Rousseau on the expectations of people

Rousseau seems to have a lot of faith in people. His entire philosophy centers around the idea that people will give up their power to the whole because that is what is most beneficial to society. He argues that when people commit to sovereignty they agree to actively participate in the governing of the collective. Because everyone is exactly equal in the collective there is no motivation to act in a way other than what is best for the whole. While the system of government he refers to as sovereign is more of a democracy with full participation from its members, his overall view of an individuals responsibility to act is still relevant today in theory.
During the 2008 presidential election the US saw more political activism than ever before. People fought for who they thought was going to represent the whole in a way that was beneficial to all of its members. They used their rights under the social contract of this country to choose a leader. I think Rousseau would have been proud of the masses wearing the t shirts with the red and blue Obama images. The problem today with this philosophy is that after the election the masses disassembled. I would challenge many of those t shirt wearers to see weather or not they even voted in the election, if they knew the issues Obama represented, and if they even care now what is going on in politics. The race itself was such a cultural phenomena but when the race was over so was the interest in political participation. Without each individual acting in a way that is beneficial to the collective and participating in decision making for the whole, Rousseau's system falls apart.
He is right on some level. Every person does have an obligation, if they live in this society, to actively participate in the governing of said society. The problem is that most people do not participate, are not educated about issues concerning he governing of the whole, and do not care to take part in this agreed upon sovereignty. I would argue that if every individual in the populous does not participate in governing and therefore not acting in what is best for the collective, the collective has a right to limit the amount of influence and impact those people have on the whole. I feel this adjustment is needed to make Rousseau's philosophy relevant to the society we live in today.
Rousseau was from a different time and a different way of thinking. People today need to recognize their responsibility to participate in government. If more people were to act like Rousseau proposes I believe our government would better represent the people and there would not be so many problems in our society.

Locke on parenting

I believe Locke's views of parenting are not taken as relevant for today. Locke, in chapter 6, outlines the duties of a father and the freedom of children. He writes as if all children will obey their parents just because that is what is accepted as the right thing to do, and that is how it was during Locke's time, but not now. In paragraph 61 Locke explains that a child is "free" because of his fathers understanding and ability to reason and the child is obedient to the father. ("The freedom of a man at years of discretion, and the subjection of a child to his parents...") Early in the chapter Locke refers to the age of maturity being 21 as well. The problem I have with all of this, Locke's theory of obedience, is that today no child I know between the ages of 13 and 21 are compelled to act within the laws of nature because their parents do. I have worked with children for the past five years and some of them are just downright nasty. Most kids today do not respect paternal power, I have seen kids literally spit in the face of it in fact. It seems to me that today's kids are more conniving and use their ability to reason at a young age to take advantage of whatever bit of power they can. and This lack of respect for elders is not just kids fault either, there are a lot of bad parents out there too. Locke, in paragraph 67, actually says it is not in human nature to abuse their paternal power and I would strongly beg to differ.
Locke has a very idealistic way of looking at parenting and the role of a child. He assumes God's Spite is enough to make good parents, and he assumes kids will just obey for the sake of obeying. Society today has changed so much, children are more spoiled than ever before, respect for elders is disappearing, and paternal power is no longer a good argument for human nature being the only aspect that creates good children.