Westerns Books

Sure, he goes overboard from time to time in linking his critiques to travesties to which they were not directly connected. Still, several chapters in this text serve well as introductions to how social sciences have donned the mask of objectivity and presented their findings as hard science when their conclusions were already guaranteed by their methodologies.

This is the best book I have read reviewing the source of the atheist momentum that recently has resulted in a rash of atheistic books on the market. This book traces the source of thinking over the past, leading up to why atheist want to rule God out of our thinking. This book will give any Christian the reason why their faith is important to the world-at-large, and give you the impetus to tell the story that relates the most to the reality of what has happen in the world to date. The assumptions and philosophy of atheists just do not hold water under the microscope of true logical thought. The questions of who we are and why we are here are not answered properly, unless you assume a creator God as a cause.

If Dr. Wiker had included "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion", an
anti-semitic publication which was Hitler's favorite book, I would have given Dr. Wiker top marks for his interesting book.
The "Protocols", still popular in the Arab world, has led to many, many deaths and a vast array of anti-semitism. It is one of the most dangerous books around.

Bear in mind the author Benjamin Wiker has taught at Marquette University, St. Mary's University (MN), and Thomas Aquinas College (CA), and Franciscan University of Steubenville. And he is a Fellow or member of the Discovery Institute a Christian U.S. think tank based in Seattle, Washington, best known for its advocacy of intelligent design, or NON evolutionary science. Knowing this helps you better understand where he is coming from which is strictly a very conservative Catholic/Christian mindset.

Machiavelli's The Prince in my opinion is a great book if for no other reason than it shows how some leaders will use any means to get what they want. As in the end justifies the means. Something people should think about when it comes to President Bush and his Iraq war.

And I wonder how many of those who gave the book 5 stars, use birth control. I ask because it was the work of Margaret Sanger that made family planning legal. Every conservative I know has less than three children because they use birth control.

I agree with Timothy Haughs review where he notes 'I could care less that Nietzsche was clinically insane. So was Van Gogh and he produced timeless art'. And look at Reagan who is considered by many to have been a great leader whom we now know had the beginning stages of Alzheimer's while President. Also remember that Nietzsche wasn't much different from many men of his era. We simply know from writings that his venereal disease caused mental health decline.


Some would even say that the Bible has screwed up more of the world, simply because of how humans like church leaders have used it to keep blacks in slavery,and women and children as second class citizens, while making greed good as long as you were white and male. Read Marilyn Yalom's book History of the Wife. But the Bible isn't on the authors list.

And how is what the few who have used the Bible to control the majority different from the authors suggestion that Darwin's The Descent of Man proves he intended "survival of the fittest" to be applied to human society? Havent the few white men of the past and some here now in the present, proven that they believe they are the fittest or best and thus should rule the rest of us?

Or what about the authors belief that Hobbes' work Leviathan led to the belief that we have a "right" to whatever we want, since this is what the few in power have always believed be they Popes or Presidents. Basic human nature would suggest that the human animal wants what he wants when he wants it. And that those in power always want to control the masses. One need only look at any ad that pushes the idea that we not only have a right to everything, but we are fools if we don't. And again this is from a capitalistic Christian mindset.

The question I have as an avid bibliophile is how many people do you know who have even read any of the books he listed? Heck how many of these have you read? If none then that suggests the author is wrong when he suggests they rule our world.

1) The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

2) Utilitarianism by John Stuart Mill

3) The Descent of Man by Charles Darwin

4) Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

5) State and Revolution by Vladmir Illich Lenin

6) The Pivot of Civilization by Margaret Sanger

7) Mein Kampf, Volume 1 & 2 by Adolf Hitler

8) The Future of an Illusion by Sigmund Freud

9) Coming of Age in Samoa by Margaret Mead

10) Sexual Behaviour in the Human Male by Alfred Kinsey

Honorable Mentions:

1) The Prince by Nicolo Machiavelli

2) Discourse on Method by Rene Descartes

3) Levithan by Thomas Hobbes

4) Discourse on the Origin and Foundations of Inequality Between Men by Jean-Jacques Rousseau

5) The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan

The author makes a valid point, in that the best way to respond to books containing "dangerous" ideas is to read them, study, them, know them backwards and forwards. So go read them, and give this peice of right-wing propaganda a miss.

The author is obviously well educated, but like the authors he criticises, he shapes his arguments to fit his pre-established views (biblical ideology in his case) instead of evaluating the arguments of others on their merits.

I will give you one small example. Darwin's "Descent of man". Infected with victorian era notions of race it may be, but the fundamental concept, that by protecting the weak, we risk weakening the species, is clearly, inarguably, un-flinchingly true (Your reviewer is a perfect example, I could not possibly fend for myself in the wild without corrective eye-ware).

However, the author does not want to accept this truth--indeed assumes his audience to see it as absurd, so he attempts to use it to refute Darwin's broader contribution to the world (bringing a realistic view of ecologic change into the light) and to equate Darwin with Hitler and Stalin. It is quite true that both these men fashioned them selves "social darwinists", but the truth is, they were evil not because they promoted eugenics, but because they used the cause of eugenics as a tool of political evil.

I doubt very seriously that many people would argue against preventing sociopathic killers from breeding in large numbers (if sociopathy were known to have a clear genetic root). And it doesn't take a genius to see that a more "fit" nation (either physically fit, or technologically or economically fit, although eventually these become interrelated) can destroy a less fit nation. The problem with Hitler is not that he wanted to "improve the race" but that he wanted to decide what constitutes fitness, and make the decision hinge on absurdities like religious affiliation or ethnic origin.

We humans are eventually going to be forced to confront our own evolution. Darwin was, in fact, correct. But sadly for Darwin, things are not as simple as Victorian's thought. The genes that helped us survive the ice age now make us fat, the left handeness that got some of us persecuted in the past may (for all we know) yet be our salvation in some unforeseeable way. And the "negros" and caucasians and "australians" far from representing a scale of fitness or primitiveness, are in fact each the most fit for their local environment (cheifly with regard to the directess of sunlight at different latitudes).

But the author ignores the reality of this, and merely casts his villians in simple form. Hitler was evil, so Darwin's ideas are evil. Yet, the ideas in the Cristian Bible have caused more horror and suffering than the third rieche ever could. It was defence of the Bible, after all, that gave us both cruesades and the dark ages, and while one can argu that we heathen atheistic modern folk make ourselves miserable in our pursuit of material gain, we most certainly are not as miserable as the rank and file who lived under the thumb of the church during the biggest chunk of recorded history.

So I say, ignore this book until the decides to play fairly and include the Bible on his hit list. Forget this little book and go read the ten he denegrates. Some of them are truely inspired by evil, if anything can be said to embody evil, but reading them and debating them with the fair and open-minded will do far more to improve the world and our lot in it than the smug, right-wing anti-intellectualism indulged in by this author.

A nice intro, but as noted by another reviewer, very short shrift given to other schools of economic thought. A recommended reading list gives plenty of well-respected conservative writers, with Milton Friedman topping the list, but only Paul Krugman appears representing other thoughts, and he's singled out as a "liberal economist". I think there are somewhat more honest introductions to the subject.

The book attempts to teach a reasonable mainstream core of macroeconomics and its basic models. The writing style is very good. For those who are looking for a broad discussion of policy issues, this may not be the book for them. However, the book is intended for first year college economics students and the need for them to understand a few consensus macroeconomic concepts and models so that they can apply those models and concepts to policy issues after they leave the course. A good example of putting the cart before the horse is the comment by a reviewer who thought the book had a liberal bent. Of course, we all now know that N. Gregory Mankiw is the head of President Bush's Council of Economic Advisers (not exactly a recommendation for becoming a card carrying liberal). And that's the danger of reviewing introductory economics textbooks on the basis of an illusory political intent. The books most often ought to be rated on their objective--presenting a few models and techiniques to the student who will most often not take another formal economics course. Don't dismiss the book because it isn't steeped in political pronouncements. Check it out for technical useability and its writing clarity. You might like it.

This very readable book is a subset of the chapters included in Prof. Mankiw's "Principles of Economics". That book has thirty-six chapters in thirteen parts. This has eighteen chapters in eight parts. Parts one and two are common to both editions. This one excludes the discussion of microeconomics in parts three through seven, but has the rest of the chapters in parts eight through fifteen.

It is much more manageable for a one term introductory course in macroeconomics. However, do not confuse this introductory text with the more mathematically rigorous book Macroeconomics that is also authored by Mankiw. However, if you want to be an econometrician, neither text is probably enough to get you where you need to be to launch into those studies.

This book has a lot of strengths for those who want to develop some intuitions about economic thought and who may not have the mathematics necessary for a more rigorous treatment of the subject. However, the foundation it will give you will be sound and ecumenical enough to allow you to take on further studies in various branches of macroeconomics that have a more defined theology on the role of government in the economy.

Mankiw's book has a good organization -- for what it has. He spends a lot of time laying out some key fundamental topics, such as unemployment, GDP, CPI, DJIA, and so forth.

However, his book is entirely mum on the fact that there are different schools of thought, e.g., Keynesians, Classicals, Monetarists, Austrians, etc. A reader comes away thinking that all economists agree with Mankiw, and that simply is not true. Many other principles-level economics books have specific chapters devoted to these schools of thought.

In my Macro classes, I put Mankiw on "reserve" in the library and suggest that students read the 5 chapters dealing with "The Data of Macroeconomics" and "The Real Economy in the Long Run." However, I use other text books for the rest of the course, since they explain why economists disagree, give better information about actual public policy issues, and help a student understand, e.g., what the federal reserve is doing, or why some politicians like deficit spending and others dislike it, or whether the trade deficit is important or not.

For a reader who merely wants to understand the core issues mentioned above, Mankiw is a good book which I highly recommend. For a reader who wants to understand the nature of the public policy debates over these core issues, Mankiw is a horrible book which I suggest that you avoid like the plague.

This little volume is undeniably one of the most discussed works of ethical philosophy in the Western tradition. It stems from Kant's work on metaphysics, established in the Critique of Pure Reason in which Kant lays out the crucial principles of human understanding. This work, is a logical extension of Kant's noumenal-phenomenal division, in which man is given the choice of being an ethical legislator. For Kant, universality is the primary guideline to all ethical choice, in contradistinction to the utilitarian thinkers such as Mill and Bentham. There is nothing in this book that will sound peculiar to a new reader, as the ideas are so rational from a Western-Enlightenment point of view, they simply formulate what we have already been told. Never the less, this is essential reading for any real understanding of ethics and its development in relation to its rejection in the post-modern tradition. The translator, James Ellington, has done a fair job to Kant's work.

There is no doubt that Kant's Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten is one of the three or four most important texts of modern moral philosophy. The only question is, if you have to rely on an English translation, which translation is best? I think that depends on why you are reading this book. If you have only a casual interest in Kant, or if you are reading this book only because it is required for a class and you plan on selling this book back to the university co-op the second the semester ends (if not before), then I would definitely go with the Hackett; Ellington's translation is quite good and reads well, plus it's cheap (in general, Hackett produces reliable, though rarely definitive, and inexpensive translations). If you prefer a more literal translation, I would recommend either the Allen Wood translation (Yale) or the Mary Gregor translation (Cambridge), though you sacrifice a bit of readability with Gregor and a bit more with Wood. Wood says that his translation is intended to be more literal than Gregor's, but in my opinion he does not altogether succeed in that intention; I believe the Wood and Gregor translations are roughly of the same caliber (for example, they both translate Verstand as "understanding" as opposed to "intellect"). Oxford also has a translation out, but I have not reviewed it yet.

If, however, you have a serious interest in Kant, then I would recommend the volume entitled _Practical Philosophy_, published as part of the Cambridge Edition of the Works of Immanuel Kant. _Practical Philosophy_ includes the Groundwork, the Critique of Practical Reason, and The Metaphysics of Morals (all translated by Gregor), in addition to the essays on Enlightenment and Perpetual Peace.

Kant's Groundwork (or Foundations) of the Metaphysics of Morals is probably the single most influential work of philosophical ethics since Aristotle's Nichomachean Ethics. While Kant himself considered this a sort of introduction to ethical thinking, it's come to be his most influential and widely read work on ethics. Despite its length--it's less than a hundred pages--this is a work of remarkable depth and intellectual insight.

And what makes the Groundwork especially interesting is its clear statement of a distinctive Kantian vision of the nature of morality. It's not just that this work includes original and exceptionally insightful philosophizing, but that there's a vision of morality underlying the details, and it's a general conception of morality in which there is something inspiring and awesome. The absolutism, the lack of concern for consequences and for human nature, the emphasis on a sort of radical freedom, the distrust of human feeling, the emphasis on our rationality--all of these are elements of Kant's emphasis on the purity of ethics. (Later works reveal that Kant's thinking about these issues was considerably more complex, but there is something fundamental about the presentation here--even if it doesn't provide a wholly accurate account of all his thinking.) Moral action, he claims, is action in which we act for duty's sake, and acting for duty's sake requires an independence of one's actions from our ordinary concerns, from everyday motives and inclinations, from self-interest, and from nearly all human feeling. And since moral action is free action, understanding moral action in this way requires Kant to carve out a sphere of freedom in which we are the authors of our actions. It's not just that we're free of external constraints in moral action; we also need to be free of the characteristics qualities of our personalities and of the distinctive patterns of thought and feeling that constitute human nature. Nevertheless, Kant claims that the moral law is one that comes from within--though not from our contingent feelings and desires. It is instead a law that we give to ourselves as rational beings. In moral action we act in ways that express our natural as rational beings, and only as rational beings. So act morally, acting with a wholly good will, is action in which we reveal ourselves to beings deserving of the dignity that comes with being a free and rational being.

Now, even though this is intended as an introduction to Kant's moral thought, this isn't an easy work. It needs to be read and re-read (and, I suppose, re-read) to be fully understood and appreciated. I've never found Kant as difficult and obscure as his reputation would suggest, but as a writer of philosophical prose he's certainly not the caliber of, say, Hume or Descartes. Still, Kant's ideas in the Groundwork, while subtle and sometimes elusive, are profound and original, and this book is a must-read for anyone interested in philosophical ethics.

Kant's aim in the Groundwork is to discover the fundamental principle of morality. In the first section he attempts to derive this fundamental principle from ordinary moral thought. In particular, he attempts to derive this principle from considerations concerning what is unconditionally good. Kant claims that the only thing that is unconditionally good is a good will. Moreover, its goodness is not a matter of the results of acting on a good will; it is good in itself. As a matter of fact, Kant claims that the results of an action done with a good will and the aims and inclinations of the agent with the good will are morally insignificant.

What, then, is it to act with a good will? It is, Kant argues, a matter of doing one's duty for duty's sake, regardless of one's feeling and the results of doing so. What is it to act from duty's sake? It is to act from principles that accord with the fundamental principle of morality. And here we get the first formulation of the fundamental principle of morality: act only on maxims that you can consistently will to be universal laws. In other words, if one is unable to will the principle of one's action to become a universal law, the action is morally impermissible.

In the second section of the Groundwork Kant attempts to draw the same conclusion from some philosophical points about the nature of duty. He begins by claiming that our knowledge of our duty is a priori and based on the exercise of reason. He then argues that facts about our duties are necessary facts, and that this shows that they must be based on a categorical imperative: that is, that our duties apply to us insofar as we are rational beings, irrespective of the contingent aspects of their nature. And, Kant argues, the one categorical imperative is the fundamental principle of morality mentioned above. He then applies this principle to some examples in order to display just how it grounds our duties in particular cases.

The rest of the second section is filled with lots of interesting, albeit abstruse, ideas. First, Kant attempts to ground the categorical imperative in something that is of unconditional worth. What is that something? The existence of rational beings, which, he says, is an end in itself. And this leads to a second formulation of the categorical imperative: (ii) act only in such a way that you treat humanity, whether in the person of yourself or someone else, as an end and never merely as a means.

This section also includes a third formulation of the categorical imperative: (iii) act only on maxims that you could will to become universal laws legislated by your own will. This formulation encapsulates Kant's claim that we can achieve autonomy only by acting in accordance with the moral law. Conformity with the moral law does not constrain our freedom since we legislate the moral law for ourselves. The moral law is not forced on us from without; its source is to be found in our own rational nature. Indeed, it is only by acting morally that we are able to achieve genuine freedom by transcending the contingent desires and inclinations that are beyond our control.

Of course, that doesn't come close to summing up the Groundwork. But it's a start.

If you are interested in taking up philosophy, I would recommend that you not start off with Immanuel Kant. Start off with someone reasonable like Aristotle or Machiavelli. Kant is infamous for being the most difficult philosopher to read. Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals is an excruciating experience. Although a great philosopher, Kant is not that great a writer. He often makes up words and talks in circles. The pedantic nature of this work makes for an awful read. If you do understand Kant though, go for it. He has some good stuff to say ... you just have to find it.

Kant's foundational work for his extensive examination of ethics and reason. I picked up a copy in the Harvard book store (no, I was just visiting), perhaps inheriting it from a business or law student who might by now be struggling to ignore whatever he or she once learned of ethics (sorry -- I'm sure that's not the case...). Much as Einstein would one day struggle to establish physical principles independent of observational considerations, Kant undertakes to construct a philosophy of ethics "which does not permit itself to be held back any longer by what is empirical." Kant himself might not have liked the analogy involving special relativity, but clearly science embraces his concept of universal law. Says Kant, "... wisdom -- which consists more in doing and not doing than in knowing -- needs science, not in order to learn from it, but in order that wisdom's precepts may gain acceptance and permanence." Hard to argue with that.
Kant sets forward his categorical imperative -- "I should never act except in such a way that I can also will that my maxim should become a universal law." He proceeds to illustrate and defend the imperative. The writing is extremely dense (by which I mean deliberate and exacting, not ill conceived). He anticipates and answers detracting arguments, undoubtedly including any that I might offer here. Some of his critics may not recognize that their objections have been dealt with (and Kant seems to anticipate even this). So is Kant right? Yes, or at the least mostly yes. If on some point he may be rebutted, he still wins the war, so to speak. So-called moral relativists will obviously disagree with his central premise, yet Kant remains one of the most influential philosophers of any age. He is cited frequently by ethicists, educators, scientists, and spiritual leaders.
"We find that the more a cultivated reason devotes itself to the aim of enjoying life and happiness, the further does man get away from true contentment. Because of this there arises in many persons, if only they are candid enough to admit it, a certain degree of... hatred of reason."
-- I'd give it five stars if it was easier to read.

I have this as a reference book and I just love it. It's great to have in your personal design library.

I bought this book for a non-credit Financial Planning class at Florida State. I didn't stick with the class, but I'm keeping the book. It seems to cover just about everything anyone except a financial professional could ever need to know about the financial planning process. If there's a downside to the book, it's that it reads like a textbook; HOWEVER, that's what it is. AND, being a GOOD textbook, the writing is clear and understandable.

Anyone who would order this book should know that I received an e-mail today (February 24) from the instructor of the intro class at Florida State, making reference to a ninth edition. The instructor did not specifically mention this book by name. However, since [Amazon.com] is showing the eighth edition as of February 24, it may be safe to assume that this is the book the instructor was referring to.

I had to purchase this book for a university course I once took (several editions earlier). This book is a great resource for taking you through the personal financial planning process. This book may seem a bit intimidating but if you want personal financial success, it is worth going through the book. It will take you step by step on how to achieve your financial success. This is the best textbook I have ever purchased.

This is an excellent text. I have used it for an online class where I rarely had to call the teacher for clarification. I also used it during the tax preparation season while assisting taxpayers and it was a great reference. I also find it very handy and very informative. The tips given in the tax break boxes and the columns regarding "Would You Believe?" are very interesting and are good learning points. The examples coupled with the self-study problems really cement the practical application aspect of the text. I have even written some poems about taxes while reading the text!

Books to read for relaxation: Trilogy Moments for the Mind, Body and Soul; Everyday Miracles, and The Language of Poetry Forms

This book is well worth the cost. You can save much more in taxes than you pay for the book if used properly.

Quick shipping and the book was in great condition. I would recommend buying from them again.

Have experienced great product service from Amazon, however any deliver via DHL has been absolutely horrendous. I couldn't seem to locate any accurate tracking of when my package would arrive. I would definitely not order anything via Amazaon that would be delivered via DHL.

Have used this text for a number of years and enjoyed it. It introduces the student to the 1040 and all the basic schedules. The book contains copies of the 1040 and schedules plus worksheets. A practical approach to individual income taxes.

Honestly, unless you want to pore through every major modern quality system (ie ISO, Baldridge) and amass the details of countless companies (from Ritz Carlton to SSM Health - yes, healthcare!), buy the book.

Once you do, expect a tremendous return on this investment for an up to date, well organized, and thorough look at quality in its practical application. To get the most bang for your buck, get the latest version so your not quoting what the Ritz did 5 years ago.

Long, verbose, time consuming and WORTH EVERY BIT OF IT!

Was an assigned text for an upper level university Management course. Excellent choice. The content made sense, was well written/easy to read, and continually built on earlier chapters.

It's still on my shelf as a reference I refer to often in my business. Wouldn't be without it!

Came quickly with the software package included.
Saved over $20 from school bookstore website!

It is straightforward book. Each chapter has some case study, which is real application of Quality management. I would strongly recommend for students as well as managers to read this book. It has different point of views from various Philosophers like Dr. Deming, Dr. Juran, Crosby and other well-known persons.

I used an older edition of this book in preparing for the ASQ Certified Quality Manager Exam. It is a great reference.

It is often said that Descartes is the father of modern philosophy; but much of modern philosophy would be unthinkable without the writings of Rousseau. While Descartes put epistemology at the center of philosophy, and used reflections on subjectivity as a means to knowing, Rousseau put the historical human being at the center of his thinking, and thus paved the way not only for Kant but for Fichte, Schelling, Hegel, Nietzsche, and Kierkegaard.

These texts are the ones to look to for the core of his thinking. Read the first and second discourses first -- of which the second is the most critical, but the first gives an easy orientation to his general strategy. The Social Contract is extremely relevant today, when words like "democracy" are bandied about unthinkingly. Rousseau identifies there what a genuine democracy requires: that individuals become prepared through education to cast their vote for what they think is the general good. The conditions for this cannot be established overnight, and cannot be imposed by war or by political pressure.

This is another fine edition by Hackett, who cannot be commended enough for their excellent series of inexpensive philosophical texts. After reading this, take a look at Rousseau's two other brilliant pieces (among many more): Emile, and his Autobiography.

Jean Jacques Rousseau born (1712-1778), in Geneva mother dies in childbirth, he was an engravers apprentice. Stayed out too late one night and locked out of the city, knew he would get in trouble for it so he takes off for France, and meets Madame De Warrens becomes his lover and she converts him to Roman Catholicism. He had a lifelong mistress had 5 kids which he left with an orphanage, which is amazing considering he wrote the book "Emile," which was a guide to raising and educating young children. He neglected the opportunity to put theory into practice. To begin at the beginning, famous lines of book "The Social Contract," "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains."

The question he asks, how do we find a way to get people to live together in groups? To live together in society and yet still make it true that each person only obeys himself that leaves us as free as when we were in the state of nature. He thinks he has the answer, he thinks he can legitimate, a kind of society, where people have this much freedom. There are certain things that he thinks are necessary for this, first, it has to be a society with general laws. It can't be that whoever is in charge of the government gets to do whatever they feel like doing. There has to of been laws made that authorize this. Second, there has to be universal consent to the laws, everybody has to accept the laws. Now this may be a little unclear, because there is a point that Rousseau talks about majority rule. It does make sense though there is a sense that he believes that the people have to consent to all of the laws, it has to be unanimous, it is just going to take a little while to get to that point. We will see how he reconciles these ideas. Third, there has to be unlimited Sovereignty, people have no rights against the laws you can't say the laws are illegitimate because they violate your rights the way that Locke would say for example people completely give up their rights to the collective. Therefore, there is no worry that a law might trespass on somebody's rights. For Rousseau, be sure to understand that this idea of sovereignty means the power to make laws. Therefore, it is a little bit different say than what you got out of Hobbes were he talks about the sovereign's power. For Hobbes, sovereign power is the power to say what goes. There is no real distinction between what we would call legislative power and executive power. You know the power to make the law and the power to enforce the laws. For Rousseau, sovereignty means the power to make the laws. Therefore, that's the power that is unlimited. Everything the state does has to be done in accordance to the laws. However, there is no limit on what the laws can be. At least no limits coming from the idea of violating individual rights. The only limit on the power of the state is the laws. There is this kind of notion that periodically there would be an assembly of people to come together to decide on the laws and make new ones. The power like a monarchy or oligarchy has power to enforce the laws and they do what ever the assembly tells them to do. The general laws are there and then the executive power is in charge of applying those general laws to specific cases. However, all they can do is apply those general laws. They cannot freelance and do stuff on there own.

Rousseau really praised Sparta as a model democracy. So, here's the kind of society that Rousseau thinks that makes it possible for us to enjoy freedom and social life. We give up all power to the state; we claim no individual rights to ourselves against the government. We give up complete power to the state we do not think we have any individual rights that can limit what the state can do but we insist that the state only act in accordance with general laws and these be laws everybody consents and agrees to. Now you ask, how in the world can we have unanimous consent to the law? With any size or group, how do you get unanimous consent? Rousseau's answer is that in a proper society, one where everyone has been brought up properly and so on, they think of them selves as a community there will be two different choices that people can make about the laws that they want. Two different standpoints, for which they will choose what the laws should be. 1. Their individual wills, which will be a choice about what is best for each persons point of view, 2. However, each citizen will also possess a "General Will." There will as a citizen. The general will of every citizen will be the same. Their general will, will from each of them will be in favor of the laws that will be best for the community. Even if it is not best for them as an individual, sometimes it will be. Just like Kant thinks that everybody's Numinal self is in favor of the same law, Rousseau thinks that in a proper political community every bodies general will is in favor of the same laws each citizens general will, will be the same. Even if from your own perspective, you do not like some of the laws that are passed, if in fact they are laws that are best for the community, you will consent to them from the standpoint of your general will. Therefore, everybody does consent to whatever laws there are that are best for the community. Now ideally, people will think of themselves as citizens first and individuals second that they will have no hesitation in obeying the laws that the general will is in favor of, but people being what they are sometimes people will not obey the laws even when their general will has consented to the laws. Rousseau says people will be acting in accordance with their general will as a citizen rather than their private or individual will. That if one should be tempted or inclined to act on the basis of their individual will in a way that is contrary to their and everybody else's general will, then they ought to be forced to obey the general will and the laws it endorses. Not just be forced to obey, but in being forced to obey you are actually being made more free than you would be if you did in a sense what you think you want to do. You can call this Rousseau's "paradigm of positive freedom."

Rousseau does not think that any group of people can form this kind of society. Before a society can form a government under this kind of basis, it will already be a society that exists under illegitimate rule. Therefore, even though Rousseau talks about the state of nature the way Hobbes and Locke does, he does not really have the expectation that groups of people are going to go from the state of nature straight into a legitimate society. They are going to start out with some kind of illegitimate rule, and that is going to give them enough cohesion, this kind of shared experience they have had, that then they are going to be able to form a legitimate government. They are going to be similar enough in outlook and have enough of a bond to the society, that they have the general will. This can only happen in a relatively small community. They must have shared values and experience. He thought that the only place in his time in Europe that could do this was the island state of Corsica. Once the laws are already in place you are agreeing to them, it is tacit consent. He believes that when the society is first formed legitimately, people have to give expressed consent.

There is not some kind of disconnect that you would get in say some kind of fascist political philosophy like what is good for the community and what is good for the people. There is almost no connection between those things. Somehow for Rousseau there seems to be some kind of connection that what's good for the community is some kind of function of what is good for the individual people in the community. But, the nature of that function to me is just opaque, he doesn't get whatever he is trying to say across there.

In practice obviously this is hard to do. Because Rousseau is hostile to the idea that you could have just a select group of people to make the laws, this means he has to be against representative democracy. The only societies that are this democratic that have worked are societies that have had slaves (Greek and Roman). Because how much time does citizenship take without representatives, we have to be in assembly all the time so you need slaves to cook and raise crops. So, you should have this picture in mind that every so often the citizens get together to develop laws, what they should be doing of course is trying to vote in a way that the general will tells them to vote, whatever is best for the community. Rousseau is not so naïve to think that they are all going to unanimously and spontaneously put their hands up at the same time. People are going to disagree, abut what the law is. Majority rule he says in that case. However, it is not the majority rule in the spirit that we think of it, where the side with the most votes wins and the losers are disappointed because their way didn't prevail. No, what Rousseau says is the minority should look at this as they were wrong about what the general will was in that case, and so they should be happy that what they wanted didn't get adopted because that would have been a mistake. The majority essentially knows best. It is as if they are all trying to get to the same place, some will get there some will be misled and they should be grateful to be straightened out. One can see how totalitarian's can embrace some of Rousseau's writings.

I read this book for a graduate class in Philosophy. Recommended reading for anyone interested in philosophy, political science, history and, psychology.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Basic Political Writings," have a two part effect. Rousseau uses the first portion of the book, the discourses on science and the arts, the origin of inequality, and political economy, to describe the basic policies of then modern society. Rousseau describes the creation of society as a threat against the laws of nature. Rousseau also explains that the origin of society coincides with the concept of personal property. From there society develops by who controls whom into a political system. Rousseau comments on several points in "The Social Contract." In the first book of "The Social Contract" Rousseau explains the limiting of the human spirit by the bonds of society. This is the origin of the infamous line, "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." Books two and three describe the attitudes of a nation and its responsibilities to both other nations and its own people. The final book of "The Social Contract" affirms the point that a nation cannot destroy the general will of the people. "The Basic Political Writings" are considered an excellent resource on society simply for its commentary on the general will. Rousseau's writings are amazing when coupled with the later thoughts of Karl Marx in "The Communist Manifesto." Obvious correlation's can be made between Rousseau's commentary and Marx's ideals of the creation of a communist society. Although these writings may not be for the average reader, the points they make extremely thought provoking.

A more immediate influence of Rousseau's political thought was on the German philosopher Immanuel Kant, sometimes called "the philosopher of the French Revolution." Kant took over Rousseau's emphasis on the faculty of will and incorporated it into his political philosophy, especially in Part II of "The Metaphysics of Morals," "The Metaphysical Elements of Justice." There Kant, unlike Rousseau, favored a constitutional government rather than a direct democracy. But he utilized Rousseau's notion of the social contract in the form of a hypothetical agreement among autonomous individuals. Kant's conception of a hypothetical contract was in turn applied by John Rawls in his "A Theory of Justice," so it may be argued that Kant is in some respects a precursor of liberal representive democracy. Rousseau's idea of democracy has more application to contemporary theorists of participatory democracy than it does to Marx, whose "dictatorship of the proletariat" was largely undeveloped. And Mill's "On Liberty" is in many ways a critique of Rousseau's General Will, in that Mill asserted, among other things, that "if all of mankind except one were of one opinion, and that one were of another, all of mankind would be no more justified in silencing that man that would he in silencing all of mankind." So Rousseau's conception of positive freedom (i.e., "freedom to. . ."), encapsulated in his notorious remark that it may be necessary to "force men to be free," has no place in Mill's "On Liberty," which advances the more Anglo-American notion of negative freedom (i.e., "freedom from. . ."). Furthermore, Mill favored a form of representative government (as put forth in his treatise of the same name), so he differs from Rousseau on that point as well.

This book contains 4 of Rousseau's works: Discourse on the Sciences and the Arts, Discource on the Origin of Inequlality, Discource on Political Economy, and On the Social Contract. In his writings, Rousseau theorizes about the state of nature of man before civilization, a time before any societal influences governed his actions. He then explains how man left this initial state of nature to form society's. According to Rousseau, reason and cooperation, which led to the sciences and arts, are what forced us to leave our happy state of nature. Based on the state of nature, Rousseau then goes on to relate how man is in a society and what an ideal society should be. Enjoy your reading...