Social Contract

A little late, but her is the link to a more readable version of Social Contract.  The whole thing.

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/toc/modeng/public/RouSoci.html

Elizabeth Warren-- America's Social Contract

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hOyDR2b71ag

I thought this video was really relevant-- it shows the fundamental debate that's going on in our country about how extensive our social contract should be. The lady speaking in the video is Elizabeth Warren, a former Harvard professor who has become the main advocate for the middle class in our financial system. She was going to direct the new Consumer Financial Protection Bureau but couldn't get confirmed by the Republicans in Congress, so she is now running for Senate in Massachusetts.

Plato vs Rousseau

Plato liked the idea of having guardians that ruled over society. He wanted there to be one specialized group in charge of defending the state and one even more exclusive group that would be in charge of ruling. The rulers were suppose to have a tendency to think like a philosopher because philosophers are supposed to be the finest at evaluating what is true and best. It is a good idea to have rulers that can lead the citizens in the correct direction and be able to steer them toward what is true and best. This is a good concept to play with when considering a ruler but guardians could not fulfill this duty because they are separated from society so early that they do not know what it is like to be part of the commonwealth. And if guardians do not know what it is like to be a citizen how can they know what is best for the society or what is the correct path for each individual citizen to take. Plato had to right idea when thinking about what important characteristics a leader should have but the Guardians he created were flawed.
Rousseau believes in people having a social contract with the government instead of selling themselves or giving up liberty in order to become the subject to a king. The social contract is a commitment each individual makes before entering the society. Individuals choose to agree to a social contract when they “have reached the point at which the obstacles in the way of their preservation in the state of nature show their power of resistance to be greater than the resources at the disposal of each individual for his maintenance in that state” (Rousseau, 173). The social contract is a commitment that each individual makes to the community and a promise they must keep to every other member of that society if they want to continue to be part of it. It is the same pledge for everyone and it helps make everyone equal and feel like they still have freedom instead of being dominated by a figure like the guardians. The social contract makes the community not a group of different individuals with different wills but one being with one will. The social contract seems like a better way than the guardians to insure individuals’ happiness in the society.

Guardians vs Social Contract

Plato's concept of the guardians who decide the structure and operation of a given society was, while appealing, not entirely plausible. The idea of a group of philosophers sitting atop some mountain, isolated from the society they were governing, was somewhat preposterous, since they would have had no way of knowing what the best course of action was for the common man. the entire idea of the guardians hinges upon the idea that there is some higher truth that, no matter what your disposition, you will accept and allow it to rule your life.

The idea of a social contract starts with the lockean "state of Nature," where each person does what the wish, when they wish, despite what it may do to other human beings. the only way to escape this is to enter a social contract, which "produces a very remarkable change in man, by substituting justice for instinct in his conduct, and giving his actions the morality they had formerly lacked [Rousseau, 177]." A social contract is meant to elevate people out of the state of nature by giving them laws and limitations in exchange for the protection they receive from the integration into a collective. The power of a social contract lies in its formation, when "Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will, and, in our corporate capacity, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole [Rousseau, 175]." With each member of the contract placing their own liberties and power into the society, they will do everything in their power to keep the society afloat, so as to protect their investment. This investment ensures loyalty to the state, since those who are truly enveloped in the contract will, under no circumstances act against it, lest they damage the part of themselves that they placed in it. Thus the legitimacy of the social contract theory stems from the fact that, for the most part, human beings are not self-destructive, and the state is given value from what people have sacrificed to create it.

Legitimacy of Government

Plato’s ideal government is given its legitimacy by having leaders who are “better” than the rest of the citizens. These Guardians are said to be fundamentally superior to the other citizens both because of their innate characteristics and because of their specialized training for being a ruler. They will be chosen to rule if they “in their whole life show the greatest eagerness to do what is for the good of their country, and the greatest repugnance to do what is against her interests” (Plato 412 a). They have the right and obligation to rule justly over the other citizens. None of the other citizens should have any reason to complain because these Guardian Kings, or Philosopher Kings, should be much better rulers than any of the other citizens would be.

In Locke and Rousseau’s versions of political theory, however, the state has power because it is made by and for the people, and therefore the people want to keep it in power. They enter into a contract with the government to support it and obey its laws in return for protection and security. Without government or society, people live in what Locke calls the “state of Nature.” Although they have more freedom in the state of Nature, they do not have any security and there is no all-encompassing law that is the same for everyone. There is no power greater than individuals, so there is no protection from unjust individuals or actions. If any individual wants to steal or murder, there is nothing stopping him from doing so.

Out of this situation, people form communities with more defined laws to “preserve his [the individual’s] property - that is, his life, liberty, and estate - against the injuries and attempts of other men” (87). The Social Contract is the agreement by the citizens to obey the rules of the state as long as they are just. Since these laws are made for the good of the citizens, the citizens support it and the government is given legitimacy.

Third Assignment

(250-500 words)
(for Tuesday... with comments!)

As we shift from Plato to Locke & Rousseau, how does the social contract replace the Guardians as the legitimizing form of state power?

TEAM ROCKET'S POST (de Tocqueville)

Alexis de Tocqueville would be in complete agreement with Alex Miller's statement. De Tocqueville notes that American Democracy is already legislatively unstable (De Tocqueville, 248), and that that instability will only increase as the majority gains power. He reason is that "American laws have a shorter duration than those of any other country" because democracies are continually bringing "new men [and women] into power" (250). Were this amendment to be actually added to the North Carolina Constitution, the majority that is in power when it passes will be replaced in a few years. De Tocqueville might argue that such a controversial amendment would likely be removed by a new majority, so why go to the bother of adding it to the Constitution?

Another one of de Tocqueville's primary quibbles with the American government is that the majority "has the right to do everything", a right he finds "impious and detestable" (250). He, like Miller, believes that the majority should have no right to make decisions that will directly effect the minority. Also, because "the judges in certain states are elected by the majority" (252), even if the minority appealed to court, it would still not be given an unbiased trial. What is the point of even going through the process of amending the Constitution if the majority controls the outcome? de Tocquevilla might ask.

The passing of this amendment would only further de Tocqueville's opinion that the majority has complete control of the government. He also believes that, "If ever freedom is lost in America [it] will be due to the omnipotence of the majority driving the minorities to desperation and forcing them to appeal to physical force" (260). While De Tocqueville may not necessarily say that those gay couples, who want to receive the same legal rights as married man and woman, will physically attack the "majority" in North Carolina, tensions would still rise to the point of disunion.

Alexis De Tocqueville

Alexis de Tocqueville found that America’s most dominant traits were the longing for individuality and our fixation on equality. From our idea of equality Tocqueville was concerned that we as a nation would become too individual of one another, opening the door for the tyranny of the majority. Tyranny of the majority removes the voice from minorities. Revoking that voice ruins the main goal that the fathers of our country strived for. That is exactly what has happened this week. De Tocqueville would say that the bill is proof of the beginning of the reality and harshness of the majority as a tyrant. “As the majority is the only power whom it is important to please, all its projects are taken up with great ardor; but as soon as its attention is turned elsewhere, all these efforts cease…” Though the decision to remove basic rights of a group are in the beginning stages of being taken away, in the blink of an eye, that could all change.

The back and forth of the democracy in America is what keeps the nation flowing as it does. The politicians are voted for based on the issues that they address, if elected, they will most likely be replaced because the majority changed its mind. The majority is consistently changing its mind; therefore it changes its leaders. Majority is free to travel down the road as it wishes, while minority (often much more stable) is unheard and unable to get out of the driveway. Alexis though that the ruling of popular will would not last in America for very long, that we as a nation would not exist in a perfect, or near perfect form of democracy far into the future. Though it has been longer than he expected, his prediction seems quite accurate. “I believe that freedom is in danger when that power finds no obstacle that can restrain its course and give it time to moderate itself.” The passing of this bill would mark the lack of an obstacle in the path of tyranny for America. De Tocqueville would mark this day as the day that our government has fallen from its roots.

Alexis de Tocqueville would roll over in his grave if he knew about the bill that North Carolina is about to pass. De Tocqueville was concerned that a majority would rule the country, making laws based on personal opinions and passions instead of reason. He believed that democracy was fickle, saying that our government has been built in a way that encourages, "democratic instability and allows the changing wishes of democracy to be applied to the most important matters"(Tocqueville 249). Members of the House and the Senate are changed out every few years, bringing in new opinions and ideals. A bill that would be passed by congress today might be rejected in six years time.

De Tocqueville might also argue that the majority, if it were to vote against this bill, would be smothering the voice of the very minority whose rights are at stake. In our current democracy, the opinions of the minority are considered null and void, unless that minority is near in size to the majority. Then a case for compromise might be made, but this happens very rarely. Alexis was aware that the majority also has the unique ability to influence public opinion, saying, "No monarch is so absolute that he can hold all the forces of society in his hands and overcome all resistance as a majority invested with the right to make the laws and to execute them, can do" (De Tocqueville 255).

Even if the majority has made a poor decision, it would be impossible to oppose it. Anyone who speaks out publicly against the majority's decision will be the subject of ridicule. His opinions will be made worthless and his supporters will become scarce. This brave man, “will remain among men but ... lose [his] rights to count as one,” (De Tocqueville 256). De Tocqueville would be disgusted that the majority today holds absolute power to grant or deny rights to the gay community. The majority is nothing more than a collective tyrant. A solitary tyrant would be much easier to deal with, because thousands of people with the same beliefs wield much more power than a single man. It’s relatively easy to remove a tyrant; it is nearly impossible to oppose the will of the majority.

Second Assignment

On Monday, 9/12, the North Carolina House passed a bill that would amend the state constitution to state that marriage is only between a man and a woman. (Fun fact: NC is currently the only state in the southeast that does not have said amendment to our constitution.) This bill will need to pass the House again (by 3/5 vote or more) and then pass the NC State Senate (by a 3/5 vote or more) in order to be put on the May 2012 primary ballot as an initiative for the people.

In response to this vote, Alex Miller, the director of Equality NC, said: "You do not put the rights of a minority group up for a majority vote."

The question: How would Alexis de Tocqueville respond to Miller? Be sure to cite de Tocqueville's words in your response.

Read this!

Today's New York Times raises questions of Big Brother and our 4th Amendment rights. In case you have forgotten, the 4th Amendment states:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/11/us/11gps.html?_r=1&hpw

The tyrant Plato speaks of, is law-breaking, unsatisfied, and has many erotic desires. “A man becomes tyrannical either by nature or by practicing or both, he has become drunken, erotic, and melancholic” (573c). He is utterly dependent on external things, and therefore full of anxiety. “The tyrannic nature never has a taste of freedom or true friendship” (576a). Tyrants have a sense of radical incompleteness and a longing for wholeness, which is uncovered in their passion and single-mindedness. A tyrant is a real slave, and a sycophant to the most useless man. He is constantly full of apprehension throughout his life time, as well as hostility and extreme eroticism. He is constantly worrisome of his citizens turning against him, and preventing him from attaining his goals and desires.
A tyrant’s life is full of voracious desires and being trapped in an unrealistic life. They tend to not achieve their goals, and therefore do all they can to continue their longing, become hated, and do terrible deeds to seem like they are fighting for some accomplishment. “And therefore, the tyrannic soul is necessarily poverty ridden and insatiable” (578a-b). His reason is non-existent to the choices he makes because he is constantly yearning for something and is never satisfied. The tyrant is the unhappiest of all men, precisely because he is struggling to attain the scarce goods that generally make a man happy.

plato

Plato’s tyrant is a man who is moves towards tyranny out of democracy, and does it of his own accord because he needs to fulfill his desires. When he becomes like this, he is a man wholly controlled by his own desires and he does whatever is necessary in order to keep up this lifestyle that he has created for himself. He is trapped because in this state, because he is trapped by his need for the pleasure that he gets from this way of living. The tyrant is connected to reason and passion, but because of the way that his world revolves around him constantly, he has no basis for knowing what is reasonable and what is not reasonable because he can’t base it off of others. Whatever he desires is reason in the tyranny. He is connected to passion, though, because as a political tyrant, he is driven by his passions and desires. In fact, he is controlled by them to the point where he breaks the bond of mutual love that is the reason that all government forms in the first place. This means that because he breaks the bond and is using his power for his own personal gain, then the people are justified in exacting punishment, and this severely restricts his movements. He is always afraid that he will be killed by one of his people or removed from power and therefore unable to get the desires he is reliant on. So both of these factors make up the components of a tyrant, but both are relative to what the tyrant thinks.

First Assignment

By Friday, please have one person in your group write a 250-400 word response to the following question. The rest of the group needs to read the response carefully and (through comments to the original post) continue the conversation by posing questions, challenges, affirmations, and other ideas.

First (and everyone should do this part): Please look carefully at the following two passages from The Republic:
Book IX (571 - 592)
Book IV (434 - 445)

Second (and only one person from each group should do this part): Answer the following question:
Who is Plato's tyrant? How is the tyrant connected to the ideas of reason and passion?

(Please cite Plato in your response. Remember to cite by number and letter.)

Small Groups

Caroline, Emily, Hannah, Maggie

Taylor, Leah, Pippin, Jessye

Kyle, Elana, Ali, Anna