"....as a matter of right, any pact of subjection, any agreement that on man or group of men has a right to command others, is but an acceptance of slavery and its without moral justification; and he was convinced that, as a matter of fact, the power of any particular group within the community is not absolute but rests at least to some extent upon the consent of others groups, and is, therefore, relative, contingent, and transitory"
This is a theory of Rosseu's Social Contract From the Hafner Library of Classics 1947, pgs xxii-xxiii.
The idea is then applied to the fact of nature in which one party does not hold supreme in any country. Even in such a theorist as one who believed that the whole as a whole governed based on the whole, instead of the whole being able to govern based on the individual. I have read Rousseau many times. As it somewhat differs from my opinions which get down to the metaphysics of individuality, literally. Which today we can prove its existence of old theories. However, I like re reading things and going over them as I grow older.
Therefore, I thought I would post this.
The idea that I get from so many scholars and Illumanitus that where banned from Monarchies and dictatorial single party rules. Is the idea that if one party holds supreme and may never be moved out of rule. Then it is itself an enslavement and not a sovereign government. As it is more like a monarchy and feudalistic single party rule than a rule of the people. As people have the right to transition power from one ruler to another. Transitory, to me means transitional, meaning one thing can't rule forever, as that is not for the people.
Sovereignty does not reside in any single group. But all groups acting together through debate, and forensics and checks and balances.
This is a theory of Rosseu's Social Contract From the Hafner Library of Classics 1947, pgs xxii-xxiii.
The idea is then applied to the fact of nature in which one party does not hold supreme in any country. Even in such a theorist as one who believed that the whole as a whole governed based on the whole, instead of the whole being able to govern based on the individual. I have read Rousseau many times. As it somewhat differs from my opinions which get down to the metaphysics of individuality, literally. Which today we can prove its existence of old theories. However, I like re reading things and going over them as I grow older.
Therefore, I thought I would post this.
The idea that I get from so many scholars and Illumanitus that where banned from Monarchies and dictatorial single party rules. Is the idea that if one party holds supreme and may never be moved out of rule. Then it is itself an enslavement and not a sovereign government. As it is more like a monarchy and feudalistic single party rule than a rule of the people. As people have the right to transition power from one ruler to another. Transitory, to me means transitional, meaning one thing can't rule forever, as that is not for the people.
Sovereignty does not reside in any single group. But all groups acting together through debate, and forensics and checks and balances.
No comments:
Post a Comment