Autor: Manent, Pierre

Buch: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Titel: An Intellectual History of Liberalism

Stichwort: Rousseau 5; Second Discourse; R.: Korrektur an Locke: Aneignung von Eigentum durch Arbeit als Gewalt -> die Reichen, der Stärkste als Schwächste, Politik als Ausgleich; Paradox: Natur - Gesellschaft -> Freiheit; Mensch: nicht Natur, sondern Freiheit

Kurzinhalt: Hence the extraordinary oscillation of Rousseau's judgment on property... The main purpose of political law, and thus of the political institution, is to correct and condone the inequality of properties.

Textausschnitt: 75b I have said that in the Social Contract Rousseau repeats the Lockean genesis of the body politic. But Rousseau in no way shares Locke's idea of property. To understand Rousseau's thought on this point, we have to turn to the Second Discourse, which he considers his "most philosophical" work. In it, Rousseau argues that the Lockean conception of the right to property is superficial. Certainly he agrees with the English philosopher that labor is at the origin of the idea of property; but labor cannot be at the origin of the right to property. The gist of the debate is this: Locke asserts that the original legitimate appropriation takes place on the basis of content, that those who appropriate the fruits of the earth by their labor are the "industrious," who rightfully ignore those who are mere "quarrelers." Rousseau denies this and replies that the act of appropriation through work is nothing but force. By what right have you closed this common pasture where my cow is grazing? You say you are working and producing, but what does that matter to me? I have asked nothing of you. In Locke's definition, labor is above all the silent, solitary relationship of the individual with nature; rights, by their very definition, actually or tacitly presuppose a relationship among men, the exchange of words. Labor cannot establish the right to property. (Fs)

76a In the stage immediately prior to the political institution, Rousseau tells us, the state of nature is revealed as "the most horrible state of war," marked by a conflict among the "right" to work, the "right" of the strongest, the "right" of need, the "right" of the first occupant, and so on. To resolve this conflict, the language of law must be instituted; people must speak. Who is going to speak? Those who relatively suffer most from this state, who are, paradoxically, the rich. Since, for the rich, the instinct for preservation extends beyond their own bodies to their goods, their instinct is bound to be more developed than that of the poor, who have only their bodies and their lives. Consequently, the rich are going to take the initiative in speaking the word that founds the body politic. They are going to conceive of "the most well-thought-out plan that has ever entered the human mind," they are going to propose to everyone, and in particular to the poor, the constitution of a body politic that will protect everyone's goods (above all those of the rich) by using everyone's force (above all that of the poor). Inequality is thus established and human misfortune assured. (Fs; tblStw: Politik)

76b Property exposes and condenses the contradiction of the human world. This contradiction is born from labor and the inequality of properties because it was originally founded on the difference in capacities for work, that is, on an inequality of strength. At the same time, the one who is strongest or richest is also the one who is weakest because he is the most dependent: his being is more extensive, since it incorporates his goods. The political institution aims at compensating for this original weakness of the rich by bringing them the strength that naturally they always need, which is in fact the strength of the poor. The law is the sole means by which the strength of the poor can be put to lasting use.1 (Fs)

76c Hence the extraordinary oscillation of Rousseau's judgment on property. On the one hand, he defines it as "sacred," even more sacred than freedom, because "more difficult to defend": possessions are weaker than the individual possessing them because they have no hands to defend themselves. On the other, he sees in it the original usurpation, the proof that the ultimate foundation of every civil society lies in an act of force that can never become fully just, in conformity with rights. Consequently, laws, even the best ones, have a contradictory finality: they must aim to correct the original inequality of properties which has no foundation other than force, but they also must condone this inequality, since these laws bring force to the "unequal" property that most needs it. The main purpose of political law, and thus of the political institution, is to correct and condone the inequality of properties. As Rousseau says in Emile: "This disadvantage is inevitable, and without exception." (Fs)