From Bodin to Rousseau, a monarch guided by ethics to a dictatorship justified.
By Nicolas
Madelenat di Florio
From the Society of Literary History of France.
is to remove all morality from his acts to remove all liberty from his will.
To Jean-Yves Naudet, because the freedom to think another world already makes it possible
A C., because the primary strength of youth is always able to choose between greatness and decadence.
In the first article of this series on the Social Contract of Rousseau, I have endeavored to present, briefly, the basis of this founding text of political thought and, in some aspects, sociological. That's why he was devoted to the notion of equality, misguided and disguised by the lure of power and convenient manipulation of the masses, but everywhere as being the foundation of the Temple of unreason-Marxist socialist future. and I'm happy if I can get the secret recognition of obscure and peaceful supporters of reason and inspire the gentle rustling through which sensitive souls meet defending the interests of humanity (Beccaria, Of Crimes and Punishments )
After presenting how equality and egalitarianism (the poisoned fruit of the first), are harmful and totally artificial in that the basic units of society (individuals) are different and we can only compare apples and apples, I will endeavor to introduce the concept of sovereignty and also the legitimacy of power Governance at Rousseau to present and refine the scope of its concepts, I will discuss them in parallel to those of a major political philosopher Jean Bodin (XVI century). Skip
Jean Bodin, philosopher living and sharing his wisdom to Jean-Jacques Rousseau, professional ideologue of bad faith may seem, prima facie, an odd choice. Who cares at the thought of the sixteenth century, a time when our country is troubled torn between Catholicism and Reformation, can not misunderstand Bodin, a man who, in full assembly of representatives, will dare to order the withdrawal of legislation guaranteeing the right to worship, and therefore religious diversity, Protestants. Philosopher, he was in what it represents more noble vocation or the priesthood, like Socrates, and many others who burn their lives to enlighten the world and push back the darkness. Lawyer also when the ideal society theorized by compiling in the books of the Republic what had already been made in civil law, and what we now call constitutional law. And this intellectual therefore owe our modern concept great, sovereignty, this intrinsic capacity for people to self-determination. But as leading economists argue future, including Friedrich A. von Hayek, a thinker merely the immediate area of expertise can be a guide or suggest workable solutions. Bodin was one of them and his thinking is not confined to civil law, or philosophy, but extends to the economy, and more broadly the company structure and mechanisms that compose it.
A major cleavages between our two authors study will focus on the concept of sovereignty and, more broadly, on the origin of power in the state. Bodin sovereignty posed as a right inherent to man. The person has of herself and the group, society, gathering of free individuals has therefore per extenso the same capacity, which is given partly in the hands of power. He takes on this aspect of the vision artistotélicienne of the individual, free as it is able to think (ergo sum Cogioto "I think therefore I am), is essentially a" political animal "(Meaning that the individual can not do without the society). "Small" individual sovereignty are amalgamated and transferred prior to being assigned to the sovereign, who administers them. For Bodin, the political power ( legislate, make laws) must not be carried by the same people who apply them (thus anticipating future theories of Montesquieu). By separating the powers, it guarantees the least biased arbitration possible. The head of state is "absolutely" In some ways, tempered by a particular approach to the separation of powers, however, this idea is not shared by all of my colleagues and I can only ask them to reread the books of the Republic not in a sanitized version and modernized but the original version (available on Gallica, the site of the National Library de France)
Rousseau meanwhile seems to follow a similar pattern, except that natural liberty of man is corrupted by society. It is normal, according to his reasoning, the state confiscates, through the social where each of us puts his person and share his power under the supreme direction of the general will, and we receive each member as an indivisible part of all (Rousseau, Social Contract The ) and sovereignty to a representative of "popular". However, the defect of this system is to exclude criticism of the leader since each individual as a man can have a particular will contrary or dissimilar to the general will which he has as a citizen. His particular interest may speak to him quite differently from the common interest and its existence may make him consider what he owes to the common cause as a gratuitous contribution, the loss will be less damaging to others that the payment is still expensive looking for him and corporation that is the state as a rational being because it is not a man, he would enjoy the rights of citizenship without the duties to fill in the subject; injustice progress cause the ruin of the body politic (Rousseau , The Social Contract ). He added that the social contract tacitly includes this commitment alone can give strength to others, that whoever refuses to obey the general will will be constrained by the whole body: which means nothing except that is forced to be free (Rousseau, Social Contract The ). Indeed, the minority element, expendable (the individual) can not and should go against the social body, the guarantor of state cohesion. In essence, after destroying any independent existence, Rousseau endorse a totalitarian state where free will exists only if it accepts the plan and echoed the executives who are being struck with an irrebuttable presumption of truth; the vox populi (the voice of the people).
should therefore observe a shift, a corruption of sovereignty between the two authors. Bodin recognizes that all the liberals, then, argue, that is the right person to dispose of herself and choose, whenever possible, the life she wants, forging his opinions, and deciding in consciousness. Rousseau meanwhile remains faithful to the systems they create. In theorizing the full powers of the body politic, it will degrade the individual to a mere running of a perfect truth down from government to the people. It is therefore, like Soviet leaders of the future, the father of the people, but a father who can not, driven by his folly, save for his children thrown into the flames. With Rousseau, the possibility of individual choice disappears ethical in all areas, including economic decisions. In trying he dared to liberate the people claim to love, the philosopher gives her shackles and chains where Bodin throws in the howls of madness, a long quiet breath of silence, peace and freedom, opening a source hope. And then wish the inexhaustible supply! Gushing water / Abandonment of water in the sources; hidden reservoirs; Declos vase; hard rock burst. The mountain shrub cover; arid countries will rejoice and all the bitterness of the desert bloom (Andre Gide, Earth food ).
The next text will be published on cross-reading of Rousseau and FA von Hayek.
0 comments:
Post a Comment