150 word response for EACH post POST ONEThe general will is .docx

150 word response for EACH post 

POST ONE

The general will is a phrase used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in 
The Social Contract
 to refer to the wants of the people. All members of society decide together what they want in and from their ruler. By doing so, people in society are truly "free" (
The Social Contract
, chap. iv). The general will is an agreement to which citizens will forego some of their individual freedoms to a government and gain rights in return from the establishment of that sovereign. Rousseau stated that in order for the general will to be truly general it must come from all and apply to all (Bertram, 2012). And as Rousseau stated:
"Thus, from the very nature of the compact, every act of Sovereignty, i.e., every authentic act of the general will, binds or favours all the citizens equally; so that the Sovereign recognises only the body of the nation, and draws no distinctions between those of whom it is made up" (
The Social Contract
, Book I. Sect. 4).
The difference between Rousseau's "general will" and the meaning of "will of all" is about perspective: “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 will" (
The Social Contract
, chap. iv). Rousseau is showing that the will of all is a culmination of what I want from government, what my neighbor wants from government, and what my other neighbor wants from government, and so on. The will of all is nothing more than 
adding
 all of our wants together, despite differences. 
Rousseau is not concerned with a specific style of government and even concedes that it could be a monarchy, so long as the general will is followed through with by that sovereignty. In the selection of a sovereign or of the laws themselves, it is not that the process needs to be unanimous, but that all votes must be counted (
The Social Contract
, Book II. Sect. 2).
One aspect of Rousseau struck me and that was something that I have had conversations with students about when we have talked about the scope and size of government. I have asked students, and conversations ensued, about our nation being too large--has the U.S. grown to the point where it is unmanageable? And here in Rousseau's writing has he made a claim of that nature:
"In this proportion lies the 
maximum
 strength of a given number of people; for, if there is too much land, it is troublesome to guard and inadequately cultivated, produces more than is needed, and soon gives rise to wars of defence; if there is not enough, the State depends on its neighbours for what it needs over and above, and this soon gives rise to wars of offence." (
The Social Contract
, Book II. Sect. 10)
I suppose that he might be correct about this assertion. Although it is possible to have this type of social contract in which the general will is possible, it is probably better suited for smaller and less diverse .

1. 150 word response for EACH post

POST ONE

The general will is a phrase used by Jean-Jacques Rousseau in
The Social Contract
to refer to the wants of the people. All members of society
decide together what they want in and from their ruler. By
doing so, people in society are truly "free" (
The Social Contract
, chap. iv). The general will is an agreement to which citizens
will forego some of their individual freedoms to a government
and gain rights in return from the establishment of that
sovereign. Rousseau stated that in order for the general will to
be truly general it must come from all and apply to all (Bertram,
2012). And as Rousseau stated:
"Thus, from the very nature of the compact, every act of
Sovereignty, i.e., every authentic act of the general will, binds
or favours all the citizens equally; so that the Sovereign
recognises only the body of the nation, and draws no
distinctions between those of whom it is made up" (
The Social Contract
, Book I. Sect. 4).
The difference between Rousseau's "general will" and the
meaning of "will of all" is about perspective: “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 will" (
The Social Contract
, chap. iv). Rousseau is showing that the will of all is a
culmination of what I want from government, what my neighbor
wants from government, and what my other neighbor wants
from government, and so on. The will of all is nothing more
than
adding

2. all of our wants together, despite differences.
Rousseau is not concerned with a specific style of government
and even concedes that it could be a monarchy, so long as the
general will is followed through with by that sovereignty. In the
selection of a sovereign or of the laws themselves, it is not that
the process needs to be unanimous, but that all votes must be
counted (
The Social Contract
, Book II. Sect. 2).
One aspect of Rousseau struck me and that was something that I
have had conversations with students about when we have
talked about the scope and size of government. I have asked
students, and conversations ensued, about our nation being too
large--has the U.S. grown to the point where it is
unmanageable? And here in Rousseau's writing has he made a
claim of that nature:
"In this proportion lies the
maximum
strength of a given number of people; for, if there is too much
land, it is troublesome to guard and inadequately cultivated,
produces more than is needed, and soon gives rise to wars of
defence; if there is not enough, the State depends on its
neighbours for what it needs over and above, and this soon
gives rise to wars of offence." (
The Social Contract
, Book II. Sect. 10)
I suppose that he might be correct about this assertion.
Although it is possible to have this type of social contract in
which the general will is possible, it is probably better suited
for smaller and less diverse (socially, economically) states.

POST TWO

Rousseau’s state of nature is more complicated than that of
Hobbes & Locke's, though Rousseau does agree somewhat with
Hobbes state nature that humans are natural self-interested.

3. Rousseau agrees with that notion but, goes a step further to say
yes humans are natural self-interested. But there is also another
principle in Rousseau state of nature & that is pity, he believes
that man hate to another human being suffer. “Rousseau says
that unlike all other creatures, humans are free agents. They
have reason, although in the state of nature it is not yet
developed. But it is this faculty that makes the long transition
from the state of nature to the state of civilized society possible
(iep.utm.edu)."Rousseau doubts if man were ever in pure state
of nature because of historic texts that, tells us God directly
endowed the first man with understanding.

Rousseau state of nature & human nature seems to describe
man’s evolution of man from state of nature to a more civil &
social being because, he believes man has this free agency in
them that will guide their moral compass neither virtuous nor
vicious. Rousseau goes through a lengthy series of man
transition of how, man's transformation from a state of nature to
a more constructed civil society. In my opinion Rousseau state
of nature & human nature seems more convincing because, of
this history that I have heard throughout life. This history
pertaining to God creating man, to the caveman, & finally the
discoveries of Ancient civil societies that we often hear about.
Rousseau teaching doesn't paint this rosy description of what he
wish man to be like Locke's view of state of nature or the lack
of intelligence that Hobbes believed that mankind suffers from
in his state of nature. Rousseau's gives mankind some benefit of
the doubt that we are natural intelligent beings though, it might
be the high intelligence Hobbes seeks but there is a level of
reason that man maintains in order to live a life. We have all
seen movies of how societies of less intelligence lived, it was
not the best be those societies seem to take of themselves the
best way they could.

POST 3

4. Rousseau’s focus on his Social Contract or General Will as he
called it is a moral idea. “As an ideal, it is meant to bring
together a cohesive community whose individual interests and
community interests are one and the same- a common good.”
(APUS) Rousseau starts his Social Contract with the phrase,
“Man is born free, but everywhere he is in chains.”(Rousseau)
“The GW is the true common good.” (APUS) Everyone in the
community joins together for the good of the community and in
return everyone receives moral freedom. “Only this kind of
freedom makes a man his own master, saving him from personal
dependence.” (APUS) As part of the General Will men become
citizens in civil society that is ruled by the General Will and
then they are able to acquire a moral basis. Duty and reason are
the two main focuses under the General Will.
“While the will of all is a sum of individual wills,
hence merely an aggregation of self-interest unconcerned with
the common will, interest, or good, the General Will is the
expression of all for all.” (APUS) Basically it is differing from
the will of all because it is focusing on interests of the group
and not the individual. Everyone then focuses on gaining moral
freedom and doing what is best for the group versus the will of
all where it focuses on the individuals wills. “The authority
directed by the general Will is a proposal for a new kind of
popular sovereignty, one that is direct not representative as
Locke had it.” (APUS) In this type of society or sovereignty,
the sovereign only has authority over things that concern the
group and what it decides goes.
Looking at the sovereignty of the General Will it makes
you question whether it is good or bad to want to attain. “By
forcing someone to conform to the General Will, society is only
compelling him to obey his own true will; his own true will can
only be identical with the common good.” (APUS) This
statement makes me feel like they are pushing or forcing people
to conform and be a part of the General Will because it is
almost giving them no other option but to conform with what

5. the group wants. With Rousseau sort of pushing them to this
idea that, “it’s for the common good” it makes me feel that it is
somewhat a totalitarian style society that he is aiming for with
his theory. “If the general Will wishes for something, then the
individual citizen must also wish for the same thing.” (Social
Contract) This just shows you that the General Will is almost
forcing them to do what the sovereign thinks is right for
society, not what the individual wants.
I do think that this type of General Will is and can be
found especially in countries with totalitarianism. Look at Iraq
when Saddam Hussein was in charge he executed numerous
people of his own country for going against how he thought the
country should be run. In Iraq it was just common knowledge
for the citizens to join in on the Hussein rallies because what he
was doing was for the “good” of his country and its people.
When you read the General Will at a quick glance then you do
not think anything of it, you think that it is taking into
consideration what each individual wants and that is what
makes up the common good, but I think there is more to it than
that.