Jean Jacques Rousseau writes in “The Social Contract” that leaders have 3 different wills. First, their individual wills which strive for self-promotion. Second, the corporate will, what Rousseau calls “vis’a’vis the will of the government” and includes the wills of other leaders. And lastly, the will of the people or sovereign will.
I will posit that in a perfect society leaders silence their individual wills, place the corporate will as a subordinate, and allow the general will of the people to dominate.
Any thoughts on whether the above is something we should strive for and ask of our leaders. Any qualms with the 3 general wills (additions, subtractions)?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
What jumps out to me is 1) politicians are always putting their self-interest first politicking for a future position while they currently hold one (usually neglecting duties). They vote for survival and party interests (corporate will) many times in opposition to their constituency. Finally, they strive to be life-long politicians. If a perfect society is
ReplyDeleteGeneral will > corporate will > individual will
Our current system is
Individual will & corporate will >>> General will.
The democratic ideal is what he's describing and I'd say what he puts simply there; his statement is about as good as anything we've come up with. I think the problem has become that our political institutions did not address the human corruption or 'self interest'. If the founders knew what we do about genetics, I think they would have put even more checks in place than they did (we'd probably be a socialist economy too). I posted some time ago about some lawyer who is trying to destroy the idea of career politicians and therefore reform campaign finance. I would say that this is the beginning. The end has to be a much more honest look at humanity and humans. We know our main flaws and we need to stop denying them, collectively. If we are able to do this, then a sustainable future is possible and education is a huge part of it. If we are unable to do these things, then we'll probably have war.
ReplyDeleteLawrence Lessig was the guy's name:
ReplyDeletehttp://steveandjarrod.blogspot.com/2009/09/lessig-trying-to-reform-campaign.html
I remember your article. Perhaps this would interest you (1). GOP trying to pass bill to limit terms. We seem to think this is good. But if a party keeps the seat the party ideal remains in place. So what is the problem. The individual or the party?
ReplyDeleteSource:
1)http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dcnow/2009/11/gop-pushes-term-limits-for-federal-term-limits.html
I have no problem with term limits, though three for a congressional representative may be a little low. That's still the equivalent of only one term for a senator. Perhaps if they put term limits on them, they could change terms to four years for representatives.
ReplyDeleteAnother thought - if part of the argument is that elected officials will spend less time running for office (at best that cuts it down by half, since they'd all be running for re-election at least once), what if instead of term limits, just say that people can not seek the same office in consecutive terms, at least if they win the first time. They could serve as many times as they like, they would just always have 2-6 years off between terms (shorter for Representatives, or Senators if they seek & win the second seat of their state). A potentially huge negative to that though is that there is less accountability to the people. Corporations could keep putting in their own yes-men who have no need to worry about keeping their job in the next election.