SUMMARY
OF LEARNERS INTRO & VOCAB
Jean-Jacques Rousseau published Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique in 1762 (On the Social Contract, or Principles of Political Rights). There followed the French Revolution and a near-perpetual state of World War since.
Christianity took two thousand years to succeed, and failed miserably. Its smug hierarchs seized Christ’s perfect message (perfection would mean 100% adoption by humanity) and twisted it so much that only one out of six people on Earth would have anything to do with it. According to those hierarchs, their doctrine and transmission methods are perfect; at fault are the five sixths of humanity that turned away from Christianity in disgust. It seems evident to these hierarchs that non-believers deserve to die and be damned. How much more un-Christlike could one get, than the fathead conceit of that hierarchy?
Instead of two thousand years, Rousseau’s social contract took two hundred to establish itself and suffered equivalent failure. The advocates of the French Revolution and the Terror worshipped Rousseau and his social contract. If anyone could have made it work the way he intended, they would have. Every liberal, humanist and democrat has paid due reverence to it since, all for naught.
It seems that Rousseau left out something vital, some key element of his social contract, without which it was worthless except as a minor argument against the National Capitalism of Hobbes that prevails in its place. That missing element was what common law calls a consideration: "some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing to the one party; or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other." It is difficult to contemplate a contract in which one party would give something away from pure affection or fear, and the other would be expected to do nothing in return. Rousseau himself dismissed this scenario.
“Whether from one
man to another, or from one to a people, this talk will always be just as crazy: I make pact with you entirely in your care
and entirely to my benefit; to which I will stick as long as I please, and to
which you will stick as long as I please.”
Book I, Chapter 4.
[Note: This pact would be just as crazy between
nations, even if enforced by victory in war.
It would require an armed guard over every locality tempted to resist
it. It would be unenforceable even then,
as the U.S. is discovering in Iraq and as every prior colonial empire has discovered
most painfully and dishonorably.]
The primary purpose of the social contract is to replace pity: common virtue of men in a state of nature, which cancels the ill effects of natural inequalities between them. Men in society substitute pity with “laws, customs and virtue,” and have obviously failed at that substitution.
The social contract’s primary intent appears to shift from “liberty” (its supreme goal in Book I, Chapter 6), to “the greatest good for all” (the end purpose of all legislation per line one of Book II, Chapter 11). These intentions are poorly defined and essentially circular. The social contract will be incontestable because it will be incontestably worthwhile because everyone will agree this is incontestably so. How tidily circular and convenient! There are no loose ends because the uroboros serpent swallowed its tail.
Essentially, Mr. Rousseau never discovered the hook on which to hang his hat. That is why he never undertook to describe the foreign relations component of his social contract. Not because he couldn’t find the time (his excuse), but because the constrained communications of his 18th Century WeaponWorld made its transformation into PeaceWorld impossible. Unlike our communications today, which make global peace entirely practicable, despite our archaic and sacrosanct bias to the contrary.
To be valid, a social contract must have some real, tangible consideration its signatories find worthwhile to establish and useful to maintain through personal and collective sacrifice. Something they could see, feel and hear every day of their lives, worth living to uphold and dying to protect; something a vast majority would support through thick and thin. It would be so obvious that its unmistakable presence would guarantee that the social contract were being honestly fulfilled; so obvious that its slightest absence would negate the contract automatically.
That something, that consideration everyone would recognize right away, is PeaceWorld. PeaceWorld would be obvious and unmistakable. Its failure to replace WeaponWorld, or its subsequent decay back into WeaponWorld, or its disappearance in a distant land, all these events would be equally obvious and annul the social contract. This would mobilize everyone to reestablish PeaceWorld, the way the loss of an ancient battle emblem or modern radio contact would lead to their fevered reestablishment during a hot firefight. The social contract could not be reasserted until it had been allowed to appear once again, like raising a sunken ship.
But let’s see what Rousseau had to say.
[Author’s note: On PeaceWorld, the following passage would
apply to nations as well as individuals (men and, of course, women). There would be far fewer personal
degradations than those WeaponWorld imposes on us in industrial quantities.]
“This shift from a
state of nature to the civil state induces a quite remarkable transformation in
people, by substituting instinct with justice in their conduct and endowing
their actions with the integrity they lacked.
It is only once the voice of duty overrides physical impulse and
entitlement to cravings, that Man, who
up ‘til then had seen only to himself, finds that he is compelled to act upon
new principles and consult reason before harkening to inclination. Even if, in this state, he deprives himself
of several advantages he has inherited from nature, he recovers such great
ones, his faculties are exercised and strengthened, his ideas ripen, his
feelings are ennobled, his entire soul reaches such heights that if the
misdeeds of this new condition did not often degrade him below that from which
he had just escaped, he would ceaselessly bless the lucky moment that tore him
from it forever and molded a sentient being and a man from a stupid, clueless
animal.” Book I, Chapter 6.
“The first and
foremost outcome of the principles established above, is that the general will
alone may direct the power of the state in accordance with the end goal of its
inception, which is the common good. While
the conflict of special interests made the creation of society necessary, the
concord of these same made society possible.
That which these special interests hold in common forms the social bond;
and if there were no common point upon which all interests agree, no society
could exist. Thus, it is only by this
common interest that society should be governed.” Book II, Chapter 1.
No-one found the common interest which special interests could share unanimously. National interests were always in contention, and universal agreement could never be established, even by Rousseau’s genius.
PeaceWorld is the only principle that could satisfy the strategic interests of every nation. It is the common interest we always lacked, that everyone could adopt in total security and mutual benefit. Within it, every valid interest would be satisfied, and the common interest, best secured. At that point and only then, the social contract could snap into place everywhere automatically. We could then honor it without exception, everyone of sane mind.
Please consider the following quote as if we had exhausted our petroleum reserves. Indeed, on a global scale, demand has already outstripped its supply. The world economy is beginning to splinter under this sad burden, completely within a few years and perhaps catastrophically. This is happening now, not once you’ll be too old to care or once everyone is ‘perfectly ready.’ This is an inescapable fact: we do not have a second left to waste fooling ourselves and fooling around.
[Author’s note: In our case, replace the term ‘State’ with
‘the entire world,’ and ‘the individual’ with ‘nations and lesser aggregates,
including individuals.’ Chaosism does
not care what level it surges from; peace can only spring from the highest
level and all the lower ones acting in concert.]
“But when the social bond begins to let go and
the State to weaken, when private interests begin to make themselves felt and
minor associations influence the greater one, the common interest decays and
finds antagonists, unanimity no longer rules the voice vote, the common will
ceases to be everyone’s, contradictions and debates arise and the best counsel
cannot be ratified without dispute.
“Lastly, when State,
on the verge of ruin, no longer subsists other than in vain and delusional
forms, such that the social bond is broken in every court and the most vile
interest brazenly assumes the sacred title of public good; at that point, the
general will goes silent. Everyone,
prompted by secret motives, thinks no more like a citizen than if the State had
never existed; and iniquitous decrees are falsely passed in the guise of laws
whose only goal is special interest.
“Does it follow,
from this, that the general will is annihilated or corrupted? No, it remains steadfast, pure and constant;
but it is enslaved to others that overwhelm it.
Each person, drawing his gain from the common one, sees clearly that he
cannot split completely from it; but his share of the public wrong seems like
nothing when set against the exclusive benefits he intends to claim. Aside from this private advantage, he wishes
the common good for himself, just like anyone else. Even when he sells his ballot for cash, he
doesn’t snuff out the general will that smolders within him; he just dodges
it. The error he commits is in changing
the premise of the question and answering something else than what was
asked. Thus, instead of declaring with
his vote: ‘This proposal is beneficial for the State,’ he utters: ‘It is
beneficial for this person or that party, that such-and-such proposal be ratified.’ Thus the rule of public order in assemblies
is not so much that the general will be maintained, but that it always be
consulted and that it always reply.”
Book IV, Chapter 1
PeaceWorld is no longer an ideological exercise to be mulled over without end – given a reassuring and cozy status quo that will endure forever – whether or not world peace takes root. We must act now, while we still have the resources to make World Peace happen now.
If we were truly enlightened, we would have done so during the 1950’s when abundant resources could have cushioned the errors committed during the transition from weapons to peace. But we are mere killer primates, and must humbly beg Loving God to forgive us and compensate for our unforgivable stupidity.
In any case, if we wait for non-renewable resources to disappear before we act, we will have to endure inconceivable sacrifices with no corresponding celebration. The unavoidable consolidation of WeaponWorld will become a question of firepower, wreckage and casualties instead of PeaceWorld’s cooperation, creativity and peaceful intent. No good will come of it, only trouble.
‘Trouble.’ That is such an easy term to read and dismiss. Read fear, casualties and anguish beyond those humanity endured in the past. Let us beware, see reason and repent. There is so much work to be done, in so little time!
“The opinions of a
people are born from its constitution.
Even though the law does not regulate mores, legislation gives birth to
them. When legislation weakens, values
decay. But at that point, the rule of
censors won’t achieve what the force of the law has failed to accomplish.
“It follows from
this, then, that censure may be useful to safeguard mores, but never to restore
them. Establish censors while the laws
are still in force. Once they lose that,
all is despair; nothing legitimate has any power, once the laws have none
left.” Book IV, Chapter 7
LEARNERS: On the Move from WeaponWorld to PeaceWorld