SUMMARY
OF LEARNERS INTRO & VOCAB
Jean-Jacques Rousseau published Du Contrat Social in 1762. There
followed the French Revolution and a semi-permanent state of World War,
since.
Christianity had 2,000
years during which to succeed, and failed abysmally. Its smug hierarchs took Christ’s perfect
message (perfection would mean 100% adoption by humanity) and twisted it so
badly that only a sixth of that crowd would have anything to do with it. According to those hierarchs, their doctrine
and methods of transmitting it are perfect; at fault are the five/sixths of
humanity that have turned away from Christianity in disgust with their twisted
method of transmitting it. It is evident
to them that these non-believers deserve to die and be damned. How much more perfectly un-Christlike could
one get, than the fatheaded conceit of those hierarchs?
Instead of 2,000 years,
Rousseau’s social contract took 200 years to establish itself, and suffered
equivalent failure. The advocates of the
French Revolution and the Terror worshipped Rousseau and his social
contract. If anyone could have made it
work the way he intended, they would have.
Every liberal, humanist and democrat has paid due reverence to it,
since, all for naught.
It is obvious Rousseau
left out something vital, some key element of his social contract, without
which it was worthless except as a minor argument against the totalitarian
capitalism of Hobbes that prevails in its place. That missing element was what common law
calls a consideration: "some right, interest, profit or benefit accruing
to the one party; or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given,
suffered or undertaken by the other."
It is very hard to contemplate a contract in which one party gives
something away from pure affection or fear, and the other party is expected to
do nothing in return. Rousseau himself
dismissed this scenario.
“Whether this speech
takes place between one man and another or between a man and a people, it is
equally insane: I will make a pact
entirely in your care and entirely for my benefit, which I will stick to as
long as I please and to which you will stick as long as I please.” Book I, Chapter 4.
[Note: This pact would be equally insane between
nations, even if enforced by victory in war.
It would require posting an armed guard over every locality tempted to
resist it. It would be unenforceable
even then, as the
The social contract’s
primary purpose is to replace pity: the common virtue of men in a state of
nature, which cancels the ill effects of natural inequalities between
them. Men in society substitute pity
with “laws, customs and virtue,” and have obviously failed at that
substitution.
The social contract’s
primary intent appears to shift from “liberty” (its supreme goal in Book I,
Chapter 6), to “the greatest good for all” (the end purpose of all legislation,
per line one of Book II, Chapter 11).
These intentions are poorly defined and essentially circular. The social contract will be incontestable
because it will be incontestably worthwhile because everyone will agree this is
incontestably so. How tidily rounded and
convenient! There are no loose ends
because the uroboros serpent has swallowed its tail.
Essentially, Mr. Rousseau
never discovered the hook upon which to hang his hat. That is why he never undertook to describe
the foreign relations component of his social contract. Not because he didn’t have the time (his
excuse), but because the communications limitations of his Eighteenth Century
WeaponWorld made its transformation into PeaceWorld impossible. Unlike our communications today, which make
global peace entirely practicable, despite our archaic and sacrosanct bias to
the contrary.
To be valid, a social
contract must have some real-world and quantifiable consideration its
signatories find eminently worthwhile to establish and useful to maintain
through personal and collective sacrifice.
Something they could see, feel and touch every day of their lives, worth
living to uphold and dying to protect.
Something a vast majority would support through thick and thin. It would be so obvious that its unmistakable
presence would guarantee that the social contract were honestly fulfilled; so
obvious that its slightest absence would negate the contract automatically.
That something, that
consideration everyone would recognize instantly, is PeaceWorld. PeaceWorld would be obvious and
unmistakable. Its failure to replace
WeaponWorld, or its subsequent decay back into WeaponWorld, or its
disappearance in a distant land, all these would be equally obvious and annul
the social contract. PeaceWorld would
mobilize everyone to reestablish it, like a fallen battle emblem or loss of
modern radio contact during a hot firefight.
The social contract could not be reestablished until it had been
permitted to appear once again, like a sunken ship buoyed to the surface of the
sea.
But let’s see what
Rousseau had to say.
[Author’s note: On PeaceWorld, this passage would be more
applicable to nations than to individual men (and, of course, women). There would be far less personal degradation
than that which WeaponWorld imposes on us in industrial quantities.]
“This shift from a state
of nature to the civil state induces a very remarkable transformation in men,
by substituting instinct with justice in their conduct and endowing their
actions with the integrity they lacked.
Once the voice of duty overrides the clamor of physical impulse and
appetite, and only thereafter, Man, who used to be entirely self-centered,
discovers that he is compelled to act in accordance with new principles and
consult his reason before heeding his inclination. Even though he deprives himself, in this exchange,
of some advantages he retained in the state of nature, he recovers such great
ones that his faculties are exercised and strengthened, his ideas expand, his
feelings are ennobled, his entire soul reaches such heights that if the
misdeeds of this new condition did not often degrade him below that from which
he had just escaped, he would ceaselessly bless the happy hour that tore him
from it forever and molded a sentient being and a man from a stupid, clueless
animal.” Book I, Chapter 6.
“The first and
foremost outcome of the principles established above, is that the general will
is the only one that may direct the power of the state in accordance with the
end-purpose of its inception, which is the common good. Whereas the conflict of special interests
made the creation of society necessary, the concord of these same special
interests made society possible. That
which these special interests hold in common forms the social bond; and if
there were no common point upon which all interests agree, no society could
exist. Thus it is only by this common
interest that society must be governed.”
Book II, Chapter 1.
No one found a common
interest which every special interest could share. National interests were always in contention,
and universal agreement could never be nailed down, even by Rousseau’s
genius.
PeaceWorld is the only
principle that could satisfy the strategic interests of every nation. It is the common interest we always lacked,
that everyone could adopt in total security and mutual benefit. Within it, every valid interest would be
satisfied most readily and the common interest, best secured. At that point and only then, the social
contract could snap into place everywhere automatically. We could then honor it without exception,
everyone of sane mind.
Please
consider the following quote as if we had exhausted our petroleum
reserves. Indeed, global oil demand has
already outstripped global supply. The
world economy will begin to splinter under this sad burden, within two or three
years and perhaps catastrophically. This
is happening NOW, not once you’re too old to care or once everyone is
‘perfectly ready.’ This is an
inescapable fact: we do not have a second left to waste fooling ourselves and
fooling around.
[Author’s note: In our case, replace the term ‘State’ with
‘the entire world,’ and ‘the individual’ with ‘nations and lesser aggregates,
including individuals.’ Chaosism does
not care what level it surges from; peace can only spring from the highest
level and all the lower ones acting in concert.]
“But when the social bond begins to fray and
the State to weaken, when special interests begin to make themselves noticed
and minor associations affect the greater one, the common interest wavers and
finds antagonists, unanimity no longer rules the voice vote, the common will
ceases to be everyone’s will, contradictions and debates rear up, and the best
counsel cannot be ratified without quarrel.
“Finally, as the
State nears ruin, it no longer subsists other than in vain and delusional
forms, such that the social bond is broken in every instance and the basest
interests assume with impunity the sacred title of public good; at this point,
the general will goes mute. Everyone,
prompted by secret motives, stops thinking like a citizen, as if the State had
never existed; and iniquitous decrees are passed erroneously in the guise of
laws, with no other aim than to further special interests.
“Does it follow,
from this, that the general will is annihilated or corrupted? No, it remains steady, pure and constant; but
it is enslaved to other considerations that overwhelm it. Everyone, detaching his gain from the common
good, sees plainly that he cannot split wholly from it; but his share of public
evil seems like nothing, compared to the exclusive benefits he intends to claim
for himself. Apart from this private
benefit, he wants the common good for his own gain, just as much as anyone
else. Even in selling his ballot for
cash, he doesn’t extinguish the general will that smolders within him; he just
avoids it. The error he commits is in
changing the premise of the question and starting to answer another—not the one
he was asked. Thus, instead of declaring
with his vote: ‘This proposal is advantageous to the State,’ he utters: ‘It is
advantageous for that person or this party that thus and such proposal be
ratified.’ Consequently, the public
order of law in assemblies does not so much require that the general will be
maintained, but that it always be consulted and that it always reply.” Book IV, Chapter 1
PeaceWorld is no longer an
ideological exercise to be mulled over endlessly – given a reassuring and cozy
status quo that will endure forever – whether or not world peace takes
root. We must act NOW, while we have the
surplus resources to make World Peace happen NOW.
If we were truly
enlightened beings, we would have done so during the 1950’s, when abundant
planetary energy resources could have cushioned whatever errors we committed
during our transition from weapons to peace.
But we are mere killer primates, and must humbly beg forgiveness of
Loving God for our inexcusable stupidity.
In any case, if we wait
for non-renewable resources to disappear before we act, we will have to endure
inconceivable sacrifices with no corresponding celebration. The inevitable consolidation of WeaponWorld
tyranny will become a question of firepower, destruction and casualties;
instead of PeaceWorld’s cooperation, creativity and peaceful intent. No good will come of it, only trouble.
‘Trouble’ is such an easy
term to read and dismiss. Read massive
fear, casualties and anguish beyond any humanity has experienced in the
past. Let us beware, see reason and
repent. There is so much work to be
done, and so little time left!
“The opinions of a
people are born from its constitution.
Even though the law does not regulate custom, legislation gives birth to
it. When legislation weakens, custom
decays. Once this happens, however, the
judgment of censors won’t achieve what the force of law failed to accomplish.
“It follows from
this, that the intervention of censors may be useful to safeguard custom, but
never to restore it. Appoint censors
while the laws are in full vigor. Once
laws have lost their vigor, everything is desperate; nothing legitimate retains
any power, once the laws have none left.”
Book IV, Chapter 7
LEARNERS: On the
Move from WeaponWorld to PeaceWorld
CONTACT PAGE (under development)