RE: A Repudiation of Rousseau - In His Own Words

[littlescribe]

"Is it not clear that we can be under no obligation to a person from whom we have the right to exact everything? Does not this condition alone, in the absence of equivalence or exchange, in itself involve the nullity of the act?" Hmmmm. Now THAT one is a thoughtful point, Mr. Rousseau. "Even if we could argue that the state does not claim absolute authority and demand unlimited obedience, does it not follow that any claim of authority and any demand for obedience would violate the principles?" OK, so then what do you propose?

Comments

[ats-david]

I would propose a society based on the principles of self-ownership and consent, as Rousseau had originally done before he decided to argue in opposition.

"It would therefore be necessary, in order to legitimize an arbitrary government, that in every generation the people should be in a position to accept or reject it; but, were this so, the government would be no longer arbitrary."

When he talks about "the people" having the ability to accept or reject a government, he argues based on the concept of individual consent. He even made what I thought was a brilliant point - and what most advocates of existing governments always ignore or have apparently never read:

"Indeed, if there were no prior convention, where, unless the election were unanimous, would be the obligation on the minority to submit to the choice of the majority? How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not? The law of majority voting is itself something established by convention, and presupposes unanimity, on one occasion at least.”

So, "the people," in order to legitimize a government would first need to legitimize the entire concept of majority voting before they could even cast the first vote. Unless there is unanimity for the initial convention, no person can claim any legitimate authority over another by a mere vote - no matter how many people voted in that majority. It all comes back to consent of the individual.

When you look at any system of government in place today, do you ever ask how it originated? How it really came to be, if it was indeed established as a "democracy" or a "constitutional" government? Who decided on the governing authority? How many people actually voted for the implementation of the system itself? And why does it apply to those who did not ask for it - and everyone born thereafter?

The problem always comes back to consent. So, the society that I would propose would be the one that respects this fundamental truth: If you have not agreed to be ruled, then nobody can justifiably rule you. The one caveat to this is, naturally, that if you violate the principles of self-ownership and consent by denying another person those same rights, you forfeit any claim to be free from retaliatory force in order to end or resolve any injury from the violation. Protections and arbitration/adjudication services can be established for when these violations occur, based on things like spontaneous order and free market principles of discovery, etc.

If you're not familiar with voluntary-ism and some of the current anarchist philosophy, I can give you a list of people to check out right here on Steemit. There is a lot of work currently being done on the literature front, from economics to the psychology of anarchism.