Let me quote Rousseau again Unless of course you are saying that the general will is that individual property shouldn't exist, which is a form of government as well.

Or are you saying that I'm mistaken about the equal part? Again, Rousseau writes: So yes, he does say there are two kind of people. Those that can rise to the position of supreme authority, and those that should be excluded from said position.

Rousseau may have been relevant when he published his discourses, but I'm really not sure how relevant he is now. And I may have to read his other discourses as well, just to see if he is self consistent or not.

I cannot belive that someone is actually having a serious debate and quoting Rousseau trying to prove that human rights violations halfway round the world don't invalidate laws elsewhere. Are we going to have thread to discuss the Earth not being flat next?

On the bright side, at least I'm learning more about the philosophies of Rousseau. You can't say that you can expect to find that elsewhere in arguments on the internet.

Rousseau leaves no doubt as to what is paramount, and that is the general will, which is those interests that we have in common, rather than any particular or individual interest. And no, he clearly isn't suggesting that personal property is insignificant or improper.

The significance is this: there is no point in a people supporting and maintaining a society if it is not to their benefit, and it is the general will that ensures that it is, as opposed to self-interest, which does not.

The only question I have re his relevancy are his thoughts re women, which are certainly dated. Otherwise, his writing describes perfectly what is transpiring in our world.

In case you're wondering, he states that the second most important function of gov't is the establishment of virtue, and he is again correct, for there is only one thing that can take the place of it, and that is corruption.

Again, read and understand the first quote I post. Without individual property, there can be no government. If one can simply take an individual's property by force, the government is not working as intended, no matter what the general will is.

Let me give you a few hypotheticals:

1) There is a town (or state, or country, or continent, or whatever size of population you wish) facing starvation. A single individual has stored enough food for said town (or whatever) to survive a few years. Should the government confiscate his property to redistribute to the rest or not? Emphasis on confiscate.

2) While the government is trying to procure food for its citizens, someone breaks into the above individual's stores and steals a few sacks of food. Should the thief be punished or not?

3) The individual with the stored food is a merchant that has borrowed extensively and has amassed said food so he can pay back his loans. If he doesn't give the food to his lenders, he will lose his house, his fields and his fleet, thus dooming him to death. His will is obviously to not give the food to the rest, which is not the general will. Should the government go with the general will and let him to die, or should the government not sacrifice that single person?

Yes, but does he define virtue? He doesn't.
The vikings (with all their looting and plundering) did see themselves as virtuous. Was theirs a good government?
What about the 16th century pirates, was theirs a good government?
What about Ferdinand II of Aragona and Isabella I of Castille, two rulers so pious they wanted nothing but true orthodox religion. Were those good rulers, since they did follow the virtues to the letter?
What about all religious extremists, who also go for the letter of the religious virtues they believe in. Are those part of a good government or not?
And don't forget, Rousseau sees patriotism as the greatest virtue of all. Would love to see he thought of the 20th century.
Yeah, apologies for that, I need a mafia game to argue in. Lacking that, I find other places to argue.

That reference hahah, neat. =)

I never suggested that the state should confiscate personal property. Go back and reread the relevant post. No system of law can be considered legitimate when it is administered for the benefit of those who wield power, thus my statement that Breja would be within his rights to steal from me under certain conditions. Under a properly administered gov't the inequity that we see in our world simply would not exist, because the corruption that facilitates it would not exist.

As for the definition of virtue, it is stated explicitly and unambiguously for all to see -- except you, apparently.

II. The second essential rule of public economy is no less important than the first. If you would have the general will accomplished, bring all the particular wills into conformity with it; in other words, as virtue is nothing more than this conformity of the particular wills with the general will, establish the reign of virtue.

If our politicians were less blinded by their ambition, they would see how impossible it is for any establishment whatever to act in the spirit of its institution, unless it is guided in accordance with the law of duty; they would feel that the greatest support of public authority lies in the hearts of the citizens, and that nothing can take the place of morality in the maintenance of government. It is not only upright men who know how to administer the laws; but at bottom only good men know how to obey them. The man who once gets the better of remorse, will not shrink before punishments which are less severe, and less lasting, and from which there is at least the hope of escaping: whatever precautions are taken, those who only require impunity in order to do wrong will not fail to find means of eluding the law, and avoiding its penalties. In this case, as all particular interests unite against the general interest, which is no longer that of any individual, public vices have a greater effect in enervating the laws than the laws in the repression of such vices: so that the corruption of the people and of their rulers will at length extend to the government, however wise it may be. The worst of all abuses is to pay an apparent obedience to the laws, only in order actually to break them with security. For in this case the best laws soon become the most pernicious; and it would be a hundred times better that they should not exist. In such a situation, it is vain to add edicts to edicts and regulations to regulations. Everything serves only to introduce new abuses, without correcting the old. The more laws are multiplied, the more they are despised, and all the new officials appointed to supervise them are only so many more people to break them, and either to share the plunder with their predecessors, or to plunder apart on their own. The reward of virtue soon becomes that of robbery; the vilest of men rise to the greatest credit; the greater they are the more despicable they become; their infamy appears even in their dignities, and their very honours dishonour them. If they buy the influence of the leaders or the protection of women, it is only that they may sell justice, duty, and the State in their turn: in the meantime, the people, feeling that its vices are not the first cause of its misfortunes, murmurs and complains that all its misfortunes come solely from those whom it pays to protect it from such things.

It is under these circumstances that the voice of duty no longer speaks in men's hearts, and their rulers are obliged to substitute the cry of terror, or the lure of an apparent interest, of which they subsequently trick their creatures. In this situation they are compelled to have recourse to all the petty and despicable shifts which they call rules of State and mysteries of the cabinet. All the vigour that is left in the government is used by its members in ruining and supplanting one another, while the public business is neglected, or is transacted only as personal interest requires and directs. In short, the whole art of those great politicians lies in so mesmerising those they stand in need of, that each may think he is labouring for his own interest in working for theirs: I say theirs on the false supposition that it is the real interest of rulers to annihilate a people in order to make it subject, and to ruin their own property in order to secure their possession of it.

Let's say that the "general will" is that no one (or no group X) should have individual property. For example, no immigrants should have individual property. Should the government follow the general will or should it protect individual property. Simple A or B question.

So the Spanish Inquisition was virtuous, since that was the general will. As were the lynchings in the deep south in the 30s, since that was the general will.
Rousseau doesn't define virtue. He skirts around it. Virtue is what the people want, whether it's killing foreigners, throwing cripples of a cliff, or sacrificing a man to their god every year. And all of those have been done by governments that were listening to the general will, and also from governments that did allow for industry and arts to flourish. Yet I wouldn't call any of those virtuous governments, and neither of them would call any of the others virtuous either.

The only alternative to governing in accordance with the general will is to do so on the basis of self-interest, and such a gov't will never limit itself to doing only what it is authorized to do. What you ask goes to wisdom, and wisdom dictates that if a nation allows immigration, it is beneficial that they prosper, for a society, like a chain, is only as strong as it's weakest link.

Virtue is born of philosophy, not religion. The former has shown itself to be both wise and benevolent; the latter has not. To conflate the two for the sake of argument is IMO disengenuous.

You did not answer my question. If the general will is to ignore individual property, should the government follow the general will and ignore the concept of individual property, or should the government ignore the general will and protect individual property? Simple A or B question, which I'd like answered before continuing the discussion.

Virtue is dictated by morality, not philosophy. The very definition of virtue is "behavior showing high moral standards". In a culture where for the dead to find peace, their bodies must be eaten, a corpse eater would be a virtuous person, while one that would refrain from eating a corpse wouldn't be one. In a culture like ours though, the opposite would be true.
Virtue depends on culture, not philosophy. Rousseau defined virtue as what the general will is, which may be something that will not benefit the people as a whole (kill everyone that isn't us).

P.S. The opposite of virtue is vice, which is "a habitual, repeated practice of wrongdoing". Again, right and wrong are moral indicators, not philosophical ones. Beheading a person may be right in a culture, yet wrong in another one. Someone that habitually and repeatedly beheads people can have either a virtue or a vice, depending on the culture.
P.P.S. If you expect another reply from me, do answer the question in the first paragraph. I do enjoy arguing, but not against brick walls.

In case you haven't figured it out by now, he's not going to. :P

Find me one time he actually answered a question here. He either ignores it, belittles the questioner, sidetracks, or totally changes the subject.

Also notice he still hasn't denied being a teenager.

You just wrote the normal response for either a butt hurt teenager or an A.I who stinks at understanding relatively simple rules of conversations between humans. He asked "Where are the Good old Games". He's still lazy, and touche - nothing is what it once was.

I'm reminded of the little things in life: popcorn and wisdom to observe, and more popcorn. Argumentation is more than residing or copy/paste from other people.

Have anyone read that book about a man that just learned how to argue with rhetoric and simple, but faulty logic at some fancy school, and he ends up coming home to his hometown where he starts to brag and insults everyone...?

Did I not make it perfectly clear that I see no acceptable alternative to governing in accordance with the general will?

My answer, quite obviously, was A, by default: because in practice, there simply is not an acceptable alternative, unless you consider monarchy or despotism to be preferable. But all of this is quite moot, because enlightened governance will only manifest where/when the people themselves are enlightened.

For the love of God, have you never heard of ethics?

Read Aristotle's Nicomachean Ethics, or at the very least read an encyclopedia of philosophy, and *then* tell me that virtue was born of religion.

There's a legitimate point buried in here. I've noticed that the new releases on GoG these days seem to be almost entirely, well, new. It seems like the search for the rights to sell classics has slowed, or maybe even stopped on GoG's part. And it's not like they have all the good ones covered already, either.