liberalism gets flushed out as a whole system of govt Review Case made for limiting govt Argued against hobbes Setting up a king with absolute power is like having a lion patrol your farm animals U don’t want a leviathan who can be dangerous to you 1. We are all reasonable and get along..have morality..have law of nature we follow 2. We make a society before we make a govt Hobbes: were not an organized society until we have a ruler Locke: we can decide to form a govt and pick a ruler (2 steps vs 1 step) Chp 10: 2 step You can have different kinds of govt Ie monarchy, oligarchy etc We establish govt only relative to certain purposes: life, liberty, and property So laws need to be publicly known..etc The legislative govt is for the peace and safety of the people What a govt looks like: Liberalism: small institutions or principles: individualism, individual rights, equality under the law of rights and freedoms including property = the rule of rights Civil rights: rights of the individual, protection against the government separation of powers, legislative does not mean executive, everyone has a right to have a say in public policy 3 rights: life, liberty and property: exists in nature You will respect others and thus they will respect you ***principle of the rule of law: the govt is bound by its own decisions as much as anyone else The law should be known, impartially administered P70 sec 135..:the legistlative is the supreme power in commonwealth yet.. Cannot be arbitrary..has to rule according to rules Your life, liberty and property is safe in nature P71 sec 136..: ...judges The govt is limited in the laws it can make We all have to know what the rules are and they need to be arbitrarly administered Sec143 If you have a legislative power, you can make laws The legislature can always change the can only change the rules according to the rules Chp 12+13 Distinguishes between powers Separation of powers The legistlative power appoints executive who appoints judiciary Sec 146 p76 ;if therefore contains... Executive has federative Legistlative is superior to the executive 1 civil rights 2 rule of law 3 separation of powers 4 representation community can fire the legislation Jean-Jacques Rousseau 1712 – 1778 Time of Enlightenment (reason, science, progress, freedom and richer) Time of Absolutism (Locke’s point of view only won in England, in France thing king determined what the law was) Bio: - From Geneva, at the time was highly religious, small, poor place. - It was not under a king, it was a free republic - At age 13 apprentice as a tradesmen - At age 15, he was locked out of the city and went for a walk and ran until he ended up somewhere else. - Picked up an education by going through rich people’s libraries, not only in the classics but also music. Europe’s first best selling novelist. - Made his way to Paris, to promote enlightenment with the rest of intellectuals - He first made himself famous through an essay competition the question was “ does the restoration of the sciences and arts contribute to the purification of mores” (moeurs) – means customs / morals*. Page 3 Does it make us better people? Is it good for us? - Rousseau says no. It makes people worse. Going against enlightenment. 1 discourse st 1750 - Second discourse (which we are reading) 1755. After Rousseau had a lot of time to study. In between the two discourses he read a lot of travel literature. Colonialism is not a major thing, everything has been discovered. - Huge amount of literature circulating on the people living on the new land and what they are like. More reports on what people are like living in nature (Natives). - In this point of view, the closer to nature the better, nature is the ideal 2nd discourse: - Page 44: What is the origin of inequality among men and is it authorized by natural law? - Rousseau – no it is not authorized. Explains where inequality comes from. - Page 45: Distinguishes between two types of inequalities. There is natural / physical and moral / political. The 2 is important and the sort we see in culture - We produce in society and make its legitimacy. All people are basically equal that the natural levels are not important, for politics we must consent to it, not accept it just because it is there. - The inequality of some people being more wealthy than others, however he is equally interested in the fact some people are more socially valued than others as well as some people are more powerful than others. - Obstacles: In order to discover the inequality of men, we have to discover the point in human history where nature ends and politics begins. Thus the physically strongest does not always prevail over the weak. Politics creates rules for all the people. While we think we have peace in society, it is a constant source of violence and unhappiness. - Therefore we are better off in nature than we are in society. (The beginning) - The argument is that these earlier philosophers who claimed to describe nature did no such thing but just describes an idealized area they lived in. Hobbes describes nature in what he fears in the civil war of his day, he ascribes to people who have nothing. Locke imagines nature as an idealized version of upper class life in England in his time; he thinks these people exist before humans even started. They imagine the state of nature what they would like it to be. Thus they are not taking nature seriously enough. Rousseau, instead of describing nature like society we need to figure out what nature actually says. We need to go back to Aristotle and following them, look to nature itself, not society. Page 39: The preface. For all our enlightenment what we now least is ourselves and our nature. The statue (if we assume nature is the standard) when made was as close to perfect as it will ever get. Eventually it gets disfigured it goes from god to wild beast. In humans you see a creature as far removed from nature as you can imagine, we are deteriorated and cannot see what is natural because so much has happened to it. As it continually move away from natural state and take more steps towards enlightenment we get further from nature and what is natural to us. We can look at people who are ‘earlier’ than us, but what we cannot know what people are like in complete nature. Even these people are far from being the pure example. How does Rousseau solve this problem? Page 46: We can’t get there. Put aside all the facts because they have no grasp on the question. History comes after nature. For hypothetical and conditioning reasoning… He’s not claiming it historically true but it doesn’t really matter. He claims this is the story that best illuminates nature for us. Page 29 Aristotle quote: looking for what is good within nature. What would a natural man be? (47) - take man as he is today and take off everything from society - clothes, language, society, all your notions (just, mind, property) - nature doesn’t give you ideas society does - less strong than some but overall most advantageous over all - this man has no society or thoughts - 57: primitive state no one has property every person lies under trees. Reproduction and raise kin occurs first for her own need then soon for theirs. Just enough family to make sure the next generation is produced. Therefore the person is just enough instinct and natural needs. In no way intelligent or vain, if he made a discovery he would not be able to communicate because he has no language or a society. - Man would have to have 2 natural passions that moves him about: (42) self preservation and compassion / pity - pitie (why we don’t kill each other) Therefore he can get natural law out of these two things alone. Reason is not part of this yet, no society or culture. - Human: (52/53) - freedom (exists in us and only gradually we realize) - perfectibility (capacity for development itself, belongs as much to the species as it does in an individual human being) This perfectibility is responsible for everything that is wrong with us. Everything from nature is good, everything from society is bad. Animals learn basics right away then develop no further - Pity: (62) a disposition that is fitting for beings… It is natural and everyone has it equally, natural goodness is something everyone has equal access too. (63) going to the movies true moeurs show, all alone in the dark, there they act naturally and not acting. They are free to let nature speak through them. Everything we regard as good in society comes from this basic impulse. Generosity, mercy and humanity are truly pity. Every good virtue we have is simply a manifestation of the original animal of passion we are. - (50) Physically they are healthier than we are. In nature you either don’t survive or you do. In society … - (100) Note: how bad we are. Men can be naturally good but the progress he has made makes him morally bad all the time. Society says you are better off if you are stepping over other people, you’re better off doing the wrong thing. This is why we have laws to protect us from our temptations of ill onto others. Civilization is a standing temptation to do wrong to others. - - He is going to go back to the very beginning, although difficult, no one has seen nature so we must use our reason. He’s read many European explorers on primitive people and gets an idea of what more natural people are like. Main arguments of Locke Chapter 6: Eternal power: Parents only have control over their children until they have reason and can make judgment for themselves. Chapter 7: political or civil society (property) You have natural rights in nature to have property to put labour into it. The idea of government is to make it easier on yourself. 2 levels of government: Legislature: makes the laws, consent from the community (majority’s will) and executive: acts them out Chapter 8: Born free and consent to live under the government Chapter 9: why do people submit to laws - Lfie - Liberty - Property Chapter 10: how people will be rules Chapter 11: how the legislative will rule *everyone ruled equally. Chapter 12: International relations (state to state) in the state of nature. Federative power Chapter 13: War against the people: when the government does something against the people. And executive can never override legislation Chapter 14: some circumstances exec can make decisions (legislative only works for deliberating works sometimes) exec works all the time, finds things that there is no law for and the decision has to be in the interest of the common good. Chapter 15: ruling with consent is the only legit one Chapter 16: when is it just to go to war: If another state is aggressive towards you explains how you should treat the other state if you defeat them: you can’t take their property/people because they haven’t chosen them as their leader. Therefore you can take over the government but not the people Chapter 17: A new leader Chapter 18: tyrants Chapter 19: if there is a tyrant the government can be dissolved and the people can choose a new one. Rousseau: 2 main questions: What are humans and what makes us humans? Major desires as humans: Pol Sci 2O06 February 5 , 2013 Rousseau - The only way to figure out what is natural is philosophically - Take human beings and take away everything that is social – what we are left with is nature - At the beginning – everyone is at their natural goodness – goodness that comes from nature – compassion – pity - Prevents all creatures from wanting to do harm – nature’s form of goodness - As we grow we get farther and farther away from our goodness – paradox of perfectability – we develop indefinitely - Once we start learning we never stop - As we get more sophisticated we get worse – but worse how? - Beginning of Part 2 - Pg 69 – the first person who having enclosed, etc – Rousseau is agreeing with locke – civil society, government, and law begins with property - Originally everything belongs to everyone – leave enough for everyone else - Rousseau says – in contrast – the moment we allow ourselves to think that something could belong to someone individually is where we are lost - Pg 73 – everything begins to take on a new appearance - We want to be preferred by other people – this is where inequality starts to matter and we start competing - Middle of page 73 – egocentrism – amour propre – love of oneself – pride/vanity - The love/pride i take that is based on how others perceive me - Note 15 (pg 117) – we must not confuse egocentrism with love of oneself – this is the origin of inequality - When children lose respect – that’s when they become dangerous - Inequality of violence - We become more sophisticated and we want to be better than people - therefore we become worse - Note 16 (pg 118) – people are eager to display luxury and wealth - Property and government come together – property created the need for government - What has to be necessary for these things to exist? - The social contract – describes as the most thought out project that ever entered the human mind – most cunning scheme that the human mind has ever come up with - Social contract – getting you to protect my property from you – rich over poor - How does this make all of us unhappy and terrible people? - You can’t enslave/oppress a natural man because they will always run away - We accept humiliations from people who are superior to us because we hope to be superior than them one day - Pg 91 – 2 half of very long paragraph - savage man breathes only tranquility and liberty Feb 5 (own notes) Rosseau Takes away reason, sociability, language, culture...everything that is social To bring us back to nature He uses examples from travel literature to show people at lower levels of civilization At beginning natural man is at maximum of goodness, not moral yet But goodness that comes from nature Prevents all creatures from wanting to do harm What we think of as moral virtues, friendship, loyalty etc is only a sophisticated form of pité, natural good Point 2 As mankind gets smarter and more sophisticated, he gets further from his natural goodness – the Paradox of Perfectability ....the first person who... Rosseau agrees with Locke: the civilized society begins with property Locke said in the beginning of nature everything belongs to everyone Rosseau says but we cant think something belongs to one person..its the beginning of crime The natural man figures out how to communicate with others, how to trap animals – starts perfecting himself ..everything takes on new appearance.. We become sophisticated enough to prefer a person over another which leads to the beginning of inequality and we start competing to be found better than the other Egocentrism – amour proper (pride or vanity) Amour proper means the pride i feel based on how others perceive, aka self esteem Origin of inequality = natural, natural talent =moral inequality, cultural As soon as we realized it mattered what others thought of us First duty of civility Wrong because outrage Generator of social inequality and violence ...although men had become less forebearing... No government, no laws, clan based Opposite of Locke Case for capital ...savages have frequently been brought... Poorest man is better of than the richest All technology, all progress has not produced anything useful (would have been better off wearing skin) Metal + agriculture = property Need to be able to work metals and sow crops before being able to have property=govt ...having produced metalurgie... Thus when the most positive or miserable Hobbes To be in Hobbes state of nature, you need to harm others to take what they have Then in Hobbes/Locke predicament: The poor don’t have much to lose but the rich do with their property Rosseaus social contract Amost thought out project ...lets us write... Locke says to pool resources Rosseaus says The rich use the poor to defend themselves against the govt ...such was... The social contract from Locke and Hobbes is a scam What interests Rosseau is how it makes us all unhappy and morally unhappy You can only boss around someone who will do the same ...savage man... We only know how to live in opinion of others Thus alienation – always outside yourself, vicious, false, hypoctrical feb 7 Rosseau we were selfish in nature and remain selfish..all the smartness we have gained make our natural impulses ..not to harm others and to preserve ourselves, more sophisticated everything we consider morally good is an elaborate version of natural pity civilized virtues: can love only an elaboration of selfishness if i help them, they’ll help me moral virtue: complicated form of original empathy or selfishness the natural man would not think about repercussions...civilization only gives us reason not to help others the desire to compete with others comes with perfectablity and getting smart ..the progress of civilization badness is learned from society review the second discourse no record of nature before discourse man has no intelligence, ideas, sophistication or skill – does not exist in nature but goodness exists already man has ability to emphasize with fellow creatures and does not wish to harm them as time progress we get morally worse we don’t have govt, money, property but families etc crosspoint: ideal of the noble savage (uncivilized, untamed, wild) the advantages have not yet been exceeded by the disadvantages because after that they develop tools, money, property, government The Paradox of Perfectabilty: as we get smarter we get worse Second discourse is about inequality Less about inequality between rich and poor but rather moral inequality: our need to feel better by other people Whats wrong with civilized people is our dependence on others to feel good Amour proper: pride or vanity We live entirely outside of ourselves: we are being alienated Cumulative effect of our progressing society is we have to lie to ourselves and each other and that is what makes us evil We are suppressing our original goodness and trying to live up to others --------- Social Contract Huge contradiction between Social Contract and the Second Discourse Last para of note 9 of Second Discourse “i’m very much afraid...arts, sciences.. Civilization is a form of population control as we are only destroying ourselves through our badness Should we rather tear down civilization and live like the bears? His critics would say yes People like us who are too civilized to live with the bears should obey the law and be virtuous and live contemporary lives Those of us who cannot live naturally and go back to point zero should live according to the law This passage difficult to interpret Social Contract seems to argue almost the opposite of the Second Dis Social Con starts at beginning of civilization with law Joins with Locke and Hobbes what a legitimate society would look like and be a good thing With laws..we can be legimitate and sure What is good for us and what is right in general “since i was born a citizen of free state..” He’s talking about his idealized Geneva...addressing the book to the citizens of geneva although he’s in exile at point of writing Chp 1 ***“man is born free and everywhere he is in chains” The chains of society, the chains of law..everybody always telling us what to do In society you are unfree “he who believes to be a master of others..” If you assume that we are naturally free how can we obey law How did this happen? That we are born free but live in chains? How can these chains be made legitimate..rosseau can figure this out We have to be bound by the law and wear chains in a just society Slavery cannot be justified Govt needs to be we need to agree to that law..consensus..reason for title social contract Chp 6 begin “i suppose that man has reached the point..” Pros in a social contract What challenge the social contract is the meet “find a form of association that defends and protects...” (sounds like Locke) Locke says lets combine to create an authority Rosseau wants to create this authority but we will still be as free as in nature..we will obey only ourselves ...through alienation “is the total alienation of each associate..” We create a force that protects our life and property through total alienation by giving all property and life to group Instead of creating authority that is limited (locke) rosseau says build authority together that is unlimited and give to it completely We are at least all equally alienated so no one will make it burdensome to any one else Since we give ourselves to everyone we give ourselves to no one If we alienate ourselves totally to us, we don’t alienate ourselves at all “each of us places his person and all his power in common..” Key formula to this problem is general we can alienate ourselves and be free Through alienation we create a general will and collective body General will is known as city or republic, soverign when is a is us collectively General will..what we people/citizens/subjects amount to collectively We are both the general authority/will and the citizen subject The social contract is a deal we make with ourselves We need to obey ourselves The social contract in second discourse: ppl had property that others might want to steal so social contract is a confidence trick, a scam..the rich say to poor let us unite...the rich get the poor to agree that his is his.. The social contract in social 1 chp 8+9: You are free and good when you choose good and you can only do that in civilization/society Feb 7 tutorial Inequality in today’s society Intelligence, financial, geographic location, physical abilities, mental disabilities, educational resources, gender, minorities, possession of property 2 categories of inequality 1. moral – inequalities due to being socialized in society=due to socialization 2. Physical – nature Rosseau’s idea of compassion and pity We have goodness from nature We are less good now because we want more and more On the other hand in nature we don’t care about others In civilization we should nurture more Innately born pure through nature Civilized people have less compassion in society In society we aim to please others to feel self worth Where does conflict come from? Form families, then start agriculture then poverty then government Women back then where unequal and jealousy played a role In what ways are we oppressed in modern society according to Rosseau? Through have more power over the poor Through illegitimate rule rosseau Private prop is bad but can still exist General will controls society Govt should enforce liberty, equality and freedom...similar to communism Rosseau + security Through social contract People don’t want to cause harm and not be harmed If you give up your rights to one, everyone is in the same boat Ros acknowledges part of society are superficial Because of govt, socialization and community, we have a false sense of security as we are the only animal that can cause us unnecessary harm Rosseau and choice In a state of nature, we are the only animal with the ability to choose As we get more civilized we have more choices If it’s choice that makes us human, are people more human when they have more choices? Ie Saudi Arabia ..less choice Humans less choice, is the norm February 12 rosseaus general will Review Second discourse: civilization is a nature better in harmony in nature, some strife but not much Then he does a 180 book 1 of social contract Freedom in nature is no good Moral liberty: when one obeys oneself Civil contract is the only way we can become equal...thru the general will The means by which we can be free and equal is through alienation In society you are unfree...lateral movement obstructed by others External provisions restrict your freedoms The social contract is radically compact..needs to be reread a few times Book 1 chp 6 Prob: Liberal solution: yes, we are unfree but we have certain rights that preserve our freedom So we make govt to protect our rights..not quite free Liberal individual sphere of freedom: individual No say outside your sphere Rosseaus solution: if i am bounded by others and by the law, the only way i can be truly free is if i give to myself...we are all giving ourselves this law so we don’t need to be protected The idea of the social contract: we are a citizen and subject at the same time As citizen you are part of community who made law, so its your law In obeying the law, you are subject to the law Book 3 chp 13 p 217 ..the essence of the body of politic... The soverign is giving the law, the subject obeys it The law does not make you unfree because it is your law all the time: republicanism Definition of citizenship: note 28 p 165 Bourgeois – someone who lives in a town but not full participatant Citoyen – a fully enfranchised member of a community, full rights of membership in a community Middle of 18 century, some democracy in Switzerland but no where else In England, power of king was constrained and john locke his ideologue Book 3 chp 15 p219 ...the English people believe itself to be free.. Explaining what citizenship is The English are indifferent to politics and freedom to be controlled by govt The general will is alienable and cannot be represented You need to give yourself the law all the time General will: ongoing process of us legistlating for ourselves..only way to be free (by participating in general will) Rosseau is describing a totalitarian nightmare and the most reasonable and obvious with the general will General will: not a law but what you want..a personal will..almost outside of your control General will defines you and you are always working on it General will: what we as community want together = only true soverign Book 2 Explains what the general will is and last few pages the conditions of how the will good exist General will is an idea: political freedom not possible until you have the idea of general will You can still keep your own will P166 book 1 chp 7, in fact each can.. You can have a private will and a general will You can want something different from the group..thus you have two wills, general will..from standpoint of community and personal will order for the social compact...(social contract) ..forced to be free..can be terrifying and perfectly reasonable ...forced to be free...if you find yourself in the minority, you could get trampled, compulsory teamwork, Ross wants you to have two wills U need to want what community wants...and be preprared to suppress private views ..forced to be reasonable: the greatest good for the greatest number...can also be terrifying If some people don’t agree, theyll have to brought into line Community will want to convince you to believe in their case and that they are right Sending ppl to war + capital punishmnent Certain members need to put good of community ahead of their own protection All the important laws of society are your will..when the state does something it is you doing it We believe criminal law represent our own sense of justice so if they don’t apply we find our own sense of justice betrayed General will: you can be forced to be free Book 2 chp 1 Soverigty is inalienable..cannot give to someone else Cannot hand the right to legislate over to someone else (as opposed to locke/hobbes) Either we all want the same law or we don’t We can will every law but we can all will together the general principles behind the laws All the big laws are willed together by us constantly Invisible and alienable Book 3 The general will is always right -right has different senses We always want what is good for us but we don’t always see what it is The general will is morally right and therefore legitimate Our will cant be wrong..we decide, its concerning us Difference between will of all and general will: the general will considers only public interest Ie when you decide what the group should do, thats general will Book 4 chp 2 What ppl do when they vote P227 a man can be both free and forced to will not his own.. How are you really free when you vote for one way and the other team wins I am only free when the general will is what i as a citizen want Feb 14 Liberalism Republicanism Ros loves to provoke, loves paradox, wants you to think about contradictory things Use both books the second discourse and the social contract What can render our chains legitimate? Answer: the general will Book 1 chp 9 pg 168 In the social contract, prop turned out to be good Now provokes ..talks about alienation of property You own property on behalf of all of us Locke you hold on to property because you tore it out of nature..we have a state to defend you on this right..god gave it to u Ross: you can enjoy property, but only because we think it is good for all of us that u have hold it in trustee p 169 You have it on behalf of us, as it good for us as a community Everybody should have it been but not too much Seems like complete contradiction with second discourse P189 It is only thru social contract that we can be equals No one should be rich or poor or strong or weak enough that it comprises their political power It shouldn’t matter that someone is rich or poor So how much property is much as to stand as equal citizen -- Liberalism – locke Locke pushes idea of individualism and rights Hes convinced that society should be organized that way Liberalism and republicanism share two values: freedom and equality But differently Freedom accoding to locke: individual freedom Same freedom as in nature, but can only do as i want as long as it doesn’t impose on by the fact that you are in society Your freedom is protected even from the law, by individual rights Freedom by individual rights Liberal freedom Lockian freedom Republicanism – ross Ross says it s not real freedom since vast majority of society is constituted by others Law is constantly telling you what you can and cant do Therefore he refers to collective freedom..aka political freedom Freedom of self legislation or autonomy (self law) U are only really free if you are autonomous and give yourself the law..thus the need to participate in the general will Political (democratic) freedom Freedom expressed through legislation Two terms: for liberalism: bourgeois – the townsman For republican: citoyen – the citizen Economic elite-bourgeois-above society by virtue of what he owns, elite defined only by wealth Bourgeois-when their elitism is show offy but not very elite, only interested in money and only out
More Less

Related notes for POLSCI 2O06

Log In


Don't have an account?

Join OneClass

Access over 10 million pages of study
documents for 1.3 million courses.

Sign up

Join to view


By registering, I agree to the Terms and Privacy Policies
Already have an account?
Just a few more details

So we can recommend you notes for your school.

Reset Password

Please enter below the email address you registered with and we will send you a link to reset your password.

Add your courses

Get notes from the top students in your class.