Forced to Be Free

Paul Wilson | June 8, 2012

Over 200 years ago, the French Enlightenment’s political philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau posited that humans must be “forced to be free.” Rousseau’s counterintuitive principle held that there was a so-called general will, which he roughly defined as “one will which is directed towards their common preservation and general well-being.” The general will is “the will of all,” or at least what it would be if society were rightly ordered.  A society operating in obedience to the general will would be truly happy. Thus, societal acceptance of the general will would make everyone free.

However, to determine this general will, a simple survey of citizens’ desires would not suffice: Ordinary people, in Rousseau’s mind, should interpret the general will. A society following the general will must be guided by enlightened leaders who would properly interpret the general will and implement it accordingly. Therefore, enlightened leaders able to interpret the general will, in Rousseau’s view, could and should be society’s masters to bring happiness to all.

Unfortunately, Rousseau’s paradoxical political philosophy is alive and well in President Barack Obama’s administration. Obama seeks to make Americans free to enjoy previously undreamt of “rights,” such as rights to free healthcare (as determined by the government) and sexual rights, which apparently trump such traditional rights as religious liberty and free speech.

The Obama administration has cast aside traditional rights conflicting with these new rights in favor of a radically new conception of freedom. Those who oppose these new rights, such as members of the Catholic Church, must be demonized as destroyers of the public welfare.

In short, America is being “forced to be free” to adopt the Obama administration’s “expert” wishes. Rousseau’s philosophy is truly alive and well in modern America.

This post also appeared on the New Agora.

Print Friendly
Paul Wilson About Paul Wilson

Paul Wilson is a media analyst at the Culture and Media Institute, who is also seeking his master’s degree in history at the Catholic University of America. You can follow him on Twitter at @PaulWilson34.

2 comments
  Livefyre
Newest | Oldest
Applecore
Applecore

Could you please elaborate further on how same-sex marriage infringes religious liberty and free speech rights?  You have also misused Rousseau's principle of the general will.  It is an ideal, meant to be used in societies that 1) have no history 2) are stable 3) are safe from external threats 4) are self-sufficient 5) are small enough that all citizens know each other by name and .. there is a sixth thing but it is not coming to me right now.  Regardless, you have improperly and awkwardly drawn parallels to an ideal principle that Rousseau himself would say is impossible.  The general will is supposed to be something to strive for.  It is not something that can actually be obtained.  I hope that you have an opportunity to respond to my comment as I am interested in your perspective.  Didn't Mill stress the value and importance of sharing opposing opinions!

PaulWilson34
PaulWilson34 like.author.displayName 1 Like

@Applecore Thank you for your comment! I apologize for not getting back to you earlier; I had honestly forgotten about this post, which was 9 months ago, and did not see your comment until it was brought to my attention.

My response will be divided into two parts; a fuller treatment of your second point at this late hour would be imprudent.

Regarding your first question, I actually touched on this point in a later piece, which is provided under this paragraph.

http://libertyblog.org/2012/07/old-versus-new-freedoms/

Briefly, the creation or discovery, depending on your point of view, of new rights such as a "right to marriage" necessarily come into conflict with old rights, such as "religious liberty." When they come into conflict, societies must choose which of these rights to uphold. For example, does the state shut down religiously-based adoption charities that will not cater to same-sex couples based on its moral teaching? Can the state fine individuals who refuse to perform services for same-sex couples based on religious beliefs?

This conflict has already arisen in several cases in America - a few of which I will provide below. 

http://abcnews.go.com/US/vermont-inn-sued-refusal-host-gay-couples-wedding/story?id=14110076#.T9ix6ZjUkc8

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/29/us/for-bishops-a-battle-over-whose-rights-prevail.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/01/AR2010030103345.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/06/elaine-huguenin-photograp_n_1572676.html

Regarding your second point, I have re-examined the Social Contract fully, and have provided a link to it below, and invite readers may judge for themselves.

http://www.constitution.org/jjr/socon.htm

Before I begin to answer your question, I must state for the record that my characterization of "the will of all" as "the general will" was incorrect and sloppy (see Part 2, Section 3), and should be stricken from the piece.

The quote you cited is from Part 2, Section 10, and states:

"What people, then, is a fit subject for legislation? One which, already bound by some unity of origin, interest, or convention, has never yet felt the real yoke of law; one that has neither customs nor superstitions deeply ingrained, one which stands in no fear of being overwhelmed by sudden invasion; one which, without entering into its neighbours' quarrels, can resist each of them single-handed, or get the help of one to repel another; one in which every member may be known by every other, and there is no need to lay on any man burdens too heavy for a man to bear; one which can do without other peoples, and without which all others can do; one which is neither rich nor poor, but self-sufficient; and, lastly, one which unites the consistency of an ancient people with the docility of a new one. Legislation is made difficult less by what it is necessary to build up than by what has to be destroyed; and what makes success so rare is the impossibility of finding natural simplicity together with social requirements. All these conditions are indeed rarely found united, and therefore few States have good constitutions."

The general will does not appear in the paragraph in question; nor, for that matter, in that particular section. That being said, my treatment of Rousseau's thought was cursory, and deserves fuller treatment. Unfortunately, the hour is late, and a fuller treatment of this subject will have to wait for tomorrow, specifically at some point in the evening.

Thank you very much for your gracious response!