Especially in the recent 300 years, philosophers have been thinking about the relation between liberty and sovereignty extensively. Some of them were pleading for a strong leader, as for example Thomas Hobbes in his philosophical work on the “Leviathan”. Others, like Publius, which was actually just a synonym for the three mentors of federalism in North America, John Jay, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were counting on the advantages of an—to a certain extension—extensive system of government, in which the different institutions were checking each other and power was divided.
This paper is focusing on “The Federalist (Papers)” No. 9 and 10, “The Utility of the Union as a Safeguard against Domestic Faction and Insurrection” and “The same Subject Continued” and on Rousseau’s “On the Social Contract”.
First, there will be definitions mentioned. The terms “liberty” and “sovereignty” are used in many different cases nowadays; therefore, it is useful to define them. Then I will give a brief overview of the ideas of man in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s work and in The Federalist. As Rousseau died about ten years before these were published, I will start with his philosophy. Afterwards, there will be a detailed comparison between the most important aspects of the ideas of liberty and sovereignty in these two philosophical works. The conclusion will give a short summary and a comparison to the actual political systems nowadays.
Table of Contents
1. Preface: Sovereignty and Liberty—two most important aspects in the political philosophy
2. Definitions
2.1 The meaning of sovereignty
2.2 The meaning of liberty
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s societal idea
3.1 How Rousseau understands liberty
3.2 How Rousseau understand sovereignty
3.2.1 The legislative branch
3.2.2 The executive branch
3.2.3 The judicative branch
4. The societal idea in The Federalist
4.1 The understanding of liberty in The Federalist
4.2 The understanding of sovereignty in The Federalist
4.2.1 The sovereignty of the member states
4.2.2 The sovereignty of the citizens
5. Comparison of the ideas of sovereignty and liberty
5.1 Similarities of Rousseau and Publius
5.2 Main differences between Rousseau and Publius
6. Conclusion
7. Appendix
7.1 Literature and printed sources
7.2 Internet sources
Research Objectives and Core Themes
This paper aims to provide a comparative analysis of the concepts of sovereignty and liberty as interpreted in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s "The Social Contract" and the U.S. "Federalist Papers," examining how these competing political philosophies address the tension between individual freedom and state authority.
- The theoretical definition and reconciliation of sovereignty and liberty.
- Rousseau’s concept of the "general will" versus the American system of checks and balances.
- The role of representative government in maintaining political order.
- Comparative analysis of state size, citizen participation, and the nature of democracy.
Excerpt from the Book
3.1 How Rousseau understands liberty
“Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.” (Book I, Chapter 1) Obviously, Rousseau is complaining about the arrangement of society in his times. To explain his view on liberty, he starts with a comparison to the setup of a family: The father has to take care about the children, while the children have to obey. When the children still want to stay with their parents, after they have grown up, it is just because of a voluntary agreement.
“This common liberty is an upshot of the nature of man. His first law is to provide for his own preservation, his first cares are those he owes to himself; and as soon as he can think for himself he is the sole judge of the right way to take care of himself, which makes him his own master.” (I, 2)
But this agreement between father (in a larger understanding: the ruler of a state) and children (citizens) do not just burden one party of this contract, “because they were born free and equal don’t give up their liberty without getting something in return.” (I, 2)
By the way, his view on slaves is quite different. “Every man born in slavery is born for slavery—nothing is more certain than that. […] So if there are slaves by nature, that’s because there have been slaves against nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice kept them as slaves.” (I, 2)
Chapter Summary
1. Preface: Sovereignty and Liberty—two most important aspects in the political philosophy: Provides an introduction to the contemporary relevance of the relationship between sovereignty and liberty, setting the stage for the comparative analysis.
2. Definitions: Establishes the etymological and philosophical foundations for the key terms "sovereignty" and "liberty" as used throughout the paper.
3. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s societal idea: Analyzes Rousseau's perspective on human liberty, the Social Contract, and his tripartite division of state functions into legislative, executive, and judicative branches.
4. The societal idea in The Federalist: Explores the American perspective on government, focusing on how "Publius" conceptualized liberty and sovereignty through a system of representation and checks and balances.
5. Comparison of the ideas of sovereignty and liberty: Synthesizes the core arguments to highlight the fundamental similarities and deep-seated differences between Rousseau’s "general will" and the American federalist model.
6. Conclusion: Evaluates the historical impact of both philosophies and briefly reflects on their legacy in modern democratic systems.
7. Appendix: Lists the primary and secondary sources used to support the research findings.
Keywords
Sovereignty, Liberty, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, The Federalist, Social Contract, General Will, Publius, Checks and Balances, Representative Democracy, Political Philosophy, State of Nature, Legislative Branch, Executive Branch, Civil Society, Constitutional Law.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core subject of this paper?
The paper explores and compares the political concepts of sovereignty and liberty in the works of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and the authors of the Federalist Papers.
What are the primary themes discussed?
The paper covers the origin of rights, the structure of government (legislative, executive, judicial), the "general will," and the American system of checks and balances.
What is the main research objective?
The objective is to contrast Rousseau's preference for a uniform social contract with the American federalist emphasis on diversity and representative government.
Which methodology is employed?
The author uses a comparative, qualitative analysis of primary political texts, complemented by secondary academic commentary.
What does the main body of the work cover?
It provides detailed breakdowns of Rousseau's social theory, the constitutional principles in the Federalist Papers, and a structured comparison of their views on the state.
Which keywords characterize the work?
Key terms include sovereignty, liberty, general will, social contract, and checks and balances.
How does Rousseau define liberty compared to the Federalist perspective?
Rousseau defines liberty as being part of a collective "general will," whereas the Federalist authors define it through the protection of individual rights within a representative system.
How does the author characterize the role of the judicative branch in Rousseau's model?
The author notes that in a perfectly functioning Rousseauian society, a formal judicative institution would be unnecessary, as the "general will" acts as the supreme judge.
Why did the American authors prioritize an "extensive system of government"?
They aimed to prevent the tyranny of factions by ensuring that different institutions check one another and that power is distributed across a large, diverse geography.
- Quote paper
- Thomas Klotz (Author), 2015, Sovereignity versus Liberty. The Societal Idea in the "Federalist Papers" and in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s Philosophy, Munich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/333752
