Equality and Liberty in Rousseau, Calhoun and King

Equality and Liberty in Rousseau, Calhoun and King Rousseau's central aim in the Social Contract is to explain the sources and limits of legitimate authority. He believes that our duty towards the state stem from a social contract or social pact. By means of which groups of individuals are transformed into a body politic; a whole which has its own genuine will which is not necessarily from some of the individual wills of the people which is composed. Indeed, Rousseau declares the social contract as if it were a historical event. However, he does not mean by this to undo how actual states were created; rather it simply a device to bring out the undermine structure of the states. He is not saying that there was a moment in history where people gather together and make a deal with each other, but only that the relations between citizens and state can best be understood by considering the origins of the association. The basic agreement made by members of the state is that they show unite for their common good: "Let us draw up the whole account in terms easily commensurable. What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship all he possession" (p.12). There was a great deal to be gain by cooperating as part of the society, rather than living alone. As seen here, society can provide protection of life and property, so individuals has a strong incentive to collaborate with the state. At first glance it might seem that Rousseau entertains two incompatible ideals since he both praises the liberty that all humans have outside society and emphasizes the great benefits of life within society. Unnatural liberty is a necessary part of humanity. If we give up our freedom entirely, we become slaves; and we ceased to be fully humans. If society would to take away our freedom entirely, then there would be no point in joining it, since in the process we would lose our humanity: "We might, over and above all this, add, to what man acquires in the civil state, moral liberty, which alone makes him truly master of himself; for the mere impulse of appetite is slavery, while obedience to a law which we prescribe to ourselves is liberty" (p.12). Rousseau said some several task explaining how we can form a state without sacrificing liberty. This may seem impossible since the essence of life in society is you give up most of your natural freedoms in order to reach the benefits of protection, but Rousseau believes that his particular version of social contract theory does provide a formula that combines genuine liberty with the fruit of society. Central to his account is his doctrine of the general will. Once every individual has been transformed into a state by the means of the social contract, they are united by common goals. The general will is the wish of the state as a whole where there is a general pursue of the common good. It can be that all individuals make up a state and desire a certain outcome because they stand together individually by it: "As long as several men in assembly regard themselves as a single body, they have only a single will which is concerned with their common preservation and general well-being" (p.71). For instance, they might all desire a reduction in taxation. However, if the whole state stands against by keeping taxes high, then that is the general will, even though the individuals with their personal interests do not wish to precede this policy, but based on the common good, taxes should be remain high, and anyone who resist this should be forced to be free. Rousseau's philosophy draws a clear distinction between individuals with their personal interests and desires and those same individuals as part of the state. The self interest that the individual has for his own should always be inferior to the higher aims of the general will. The general will is for the common good, and the existence of the state depends upon its members putting aside their private interests even if they might conflict with the state interests. However, if they have to sacrifice your personal desires for the good of the state, then it seems that their freedom to act will be limited. Rousseau advocates the forcing to people to be free when they refuse to acknowledge the force of the general will, but he maintains his organization of the state provides it: "This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free; for this is the condition which, by giving each citizen to his country, secures him against all personal dependence. In this lies the key to the working of the political machine; this alone legitimizes civil undertakings, which, without it, would be absurd, tyrannical, and liable to the most frightful abuse" (p11). In fact, acting in accordance with the general will is the most important form of freedom; it is a civil freedom as opposed to the desires outside society. For him, it is not a paradox to achieve freedom by the means of force. In addition, government should be clearly distinguish from the Sovereign, as government's role is only executive. Consequently, it means that the government is the group of individuals put into action. The Sovereign is the name Rousseau gives to the state when it is actively pursuing the general will, where the state is composed of every citizens: "(...) as a member of the Sovereign he is bound to the individuals, and as a member of the State to the Sovereign. But the maxim of civil right, that no one is bound by undertakings made to himself does not apply in this case; for there is a great difference between incurring an obligation to yourself and incurring one to a whole of which you form a part" (p.10). For Rousseau, democracy is the system by which every citizens is entitled to vote on every issue. Clearly such system can only work in very small state and with relatively simple business to decide; otherwise, the logistics of getting the whole citizenship together and getting through the business of the government will take all the time of activity. Rousseau recognizes the this attractiveness of such direct democracy can be an issue and says that the government is better suited to God than mortals. Furthermore, he recognizes three types of aristocracies: natural, elective and hereditary. He thinks that hereditary is the worst kind of aristocracy, and elective is the best. Elective aristocracy is government by group of individuals who had been elected on grounds of their suitability for the job: "elections by lot would have few disadvantages in a real democracy, in which, as equality would everywhere exist in morals and talents as well as in principles and fortunes, it would become almost a matter of indifference who was chose" (p.76). Elections minimize the risk of those who put private interest before the common good, exercising their power for long. Nevertheless, in Rousseau's Social Contract, it seems that it legitimizes oppression of an extreme kind that is far from providing the conditions of freedom. On the contrary, it gives a totalitarian government a justification for removing them: "Apart from this primitive contract, the vote of the majority always binds all the rest. This follows from the contract itself. But it is asked how a man can be both free and forced to conform the wills that are not his own. How are the opponents at once free and subject to laws they have not agreed to?" (p.74). This view is shown by the phrase "forced to be free" but also by Rousseau's suggestion that the state should employ a censor. In fact, the civil freedom that Rousseau celebrates may turn out to be extreme oppression. The toleration that the word freedom seems to presume whether it is or is not so will depend to nature of the general will. However, it doesn't mean that Rousseau was deliberately providing a framework for oppression; his sincere aim was to describe a situation which will provide both freedom the benefits of society, but it is a weakness of his system that it could support oppression. How do we discover the general will if we conceive that we should sacrifice our individual interests for the sake of the general will? The problem still remains of discovering what general will is. Rousseau suggests that the people vote on any issue without consulting each other, than the majority vote would be in the direction of the general will, where minor the differences of interests will cancel each other out. It still nonetheless seems implausible, it would require at least a fully informed people. Besides, to expect the people to vote without forming faction is unrealistic, so there is a practical problem of deciding what is for the common good. Without a realistic possibility of discovering the common good, Rousseau entire theory would crumble. John C. Calhoun, regarded as one of the most important US senators and Congressional officials, wrote in 1849 A Disquisition on Government, and has another view on liberty and equality by portraying his political thought about government. Indeed, Calhoun believes that in a world without a government, man cannot exist: "I considering this, I assume as an incontestable fact that man is so constituted as to be a social being. His inclinations and wants, physical and moral, irresistibly impel him to associate with his kind; and he has accordingly, never been found, in a age or country, in any state other than the social" (p.243). The government is an entity that would help the society to control the people from their individual self-interest to their social feelings: "while man is created for the social state (...) he is so constituted that his direct or individual affections are stronger than his sympathetic or social feelings" (p243). Therefore, the role of the society would be "to preserve and perfect our race - and that of government secondary and subordinate - to preserve and perfect society" (p.244). Calhoun's view on equality was based on his concurrent majority versus numerical majority argument. In order to prevent men from following their "selfish feelings" (p242), "the ruled must possess the means of resisting successfully this tendency on the part of the rulers to oppression and abuse. Power can only be resisted by power - and tendency by tendency" (p.245). Even though it is not possible to have a unique interest that is common to everyone, as a one national interest, but there could be the existence of a tyrannical rule where the interests of the majority consists of the minority. For Calhoun there is two types of majority: numerical and concurrent. The numerical majority involves the will of the more numerous citizens should always rule regardless of the burdens on the minority; on the other hand, concurrent majority involves preventing majorities from oppressing minorities by allowing various minority groups veto power over laws. In addition, Calhoun was against the founding principles of equality in the Declaration of Independence, he denies the fact that humanity was born free and equal. In this thought he believes that "to perfect society, it is necessary to develop the faculties, intellectual, and moral, with which man in endowed[,and that] liberty is the freedom to pursue the course man deems best." (p. 252) With the concurrent majority, the laws would be in accordance to all interests and with his view on equality, his aim was to keep the only will of the white populace. Consequently, not everyone deserves freedom; only the good citizens and who contribute to the society would have the privilege to earn it. By this observation, it would mean that some people may endeavor harder to be free than others which lead to the conclusion that everyone is not equal. Some people may reach their freedom faster than others: "the mainspring to progress is the desire of individuals to better their condition . . . [, and] the necessary effect of leaving all free to exert themselves to better their condition must be a corresponding inequality between those who may possess these qualities and advantages in a high degree and those who may be deficient in them. . . . But to impose such restrictions on them would be destructive of liberty, while to deprive them of the fruits of their exertions would be to destroy the desire of bettering their condition" (p,253). Finally, the American clergyman, activists and leader in the African-American Civil Right Movement, Martin Luther King, Jr. fights for equality against racial discrimination. In his Letter from the Birmingham City Jail, he shows that there is an evidence of the injustice between white and black people, and decides to go on a protest movement using nonviolent disobedience. In order to spread the gospel about liberty and equality, King responds to the clergymen's criticisms that his actions of taking part of the nonviolent disobedience action is necessary and just: "A tension that would make the community "that has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. (…) So the purpose of the direct action is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation" (p.482). He declares that people are bind by moral responsibility to obey just laws and to disobey the unjust ones. For King, the just law is "man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God [,and and unjust law is] " a code that is out of harmony with the moral law (…) a code that a majority inflicts on a minority that is not binding on itself". In his opinion, "any law that degrades human personality is unjust. (...) So segregation is not only politically, economically, and sociologically unsound, but it is morally wrong and sinful" (p.484). Equality resides in the laws that individuals follow as just, as it will conform to any people, regardless for instance of his race or sex. In addition, he asserts that all communities and states are interrelated: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. We are caught in an inescapable network of mutuality, tied in a single garment of destiny. Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly… Anyone who lives inside the United States can never be considered an outsider anywhere in this country" (p.482). In these sayings, King all people are connected to each other, that they have a moral obligation to act as when society is facing an injustice. Therefore, they are all connected from natural laws or universal ideas which make them equal and responsible to resolve an unjust law if it affects some of them. In conclusion, the three thinkers have different views and ideas in regards to equality and liberty. Rousseau believes that equality resides from the people who gather together and form of a social pact, and that liberty is subject to the one who is under the general will; whereas Calhoun believes that equality comes to the people who follow to the concurrent majority, and that men were not born free and equal; and consequently, people don't have the same quality and the freedom that has to be earned can result differently from one another. On the other hand, King conceive on the idea that Calhoun's doesn't, and declares that all men in communities and states are interrelated, and thus are connected to each other from the natural laws; and therefore, are responsible act when an unjust law is performed for the sake of everyone's equality and freedom.