A Just Government

The last unit we covered was justice. We covered many influential writers including Thoreau and King. In this unit we have read two conflicting viewpoints on how a government should be run. These viewpoints were written by Machiavelli and Rousseau. The question I would like to consider is which, if either of them is just.

Machiavelli’s viewpoint is considered realistic and pragmatic while Rousseau’s ideas are considered idealistic. Their views on human nature are fundamentally different. Machiavelli thinks of people as “a sorry lot,” prone to lying, cheating, and breaking promises. Rousseau sees humans as possessing a certain value, as determined by “the natural order.”

In turn, Machiavelli and Rousseau have much different views on how people should be treated. Machiavelli believes that a prince must do whatever is necessary to control the people, even though it may mean not being a “good person.” He even says “a prince… cannot observe all those things by which men are considered good, for in order to maintain the state he is often obliged to act against his promise, against charity, against humanity, and against religion.”(23) He believes, in short, the ends justify the means and people should be used in whatever way necessary for the greater good. In contrast Rousseau says that “to alienate another’s liberty is contrary to the natural order.” (22)

Rousseau states that people would gladly give up their individual rights if everyone else in the society did the same, all for the common good. He believes that if everyone was on the same level, and each gave up his rights for the other, there could be no abuse. Machiavelli on the other hand encourages a strong leader to wrench whatever they please from the people, so long as it is not the man’s property or his wife, for which he will not forgive the prince.

These differences in method are partially due to the different circumstances in which the two men lived. Machiavelli lived in a divided country full of city states which needed to defend themselves against ever present threats. Rousseau lived among republics and democratic governments. They both based their ideas on the ideals of the governments around them.

I think that a compromise between both sides of the spectrum, as highlighted by Machiavelli and Rousseau, are necessary for a government to function and be considered just. I think that justice and freedom should be emphasized, and for that, I believe that Rousseau is right that people must hand over some of their individual freedom to all so that all may be free. People hand over some of their freedom when they know it will not be abused, and it provides them with certain protections from the government. The leader of the government should be most concerned with accomplishing the will of his people. No one should be left out of the governmental process.

On the other hand, when the very order is threatened, Machiavelli has some very good insights. Faced with the very dissolution of the social order, a strong hand is needed. In times of war, people are often willing to give up more freedom in exchange for more protections. Even in this however, we must be careful. When one man takes all the power he is in danger of ignoring the will of the people in order to accomplish his own plans. Also, when all concept of morality is set aside to accomplish a goal, there is a danger of harming the very people you seek to protect. For example, many people believe that the Patriot Act while possibly protecting us from terrorists, violates our individual rights as citizens. The same can be said of the secret courts in Guantanamo Bay.

The different writers had many different ideas of what made a society just. Many of them agreed however, that people had to be treated more or less equally and afforded equal rights. While Rousseau emphasizes these rights, Machiavelli seems to support laying them aside for the good of a government in crisis. While a government in crisis requires a certain loss of freedom for the greater good, individual rights should still be protected if a society is to be considered just. “By any means necessary” can easily create means that are more costly than the worth of the ends achieved. Rousseau’s ideas, while more in tune with the individual’s need to be free, are very broad and difficult to apply practically. Somewhere between these two extreme viewpoints lies a truly just society.