Cambridge Texts in the History of Political published a collection of Jean-Jacques Rousseau's early "political" writings edited by Victor Gourevitch under the name of Rousseau: The Discourses and other early political writings. These writings all date from prior to 1760.#

I did this reading with the perspective of a freedom loving libertarian. My purpose is not to fisk or argue with Rousseau, but to understand his argument and how it has been contorted to support repressive policies. Although I disagree with many of Rousseau's conclusions, it is more useful to reveal the problems with the premises, rather than the conclusions. This is the approach that I take. Furthermore, although Rousseau writes a great deal about the origin of man, society, language, etc. and is often wrong as far as recent research attests, this should not be held against him, due to the constraints of his era.#

Introduction#

The editor defines concisely what standard of equality Rousseau uses to evaluate the current state of the world and other early states:#

In the pre-political state of nature men are self-sufficient because and insofar as they are free and equal. They are free because they are not irreversibly dependent on another for the satisfaction of their material, psychological or social -- Rouseau's "moral" -- needs; and they are equal because their "physical" inequalities remain without "moral" import: they are equal because they are free. This pre-political non-dependence or "natural freedom" is associated with the deep-seated sentiment of freedom which for Rousseau comes close to defining being human (Ineq. II [41]). Hobbes has men driven to escape or to avoid the state of nature because it permanently threatens what he calls the greatest evil, violent death. Accordingly, on his view, the primary aim of civil society is peace. Rousseau, by contrast, has men drawn to remain in the pre-political state of nature in order to avoid what he calls the worst that can happen in the relations between man and man, to find oneself at the discretion of another's arbitrary will (Ineq. II [37]). Accordingly, on his view, the primary aim of civil society is freedom. He fully recognizes, indeed he stresses, that the requirements for civil peace may be at odds with the requirements for civil freedom (Ineq. II [38], [39]; SC III 4 [7]; Poland I [3]). [p. xxi-xxii]

Excepting the last statement about the conflict between peace and freedom, I cannot disagree with Rousseau's desire when I use my definitions of terms, and indeed even with some of his definitions. For example, one form of arbitrary control that both Rousseau and I agree is unjust is that of government coercion. Unfortunately, outside the realm of coercion, we disagree.

Rousseau will later claim to delight of property robbers everywhere that it is unjust that one man use his talents, his "physical" inequalities, to produce more than someone else and than he needs and then use that production to persuade others to do as he likes. Rousseau seems to forget his use of the word "arbitrary."

A coercive government can arbitrary force men to dig holes and fill them up, but if I were to pay a man for the same service he would be under no obligation until we had negotiated the terms.

Thus, I do not find trade and the use of physical inequalities for advantages in trade to be immoral and unjust, while Rousseau differs.

The First Discourse#

This discourse was written in response to the question "Whether the restoration of the Sciences and Arts has contributed to the purification of morals." Rousseau takes the negative position that morals are harmed by increases in the arts and sciences. He claims that while these things do many good things and can make life occasionally more pleasant for some--they adversely effect society at large by the standard of immorality of inequality mentioned above and by the erosion of morals.#

In a quip, Rousseau praises ignorance because it is without the knowledge of evil, as well as not being self-conscious of good; and, condemns the wise because they are fruitless and are only supported by moral inequality.#

Part I#

Much of this part is spent reference the ancients and in particular praising Sparta and those who praised Sparta over the related figures of Athens. Some of this discussion is ill-advised in my opinion. Take for instance this interpretation of Socrates:#

"We do not know, neither the Sophists nor the Poets, nor the Orators, nor the Artists, nor I, what is the true, the good, and the beautiful: But there is this difference between us that, although these people know nothing, they all believe they know something: Whereas I, while I know nothing, am at least not in any doubt about it. So that the whole superiority in wisdom which the Oracle attributes to me, reduces to nothing more than that I am fully convinced that I am ignore of what I do not know."

Here, then, is the Wisest of men in the Judgment of the Gods, and the most learned of Athenians according to the sense of all Greece, Socrates, speaking in Praise of ignorance! [p. 12-13]

As is obvious, this is not the traditional interpretation of Socrates' words. They are generally regarded to mean that it is the wise who realize they do not have perfect knowledge, and that the journey to perfection is surely stopped when the traveler is under the impression of success.

I do not see how Rousseau could interpret this otherwise, except in hopes that it would slip beneath the radar in the fawning adoration of most to Socrates.

Part II#

Among this discussion is some railing against the facts that many scientists do not succeed or end up being disproved later. This is doubly bad for Rousseau, because not only were the immorally supported from the get go, but now they have not even produced anything at all. I think this argument is a nice depiction of the cursory and shallow logic that Rousseau employs when evaluating situations: he cannot conceive of people working together, the process of competition or creative destruction. The conclusion of this argument is the suggestion by Rousseau that the State be granted omniscience and "if a few men are to be allowed to devote themselves to the study of the Sciences and the Arts, it must be only those" who will be successful. (p. 27, p. 33 in Replies)#

Another key quote here is: "What will become of virtue, when one has to get rich at all cost?" (p. 18) Any explanation of the general tendency of private interest will do to thwart this argument.#

Replies to Critics#

Rousseau demonstrates shallowness and lack of understanding of cooperation:#

What a wonderful thing, then, to have put men in a position where they can only live together by obstructing, supplanting, deceiving, betraying, destroying one another! From now on we must take care never to let ourselves be seen as we are: because for every two men whose interests coincide, perhaps a hundred thousand oppose them, and the only way to succeed is either to deceive or to ruin all those people. This is the fatal source of the violence, the betrayals, the treacheries and all the horrors necessarily required by a state of affairs in which everyone pretends to be working for the profit or reputation of the rest, while only seeking to raise his own above theirs and at their expense. [p. 100]

The Second Discourse#

This discourse did not win the prize it was submitted for, but it was submitted for such a review. The question was to the effect of, "What is the origin of inequality among men and is it just according to natural law?"#

Rousseau answers this question by creating his own theory of the origin of man in the state of nature that differs heavily from other theories. After many diversions on things such as the origin of language and writing, he decides that inequality arose when people worked started agriculture and trade, thus allowing those with natural (and thus initially just) physical inequalities to acquire unnatural inequalities in terms of wealth, which Rousseau sees as the foundation for all other types of unjust inequalities, like power. As mentioned above, this argument relies on the assumption that you agree with his disdain for trade and with his ignorance of mutually beneficial cooperation.#

Letter to Voltaire#

After the Lisbon earthquake, Voltaire sent a poem, probably The Lisbon Disaster, with a theme similar to that in Candide. Rousseau wrote a lengthy reply, in which he claims to support religious toleration, but then immediately, in an adjacent paragraph, argues for state-control of religion.#

Among these dogmas [of religions] that ought to be proscribed, intolerance is easily the most odious; but it must be check at its source; for the most bloodthirsty Fanatics change their language as their fortune changes, and when they are not the strongest, they preach nothing but patience and gentleness. Thus I call intolerant on principle any man who imagines that one cannot be a good man without believing everything he believes, and mercilessly damns all those who do not think as he does. [...]

I would wish, then, that in every State there were a moral code, or a kind of civil profession of faith, containing, positively, the social maxims everyone would be bound to acknowledge, and, negatively, the fanatical maxims one would be bound to reject, not as impious, but as seditious. Thus every Religion that could conform to the code would be allowed; every Religion that did not conform to it would be proscribed; and everyone would be free to to have no other Religion than the code itself. [p. 245]

This is not out of context and these are really adjacent paragraphs. Amazing.