Rousseau's peculiar analysis
Even in Tamil a proverb is there Padichavan Nattaik keduthaan. May b
in the olden days it was Koduthaan, later changed as Keduthaan; and
padichavan means VEDAM PADICHAAVAN. As misunderstood, the lecture of the
twisted tonguester is also like that only;
Rousseau's peculiar analysis of the effect climate holds on government
rests on a certain picture of production and consumption. Each individual
needs to consume a certain fixed quantity of goods--food, clothing, etc.
However, each individual does not produce these goods equally. While
farmers and tailors produce food and clothing, government magistrates
produce nothing of the sort. According to Rousseau, then, the farmers and
the tailors are responsible not only for producing sufficient food and
clothing for themselves, but also producing enough to take care of the
government.
Rousseau is a bit vague in his formulation, and we could read this as a
simple endorsement of capitalism: magistrates get paid a certain sum for
serving in government, and they can use this money to buy food and clothing
for themselves. Magistrates get paid taxpayers' money, each citizen paying
taxes that are proportional to the profit he makes from whatever business
or trade he undertakes.
However, Rousseau tends to speak negatively about finance and profit
motives, so it is more likely that he is thinking along the lines of the
Marxist slogan: "from each according to his ability, to each according to
his need." Farmers will give up a certain amount of their food, not for the
sake of profit, but simply because they produce more food than they need
and they recognize that their surplus food is needed to feed government
magistrates.
If this is what Rousseau means, he is making the rather naive assumption
that the quantity of goods produced will remain fixed regardless. History
suggests that workers who have nothing to gain personally from producing a
surplus will be less diligent in producing that surplus. Capitalism and
consumerism have had such astonishing success (we will leave aside the
question of whether this is for the better or worse) because everyone has
the direct incentive of profit to increase productivity. When no such
incentive exists, productivity tends to decline, and the surplus becomes
smaller. Rousseau lists a number of factors that determine the size of a
surplus, but does not seem to consider that productivity depends heavily on
how the goods are distributed.
Rather than discuss economics, Rousseau discusses climate, and the kinds of
soil and people found in different lands. Rousseau concedes that there is
obviously no direct correlation between what degree of latitude a state
occupies and the kind of government it has, but he also interestingly
asserts that the actual facts of the matter have little bearing on the
truth of his theory. Even if the south were filled with democracies and the
north with monarchies, his theory that hotter climates tend to produce
monarchies would still hold: it would just mean that the other factors he
discusses outweigh the considerations of climate. This bold assertion
raises two questions: How, then, could his theory be proved wrong? And what
kind of theory is it? It would seem that he considers this theory to be a
self-evident truth. However, it is rather unsatisfying that those of us who
might dispute it are given no grounds to raise an objection. His discussion
of climate seems to be less like a theory and more like blind dogmatism.
One might also think it odd that Rousseau claims that democracy thrives on
a small surplus, but monarchy relies on a large surplus. If there are more
magistrates in a democracy, there would be more mouths to feed in
government, and so a larger surplus would be needed. However, in this
case, Rousseau
is quite astute, noting that the determining factor is not the size of
government, but how efficiently goods are cycled through society. In an
absolute monarchy, the king consumes all the surplus, and the people
receive nothing in return. In a democracy, the people who work are the same
people who enjoy the benefits of the surplus, so even if this surplus is
small, they still do well.
Lastly, one might be puzzled by Rousseau's assertion that population growth
is the best and only means of determining good government. Throughout the
Social Contract, Rousseau goes on and on about the importance of freedom
and equality, and yet here he suggests that prosperity as reflected in
population growth is more important. We should note, though, that he is
talking about what makes a good government, not what makes a happy society. In
fact, he goes on immediately afterward to point out that government and
sovereign.
K Rajaram IRS 16624
On Sat, 15 Jun 2024 at 23:19, Rangarajan T.N.C. <[email protected]>
wrote:
>
>
> Science & Art Are Poisoning You | Rousseau's First Discourse Explained
> <https://youtu.be/C8ucJ29O1kM>
>
>
>
> Science & Art Are Poisoning You | Rousseau's First Discourse Explained
> <https://youtu.be/C8ucJ29O1kM>
>
> About - Johnathan Bi <https://www.johnathanbi.com/about>
>
>
>
>
> About - Johnathan Bi
>
> Johnathan Bi
>
> Insights from the Great Books. Lectures & interviews to help you
> understand the most important books in history....
> <https://www.johnathanbi.com/about>
>
>
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Thatha_Patty" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/thatha_patty/CAL5XZoqpVdxKXPPSgPFTfxvkRd_drDY7XcLvW5j7S0L0guNtCg%40mail.gmail.com.
