Rousseau’s Nonexistent Co-existing State

This is important because inequality causes unrest and brings about interminable turmoil which can eventually lead to a collapse of a regime or a state. If every human being is given equal opportunities then the outcome after those opportunities were presented, whether it was success of failure, fully rests upon the individual’s shoulders. In case of failure, the government or any other individual would not be held accountable.

The protagonist, Equality 7-252, finds himself in a collectivist state where this type of government is based on the premise that all people live and work for the benefit and the good of everyone else. The leaders, also known as the World Council, is the group that makes decisions for the larger lower class as separated by intelligence or any other valuable trait. These decisions include individual’s names, their occupations, restricting their vocabulary and their education. The establishment of this government resulted in giving up personal rights and the sense of self. In this collectivist state, people are going to tell someone what to do, think and act and take away their free will. They choose and decide what they want and when they want it. A big part of individualism is to question anything or anyone, such as the government but in this collective state, fear is one of the most emphasized themes in the book that Rand shows of many people going along with society’s ideals simply because they are too afraid to stand up for anything else. Individualism gives people the power to voice their opinion, to say what they want and what they need. The most important part of the government is to establish laws based on peoples opinions and their needs/wants. Rather than having these laws be decided by the government and for the goal of equality they want to achieve. This is supported based of Excerpts from John Locke. Locke claims that the most important part of the government is the legislative power because the role of the legislative power is to establish laws that apply to everyone equally and for the good of the people. The purpose of an established government is to care for the good of its people, but the government in Anthem precludes people from their rights. Everyone should have a place or part in the government because no decisions are made

(Spade, 5). This operation of norms is used to justify the exclusion of powerless populations from "programs that distribute wealth and life chances" and attempts to validate "the targeting of these same populations for imprisonment and violence" (Spade, 5). In reality, biology destines some groups to flourish, to acquire enhanced opportunities, and to be treated in a way that benefits their success. At the cost of this group, comes the groups that are being held back and facing an inevitable doomed future; the norms produce "security for some population and vulnerability for others" (Spade, 5). Through dividing power based on individuals' biology, the sexist and racist mindsets are reinforced and the "conditions of violence, exploitation, and poverty" are upheld (Spade, 5).

when people take things too literally. In this case the people were made equal by a government

These examples prove that social status and unearned privileges prevent us from protecting freedom and promoting equality. If we didn’t have such a gap between races, social classes, gender, and other factors of identity, people would be more open to helping each. Thereby, a concept like the Original Position is the only way justice could

The problem is to find a form of association … in which each, while uniting

. Rousseau finds the liberal account of freedom to be weaker than the republican account because he believes that laws allow us to be free in a way that conforms within the established rules and guidelines. The liberal version focuses on how human conduct should not regulate by the law but the republican is more focused on how humans should adapt and change their freedoms to fit the laws. The liberal description believes that there is a private and public spheres but a person can only be free in the private. However, the republican description is based not on the private but the need for the individual to see themselves as part of community. I find that the republican conception is that most compelling because the laws are meant to protect the rights and freedoms of the community and by adapting your freedom to the laws you are respecting the rights of others. I think that the republic account focuses on the idea of focusing on the good of the community rather than just the individual’s rights.

Our world has many components both physical and nonphysical that make it what it is, we have certain powerful ideas like religion, which are very important and give us faith and some ethics and other essential ideas, but religion itself isn’t followed by everyone and in fact there are several religions that don’t connect at all. Unlike religion, laws and those who enforce them are universally followed and for the most part, respected. We have rules and laws for huge crimes like murder or terrorism and once those crimes are committed, these who commit them are often punished fairly but on the contrary we have small punishments for breaking little and irrelevant rules.

Oppression is the abuse of a higher authority's power to mistreat others and is the condition of feeling negatively affected by surrounding stress. It often describes the situation where an individual or group is victimized by a greater and more powerful influence. Unlike oppression, fairness has a positive connotation. Fairness is equal opportunity that is offered to the whole society, with consideration to the individual's situation. Similar to fairness, equality also encourages the same opportunities for the society. Equality is having the same value, rights, and treatment for all people regardless of their situation. Contrasting fairness, equality only gives society the same opportunities, assuming that everyone is alike physically and

Book I Chapter 7, titled "The Sovereign" encourages a more controlling government and society. In the last paragraph (Social, p.64) he shows the reader a necessity for force among those who disagree with the general will. Rousseau thinks that anyone who refuses to obey the general will should be forced to be free. Freedom exists only by living under the general will. He is claiming that the general will is always correct and should not tolerate anyone who disagrees. This is the perfect way to ensure a totalitarianistic society.

Rousseau’s On the Social Contract follows his Discourse on the Origin of Inequality as a description for a working political body that serves in the best interest of civilized man in addition to rectifying some of the inequalities that emerged following the beginning of civil society and man’s separation from his natural state. Furthermore, the Social Contract justifies forcing citizens into freedom in large part due to man’s tendency towards vices such as cowardice and greed. By forcing citizens into an agreement where they must be free, Rousseau aims to prevent individuals from foolishly selling their freedom for short-lived advantages and requires that they participate in their own liberty through the general will. Overall, the social contract

Despite the fact that Rousseau gave legislative authority to the people, his fear of the general population, exercising sovereignty was justified. He believes that “the common man can be shortsighted, is easily manipulated, and is often unaware of his own needs.” (Cole 2005) This is reflected in the political arena where voters are easily manipulated during election and they forget about the problems they were /is facing. and instead of voting on the issues they face they cast votes on partisanship or popularity. (Cole 2005)

The ideals of equality are hard to achieve. No one is born equal. When a large group of people want something like government services, they are likely to get it. This creates inequality because the people who do not want government services are overruled. The majority sets the standard. This ideology is noticeable in Fahrenheit 451. When people stop reading books, they feel that anyone who does read

If anyone in Equality’s society were to disobey the Council, they would be punished. “We have seen one of such men burned alive in the square of the City. And it was a sight which has stayed with us through the years, and it haunts us, and follows us, and it gives us no rest. We were a child then, ten years old. And we stood in the great square with all the children and all the men of the City, sent to behold the burning. They brought the Transgressor out into the square and they led them to the pyre. They had torn out the tongue of the Transgressor, so that they could speak no longer” (Rand 50). The Council had shown the community the burning of the Transgressor as a threatening bribe so that the community would know not to disobey The Council, because if they did they would be punished. The threat of punishment was an indirect form of bribery placed by that society’s government on its daily life. Bribery is one of the negative side effects that result from the corruption of government actions.

1. The quote was made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in his creation “On Social Contract (1762)” (Rousseau, Social Contract, 4). Rousseau’s discourse on private property can be understood as a response to John Locke’s theories regarding property – and especially to Locke’s labor theory and the government’s role in it (assumption based on the similarity of their discourse). According to Locke’s labor theory, a man’s labor defines his right to own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 16) and that one of the government’s top priorities is to guarantee inheritance of private property for those who have and own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 37). The theory also contains the aspect that one can own something if he improves it (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 15).