I'm reading a great book, called, The Essential Rousseau, this is a philosophy book, yes philosophy. You're probably thinking, God Linda, how boring are you? Well, if you really want to understand, how government should be ran, you need to read some of the deepest thinkers in the world, Rousseau is one of those men. I'm only on page 38, and this book, is blowing me away, with how deep this man was.
Here's an example: It will be said that a despot guarantees his subjects civil peace. Granted, but what do they gain if the wars in which his ambition involves them, his insatiable greed, and the harassment's inflicted on them by his ministers distress them more than their dissensions would do? What do they gain if that civil peace is one of their miseries? Life in a dungeon is also peaceful; is that enough to make it desirable? The Greeks imprisoned in the Cyclops' cave lived peacefully, while waiting their turn to be devoured. Chapter IV, page 12, The Essential Rousseau.
Does the above paragraph, remind you of many situations, that are going on around us and the world. If you are granted peace, if we are constantly fighting in wars, that we don't care about...is that peace, that we live in, really worth having? Or are we like the Greeks imprisoned in the Cyclops' cave, that lived peacefully, while we wait, for our son's, to be devoured by the constant grinding, of our war machine.
Here's another great paragraph; There have been a thousand successful nations on earth that could not have tolerated good laws, and even those that could have done so had only a brief period in their whole history when they were capable of it. Most peoples, like most individuals, are malleable only in youth and become incorrigible as they grow older. Once their customs are established and their prejudices have taken root, trying to reform them is a dangerous and futile enterprise; like those foolish and cowardly invalids who tremble at the sight of a doctor, they cannot bear to let anyone touch their infirmities, even to cure them. pg 39 from The Essential Rousseau.
This is so great, doesn't that paragraph, describe, the Middle East, word for word? We can not reform a people, that can not be reformed! We need to learn, that we (the U.S), must admit, that the Middle East, can not change, unless they themselves, and that's the majority of the peoples of that region, decide to change. When they say; "no we don't want anymore people to die needlessly because of hate!" That's when I believe, that real change will happen in the Middle East. Are people more willing to change their ways, when they're younger? That's true, after a certain point in time, everybody, generally becomes stuck in their ways. It becomes impossible, for those people, to change! Will the Middle East be able to tolerate good laws? Well, first they would have to, have better leaders and Kingship, in some of those country's. Prejudice, is almost impossible to change in an older adult. So that's true too. Prejudice is the hardest factor, in any society to change, because...how hard is it, to change something, that most people, have been taught to believe in, for most of their lives? It's almost impossible to see a society like that change! I have a few members, on my face book account, that are Muslims from Muslim country's, and one of the kids was holding a Samurai sword, or at least it was as big as one. So of course, I asked him, if he wanted to continue, to be on my face book account, that he had to change his profile page picture. It was an intimidating picture. I'm not sure what kind of message, he was trying to convey to people. But...if a kid like that, thinks, that killing and being violent, and fighting in wars; wars that may even be with the Taliban are great? What kind of chance, does real democracy have in the Middle East? Those kids that have been taught to hate people, baised on their religion, or race, will one day, be replacing the very Taliban members, that are glorified by those same children now. So Rousseau is right again, when he says, trying to reform them, once they are grown up, would be impossible!
Here's another great paragraph from Rousseau; A man who renounces his freedom renounces his humanity, along with the rights of humanity, and even it's duties. There is no possible compensation for someone who renounces everything. Such a renunciation is incompatible with the nature of man, and to remove all freedom from his will is to remove all morality from his acts. And finally, an agreement that stipulates absolute authority on one side and unlimited obedience on the other is vain and contradictory. Is it not clear that one has no obligation toward someone from whom one is entitled to demand everything, and does not that single condition, without reciprocity or compensation, nullify the agreement? What right could my slave have against me, since everything he has belongs to me? His rights are mine, and the idea of my rights against myself is meaningless.
Truer words have never been written, if the constitution enslaves it's people, by overburdening them with un-payable tax payments, and also by making poor peoples burdens overwhelming. Then the Constitution is as worthless as the paper it's written on. So trying to enslave our American society, to substandard wages, is immoral, and removes morality from America. It is vain, and contradictory, to think for one moment, that we the people, should pay for the rich in America's taxes. While simultaneously, raising, prices on food and gas, for everyone else who is not rich! What rights, do we have against our Government, when they treat us like slaves, while taking everything from us? We have fewer and fewer rights everyday! Who's fault is it, that America and Americans are having economic problems? It's our Government, who is in the back pockets, of 2% of the richest in America. So pretty soon, even the top 2% of the richest, their rights will become meaningless, if all of us become working class slaves.
Here's another great paragraph; A people, says Grotius, can give itself to a king. According to Grotius, then, a people is a people before giving itself to a king. That gift is itself a civil act and presupposes a collective agreement. Therefore, before examining the act by which a people elects a king, it would be good to examine the agreement by which a people is a people. Since the latter necessarily proceeds the former, it is the true foundation of society. Pg 16, The Essential Rousseau.
So maybe before the next Democratic and Republican elections, we the people, meaning all of us, sinse we proceed a democratic society, and it is because of us, that democracy exists in the first place. Maybe we, should look at everything, our society is or isn't doing a lot more closely. Before we volunteer anymore of our children, to the American war machine. It is a civil act, to accept the government, which means a majority of the population, must be for most of the things, that are going on within that Government. Is there anyone out there that agrees 100%, with everything our elected officials are doing right now? All I know, is, that I've been hearing a lot more unhappy people, then happy ones, when discussing politics and the Government.
While it is not impossible for an individual will to concur with the general will on a particular point, it is at least impossible for such a concurrence to be lasting and constant, for an individual will, by its nature, tends toward still more impossible to have any guarantee of this concurrence; even if it were always to exist, it would be by accident and not by design. The sovereign can say, "I now will what this man wills, or at least what he says he wills," but it cannot say, "Tomorrow I shall still will what he wills," because it is absurd for the will to bind itself with regard to the future, and because no will can consent to anything contrary to the good of the being that wills. If, therefore, a people promises to obey unconditionally, it thereby dissolves itself and ceases to be a people; as soon as there is a master, there is no longer a sovereign, and the body politic is then destroyed. Pg 24 The Essential Rousseau
Yes, "it is absurd for the will to bind itself with regard to the future!" Now, does that mean, that the constitution needs to be updated? Now remember, this document was written before slavery was abolished, and we can not bind ourselves, to an out dated document. A document that should have been updated, every 10 years or so. Our politicians, can not follow it, simply because...the constitution needs to be brought up to, 20th century standards. Will this Nation fall apart, because, we are following an out dated document? Will we cease to be America, if, we keep following an outdated constitution. A constitution, that really doesn't follow, modern day mans will? Only time will tell, but things here in America, are becoming bleaker and darker, not brighter and better.
Here's one more great paragraph; It may be asked how individuals, having no right to dispose of their own lives, can transfer such a right to the sovereign. The question seems difficult to answer only because it is wrongly formulated. Everyone has the right to risk his life in order to preserve it. Has it ever been said that a man who jumps from a window to escape a fire is quality of suicide? Has that crime ever been imputed to a man who died in a storm at sea, having been aware of the danger when he boarded the ship? The purpose of the social contract is the preservation of the contracting parties. He who wills the end also wills the means, and in this case the means are inseparable from certain risks, and even certain losses. Anyone who wants to preserve his life at the expense of others must be willing to give it for them when necessary. When the law requires a citizen to expose himself to a danger, he is no longer his own judge of it, and when the government says to him, "It is expedient for the state that you die," he must die, since it is only on that condition that he has so far lived in security, and since his life is no longer merely a gift of nature, but a conditional grant from the state. Pg 31 Rousseau's
But nowhere in that statement, does it say that while protecting other country's, you must also give up your life. Yes, men have to fight wars, to be able to live within, a contracted society. I will give Rousseau's that. But, when those same men, are made to fight war after war, doing two or three tours of duty, then those officers contracts, with the state, to risk their life's and lay it down, for having the freedom and security of that society, become void and null. Yes, wars are necessary, to protect our rights and freedoms, but must we protect the whole worlds too? A war is only really a war, when the citizens of that society, fight the good fight, and the right fight, for themselves! I hope more people will read Rousseau's, he is one of the deepest philosophers, I have read to date.
No comments:
Post a Comment