Population growth: Good or Bad?
I think Rousseau’s explanation of sizes and geographical locations of states setting the stage for certain types of government is very interesting, especially when he later talks of the degeneration of governments, and their ultimate demise.
In summary:
Small population/poor/minimal surplus of goods ( Democracy
Medium population/moderately wealthy/some surplus of goods ( Aristocracy
Large population/wealthy/maximum surplus of goods ( Monarchy
Rousseau then says that, as the government has more difficulty maintaining itself, it will shrink, democracy to aristocracy, and aristocracy to monarchy (keeping in mind the spectrum of governments is continuous, per p. 179) (192). I find that this contradicts the gauge of strength, which is population alone (191): If a population grows, it follows that the government should shrink. As a population grows, it also follows that it will become wealthier, if it is to remain intact (as monarchy is best supported in wealth). However, Rousseau notes that wealth leads to people “serving with their wallet (197),” which ultimately leads to people giving themselves representatives and is thus “no longer free: it no longer exists (199).”
So this increase in population, a sign of strength in government, leads to a decrease in size of government (also a sign of increasing strength in government), but such a smaller government will thrive if there is great surplus (188), leading to greater wealth, leading to downfall.
Rousseau notes that all government/legislative systems will eventually fall apart (degenerate because of size or because of usurpation), and comments that the larger the population, the more overworked the government will be, the more that the “body which is too big for its constitution collapses and perishes (168).”
How does population size then reflect the strength of a government, when a too-large population will (in many ways) bring the death of the body politic?
In summary:
Small population/poor/minimal surplus of goods ( Democracy
Medium population/moderately wealthy/some surplus of goods ( Aristocracy
Large population/wealthy/maximum surplus of goods ( Monarchy
Rousseau then says that, as the government has more difficulty maintaining itself, it will shrink, democracy to aristocracy, and aristocracy to monarchy (keeping in mind the spectrum of governments is continuous, per p. 179) (192). I find that this contradicts the gauge of strength, which is population alone (191): If a population grows, it follows that the government should shrink. As a population grows, it also follows that it will become wealthier, if it is to remain intact (as monarchy is best supported in wealth). However, Rousseau notes that wealth leads to people “serving with their wallet (197),” which ultimately leads to people giving themselves representatives and is thus “no longer free: it no longer exists (199).”
So this increase in population, a sign of strength in government, leads to a decrease in size of government (also a sign of increasing strength in government), but such a smaller government will thrive if there is great surplus (188), leading to greater wealth, leading to downfall.
Rousseau notes that all government/legislative systems will eventually fall apart (degenerate because of size or because of usurpation), and comments that the larger the population, the more overworked the government will be, the more that the “body which is too big for its constitution collapses and perishes (168).”
How does population size then reflect the strength of a government, when a too-large population will (in many ways) bring the death of the body politic?
posted by Rebecca at 4:44 PM
<< Home