A review by mary_kristine1
The Body Politic by Jean-Jacques Rousseau
5.0
This work played an influential role in the French Revolution. In here, Rousseau argued that a state’s political power should lie with its people, next thing we know, the monarchs were overthrown… and replaced by….uh……
Book I: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau affirms that family is the first model of political societies; with the father as the ruler and children as people. Once the children reach the age of reason, they become their own masters- they alienate their liberty when either necessary or useful to them. The difference is that in a family setting, ruling is derived from love while in the State, ruling is derived from the pleasure of commanding.
If you have to obey by force, you do not obey by duty, and if you do not obey by duty, you do not need to obey at all. Strength does not spawn right to command, even though it seems like it. Yielding to force is an act of necessity and, at times, even prudence, not of will. You are obliged to obey only legitimate powers, but who holds the legitimate power?
Grotius asks: “If an individual can alienate his liberty and sell himself to a master, why could not a whole people alienate its own and subject itself to a king?” To alienate is to renounce your character, your liberty, your morality. There is no, or at least there should be no, compensation equivalent to a human being. Absolute authority of one and boundless obedience of another is a contradictory and pointless convention. A slave has no right against his master, since all that he has belongs to his master. A slave’s right is not his but his master’s. When a man alienates himself, he does not give himself, he sells himself, for subsistence. For what, then, do the people sell itself? For subsistence? A king provides subsistence for his subjects the same way his subjects provide his own, might I add, extravagant subsistence. For fear of being robbed of property? The people have no property. For peace? King’s wars, caused by insatiable greed and personal ambitions, inflicted more misery than harmony. Do the people sell themselves freely then? The Sovereign or the body politic neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs. Thus, duty and interest enable two parties to help each other out.
“No man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
Book III: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau starts by introducing two causes of every free action; moral will that determines the act and physical will that executes it. If you want to piss, you would naturally want to go to the comfort room, to do this, you would also naturally have to use your feet and move. Should a differently abled man wish to run or Usain Bolt wish to sit, both will remain where they are. This is pretty much how the Legislative and Executive branches of the government work. The Legislature acts as an agent of the general will of the people and the Executive, well, executes said will.
There’s this really interesting experiment in the book. First, we know that the Sovereign can only be considered collectively (eg: Sovereign Filipino people), but each individual is called a citizen. Now, the Philippines has a hundred million citizens. The sovereign is to citizen as 100 million is to one. Ergo, each citizen has only one over one hundred millionth part (0.00000001%) of the sovereign authority. I’m really bad at explaining maths but I hope that made sense. Rousseau goes further and explains that the larger the state, the more strength the government must have in order to contain its subjects, the more temptations and tendency to abuse power, and the more the sovereignty citizens must have to contain the government. In short, there must be parity between the government and the citizens. This only means that no two governments are alike, that there can be as many types of government as states differ in size.
Rousseau identifies three different wills of the government; personal will directed for private gain, corporate will of the members for their common advantage, and general will of the people. In a perfect government, the first must be nonexistent, the second subordinate to the last, and the last the dominating will. However, wills are more active when they are more concentrated, when it involves less members. Thus, the opposite of the perfect government happens, the general will is always the weakest. “The government slackens to the extent that magistrates multiply” Is this to say that the best government is that of a single ruler? hmmmmmmM
Each form of government has its inadequacies. Democracy with its vagueness and tendency to be abused and corrupted. Democracy degenerates into Ochlocracy. Rousseau even points out that “no true democracy has existed, nor ever will exist.” It is against the nature of man to submit himself willfully to a government comprised of a small number of men.. Aristocracy with its institutional inequality that puts the wealthy on the pedestal. Aristocracy degenerates into Oligarchy. The wealthy, deliberating affairs by themselves and for themselves, is the government. Monarchy with all its powers concentrated to a single Monarch. The whole state is ridden by personal will. Monarchy degenerates into Tyranny. Everything moves towards the same end, whether it is good or bad for the general will, is wholly to the Monarch’s decision. The consistency of the royal government depends on the character of the ruling monarch. The whole state can either be under the rule of a wise king, a child, a monster, or an idiot, depending on the succession…
Chapter 15: Of Deputies or Representatives left quite a mark on me. Here, Rousseau elucidates the role of money in any State. Okay, sure, everybody knows about how money makes the world go round, what’s new? What’s new is that things shouldn’t work like that, or at least wholly. Must we really go to war? We pay the military and stay home for that. Must we really enter politics? We elect and pay officials and stay home for that. We pay to exempt ourselves from duties. We pay for comfort. Sure, you can say “I worked hard for my money, I get to decide what do with it”, except you don’t. Let me remind you of Marx’s words (okay, not exact words), you don’t acquire money or any property through your labor, what you acquire exploits you. When people serve with money rather than with persons, public services cease to be the main objective, the State is a mockery. “In a truly free state, citizens do everything with their own hands and nothing with money.”
Rousseau also has a very interesting take on modern system of representation aka elections. In ancient republics and monarchies, the people never had representatives. The word as we know it now didn’t exist until the 16th century. Republican states like to boast freedom, but as soon as the people elect representatives, it ceases to be free.
“It would be absurd if the citizens united could not do what each of them can do separately.”
Book I: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau affirms that family is the first model of political societies; with the father as the ruler and children as people. Once the children reach the age of reason, they become their own masters- they alienate their liberty when either necessary or useful to them. The difference is that in a family setting, ruling is derived from love while in the State, ruling is derived from the pleasure of commanding.
If you have to obey by force, you do not obey by duty, and if you do not obey by duty, you do not need to obey at all. Strength does not spawn right to command, even though it seems like it. Yielding to force is an act of necessity and, at times, even prudence, not of will. You are obliged to obey only legitimate powers, but who holds the legitimate power?
Grotius asks: “If an individual can alienate his liberty and sell himself to a master, why could not a whole people alienate its own and subject itself to a king?” To alienate is to renounce your character, your liberty, your morality. There is no, or at least there should be no, compensation equivalent to a human being. Absolute authority of one and boundless obedience of another is a contradictory and pointless convention. A slave has no right against his master, since all that he has belongs to his master. A slave’s right is not his but his master’s. When a man alienates himself, he does not give himself, he sells himself, for subsistence. For what, then, do the people sell itself? For subsistence? A king provides subsistence for his subjects the same way his subjects provide his own, might I add, extravagant subsistence. For fear of being robbed of property? The people have no property. For peace? King’s wars, caused by insatiable greed and personal ambitions, inflicted more misery than harmony. Do the people sell themselves freely then? The Sovereign or the body politic neither has nor can have any interest contrary to theirs. Thus, duty and interest enable two parties to help each other out.
“No man was born free, and everywhere he is in chains.”
Book III: Of The Social Contract
Rousseau starts by introducing two causes of every free action; moral will that determines the act and physical will that executes it. If you want to piss, you would naturally want to go to the comfort room, to do this, you would also naturally have to use your feet and move. Should a differently abled man wish to run or Usain Bolt wish to sit, both will remain where they are. This is pretty much how the Legislative and Executive branches of the government work. The Legislature acts as an agent of the general will of the people and the Executive, well, executes said will.
There’s this really interesting experiment in the book. First, we know that the Sovereign can only be considered collectively (eg: Sovereign Filipino people), but each individual is called a citizen. Now, the Philippines has a hundred million citizens. The sovereign is to citizen as 100 million is to one. Ergo, each citizen has only one over one hundred millionth part (0.00000001%) of the sovereign authority. I’m really bad at explaining maths but I hope that made sense. Rousseau goes further and explains that the larger the state, the more strength the government must have in order to contain its subjects, the more temptations and tendency to abuse power, and the more the sovereignty citizens must have to contain the government. In short, there must be parity between the government and the citizens. This only means that no two governments are alike, that there can be as many types of government as states differ in size.
Rousseau identifies three different wills of the government; personal will directed for private gain, corporate will of the members for their common advantage, and general will of the people. In a perfect government, the first must be nonexistent, the second subordinate to the last, and the last the dominating will. However, wills are more active when they are more concentrated, when it involves less members. Thus, the opposite of the perfect government happens, the general will is always the weakest. “The government slackens to the extent that magistrates multiply” Is this to say that the best government is that of a single ruler? hmmmmmmM
Each form of government has its inadequacies. Democracy with its vagueness and tendency to be abused and corrupted. Democracy degenerates into Ochlocracy. Rousseau even points out that “no true democracy has existed, nor ever will exist.” It is against the nature of man to submit himself willfully to a government comprised of a small number of men.. Aristocracy with its institutional inequality that puts the wealthy on the pedestal. Aristocracy degenerates into Oligarchy. The wealthy, deliberating affairs by themselves and for themselves, is the government. Monarchy with all its powers concentrated to a single Monarch. The whole state is ridden by personal will. Monarchy degenerates into Tyranny. Everything moves towards the same end, whether it is good or bad for the general will, is wholly to the Monarch’s decision. The consistency of the royal government depends on the character of the ruling monarch. The whole state can either be under the rule of a wise king, a child, a monster, or an idiot, depending on the succession…
Chapter 15: Of Deputies or Representatives left quite a mark on me. Here, Rousseau elucidates the role of money in any State. Okay, sure, everybody knows about how money makes the world go round, what’s new? What’s new is that things shouldn’t work like that, or at least wholly. Must we really go to war? We pay the military and stay home for that. Must we really enter politics? We elect and pay officials and stay home for that. We pay to exempt ourselves from duties. We pay for comfort. Sure, you can say “I worked hard for my money, I get to decide what do with it”, except you don’t. Let me remind you of Marx’s words (okay, not exact words), you don’t acquire money or any property through your labor, what you acquire exploits you. When people serve with money rather than with persons, public services cease to be the main objective, the State is a mockery. “In a truly free state, citizens do everything with their own hands and nothing with money.”
Rousseau also has a very interesting take on modern system of representation aka elections. In ancient republics and monarchies, the people never had representatives. The word as we know it now didn’t exist until the 16th century. Republican states like to boast freedom, but as soon as the people elect representatives, it ceases to be free.
“It would be absurd if the citizens united could not do what each of them can do separately.”