Rousseau's theory of proprietary ownership and social corruption

Rousseau on Corruption: Its Causes and Elimination

Proprietary Ownership as the Underlying Problem in Human Society

According to Rousseau, elements of human societies promote conflict in and of themselves. Specifically, Rousseau explains in his Discourse on Inequality (1754) that the very concept of proprietary ownership, especially of real property (i.e. land ownership), is unnatural and necessarily leads to respective comparisons, competition, and envy. He argues that those who come to own large amounts of property inevitably become part of a privileged class and that everybody else is relegated to being less privileged and comparatively disadvantaged. Furthermore, in addition to inspiring envy and class conflict within individual societies, the concept of proprietary ownership, according to Rousseau, also explains the antagonism that so frequently leads to conflict and warfare between different societies.

Corruption as a Direct Function of Wealth and Power Differential in Society

Nothing is more dangerous than the influence of private interests in public affairs, and the abuse of the laws by the government is a less evil than the corruption of the legislator, which is the inevitable sequel to a particular standpoint. In such a case, the State being altered in substance, all reformation becomes impossible & #8230;

[The Social Contract. Book III, Chapter IV: Democracy]

Rousseau's characterization of the danger of the influence of private interests on government was accurate in his time and, perhaps, even more so in modern American society. For example, even after the historic Emancipation Proclamation in the Thirteenth Constitutional Amendment that outlawed slavery and the subsequent Fourteenth Amendment that expressly established equal protection under the law as a right of all persons, it took another full century for the descendents of the African slaves to achieve any semblance of equality under the law. The principal roadblock in that regard was the degree to which private interests (such as the Ku Klux Klan) dominated political, legislative, and judicial institutions well into the 20th century, particularly in the former Confederate states. Rousseau explained that it is impossible to achieve genuinely just legislative goals when private influences are allowed to draft or enforce laws, and this conclusion proved accurate throughout much of the first century after the Civil War by virtue of the Jim Crow-era laws promulgated by segregationists intent on undermining the constitutional rights of racial minorities.

It is not good for him who makes the laws to execute them, or for the body of the people to turn its attention away from a general standpoint and devote it to particular objects. & #8230; A people that would never misuse governmental powers would never misuse independence; a people that would always govern well would not need to be governed.

[The Social Contract. Book III, Chapter IV: Democracy]

The Framers of the United States Constitution recognized the dangers of consolidating legislative power into a single body and sought to ensure against some of its consequences by establishing a system of check and balances to prevent any one branch of government from acting independently, largely because of the risk of undue influence over that branch. However, even with three independent government branches at the federal level, private influences (especially at the state level) have succeeded in corrupting American government to support the interests and values of the wealthy and powerful, and directly at the expense of all of the members of the less-privileged classes.

Toward a Solution

Unfortunately, contemporary American politics represents the risks of private influence over legislative integrity and it is evident in all of the major problems currently facing this nation. Meaningful healthcare reform has been blocked thus far by the powerful political influence of approximately 3,000 lobbyists whose only job is to continually pressure one-sixth as many congressional representatives to promote legislation favorable to the private health insurance industry. Meaningful handgun law reform has, thus far, been impossible to achieve because of the influence of the National Rifle Association (NRA) on government legislators; and meaningful economic, tax, and commercial banking reform has been stalled by virtue of the influence of a very small minority of extremely wealthy donors to political re-election campaigns in Washington.

Ultimately, whether or not Rousseau's analysis of the origin of social conflict in proprietary ownership is accurate, is seems undeniable that his observations about the detrimental influence of private influence on government are both accurate and applicable to contemporary American society. Therefore, the obvious solution is to prohibit the kind of influence that is currently permissible in connection with political lobbying in Washington. Unfortunately, that is not likely to occur anytime soon, especially as suggested by the recent Citizens United Supreme Court decision that defined corporations as persons with respect to political speech and related First Amendment rights.