I have now completed my rereading of Rousseau’s Of the Social Contract. Once again, I am astonished by how much of it I had completely forgotten. For example, in Book 4 there is a succession of chapters totaling 20 pages in my edition about ancient Rome that the students can without loss skip over. On the other hand, there is a great deal that Rousseau has to say about the political states of his day that carry with it the clear implication that he would consider the United States to be absolutely anything other than a legitimate state with a sovereign people. I can see some interesting discussions developing in class about that subject.
Today I will start rereading the third book to be assigned
in the first segment of the course – my little book In Defense of Anarchism. It
has been quite some time since I have actually reread that essay and as with
the Locke and Rousseau, I will be curious to see what is in it that I have
forgotten about.
This is fun.
Is it the separation of powers in the US that makes it illegitimate? I would say that is lessening all the time, so I would say that is getting more Rousseauish. Rousseau definitely would not like the existence and power of parties.
ReplyDelete