Hi,
"The individual and the Collective", an issue that will continue to grow
in
im****tance.
I can't remember who said it .... "When all the world is united into a
single state,
there will no longer be wars; for wars will be labelled uprisings."
We're going to see a lot more Patriot Acts. We should know why.
.....
>
> http://www.bu.edu/wcp/Papers/Poli/PoliHill.htm
>
> On one hand, Rousseau argues that following the general will allows
> for individual diversity and freedom. But at the same time, the
> general will also encourages the well-being of the whole, and
> therefore can conflict with the particular interests of individuals.
My goodness ... I thought there were no contradictions in reality.
>
> This tension has led some to claim that Rousseau's political thought
> is hopelessly inconsistent, although others have attempted to resolve
> the tension in order to find some type of middle ground between the
> two positions.
Ummm ... that R describes humans as having conflicting interests, i.e.
being
inconsistent,
doesn't make him inconsistent.
There are reptiles lurking in the swamp, though.
By skematix:
- (short term) self interest
- (long term) self interest ("will of all", "short term meta-
selfinterest"
or "society")
- (long term) meta-selfinterest (General Will, fair play, constitutional
legislation of the limits of legislation, Rawls)
Caiman:
"True Sovereignty is directed always at the public good, and the general
will, therefore, speaks always infallibly to the benefit of the people."
Hmmm ... to me, this somewhat muddles the distinction between WoA and GW.
>
> It is not to be confused with the collection of individual wills which
> would put their own needs, or the needs of particular factions, above
> those of the general public. This leads to a related point. Rousseau
> argues that there is an im****tant distinction to be made between the
> general will and the collection of individual wills:
>
> "There is often a great deal of difference between the will of all and
> the general will. The latter looks only to the common interest; the
> former considers private interest and is only a sum of private wills.
Alligator:
What is "benefit of the people" and "common interest" in GW as opposed to
the "collection of individual wills" in WoA, as long as it is the
collection
of ALL individual wills?
If parties interpose, then I agree, but not if they don't.
> But take away from these same wills the pluses and minuses that cancel
> each other out, and the remaining sum of the differences is the
> general will." (Social Contract, Vol. IV, p. 146).
Nile corcodile:
Using this method to arrive from the WoA to the GE is where the muddle
arises, I think.
That is the point I would discuss in-depth - does this really do what R
says
it does?
Unless one is very very rawlsian in the cancelling here?
>
> This point can be understood in an almost Rawlsian sense, namely that
> if the citizens were ignorant of the groups to which they would
> belong, they would inevitably make decisions that would be to the
> advantage of the society as a whole, and thus be in accordance with
> the general will.
Big Old Australian Saltwater Crocodile Grandfather:
..... the difference between the "advantage of the society as a whole" as
opposed to
"no disadvantage regardless of my place in society". Perhaps these are not
coextensive.
> Unanimity in popular decisions is a sign of a healthy state. That is a
> sign that the general will is agreed upon by all.
Yesssssssss .... evidence: Germany 1933 - 1945.
When everyone is
> expressing only his own particular will, there are bound to be
> disagreements.
Not necessarily ...?
In a worst case scenario, unanimity reappears when
> people vote in accordance with a tyrant either out of fear or
> flattery.
OK, they said "a sign" ....
>
> http://www.sparknotes.com/philosophy/socialcontract/section11.rhtml
>
> What are the conditions for the appearance of the general will? The
> fundamental condition is true equality among the citizenry, especially
> economic equality. For where there is no equality, the self-interest
> of some carries greater weight than the self-interest of others.
Yup. A paradox to institutionalize political eqality and economic
inequality.
Another contradiction in reality.
> This first condition is linked to a second condition, which is the
> absence of "partial associations" or parties. For the wills of partial
> associations, which come together as expressing some common economic
> or class interest, conflict with the will of the community as a whole.
And this is where economic liberalists get reality wrong. There is no
greater enemy
of the free market than the individual operator in it; and the bigger, the
fiercer the enmity.
Of course every free market operator is in favour of the free market for
himself,
and the rules of fairness for everyone else, but any of them will gladly
undercut any market freedom
for others and will cir***vent any rule of fairness for himself as long as
one gets away with it.
Often one does not get away with it in the long run, but being trained to
keep the next quarterly
as "long term planning horizon" often aids in making really bad decisions.
This is where the general will has to step in and prohibit insider
trading,
cartels, monpolies etc.
for the f...cking good of the market operators themselves, since they are
too stupid to keep their fingers out of the coookie jar whenever they
think
nobody's watching.
t
|
