The Political Paradigms and their Philosophies

Rousseau wanted to respect the go away of the race as the previous leaders had not, but want many other political philosophers, he did not accolade the will of the people as much as he professed. He writes that "Of itself, the people endlessly wishes [wills] the good; of itself, it does not always jaw it" (Barker xxxviii). Rousseau then goes on to introduce the concept and purpose of the powerful leader who must help the people see what it is exactly that it wishes. The problem is that the ideals of Rousseau and the other two are needfully distorted during the process of being adjusted to the real field of society and politics. No ideal will mean anything in a society or government without order, without clear definitions and statistical distribution of power. There must be, in other words, some trend of contract, however loose or however binding, between the people and the government, lest chaos ensue. However, in the three philosophers' schemes, this contract leads to a diminishment of the vowelise of the people and an increase in the power of the leader.

In loving Contract, Sir Ernest Barker writes that "The community once formed by a contract of society may be self-governing, without any trait of rules and subject. . . . This was the theory of Rousseau" (Barker xiii). In reality, however, the introduction of the "leader" or " force" is used to justify the elevation of that leader over the people. Because Rousseau fails to realistically

If politics . . . lays down rules recoup out what we should do and what we should leave undone, the end of politics . . . will consequently be the Good of man. . . . The end of the individual is the same . . . as that of the political community. . . . Even so, the end of the political community is . . . a greater thing to attain and maintain, and a thing more than ultimate, than the end of the individual (Aristotle 355).

Aristotle. The Ethics. N.P.: N.P., N.D.

However, it is not fair to say that Rousseau, in aiming at a common good, along communitarian lines, did not express the political rights and dignity of individual human beings, for he for sure did.

Writing of each human citizen, Rousseau writes of the "fact that his own creation as an individual has an absolute survey, and that he is, by reputation [that is, according to natural law], an independent being" (184). However, the political philosopher who in truth follows this argument to its natural end will be formulation a state of chaos and anarchy. Rousseau is aware of this fact and pulls the rug out from under this "independent" individual and his "absolute value":

Barker, Sir Ernest (ed.). Social Contract. London: Oxford University Press, 1960.

From the first he regards the legislative, even if it be the autonomous power, as "limited to the public good of the society." It is " totally a fiduciary power to act for certain ends" and "thither remains still in the people a supreme power [another and higher 'supreme power'] to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act contrary to the trust reposed in them" (Barker xxi).

recognize the great power of the leader, pretending his voice is the voice of the people, he fails to include any safety mechanisms to protect the people from the leader who does not express their will:

Of course, this is blatant double-talk, the stuff of George Orwell's 1984 or Aldous Huxley's Brave New World. Rousseau is merely paying lip run to the individual,
Order your essay at Orderessay and get a 100% original and high-quality custom paper within the required time frame.