Rousseau vs Locke

[stephowe]

@successfulbuild @nintendomanwill pretty intense there guys...

[alyssaxboom]

........lmfao so this did nothing at all to help me study for the final i have in a few hours and now i'll probably bust out laughing everytime i write rousseau's name. xD

[NORTHERNKONFLIKT]

Jeen jackez roso? who in the fuck is that?

it's ZHAHN ZHAHCK ROO-SOH

[Verseaurainbows]

Oh my fucking god...I've never heard such a laughable attempt to say "Jean Jacques Rousseau". I stopped the video there, at about 5 seconds. I refuse to try and become educated by someone who hasn't taken the time to gain further knowledge than the average 10 year old about their chosen subject

[jeremyIfisher]

Locke is not democratic: he argues for consent not self rule. He prescribes the goals of government but not how these goals are to be achived. Rousseau prescirbes the means as well as the goal.

[Viniagrette]

Jean Jacket Rooso?

[M4rsu]

Who made this, a 14 year old?

[BenJMRogers]

LOL at Jean Jacques Rousseau pronunciation fail

[Beaugeek3]

@BenJMRogers hah lol, that is what I also noticed :P

[rchandraonline]

@BenJMRogers , not to mention the "steeling" spelling fail...unless....hmmmmm...coat­ing an apple in steel?

[successfulbuild]

It's obvious Nintendomanwill is a troll who can't read what he claims to "study" and argues at about the level of a two year old. He goes around trolling videos promoting discredited economics, getting owned every single time and embarrassing himself. He tries to sound smart by claiming he has a vast knowledge of economics, even though he's never even taken an economics course.

Troll ignored.

[successfulbuild]

Furthermore, Mises claim that only capitalists are able to "calculate" the value of resources was disproven before he even purposed his theory. And as for logic, basic logic indicates that for any system that can calculate there are infinitely many systems that can calculate equally as well.

John Stuart Mill proved that there is no "right way" to distribute resources. All of Mises economic beliefs have been discredited. He wasn't right on one thing.

[successfulbuild]

As for this nonsense about economics being a "science" - economics is not a science. It is basically a modeling tool. It cannot say what is the freest method, it can only analyze the effects of trade. Mises' method was discarded over 50 years ago and is no longer taken seriously.

His claim that humans act only to replace one state of affairs with a more satisfactory one contradicts what is now known in modern cognitive science, which shows our actions are post-hoc rationalizations of events.

[Nintendomanwill]

Oh by the way, I never said economics was a natural science (I'm an Austrian right?), in fact YOU did when you professed both a knowledge and a belief of neoclassical positivism (which has been disastrous)

Face it, you're babbling crap. Mises' 'method' discarded? Okay, please explain to me the fruits of non-real world analysis like 'how the market operates assuming perfect knowledge' etc. That's Friedmanite. That's useless.

Don't talk crap unless you want to be revealed as a charlatan.

[successfulbuild]

"For freedom is like the solid and hearty foods or the full-bodied wines fit to feed and fortify robust temperaments used to them, but which overwhelm, ruin and intoxicate weak and delicate ones that are not up to them. Once Peoples are accustomed to Masters, they can no longer do without them. If they attempt to shake off the yoke, they move all the farther away from freedom, because they mistake unbridled license for freedom, which is its very opposite." --Rousseau.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Aren't you a charming believer in freedom. How dare you Collectivists call yourselves 'liberal,' when you hate laissez-faire and believe in the freedom gained by coercion to allow oneself not to adjust to the activities of others in what we call, society. Indeed, your cognition of what society is, is hilariously feeble. As is your purported economic knowledge, do you think anybody takes seriously your ignorant bullshit about von Mises whose works you haven't even read?

[successfulbuild]

"I should have wished, then, that no one inside the State could have declared himself to be above the law, and No one outside it could have imposed any [law] which the State was obliged to recognize. For, regardless of how a government is constituted, if there is a single person in it who is not subject to the law, all others are necessarily at his discretion..." -- Rousseau.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

"Now this is my final comment: society evolves from slavery PRECISELY because property-rights and the productivity of individual agency and freedom from coercion, weans society from statism by natural selection-thus capitalism beats mercantilism."

There is more profundity in that statement of mine than your nonsense espousing subjugation and forced homogenisation, which if you were an economist, you would know causes WAR.

& BTW you think we can do without prices, you idiot?

[successfulbuild]

Slavery is based on property rights. Basically you advocate another form of slavery for society where people are slaves to land owners who get their power through governmental laws and powers. Rousseau was right to criticize any ideology that takes away resources and puts them into few hands.

[Nintendomanwill]

No you complete ignoramus, property rights disallows slavery because it's too unproductive to be sustainable unless thieves fund it-you don't pay companies the high prices for slave-produced goods unless you've already paid in tax and don't realise how high the price is. Otherwise the competitors' price will be FAR lower-it is but subsidies don't give you a choice, they make you pay already so you might as well adhere to the market price for slave-derived goods. Learn economics b4 talking crap!

[successfulbuild]

"I should have wished to be born in a country where the Sovereign and the people could have had only one and the same intrest, so that all motions of the machien might always tend only to the common happiness; since this is impossible unless the People and the Sovereign are teh same person, it follows that I should have wished to be born under a democratic government wisely tempered." --Rousseau

[Nintendomanwill]

That's the final straw, you really are an ignorant little shit aren't you? The very basic element of economics are the ties between people in the diachronically heterogenising division of labour, which expand man's utility to other men the more specificity and uniqueness each individual has in his mutually-adjusted occupation. These ties therefore strengthen the more heterogeneous society becomes: this enables extending division of labour, broadness correlating directly to INDIVIDUAL wealth.

[successfulbuild]

"If I had had to choose my place of birth, I should have chosen a society of a size confined to the range of human faculties, that is to say to the possibility of being well governed, and where, everyone being equal to his task, no one would have been compelled to commit to others the functions with which he was himself entrusted..."

[successfulbuild]

It's obvious that "Nintendo Power" here not only lied about Rousseau, but he hasn't even read John Locke, nor does he understand the implications of Locke's Provisio.

It's obvious he's lying when he claims to be a "student of history and philosophy and economics," as he has not the intelligent to study any of the three.

[successfulbuild]

The vast majority of economists here in America identify themselves as progressives, which is not "libertarian-capitalist," who only make up less than 10% of economists in the US.

But I mainly study political science (on my free time, I'm in engineering).

That said, I felt you badly misrepresented Rousseau, whose views were diverse and complex, and rebuffed you on it.

The idea that Misean economists are even taken seriously here is laughable.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

What ignorant people don't realise is that if there is no private property then there must be conflict over the disposition of property. Societal collusion is BASED on the individual agency, which forms any sort of Hive Mind, on propriety, which facilitates contractual exchange, therefore the division of labour, therefore incentives and economic calculation which are so important to the common weal that even serfs were allowed some property, so as to allow the Lords to eat.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Yeah, well successfulbuild is a computer programmer who knows precisely jack shit about economics. For that alone, I have infinitely more authority than you when discussing politics and philosophy and especially history.

And as an American you should know that the noun is 'intelligence,' not 'intelligent' which is an adjective.

You're an absolute fool if you think Rousseau was truly enlightened, the man was a statist who would have equality over liberty.

[successfulbuild]

Not only do you misrepresent Rousseau, you even represent John Locke right, who you've supposedly read. Locke himself expected the government to protect private property, namely that you own what you create and extend upon, but he didn't apply that universally to land. Locke falls short because he doesn't understand that even what we create with our hands depends upon the shared knowledge/resources of everybody.

But he was a social capitalist, not a Libertarian fascist.

[successfulbuild]

*You even misrepresent John Locke

[Nintendomanwill]

I think your philosophical bankruptcy is evident when you talk about 'social capitalism' etc. Capitalism was a smearword used to refer to the order of exchange of private property as before the socialisation of production under Proletarian revolution, such being Marxist theory. In actuality it is useful as a concept referring to that productive order of proprietary exchange. You obfuscate this with statist theft which is not nearly so destructive as the utter theft and destruction of communism.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Again, for somebody who is completely illiterate in economics to discuss these issues of morality and the wealth of mankind, is retarded and frankly quite disgustingly arrogant. People like you need to learn before posting BS.

[successfulbuild]

Lol. You've never even taken an economic course. Mises' methodology is rightly ignored by every single economics department in the US. Even the University of Chicago doesn't teach Mises' economics and Milton Friedman said that the Misean methodology was "flawed."

Of course, people who are concerned about science value actual data and evidence, and peer-review, and not mythical axioms that Mises couldn't even show existed.

[Nintendomanwill]

Give me one of these 'mythical axioms.'

End of, you can't, because you don't understand the praxeological, i.e. correct, method of formulating economic science.

[successfulbuild]

Even here in America, for example, property has been ruled by the supreme court to be a PERSONAL RIGHT, that is to say, property rights are inherent to liberty and freedom.

But that is 180 degrees different than saying all rights are property rights like the tyrant and pseudo-intellectual Ludwig von Mises beleived, which would justify slavery.

[OnlinePhilosophy]

It is pronounced "Jon Jack Rousseau"

[Nintendomanwill]

So chill out with the criticism (I get it all the time; 'HOW DARE YOU CRITICISE ROUSSEAU, YOU IGNORANT WHELP!') because Rousseau really was a Collectivist and therefore misunderstood how society worked, and I therefore feel that without slamming Rousseau I cannot boldly claim: the naturally, spontaneously arising order that is among other things, not equitable for mankind, is the most productive and the best for all and the only way for society to rapidly create new capital ie to advance.

[successfulbuild]

The only collectivism here is your own advocacy of extreme private tyranny. You advocate a society of corporations and businesses that govern the country, which are collectivist institutions protected by the law and which the people cannot influence as directly as they could a citizens' council.

Rousseau favored natural inequality, not collectivism, whereas Locke said nothing of the matter and favored slavery. You are an idiot.

[Nintendomanwill]

So the point of all that is to irrefutably prove that the phenomenon of society does not originate in forceful ordering of society from divine intellects like Rousseau, Obama or Stalin. There is a spontaneous order and it is protected if the law adheres to the morality that arises from man's social impulse in turn arisen from man's self-interest, and that is respect of rights, of property rights.

Rousseau, believing that society is made by philosopher kings, has no such respect for humanity.

[Nintendomanwill]

And the reason why is because he saw that man is unequal yet does not revolt and said-society must be corrupt and therefore must be destroyed and built afresh. He was Marxist, despotic, evil.

Locke and any sane individualist human being knows that history and economics shows why people subscribed to the order of inequality, because their self interest led them to, and furthermore, this was not evil and people weren't suffering from some imposition, it was inevitable, natural and helpful.

[Nintendomanwill]

And because Marx did not agree with that last point I made he had to discredit natural liberty by saying that society is imposed by ruling classes and that is why inequality exists, it is exploitative. He couldn't see, along with Rousseau, that society formed by individuals seeking profit is profitable to society, inequality is profitable

So economists have a VERY sound epistemological basis to saythat tampering with the economy to make us equal will make us ALL poorer, such theory makes sense.

[Nintendomanwill]

And it is also therefore absolutely no surprise that as well as condescending laissez faire liberty as allowing the exploiters to exploit, the school of Rousseau and Marx advocate nihilistic destruction of the unequal order, anyone who cannot see that sequitur from their shared miscomprehension of social order, has no logical or critical faculties.

BTW read the work of Ludwig Von Mises, it's a good way of getting a rational and objective but healthily biased love for liberty!

[successfulbuild]

Ludwig von Mises is a discredited economist who believed in a series of pathetic axioms that he couldn't give evidence for. He made outdated theories even for his time, since it's well known communities can determine how to distribute goods without 'prices.'

He was wrong on his belief, like Locke was wrong on Primary and Secondary equalities, the blank slate of the mind, and private property being a foundation for freedom.

[Nintendomanwill]

If you don't think that private property is society, is the origin of social and economic advance and is the cause of the morality of adhering to the division of labour for greater productivity and therefore human freedom, then you are simply an ignoramus.

This is a forum for intelligent and reasoned debate but you appear a little out of your depth if you believe in Collectivism, and since you are clearly ignorant of economics you should educate yourself before posting your Marxist trash.

[successfulbuild]

Property rights have nothing to do with ideas and science. Property rights have changed vastly over the centuries and yet progress has continued. Science made its greatest advancements when there were democracies, and public funded institutions. It slowed down where few people owned property like feudal lords, monarchs, the church, and so on.

Private property has to be restricted in order for humanity to prosper.

[Nintendomanwill]

This is why the triangle of liberty is private property, exchange of that property which forms society, and thirdly, economic calculation arising from the pricing of that exchange within what becomes a division of labour.

Since we are only wealthy through co-operation in the division of labour, there exists both a harmony of interests and a tendency for people to subscribe to respect for private property. Those who don't must be punished and that would be Mr Rousseau, Mr Marx...scum, evil scum

[successfulbuild]

Private property leads to tyranny if too few people own it. That's why John Locke believed that God gave the earth in common to all men, and Locke's proviso would indicate if people are not using property it should be taken away.

The idea of private property without checks and balances leads to despotism, such as Hitler, Stalin, and other PRIVATE dictators, who are not at all influenced by the public.

[Nintendomanwill]

But this "Private property leads to tyranny if too few people own it" does not validate coercion, and contract does not lead to 'too few people' owning everything, that's what happens under Marxism when the 'public' (the state) own all production goods and don't allow exchange of them.

You are a moron because you comment on these complex philosophical issues without understanding economics at all. Social contract theory is fallacious: society is based on social bonds not submission to authority

[successfulbuild]

lol. You're the moron who is promoting a discredited philosopher like von MIses who attempted to apply logicism to human nature and claimed all human nature can be reduced to a series of axioms.

You can't even get many basic mathematical theorems down to A = A, so how are you going to show that human nature is a matter of axioms.

[Nintendomanwill]

Talking about discredited philosophers, have you actually read the works of Marx, Fourier, Rousseau and for a modern idiot, Chomsky?

Chomksy especially shows appalling ignorance, he effectively invents economic history to promote socialist lies.

Now this is my final comment: society evolves from slavery PRECISELY because property-rights and the productivity of individual agency and freedom from coercion, weans society from statism by natural selection-thus capitalism beats mercantilism.

[successfulbuild]

Lol. Chomsky has contributed enormously to the philospohies, as has Locke and Rousseau.

He also created some mathematicial foundations that are too advanced for you to understand for applying to linguistics.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

You are obsessed with Mathematics (nice try at spelling "mathematics" you erudite scholar you) and you think that gives you knowledge of how human society works? How about no. How about you stop posting absolute NONSENSE about Chomsky, who, to any intelligent person, discredits HIMSELF. Linguistics has nothing to do with economics: Chomsky knows NOTHING about economics, he is a 'libertarian' socialist and therefore an idiot, well done at posting BS on this page.

[successfulbuild]

Linguistics is a valuable insight into the human mind. How humans speak and communicate is related to the innate structures of the mind. Linguistics - not economics, especially of the Mises pseudo-scientific variety - gives us more insight into the human mind. Linguistics has a lot to do with politics as politics includes the study of language and propaganda.

[Nintendomanwill]

Obviously you're a dyslexic idiot who can't read. I never said linguistics isn't valuable. I said that your criticisms of economics, from someone who literally knows diddly squat about it, would be like if I criticised Chomsky's linguistics which I know nothing about-it would be arrogant, pathetic, and if you know linguistics you would refute everything I say, as I now do to you on your amusing conceptions of economic 'fact.'

BTW Friedman would have melted within five seconds if arguing wit LvM

[successfulbuild]

You haven't provided one "proof" of your beliefs from economics. You lied about being a history major and obviously have never taken an economics course either. If he you did you'd be familiar with the stuff I'm referring to, and you'd know that the use of economics is a modeling tool.

It is a social science, not a hard science as you claim, and praxeology is a pseudo-science.

[Nintendomanwill]

And what is all this bullshit about that to which you are referring?

Please reiterate any insights you have to give me. I don't recall seeing anything other than "LMAO you believe in guesswork economics HAHA, neoclassical epistemology is so sound and Mises has been refuted (what theories? By whom? STOP SPEAKING BS!) and u LIED ZOMG about being a history 'Major' (WTF?) and Smith wanted 100% 'co-operation' WITHOUT division of labour (Fool! Smith practically invented analysis of spontaneous order)

[successfulbuild]

Property is not the basis of freedom, and all rights are not property rights.

Productivity comes from cooperation, sharing of resources and knowledge, and so on, not limiting them, and history has proven his over and over again.

Half of all the research here in "America" has been funded by the federal government, and you want the government to protect property in the first place, except you want a slave owning class without representation for when oppressive property occrus.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

In other words, morality, which is based on recognition of what works for society, has teeth, called productivity, to wean man from unproductive responses, to FAULTY cognition of external reality. Reason and GOOD morality are linked, so sucks to be a socialist when reason tells us that property arises as the enabler of societal co-operation and wealth creation.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

Why do you talk about these complex economic issues as if it's to do with research funded in the fucking Western Hemisphere, we're talking about age-old wisdom here, i.e. sure you can buy whips and chains for your serfs but the more competition there is and the more productivity you want, the more will even the slavedriver be induced (if government does not protect him from the consequences of his actions with subsidies) to allow freedom, for propriety allows ALL to benefit.

[Nintendomanwill]

I have to say your knowledge of von Mises work is apparently bloody scanty if you think that he asserts any knowledge of precisely how humans act: a priorism is about taking self-evident axioms and seeing how that affects their action: building economic theory on acting man seems inherently logical to anyone who engages with economic theory.

Also

Rousseau's comments that show his belief in limiting government and hindering its power to harm society, redeem him but you espouse his Collectivism.

[Nintendomanwill]

You are a Marxist ideologue and I think it is therefore fair to say, not a true American. There is no 'tyranny' of private-property, but there is the tyranny of government.

You are just one of those typical socialist windbags who thinks that "robber barons" were destructive and that the state makes everything good-has it never occurred to you that all the problems that arise in an economy do so because of mass fraud and endemic violation of contract, from government? You are no philosopher.

[successfulbuild]

Lol.

Of course I'm a true American. Americans have ALWAYS restricted private property and even Thomas Jefferson favored it, and he also favored majority rule.

We had a huge progressive movement that enacted massive regulation and restrictions on corporations, which was adviced by political scientists AND economsits, and still is to this day.

This is a political science question: What is self-rule, and it gives the right to enact restrictions on property.

[Nintendomanwill]

And to wrap this up, Marx would not agree with social democracy-having some merit in logic, Marx knew that to force massive re-appropriation of income from market exchange is self-defeating as it would destroy the wealth creating order of property-rights; which is correct, and in his mind he considered harming the free-market as harming the progress to Communism that would best come from letting Expropriation monopolise all production in the hands of the Exploiting Class. Redistribution destroys

[successfulbuild]

Furthermore, Rousseau made it clear that the law should be "common to all citizens," that "no person should be above the law" and where the interests of the state and the people is one and the same.

This is the basis for self-government, where a community is free to rule themselves, and freedom.  The founding fathers of America often took as much from Rousseau as from Locke, which is why we don't have a tyranny of private property.

[Nintendomanwill]

You are a Marxist ideologue and I think it is therefore fair to say, not a true America. There is no 'tyranny' of private-property, but there is the tyranny of government.

You are merely a typical socialist windbag who thinks that 'robber barons' were pantomine villains and that coercion increases wealth. Has it never occurred to you that all the problems that arise in an economy do so because of mass-fraud from central banking and govt destruction of contractual society? You are no philosopher

[Nintendomanwill]

The reason we claim it is immoral to steal is because society is more productive if it refrains from stealing and murder and pertains to productivity ie subscribing to the division of labour-that is why our social impulse and self-interest are largely harmonious (and becomes more so the more extensive the division of labour gets) and that is why force is only legitimate if it is NOT initiated but protects the citizen/his property, from force and fraud, so CONTRACT winning over COERCION=society.

[Nintendomanwill]

Rousseau was an idiot, he was an egalitarian and his philosophy is to blame for a lot of turmoil thanks to Collectivism which means tyranny. He didn't realise that the Collective is based on the masses of individuals. He was stupid enough to think that society functions by entrusting force to those wise enough to run it, he knew nothing of economics and how man cooperates in the division of labour which is the foundation of society. Rousseau was a would-be tyrant, advocating unlimited government

[successfulbuild]

You're a complete dumbass. In his epistle dedicatory to the academy, Rousseau advocated a republic where no one individual would be allowed to govern law, where there is a system of checks and balances, where there is law based upon historical precedent and not flippant judgment of men of ill-repute, where the people influence the government, and an even a division among powers, which many historians believe influence the American revolution as well.

[Nintendomanwill]

Furthermore, your failure to diagnose between capitalism, the theoretical apogee of individual freedom gained through the mutual-adjustment within the division of labour, profitable to the individual and responsible for all his wealth, which causes peace between men, you confuse this with some notion of expropriation, which shows that you have never really considered how civilisation works, nor what is the difference between contractual society and coercion: the former is productive and taming.

[Nintendomanwill]

@successfulbuild

This is what I make of your criticism of von Mises and his never-refuted (or only in minor points) corpus of economic theory:

It would be as if I criticised Noam Chomsky's linguistic theories. Let that sink in for a minute.

It would be as if I, someone who is more or less entirely ignorant of linguistics, were to claim that Chomsky is a poor linguist, even though he is held to be a linguist of the first order by those who do know linguistics and even though I do NOT know Ling.

[successfulbuild]

LOl. The rantings and ravings of a lunatic. Your claim that the "division of labor" is the basis of progress is pathetic. You refer to period of economic history of laissez-faire capitalism in the United States that never even existed. America's fastest period of growth was during protectionism, whereas free-markets and deregulation led to the GD and to a huge recession during the Reagan years. We are still suffering from Reagan's policies and corporate slavism.

[Nintendomanwill]

Nice comprehension of American history, it seems you are well aware of who is 'pseudo intellectual' given that you don't even know the history of your own country. Reagan WAS a protectionist to a very great degree and I don't know why I need to say this to someone who thinks he is judge and jury on every last thing of which he is utterly ignorant, but 'America's fastest growth' was in the laissez-faire period preceding the 'progressive era.' LEARN. Stop bullshitting.

[successfulbuild]

The division of labor further leads to a consolidation of resources and wasted talent. Businessmen are not even the people who invent in society and yet get to reap the benefits of their workers, who then become further impoverished, decreasing their ability to invent. Capitalism leads to a stifling of creativity and talent whereas workers controlling their own resources leads to an abundance of ideas and progress. That's why most scientists work in the govt sector or Universities...

[successfulbuild]

...where the division of labor doesn't exist. Classical liberals like de Touchville, Smith, Rousseau, etc. rightly condemned the division of labor, and others like von Humboldt and John Stuart Mill despised the worker manager relationship.

Nintendoman, in all his crazy rantings and ravings never provides a shred of evidence that corporate slavery has ever led to any progress.

[Nintendomanwill]

Yeah, you don't know economics at all you complete and utter charlatan! Seriously, what I said about Chomsky is completely right, it would be as if I started talking bullcrap about his linguistic theories, you don't know shite about economics. You are an utter ignoramus! The division of labour isn't the basis of progress? Oh right, okay you better make all your food and water yourself tomorrow, good luck with your computer toys when you're starving, you utter fool! Smith 'condemned' DoL HA-idiot

[successfulbuild]

He did. Smith condemned the division of labor in Book IV of the wealth of nations. He advocated society existing on the conditions of perfect equality and preferred regulated markets to get us there. They were meant to be a means, not an end.

He also supported progressive taxation and favored worker control of factories.

[successfulbuild]

lol. Nintendomanwill doesn't even understand economics and doesn't even understand pre-Algebra. Economics is basically a modeling tool. As for economic history, everything I said is true.

When the Chicago school of economics set up "laissez-faire" experiments in Latin America, it was a disaster and at least 6 million people starved to death or died due to lack of basic health care. This also led to socialist revolutions. They are only now recovering from their experiments with free-markets

[successfulbuild]

Amartya Sen also notes that landlords and unequal distribution of property in India caused more deaths than the Great Chinese Famine.  That's 50 million people who've died due to Nintendoman's pathetic "beliefs," which is why he cannot back up what he says.

Basically, if there is going to be private property, the landlord must pay a rent for using his property at the exclusion of everybody else, and, preferably, he must show that he is being efficient. Most economists agree with this.

[Nintendomanwill]

No he didn't, as I believe I have told you before, as was his way of writing, he mused on whether the tendency of the division of labour to elevate man's income by reducing his scope of productivity would harm his intellectual development. Of course he didn't 'condemn' the division of labour you utter, utter blatherer, the reason he could write his tracts was because labour was divided so as to increase man's prosperity, this is basic economics, you are embarrassing yourself.

[successfulbuild]

Lol. It's obvious you haven't read Smith. He was NOT a capitalist and he did not support unlimited private property rights.

He said that the division of labor makes men stupider and stupider. He said that the most ignorant man is one who has been put through the DoL, and this is harmful to society because then men never recognize their true talent.

He also expected society to work under certain moral laws and regulations as well as outlined in his other works.

[Nintendomanwill]

Are you thick or something? YOU Obviously haven't read Smith if you think he condemned the division of labour, in other words, the ECONOMY. You absolutely arrogant fool.

I never said I was a history Major because I'm not, I'm a history undergrad and I know more of these issues than you ever will, judging by your ability to grasp the fundamentals of economics. Smith described how wealth develops. He was not perfect. But he did shatter your myths about govt omnipotence. Now sodoff and READ Smith!

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

Gene Jockez lol.....

[j1mmusj4mmus]

Is this the same rousseau who talked of the rural idyll and the noble savage he seems much more civilised in your version

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

Rousseau is often misinterpreted as talking about the noble savage, but he never did. Rousseau suggested that in state of nature man exhibited a form of self-love that was authentic, whereas most socities tend to corrupt people towards being other dependent and exhibiting what he call the amour-propre. For Rousseau there is nothing noble about these beings in the state of nature, but they do exhibit a certain healthy form of self-love.

[smigersh]

thank you SO MUCH FOR THIS VIDEO it helped me SO. MUCH. like unbelievably. it cleared up so many ideas. THANK YOU

[0bof5]

this is definitely an incorrect video. john locke seems to be summarized well but rousseau's statements have been taken out context.

for example: he judges (direct) democracy from the perspective of his cite, in which the democracy fullfils the role of the weak government next to the powerful souverain.

also, the generall will is not just the sum of the peoples wills but rather of a metaphysical nature

[Guiseppe107]

ENGLAND (Locke) Vs FRANCE (Rosseau)

Having read text and researched views of scholars who have delved deep into the influence of these two men, many of whom argued against Rosseau whilst commending Locke's legacy, there is no doubt Locke has far greater influence.. his emphasis on personal liberty and the Rights of Property for one.

Result??? ENGLAND WINS

[gipcambero]

LOL Rousseau is swiss. In return Montesquieu and Voltaire were french so it's nonsense to say "England Wins"

[shaneho78]

good video. however the general will is not merely the sum of the wills of the people. It is rather the will of the people if they were acting as a single organism, which is ambiguous to say the least.

[lvdanse2]

as you said the "single organism" concept is ambiguous. Secondary sources suggested that Rousseau saw this as a sum of the parts

[Nintendomanwill]

And as society advances, the state must recede for society is organic therefore spontaneous...by it's very nature it is therefore individualist, submission to the social contract means integrating within the division of labour, not giving a tyrant powers based on some mythical non-human general will.

If you understand economics and Locke surely did, you understand the true idiocy of Rousseau. Morality comes from society, man is god, we don't steal because it reduces productivity: Rousseau fails

[StatusDelirious]

Jean Jacques. It's pronounced Jaun - Jauk. Not Gene Jak-es.

[LikeAGlassAsterisk]

I know. I just about rolled on the floor laughing at that pronunciation.

[asianguy8880]

huh...

i thought this was about the tv show LOST

[funincluded]

I've never watched that show, but I know a lot of the characters have the names of philosophers

[ItsABeautifulMorning]

THANKS A LOT!!!! Very Informative!

[TonyLearner]

By way of of polite suggestion ... slow down on the narration ... add pauses ... speak less with monotone and more with emotion and rise and fall of your voice ... in this way you will avoid sounding like a machine, flat and boring, and bring out the beauty of that lovely clear voice you possess ... just a tip, not intended to be critical so much as helpful. Yes, I enjoyed the video. Thank you.

[randy7845]

nice video

[olympusorbust]

good video keep it up

[vstyle456]

thanks! great job.

[flexicon1996]

"JEEN"

[anibaba10]

Good review for my final! Thanks.

[broj8s8n79]

Awesome, thanks for the post!

[juspat2]

good job! i hope that this assists young viewers in understanding different theories of democracy

[Kaaru]

Cool vid. I'm taking a political theory course this semester and it was very helpful and interesting to see this work of yours.