POL320 Lecture 5 Thursday October 10, 2013 3.

. Social Contract A people we the peopledemos: page 164 people are in a state of nature with families in it. he doesnt actually take very much about what is going on there. Its a lot not clear if whether or not he thinks this contract is an historical event unlike the nature of human being development of actual historical development of nation states rule of law introduced after inequality was introduced. Here it is not clear of the historical status of the contact. However, his claims are universal. Birch also talks about rights but exclusively on certain history here R is trying to make a claim of what is the essence of legitimate government all though perhaps they, have never formally _ they are everywhere the same, every tacitly accepted and acknowledged to that extent there is non empirical non historical aspect of the contract - We are separate individuals who come together and say that as an collective body we make the laws and are bound to the sovereign which is all of us together - Government and laws are not chains but a form of legislation and self-rule Popular sovereignty Total alienation of rights What about a constitution What and who is the sovereign General will take one

4. forced to be free individuals versus common good: we are members of a community we have community and collective interests. R wants to say that those common interests are just as real and represent who we are as those individual interests Misguided interests versus best interest: there will always be conflicts between the interests. Sometimes people will intervene and say what is best for you if you are not in situation to see it - The defining feature of a good law: one that you or the community have given yourself. You are really just being forced to do if you could see what is your collective interest. there is a way in which this makes sense and does. The way it makes sense: think of the individual level always acting on best self-interest but one can question how do you know what is you best self-interest - Extreme cases slavery in the American south many slaves did not welcome this the question was the actual concrete imperial consequences of this own economic life, having to develop a new life. In these cases these people were often forced to be free they didnt choose it nor would have chose it. here we dont have an actual problem - People who end up in cults we force them to be free. Thus, there occasions where force to be free makes sense. But in politics it is problematic: - How do you know what is the general or common good. R turns out, has an abstract notion of the general will simple majority procedures. R says we have to go with

majorities problem: majority is forcing the minority to be free. They think they no what being free is. They impose laws on the minorities. This is what you want but you just dont know it this is their justification. - Some people argue that this directly leads to the doctrine of false consciousness; why is it that the working class revolting all the time in the capitalists oppression the answer is false conscious we need people to know the true intention of the working class problematic concept - R wants to say that the heart of the democracy is finding polices that express the common good and therefore when following those laws you are following your self but the problem with this is that it is just way too general. We have to find a fair system of democracy that respects the concept of difference Forcing slaves to be free this is not a form of domination, it is a way for forcing people to be free.

5. Liberty When R says we are force to be free what is that free it is a form of civil free. Chapter 8 differences between the liberties Natural liberty; liberty in the state of nature when there are no laws. We can do what we what to do when we want to do it Civil liberty; when we create laws of collective identity we get civil liberty which has 2 components - A) we are free the laws give us space R says that once you set up contract you have property before that in nature all we say is this is mine. Until we have laws that protect those property then you can say that is mine but it is not legitimate. When we have laws we can take people into court and justify that property is actually ours. Do what we want in that protected area. A kind of liberty that is more secure do things in life without feeling that you be threatened or interfered - B) collectively self-determining ourselves in a civil state we are collectively self governed. it is us governing ourselves self-determination and self-sovereignty Moral liberty to the preceding acquisitions could be added the acquisitions of moral liberty to be driven by appetite alone is slavery and obedience to the law once prescribed to oneself is liberty* interesting phrase savage person seems to be driven by appetite along. Collective sense liberty get to together and give each other laws and say this is good for us or he is saying that this is true for each individual person he doesnt elaborate on this Kant does this - The rehabilitation of reason only then when the voice of duty... his faculties are exercised and developed, his ideas are broadened.. this is all in the civil state how great it is - From a stupid animal to an intelligent man the discourses of inequality is the story of the worst and now he is saying the story of what it could be if it is the best. One of the reasons this is problematic is the ambiguity role of reason in this6. property how does J-J solve the problem of the second discourse? In the state of nature we get possession you get their first you get the property. The what happens, you set up a

contract and set up laws that transform possession into property thus, property is conventional and written by the contract. In a normal state, there will be private property, but ultimately the system and distribution of private property is subject to the total sovereign. Thus, if you have private property and the sovereign (us) say that Joe Smith need to be expropriated then he surely will for the collective good. - Private property is ultimately decided by us page 168 owners are considered trustees of the public good you are subject to a subordinate of the public good. in whatever way this acquisition is accomplished that kind of sounds like Marx or socialism but do we have a similar situation right now? We have private property but through the charter of rights there is no clause there that says you have the right to private property ultimately our system of property is based on the public and common good - A market system is in everyones best interest if we really decided it wasnt in our best interest, then we would change it. thus, what R is saying isnt too radical. The limit is not articulated as a strong right as freedom of conscious or religion is. Some people have tried to identify in the declaration of independence the natural right to property but other wise it is not in ___ - Thus, if you think about it, its not radical. More radical is Rs articulation of a principle of equality as a necessary condition of legitimacy and stability Trustees of the public good Right to private property? Relative social equality as a necessary condition of freedom: page 189 two principle; liberty and equality. Liberty from the body of the state and equality because liberty can _ without it regarding equality we need not mean by this word that reason and power is the same, but rather that no citizen should be so rich that capable of buying another citizen and so poor as sell oneself (class discussions: Locke wants to limit government, R is saying something else, if we are the government that why should it be limited; if it turns out that all of the minority people have the all the possessions of pretty then one of the first things the sovereign will do is say that, that is not a common good that is not for the best of the common people and thus, we will change the situation private property of the minority may not be acknowledged because it undermines and threatens the common good)

One the Social Contract book II 1. general will 2. legislator 3. people 1. German will (take two) What is it? It can never be mistaken the general will can never be mistaken lets say that in general , human beings act not to destroy themselves, but what is good for us and what will make us happy. At some level every action we choose is based on the assumption that it is what we want to do. But of course, we could be mistake, not have all the

information or be in drugs. There is this idea that there is some very basic notion of what we choose in the world. - The fact that he is saying it can never be mistaken implies that there must be some basic thing that is actually the general will. the general will is always right and always tends to public utility.. (she reads for so long ) the general will is the idea of our will with a common interest. - How do we know what that is though? Here we have a problem because you have to have producers in place where people get together and legislate. He gives guidelines that will ensure people will think in terms of what is the common good there as to be a lot of civic education and socialization going on - R however, at first says that citizens should not talk that much together when people talk to each other they get to know the common interests they have but that is bad because it creates factions in society (we are one group of people who like on type of thing and others belong to another group liking another thing) we should come together as individuals and then look inside your heart and look from the point of view of a member of community - Chapter 1 book 4: upright and simple men are difficult to see they are not even clear enough to be duped.. the idea here is of simplicity famers coming together and talking from their heart the general will is not constructed through talking with one another on what the general will is, we discover it through out heart General will versus will of all How can we find it, know it, discover it, create it?

2. Legislator Up until book 2 chapter seven R takes a basic enlightenment path, different from Hobbes and Locke but basic. But now we have the chapter of the legislator and people which gets complex. How do we actually create a general will? He says that you cant just take abstract individuals and create a contract. You have to take concrete people with religion, values, desires. France cannot have a general will because it is a society that is deeply corrupt with oppression there is not fellow feeling and no notion of going into your heart. There is no we in France. This we place has to be constructed in the world. we first do this through the legislator a) The legislation (which is democratic) makes the laws b) Government is the institutions that governs and institutes the laws c) The legislator creates constitutions and leaves, he does not govern but he kick starts it off to develop strong sense of community. foundings- simple people who are given good laws and structure so they have the natural capacity to _ general will the natural capacity to develop and possess civic virtue. What about democracy Can use neither force nor reason The legislator as shaper of human nature: Think of it this way; parent have an obligation to educate their children to participate in democracy the legislator is kind of like that the shaper of human nature - since therefore the legislator it is the force of religion which shapes the sentiments and force of individuals in order for them to understand the pluses of the

social contract and general will they already have to be educated. To make them understand you have to come in with a divine __ to get things going 3. The people Not everyone is suited to freedom 6 qualities required for freedom: 1. Had no laws but forms a society 2. No deeply rooted customs 3. No external threats 4. Each member can be known to all this is tough it kind of implies that the population must be small for it to work 5. Self-sufficient; neither rich nor poor 6. Stability of the ancients and docility of the young Can we think of any place like this? R says Corsica - Places like France, Germany or England have really not developed these characteristics and therefore the people there do not have the general will at heart. And therefore, people in these places are in chains - Its quite a downer very pessimistic - His view strengthened federalism, decentralization and encouraged smaller governments get involved in looking communities and face to face decisions. There are many ways to take what R says and make society better. Some people argue that he is saying there need to be a revolution in France he is not really pushing for this - The shaper of people reintroduces the sentiment and emotion into Rs analysis of politics the legislator creates those kinds of people On the social contract Book III - This chapter have been one of the most influential chapters in Rs philosophy of politics. In order to have a healthy democracy people need to care; care for public heath and the civic. The thing that distracts people the most from the public good is the private good. The private good is marked by economic gain. People concerned with making money undermines the notion of the public good 1. Deputies and representative - What is the difference - Finance is slaves word; people who are concerned with money are dedicated to their life of making money do not care of the common good. It is only when the laws affect you then you get into the process of making laws. - The what do I care syndrome: good laws lead to make better laws, bad laws this idea of what do I care syndrome is used as a criticism of civic virtue that has been hugely influential. - One of the way Rs says this is expressed is through representative government you elect them and they make choices for you you dont directly tell them what decision to make they make decision that they think is suppose to be good for you you trust them. R thinks that we do that because we dont want to be bothered to do that ourselves. A representative government doesnt allow all to participate. Delegates are different they ask you about what decisions to make they are a direct agent/ tool of the citizen whereas the representative make the decisions himself

- The representative government leads to the falling of civic virtue Civic religion Religion of man, citizens and priest Civic religion; religion has given inspiration and it is somehow a necessary condition for the civic virtue that he thinks is required to have a healthy democracy. we might say that he is wrong because in our society the state is secular and the principle of separation is fixed. - But what he is saying that when you look at religion (not the organized one; Christianity has been disastrous) what he is saying is that he need some kind of fundamental shared values and he (in his time) only thought about religion. Today, we can say yes, he need some community but we dont need to match this his - When he says religion of man he means religion of the gospel the inner faith that has no connection with institutions - The second one is the religion of the citizens he ties this to civic religions in Rome where part of their duty what that empires became deities. - Religion of the priest there is nothing good about this because the priest is connected to the catholic church. - The problem with the religion of man is that is jus to about the inner self. it is private there is not incentive to be a good citizen - The problem with the religion with citizens is that _ and that they tend to create and addresses a type of patriotism - He wants to develop a new notion of civil religion with two components; everyone must adhere to it and if you do adhere to it and then later down the line do something that shows you dont, then you get the death penalty. This seems radical but R also talks about toleration - Love duties - Sentiment of sociability Dogmas =sentiments of sociability - Existence of God (all powerful, all good, all knowing) - Life to come - Punishment of the wicked - Sanctity of the social contract - Toleration; you can belong to any religion you want (Islam) but they must have the things that are said above existence of God, life to come, punishment of the wickedblah blah blah - Page 250 it is impossible to live in peace with those one believes to be dammed if you think you have the true religion and you think everyone is going to hell that you cant have civic virtue - The problem is that you cannot base all of the this with the commonality of religion some people do not believe in religion and religion does not have the same impact today. Because we embrace plurality we accept people with different religious faith. But maybe r is right when need some kind of collective value this brings us to look at the charter of rights in Quebec - The charter is saying that we have shared values which make us a single community. It is important for us to articulate those values and go along with those values such

as secularism note: Quebec is very strict on women participating in the government who cannot wear head coverings (burqa) they want complete secularism - Thus, R does have a point of shared values for civic values but in our society today it may not be religion as the shared value it can be the charter of rights Penalty as mentioned above R says that if you adhere to the shared value (in his book he is writing about religion)but then do something that goes against it then you should get the death penalty. This is because we need shared values that bring us together and develop a certain kind of civic virtue. If you do not adhere to the shared value (religion) then you are threatening the development of civic virtue and more importantly, the development of a general will. THUS DIEEEEEEE BITCH DIEEEEEEE

Conclusion and review Reason Religion Public sphere Progress Rights Liberty Equality Fraternity Authenticity Autonomy