Register to read the introduction…
Rousseau first argues in The Second Discourse that human progress and the formation of society have led to the concept of property and the “natural” disparity of wealth. As the rich are bound to be the minority, government is then established to keep the poor at bay and maintain some sense of order. But as government often lends itself to corruption, it is itself another source of inequality. Individuals have essentially exchanged their freedom for a depraved society, and mankind suffers in
…show more content…
The major concern with the general will is the fear that the society will develop into a “tyranny of the majority.” The ideal conditions for the general will would be that everyone acted purely for the common good and possessed a perfect understanding of the issues. If this were true, the general will would theoretically be the unanimous decision of the entire community and the best laws would always be made.
But this would clearly be impossible on a national scale; individuals and even the general will are susceptible to error. The majority can mistake what is truly best for the common good and still subject the entire state to its rule. When this happens, the minority, whose opinions are not given enough weight and ignored due to sheer numbers, are forced to conform to the misconceived rulings of the majority. For such cases, people temporarily lose their freedom, as the majority was not acting in the public …show more content…
And knowing how liable humans are to err, the mistake of one person would affect everyone in the state. On the other hand, if the state were small, more magistrates would be allowed, thereby making the corporate or government interest the same as the general will. But in this case, the government would be slow to act, and in times of emergency, the state would suffer as a result. A dictator would be needed, but by doing so, the state is once again liable to arbitrary rule and the people lose their freedom. By avoiding the problems of traditional governments, the general will faces a different set of
The major concern with the general will is the fear that the society will develop into a “tyranny of the majority.” The ideal conditions for the general will would be that everyone acted purely for the common good and possessed a perfect understanding of the issues. If this were true, the general will would theoretically be the unanimous decision of the entire community and the best laws would always be made.
But this would clearly be impossible on a national scale; individuals and even the general will are susceptible to error. The majority can mistake what is truly best for the common good and still subject the entire state to its rule. When this happens, the minority, whose opinions are not given enough weight and ignored due to sheer numbers, are forced to conform to the misconceived rulings of the majority. For such cases, people temporarily lose their freedom, as the majority was not acting in the public …show more content…
And knowing how liable humans are to err, the mistake of one person would affect everyone in the state. On the other hand, if the state were small, more magistrates would be allowed, thereby making the corporate or government interest the same as the general will. But in this case, the government would be slow to act, and in times of emergency, the state would suffer as a result. A dictator would be needed, but by doing so, the state is once again liable to arbitrary rule and the people lose their freedom. By avoiding the problems of traditional governments, the general will faces a different set of