Back to our show

I realize that the discussion of the One and the Many isn't eternally extinguished, but I thought that maybe I should get back to the discussion of the Social Contract. To recapitulate what Rousseau has stated to this point:

*His intentions for writing this treatise are to explore whether there is a rhyme or reason for the governance of men; and if so, what is the best way to organize a society.

*His argument states up front that men are born with a natural right to be free. Men are born to decide how they should live their lives.

*Rousseau goes on to state that the first government was based on the family, with the father being the leader. He believed the father had an obligation to care for and teach the children until such a time as they could care for themselves. He also believed the children were obligated to obey the father until they could care for themselves. Anything beyond these duties were not an object of nature, but based on convention.

*Rousseau went on to argue that no man had a right to declare another man a slave by any force of nature. He argued tha slavery was an absurd custom and that was only enforceable when physical power was used to force compliance.

*He then states that even if a man were to enslave half the planet it would just be a tyrant and his subjects not a people.

I now wish to move on to the Social Compact and start building on the ideas of Sovereignty. My little exercise in One vs Many will come into play soon after we can nail out the problems concerning the few chapters in Rousseaus treatise. I would like to point out at this time to anyone who may be joining us late that what you see posted is kind of in a reverse order with the later chapters being posted closer to the top of the web page. I did not want to insert the whole book at one time and try to make us dissect it so encumbered. So please forgive me for reading through from bottom to top.