The Parkus Empire wrote:Jelmatt wrote:
Radicalism, at least the kind which descends from Rousseau (if I'm interpreting your reference to "general will" correctly) considers the general will to be the (only) legitimate basis of law, not something above the law.
And by extension, above the law, as law becomes invalid whenever general will doesn't concur with it, even if general will made it, as liberalism subscribes to "philosophical presentism".
In the French Revolution, it was held above the law. This doctrine was eventually an important basis of fascism, where it was believed a dictator could embody the national will and liberate it from the rule of law.
Arise, children of the Fatherland,
The day of glory has arrived!
....
Let an impure blood
Soak our fields!
-La Marseilles
Just because a law can change to match another ideal doesn't mean that other ideal is above the law. Laws changing do not mean there is no rule of law. In fact, Rousseau explicitly endorsed what we'd today more or less call a Rechtsstaat--public officials and magistrates must at all times be subject to the law.
Also, the very concept of a general will implies constitutional restrictions on what laws are valid, the most prominent being that if a law violates legal equality it is invalid, no matter what the majority says. You could argue to extending this to freedom of speech and conscience, because to actually form the general will genuine input and opinion is required.
The general will, after all, isn't just the sum of people's opinions--Rousseau's quite clear on that.
