Consent is necessary because for any government to exist individuals must voluntarily surrender some of the freedom they would possess if they existed in "a state of nature" Citizens will surrender some liberty to create a government that allows them to prosper. Citizens must agree with the actions of the government at all times, giving them the right to abolish governments that do not benefit them. Locke realized that this is impossible in any society of size so he relied on the idea of a "general will" as expressed by the majority. 3. Explain the impact of Locke & Rousseau on Thomas Jefferson.
According to Jean Jacques Rousseau, human beings are bestowed with the blessings of freedom during their individual genesis on this fruitful planet, but this natural freedom is immensely circumscribed as it’s exchanged for the civil liberties of the State. He indicated that the supplanting of natural freedom is necessary for the obtainment of greater power for the greater collective community, but the prospect of obtaining superlative capabilities comes with the price of constraints. Yet this notion of natural freedom conflicts with Thomas Hobbes rendition on the state of nature because he illustrates that nature, interface through savagery. According to Hobbes, mankind has endorsed and embraced natures temperament, because this system of truculency and servility that nature orbits adversely affects the nature of mankind, resulting in mankinds affinity for greed, and brutal ambition. Inspite of their conflicting perspectives on the state of nature, both support and explicate on the idea that the preservation and proliferation of mankind as a whole is best achieved through their belief, and withholding the policies of a social contract.
The conflict between Hobbes’ and Rousseau’s perspective is that Hobbes believed that this clashing between individuals was simply a key feature of human nature, while Rousseau believed this was brought on throughout the course of social development. For that reason, each man’s belief of the natural state of men sets the
These suggest that society and government should please the general will and work together as a cohesive unit. Rousseau has several famous books, one of which is The Social Contract. The book start with the words: “Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains.” By this he means to say that the civil society, in which we live, oppresses our birthright of freedom. Without our freedom we are not man and can never be truly happy. He suggests that general will not only requires individual freedom and diversity but also the idea of well-being of the whole.
When Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote the Social Contract, the concepts of liberty and freedom were not new ideas. Many political theorists such as Thomas Hobbes and John Locke had already developed their own interpretations of liberty, and in fact Locke had already published his views on the social contract. What Rousseau did was to revolutionize the concepts encompassed by such weighty words, and introduce us to another approach to the social contract dilemma. What would bring man to leave the state of nature, and enter into an organized society? Liberals believed it was the guarantee of protection - liberty to them signified being free from harm towards one’s property.
The proper use and limits of governmental power have different implications for each theorist that we have studied. Some see its power as all-encompassing, while others see it as more narrow, controlled and regulated. For this essay, I chose to examine the philosophies of the theorists with whom I disagree with the least: Rousseau, Locke, and Rawls. One can always recall Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s famous line: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” This sentence expressed his opposition to the idea that individual should be forced to give up their natural rights to a king. His idea of political power is that which comes from a social contract, and is entered into by participants who desire protection of life, liberty, and property, while still maintaining a good amount of freedom.
Locke described a kind of social contract whereby any number of people, who are able to abide by the majority rule, unanimously unite to affect their common purposes. The... ... middle of paper ... ...ic interest that makes serenity possible. Others however are concerned about Rousseau’s argument the people can be “forced to be free,” that people can be required, under law, to do what is right. They see Rousseau’s idea as an opening to dictatorship or to “totalitarian democracy.” Some political realists doubt whether Rousseau’s idea of direct democracy is either wanted or practicable. It is clear that Locke and Rousseau had different views on equality and democracy.
For this, I argue that Rousseau’s idea of forcing citizens to be free is a dangerous notion. In stating that citizens must be compelled to submit to the general will, Rousseau offers a form of government that stifles individual liberty and allows for the tyranny of the majority to prevail. The notion of forcing citizens to be free is a product of Rousseau’s version of the social contract. While Rousseau is more optimistic about the state of nature than Thomas Hobbes in Leviathan, he still recognizes that it may become necessary for men to exit the state of nature and unite under a sovereign. When this time comes, Rousseau contends, men must enter a social contract with one another.
Also what if an individual decides they do not want to live by the common interests of this new society? Rousseau would suggest being forced to be free as the interests of the whole are served only by following rational principles that cultivate the common good which is comparable to a totalitarian
He would say that there is an inequality in how we live, because we are born free and that is taken away from us. The chains that led from the inequality are subjugation, dominance, and oppression. These chains are artificial, because we are born free. Humans acquired the chains, Rousseau would argue. He will go on to say that because humans began to rationalize these chains were caused.