POL320 October 3.docx

5 Pages
Unlock Document

Political Science
Mark Lippincott

POL320 October 3, 2012 The social contract Rousseau weaving flowers through the chains which deceives us what were wearing (discourse 1). Discourse inequality= one of the reasons we put up with extreme inequality, but it’s an emotional and political inequality, those treat me above me, I can treat those below me, hierarchical system of domination. Greatest fear of these slaves= to fall in the social hierarchy, descend in terms of power, fall on our supriors. With the social contract: Rousseau returns to the imagine of freedom & slavery, everywhere is born free, no one comes out of womb ready to be a slave, no one readily is born into slavery, but everywhere men are in chains. All of us are in chains = born free, but born in chains. How could this be? How can we, given our understanding of human nature, how can we change this? Pry us away from some of our false assumptions about how inequality & dominantion (enslavement) has been taken as natural. Thomas Hobbes= force cannot make slavery legitmate, just because you overpower someone, hold a sword t someones neck, you have not created political legitimacy. Leviathan, needed for the state of nature (doesn’t exist) compares it midly to the state of north american natives at his time, freedom and equality, how terrible this would be, but after this chapter, Hobbes goes on to the real instances of political dominant. Dominant form in human history, is by conquest, someone comes with superior forces, that’s your new king, if you don’t submit, you die. For Hobbes given the choice of submit or die, is a good choice, because there not just killing you, they could, they have the advantage why do armies stop? Hobbes think if the people can be forced to submit, the worst thing is to pretend to submit while your secretly try to fight back against the superior force, for peace. No hire value than peace, all other paths lead to war, submission is the path to peace. Rousseau, I will say anything when you have a sword to my throat, will strike back. Say the generation that is conquered to rationally submit to the new forces, that wouldn’t enslave their children, you cant pass on political obligation by birth, the children would have the right into question the soverign, if our parents submit under force. Each generation has to figure out a new ground for generation, reopen the question of why submit to political power. Tradition and custom stops you from thinking this. Rousseau says let us rethink of the foundation of rationale concent to legitimate government, you cant say majority rule, someone would say I’m not agreeing im not the majority. He formulates his idea of the general will, and social contract. Each generation needs to rethink the foundation of political obligation. Hobbes think when you break contract, you break it with eachother not the soverign. Rousseau thinks that’s a recipe for tyranny. You concentrate the power in one person’s hands, you do it on the basis of mutual contract. Let us think what kind of contract, would be necessary in order for us to get to the point of majority consent. We would have to agree to come into the contract as equals, Locke says we all agree to come out of state of nature into civil society than the majority of government picks one, in theory its civil society, but its property holders. Rousseau thinks you need to join together as equals, to avoid fraud/deception. That’s the fraud, we have to start as radical equals, whatever your status/wealth is, it has to be given up. This is temporary, hes getting rid of the natural or pre political claims to advantage. If we come together in a social contract that’s not corrupt, inequality than we have to start as equals. We all have to give up natural right, we have to give up thinking of our natural rights, the course to natural right is the course to inequality. The starting point is the strip naked, property, possessions etc, everyone is the same. The starting point, we give up all prior to the contact in order to get it back. You don’t enter with natural rights, you enter with nothing, than you receive back from the political = civil rights. Locke would say, you enter society with your property, you have joined civil society in the protection of life, liberty and property, if civil society is constituted. Society should be dedicated to this Rousseau says- civil society, society created by the social contract cannot let us in on an unequal basis, we have to give up our claim to a natural right to these 50 acres. You don’t claim it in the sense of your ancestors claimed your claim will be justified within the political community itself. When the political community needs to put a road through, eminiate domain. All governments, follow to a certain extent of rousseau, emanate domain. We don’t interfere with your claim, at some point we may, put into a highway, airport etc not to torment you, in the name of collective good, of general will. Than the poor get some to use, You will be compensated, but you cant claim that you can defend your property of natural right because you gave this us when you came into this society. Problem; you get divided audience, one side says totalitarian, general will overriding individual will, but you also see a democratic, could be split. We know how well we writes, and thinks.. We need to switch the justification of natural right, to civil right.they get possession because we accept to keep our chains, that’s because we think this is natural. Inheritance: as a society we have to decide on what the just equitable laws should be. Its collectively what if we all came to a judgment of a modest tax, or an inherent tax is better than a sales tax. Sales tax the poor much more than the rich. Inheritance would be fairly in the sense of percentage, to spread it around. In theory= nothing wrong with that, whatever is being inheretent is not necessarily yours, its ours to decide what to do with it. How can we take us as we are, (nasty, driven creatures) and make laws as they should be, political community the monsters are not running the show we have to get rid of the ides we deserve the things we have, the only reason we have that we have. Simple: taxes We have to free ourselves from those that keep us in a psychologica
More Less

Related notes for POL320Y5

Log In


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.