Is General Will Compatible With Individual Freedom Politics Essay

Is General Will Compatible With Individual Freedom Politics Essay Jean-Jacque Rousseau wrote at a time before great social and political change in Europe. His texts remain one of the classic concepts of political theory. His writings have been thought of by many as, the bible for the French Revolution for his foresight and perhaps predictions for the violence and terror that followed. His text, The Social Contract (1762) is made up of 4 books. In Books 1 and 2 he aimed to address the problem of political morality and the theory of institutions in Books 3 and 4. Rousseau was a defender of democracy, an advocate for individual liberty and an egalitarian. Rousseau begins with the famous opening lines, Men are born free, yet everywhere are in chains He starts by explaining the way in which men are bound to the chains of civil society which restrain the natural right of man to an objective independent freedom. He believed that civil society does not give man the freedom, liberty and equality that were promised to him when joining society. Rousseau believed that the only way to prevent these shackles from becoming uncomfortable would be by the collective creation of a body in society forming a single will, the general will. When answering the question it is important to understand the idea of the rule of the general will to see if it is compatible with the freedom of the individual. The general will is expressed by the sovereign (either an individual with a unified will or a collective body in society). The definition and purpose of this general will is to act in the needs and desires of the collective and to sustain the common good for all people. Rousseau explains, The English people believed itself to be free. It is greatly mistaken; it is free only during the election of the members of Parliament. Once they are elected, the populace is enslaved; it is nothing . To Rousseau the idea of the general will is one of free debate in an assembly of individuals and equals of what is of common interest. In Chapter 15 of Book 3 he puts forward the idea that sovereignty cannot be represented, because it consists of the general will and the general will cannot be represented . J. Plamenatz (1992) gives this reason for Rousseaus argument for direct as apposed to representative democracy. Every citizen in Rousseaus ideal society should make the laws themselves and not entrust this job in the places of others. This was Rousseaus third principle. In essence general will gives every individual in the collective the freedom to vote how he pleases in the assembly and ultimately everyone has a say in the running of the society as the democracy is direct. However, Rousseau retains that general will should not be the desire of the individual will, but what will be beneficial for everyone. Rousseau also believed that whoever went against obeying the general will ought to be enforced to do so by the whole body. This means nothing other than that he shall be forced to be free . What Rousseau means by this is that by people having the obligation to adhere to the social contract and by having to receive the benefit of the general will, theyre gaining freedom. This is in contrast to Hobbes and Locke who believed laws were created to stop us wandering from the path of civil obedience and referred to as hedges. Rousseau asserts that it is the process of law making that sets us free. His key argument was that if we are the authors of the law then we could manifest our own freedom and independence. According to Rousseau we are all born free and have the capacity to be free but to achieve this Rousseau believed we have to build a social government that does not enslave us. It could be argued that Rousseaus idea of the rule of the general will, is compatible with the freedom of the individual. This is because Rousseau described the notion of there being 2 different types of freedom. There is social freedom and a personal freedom. He also refers to personal freedom as the state of nature. Rousseau said that freedom was only reachable when the populace obeyed the laws it set itself. J. Plamenatz (1992) describes this by explaining ideally we would say, I alone have made the law that I obey but that this is impossible and instead the most we can hope for is that each should say, I obey the law that we have made rather than I obey the law that they have made. This ideal is that every citizen should identify himself with the community that makes the law . Rousseau bellied that the ab ility to follow these rules and laws would only be possible once one recognised themselves as a part and member of the community of lawmakers. Rousseau had previously discussed the first explanatory problem of the origins of how we became unfree, when we are born naturally free in the state of nature. He wrote about this in Discourse on the Origin of Inequality (1755). It is in The Social Contract (1762) that he explained the second problem, the justificatory problem and suggested an answer. Rousseau asserted that power only becomes legitimate once the people consent to it and. He said, Each of us puts his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in a body we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole In conclusion, Iain Hampsher-Monk writes in A History of Modern Polticial Thought that, part of the main, objective of the general will, therefore is its constant tendency to equality . He says that the notion of obeying ourselves is a difficult one to understand, however he explains that in this way of setting and obeying our own rules, tyranny can be guarded against . Whilst some scholars have regarded Rousseaus political thought as pointing towards totalitarianism, (as he advocates complete subservience to the state) many others regard him as a firm liberal and a defender of freedom and equality. For this reason it is believed that Rousseaus idea of the rule of the general will is compatible with the freedom of the individual, as in Rousseaus state; the popular sovereignty effectively governs themselves by legitimising the chains of society and reconciling sovereignty , freedom and authority.

An Analysis of Anti-technology Themes in The Machine Stops and WALL-E E

In 1909 E.M. Forster wrote the ground-breaking short story â€Å"The Machine Stops†, it foretold of a dystopian society where mankind entrusted itself to a machine which took care of al their wants and needs, and ultimately lead to their demise. In Forster’s â€Å"The Machine Stops†, he illustrates the need for man to become less dependent on machines and technology for their livelihoods and life in general. In Disney’s â€Å"WALL-E† we se many of these themes again. In both cases humans have become so inept at taking care of themselves that the loss of the machine or machines that care for them would be catastrophic and deadly. Humans have invested so much trust and power into these machines that they no longer have any real control, in addition their dependence on technology has severely distanced them from nature and more importantly their own human nature. In both stories one of the major themes is the autonomy of the â€Å"Machine†, and the lack of control the humans have over them. In â€Å"The Machine Stops† this theme is best illustrated through the â€Å"Mending Apparatus† (Reader, 153), it automatically â€Å"mends† any problem it sees, including retrieving Kuno when he ventures to the surface as well as killing one of the surface dwellers who â€Å"was entangled by the worms, and, †¦, was killed by one of them piercing her throat.†. This shows the ruthless autonomy of the machine. Later in the story we see how little the people who inhabit â€Å"The Machine† have over it, when it begins to break down, they have so little understanding o its workings that they are powerless to fix it, without the â€Å"Mending Apparatus† to fix â€Å"The Machine† they are unable to save themselves. In Disney’s â€Å"WALL-E† the ship aboard which the humans are living is c ontroll... ...oth depictions people communicate almost exclusively through machines, in â€Å"The Machine Stops† face to face contact is rare and essentially feared. In â€Å"WALL-E† people are shown talking to each other on screens while they are right next to each other and they seem completely lost when it comes to face to face conversations. In conclusion, â€Å"The Machine Stops† and â€Å"WALL-E† both use anti-technological themes to illustrate the dangers of technological advance, in particular our dependence on machines and technology for our survival. They showed that the combination of a dependence on an autonomous and out-of-control machine, a disconnection from nature, and an extreme loss of humanity can have disastrous consequences for us and our society. The question now is whether or not we can learn from these works and works like these and prevent a dark and inhuman future.

Argumentative Reflection War Essay

Nobody likes war; it is so costly in so many ways. Lives are lost, property is destroyed, people are injured and some are disabled mentally and physically. Because of this many people think war must be avoided at all costs. All these facts regarding the high cost of war on a country are true. On the other hand there are situations in which a nation has an obligation to go to war. Their were many times in the United States history when the decision to enter a war was in question. World War II was a time when people were arguing about whether or not the United States should enter a war against Germany, Japan and their allies. When this war started WWI was still fresh in people’s memories. The citizens knew how bad war could be. Many people felt that these new problems were not the United States problems and war should be avoided. Author Jon Bridgman tells us in an article in the Seattle Post- Intelligencer â€Å"The nation was deeply and bitterly divided on the question of our participation in the war. American isolationists felt that the war in Europe and Asia was not our problem and that we should stay out of it†. Of course other people knew that war was going to come, because Germany and Japan were proving they wanted to take over the world. The argument was settled by Japan. There sneak attack on Pearl Harbor solved the argument. They forced us into the war. The attack they made in Pearl Harbor was a direct attack on the United States military and a direct attack on United States land. Now US citizens knew it was all out war for the countries survival. On September 11, 2001 the US was again attacked. This time it wasn’t by another country but by terrorists. It was similar to the Pearl Harbor attack because Americans were surprised and thousands of people lost their lives. The big difference was that the attack was not done by a country but by terrorists from many different countries. The citizens of the United States pretty much agreed that this was an evil act and that the terrorists needed to be stopped so that they could not attack again. The problem was that it was not a country that attacked but a terrorist group hiding and spread out across several countries. Who could the United States blame and hold responsible for the attacks? President George Bush immediately blamed Afghanistan and later Iraq for letting terrorists use their countries to train and operate. He felt these countries should be attacked so terrorists could be stopped. The President sent our troops to Afghanistan and the troops were successful in that area and then President Bush decided the US needed to invade Iraq. This is when the argument about going to war in another country was the United States concern. A lot of people had heard that, Saddam Hussein, the leader of Iraq was a supporter of terrorists and also a threat to the world. The argument about attacking Iraq was big. If you look b ack to 2003 when people were arguing this you can see that their was enough people who wanted to go to war. Nicholas Lemann wrote in an article in the New Yorker magazine that â€Å"Everyone agrees that Saddam Hussein is truly evil, everyone agrees he has weapons of mass destruction†. On the other side of the argument many countries and people disagreed with attacking Iraq. Many inspections done by the United Nations could not find weapons of mass destruction. President Bush eventually convinced the United States Congress that Iraq was dangerous and the US army attacked Iraq. It turned out after a tough fight, the United States military could not find any weapons of mass destruction. A report in the Washington Post said â€Å"The new report from the Iraq Survey Group has confirmed beyond any reasonable doubt what most people have assumed for the past year: At the time of the 2003 U.S. invasion, Iraq did not possess weapons of mass destruction, and most of its programs to produce them were dormant.† The United States was wrong about the weapons. Even though the pro- war people were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction they felt that they were stopping a horrible dictator who could have been a big threat in the future. At least the army fought terrorists because as the war dragged on the United States did eventually find itself fighting terrorists because many terrorists came to Iraq to face the United States army. Lionel Beehner reported in the Backgrounder magazine that â€Å"Large-scale suicide attacks in Iraq are up in recent months, demonstrating that al-Qaeda in Iraq and its homegrown affiliates remain a potent force.† In both of these cases the United States went to war to provide safety for United States citizens. In both these cases the United States was attacked. In both these case people debated and argued about going to war .Yes many people were killed and injured but these examples show that there is definitely situations when a country is obligated to go to war. Works Cited John Bridgman â€Å"Lessons learned from two days of infamy† Seattle Post -Intelligencer Sunday December 2, 2001 Nicholas Lemann â€Å" How It Came To War† The New Yorker March 31, 2003 Editorial â€Å"Weapons That Weren’t There† The Washington Post October 7,2004 Lionel Beehner â€Å"Al-Qaeda in Iraq: Resurging or Splintering? Backgrounder

Biography of John Calico Jack Rackham, Famed Pirate

John Calico Jack Rackham (Dec. 26, 1682–Nov. 18, 1720) was a pirate who sailed in the Caribbean and off the Southeastern coast of the United States during the so-called Golden Age of Piracy (1650-1725). Rackham was not one of the more successful pirates, and most of his victims were fishermen and lightly armed traders. Nevertheless, he is remembered by history, mostly because two female pirates, Anne Bonny and Mary Read, served under his command. He was captured, tried, and hanged in 1720. Little is known about his life before he became a pirate, but it is certain that he was English. Fast Facts: John Rackham Known For: Famed British pirate who sailed in the Caribbean and the southeastern coast of the United StatesAlso Known As: Calico Jack, John Rackam, John RackumBorn: Dec. 26, 1682 in EnglandDied: Nov. 18, 1720 Port Royal,  JamaicaNotable Quote: I am sorry to see you here, but if you had fought like a man, you neednt be hanged like a dog.  (Anne Bonny to Rackham, who was in prison after he had decided to surrender to pirate hunters instead of fighting.) Early Life John Rackham, who earned the nickname Calico Jack because of his taste for clothes made of brightly colored Indian Calico cloth, was an up-and-coming pirate during the years when piracy was rampant in the Caribbean and Nassau was the capital of a pirate kingdom of sorts. He had been serving under renowned pirate Charles Vane in the early part of 1718 and rose to the rank of quartermaster. When Gov. Woodes Rogers arrived in July 1718 and offered royal pardons to pirates, Rackham refused and joined the die-hard pirates led by Vane. He shipped out with Vane and led a life of piracy in spite of the increasing pressure put on them by the new governor. Gets First Command In November 1718, Rackham and about 90 other pirates were sailing with Vane when they engaged a French warship. The warship was heavily armed, and Vane decided to run for it in spite of the fact that most of the pirates, led by Rackham, were in favor of fighting. Vane, as captain, had the final say in battle, but the men removed him from command shortly thereafter. A vote was taken and Rackham was made the new captain. Vane was marooned with some 15 other pirates who had supported his decision to run. Captures the Kingston In December, he captured the merchant ship Kingston. The Kingston was carrying valuable cargo and Rackham and his men would have had a big payday. However, they seized the ship just off of Port Royal, and the merchants impacted by the theft hired bounty hunters to pursue Rackham and his crew. The bounty hunters found the pirates in February  1719 at Isla de los Pinos, now called Isla de la Juventud, situated just south of Cubas western end. Most of the pirates, including Rackham himself, were ashore when the bounty hunters discovered their ship. They took refuge in the woods as the bounty hunters left with their ship and its treasure. Steals a Sloop In his 1722 classic a General History of the Pyrates, Capt. Charles Johnson tells the exciting story of how Rackham stole a sloop. Rackham and his men were at a town in Cuba, refitting their small sloop, when a Spanish warship charged with patrolling the Cuban coast entered the harbor, along with a small English sloop they had captured. The Spanish warship saw the pirates but could not get at them at low tide, so they parked in the harbor entrance to wait for morning. That night, Rackham and his men rowed over to the captured English sloop and overpowered the Spanish guards there. As dawn broke, the warship began blasting Rackhams old ship, now empty, as Rackham and his men silently sailed past in their new prize. Return to Nassau Rackham and his men made their way back to Nassau, where they appeared before Governor Rogers and asked to accept the royal pardon, claiming that Vane had forced them to become pirates. Rogers, who hated Vane, believed them and allowed them to accept the pardon and stay. Their time as honest men would not last long. Rackham and Anne Bonny It was about this time that Rackham met Anne Bonny, the wife of John Bonny, a petty pirate who had switched sides and now made a meager living informing the governor on his former mates. Anne and Jack hit it off, and before long they were petitioning the governor for an annulment of her marriage, which was not granted. Anne became pregnant and went to Cuba to have her and Jack’s child. She returned afterward. Meanwhile, Anne met Mary Read, a cross-dressing Englishwoman who had also spent time as a pirate. Returns to Piracy Soon, Rackham got bored of life on shore and decided to return to piracy. In August of 1720, Rackham, Bonny, Read, and a handful of other disgruntled ex-pirates stole a ship and slipped out of Nassau’s harbor late at night. For about three months, the new crew attacked fishermen and poorly armed merchants, mostly in the waters off Jamaica. The crew swiftly earned a reputation for ruthlessness, particularly the two women, who dressed, fought, and swore just as well as their male companions. Dorothy Thomas, a fisherwoman whose boat was captured by Rackham’s crew, testified at their trial that Bonny and Read had demanded the crew murder her (Thomas) so that she would not testify against them. Thomas further said that if it were not for their large breasts, she would not have known that Bonny and Read were women. Capture and Death Capt. Jonathan Barnet had been hunting Rackham and his crew and he cornered them in late October 1720. After an exchange of cannon fire, Rackham’s ship was disabled. According to legend, the men hid below deck while Bonny and Read stayed above and fought. Rackham and his whole crew were captured and sent to Spanish Town, Jamaica, for trial. Rackham and the men were swiftly tried and found guilty: they were hanged in Port Royal on Nov. 18, 1720. Rackham was just 37 years old. Bonny was reportedly allowed to see Rackham one last time, and she said to him Im sorry to see you here, but if you had fought like a man, you need not have hanged like a dog. Bonny and Read were spared the noose because they were both pregnant: Read died in prison shortly thereafter, but the eventual fate of Bonny is unclear. Rackhams body was put in a gibbet and hung on a small island in the harbor still known as Rackhams Cay. Legacy Rackham wasnt a great pirate. His brief tenures as captain were marked more by daring and bravery than pirating skill. His best prize, the Kingston, was only in his possession for a few days, and he never had the impact on the Caribbean and transatlantic commerce that others like Blackbeard, Edward Low, Black Bart Roberts, or even his one-time mentor Vane did. Rackham is primarily remembered today for his association with Read and Bonny, two fascinating historical figures. It is safe to say that if it were not for them, Rackham would be but a footnote in pirate lore. Rackham did leave one other legacy, however: his flag. Pirates at the time made their own flags, usually black or red with white or red symbols on them. Rackhams flag was black with a white skull over two crossed swords: this banner has gained worldwide popularity as the pirate flag. Sources Cawthorne, Nigel. A History of Pirates: Blood and Thunder on the High Seas. Edison: Chartwell Books, 2005.Defoe, Daniel. A General History of the Pyrates. Edited by Manuel Schonhorn. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1972/1999.â€Å"Famous Pirate: Calico Rackham Jack.†Ã‚  Calico Rackham Jack - Famous Pirate - The Way of the Pirates.Konstam, Angus. The World Atlas of Pirates. Guilford: the Lyons Press, 2009Rediker, Marcus. Villains of All Nations: Atlantic Pirates in the Golden Age. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004.Woodard, Colin. The Republic of Pirates: Being the True and Surprising Story of the Caribbean Pirates and the Man Who Brought Them Down. Mariner Books, 2008.