|
The Leader of the Democrats
Now let us examine Rousseau on this
subject. This writer on public affairs is the supreme authority
of the democrats. And although he bases the social structure upon
the will of the people, he has, to a greater extent than anyone
else, completely accepted the theory of the total inertness of
mankind in the presence of the legislators: "If it is true
that a great prince is rare, then is it not true that a great
legislator is even more rare? The prince has only to follow the
pattern that the legislator creates. The legislator is the
mechanic who invents the machine; the prince is merely the
workman who sets it in motion. And what part do persons play in
all this? They are merely the machine that is set in motion. In
fact, are they not merely considered to be the raw material of
which the machine is made?"
Thus the same relationship exists
between the legislator and the prince as exists between the
agricultural expert and the farmer; and the relationship between
the prince and his subjects is the same as that between the
farmer and his land. How high above mankind, then, has this
writer on public affairs been placed? Rousseau rules over
legislators themselves, and teaches them their trade in these
imperious terms:
"Would you give stability to
the state? Then bring the extremes as closely together as
possible. Tolerate neither wealthy persons nor beggars.
If the soil is poor or barren, or
the country too small for its inhabitants, then turn to industry
and arts, and trade these products for the foods that you
need.... On a fertile soil—if you are short of
inhabitants—devote all your attention to agriculture,
because this multiplies people; banish the arts, because they
only serve to depopulate the nation....
If you have extensive and
accessible coast lines, then cover the sea with merchant ships;
you will have a brilliant but short existence. If your seas wash
only inaccessible cliffs, let the people be barbarous and eat
fish; they will live more quietly— perhaps better—and,
most certainly, they will live more happily. In short, and in
addition to the maxims that are common to all, every people has
its own particular circumstances. And this fact in itself will
cause legislation appropriate to the circumstances." This is
the reason why the Hebrews formerly—and, more recently, the
Arabs—had religion as their principle objective. The
objective of the Athenians was literature; of Carthage and Tyre,
commerce; of Rhodes, naval affairs; of Sparta, war; and of Rome,
virtue. The author of The Spirit of Laws has shown by what art
the legislator should direct his institutions toward each of
these objectives.... But suppose that the legislator mistakes his
proper objective, and acts on a principle different from that
indicated by the nature of things? Suppose that the selected
principle sometimes creates slavery, and sometimes liberty;
sometimes wealth, and sometimes population; sometimes peace, and
sometimes conquest? This confusion of objective will slowly
enfeeble the law and impair the constitution. The state will be
subjected to ceaseless agitations until it is destroyed or
changed, and invincible nature regains her empire.
But if nature is sufficiently
invincible to regain its empire, why does not Rousseau admit that
it did not need the legislator to gain it in the first place? Why
does he not see that men, by obeying their own instincts, would
turn to farming on fertile soil, and to commerce on an extensive
and easily accessible coast, without the interference of a
Lycurgus or a Solon or a Rousseau who might easily be mistaken.
Clark Simmons, Webmaster
Copyright© 2000, The XLData Net |
Back
Return To: