>But Steuart's argument about dependence seems to me to be quite different
>from Rousseau's. He *sounds* like Rousseau, for example, when he asks (in
>Ch. II of the first book of the "Principles") "Can any change be greater
>among free men, than from a state of absolute liberty and independence to
>become subject to constraint in the most trivial actions?" -- but he makes
>it clear that the freedom and independence he is celebrating is the freedom
>to buy and sell and to enjoy the use of one's property free from the
>interference of the state, which is entirely alien to Rousseau's account of
>the end of natural freedom and independence. And in general he is keen on
>mutual dependence -- of the kind a division of labour promotes -- and calls
>it "the only bond of society" in a quite unRousseauian way. Here he is, for
>example, in Chapter XIV of Book One: "Hence I conclude, that the best way
>of binding a free society together is by multiplying reciprocal
>obligations, and creating a general dependence between all its members.
>This cannot be better effected, than by appropriating a certain number of
>inhabitants, for the production of the quantity of food required for all,
>and by distributing the remainder into proper classes for supplying every
>other want." From Rousseau's point of view, this is a recipe for a rather
>unpleasant form of modern slavery.
In the case of Rousseau, his yearning for both liberty and independence takes the form of asceticism, since being Spartan reduces needs & wants (many of which, in his mind, are "false" & "unnecessary") & hence minimizes dependence. An understandable response, but not an attractive one for us.
Yoshie