Rousseau Social Contract

“This fame study of original man, of his real wants, and of the fundamental principle of his duties, is likewise the only good method we can take, to surmount an infinite number of difficulties concerning the Origins of Inequality, the true foundations of political bodies, the reciprocal rights of their members, and a thousand other familiar questions that are as important as they are ill understood.” (Rousseau, Preface lviii)

99). Rousseau viewed property as a right “which is different from the right deducible from the law of nature” (Rousseau, p. 94). Consequently, “the establishment of one community made that of all the rest necessary…societies soon multiplied and spread over the face of the earth” (Rousseau, p. 99). Many political societies were developed in order for the rich to preserve their property and resources. Rousseau argues that these societies “owe their origin to the differing degrees of inequality which existed between individuals at the time of their institution,” (Rousseau, p. 108). Overall, the progress of inequality could be constructed into three phases. First, “the establishment of laws and of the right of property” (Rousseau, p. 109) developed stratification between the rich and poor. Then, “the institution of magistracy” and subsequently “the conversion of legitimate into arbitrary power” (Rousseau, p. 109) created a dichotomy between the week and powerful, which ultimately begot the power struggle between slave and master. According to Rousseau, “there are two kinds of inequality among the human species…natural or physical, because it is established by nature…and another, which may be called moral or political inequality, because it… is established…by the consent of men,” (Rousseau, p. 49).

The Social Contract by Jean- Jacques Rousseau can be seen as the foundation of the American political system. This is only true if the state believes to only serve the will of the people and that they are the full political power. They are the ones who give the power, or take away the power. I think that this is relevant when Rousseau brings up the general will and the will of all. Before I go into that I think it is important to go through the difference between what the general will is and the will of all. The general will is the will of the sovereign, it aims at the common good and it is expressed in the laws. The will of all is simply what we get when we add up everything that each individual wants. From this, I think that we are able to recognize the general will from the will of all by saying the general will is the will of the people in their position as a sovereign and the will of all is the will of the people in their position as citizens. Although it seems that it is easy to distinguish between the two, it is hard to make it clear through the political system. Rousseau believes that they can be determined through the popular vote, although he gives indication of whether the results of a certain popular vote in the end represents the general will or the will of all, and this leads to the question he even presents in The Social Contract, can the general will be wrong?

According to Thomas Jefferson, an influential leader, “No government can continue good but under the control of the people.” Jefferson’s quote suggests that the social contract and state are only run sufficiently under the authority of the people. There is a common assumption that a definite agreement among the population of a society, is dictated by the individuals themselves. In the past, various theorists as well as powerful leaders have made conscience endeavors to demystify whether the social contract is imposed by the sovereign or society. This essay makes an argument that the social compact is dictated by individuals because individuals have the power to alter the governments they exist within. The state is what the people define it as. It is bound by territory, and people, states comprise of governments. The Social Contract is developed by Jean Jacques Rousseau about what is believed to be the greatest method to establish a political community.

These Documents had deep impacts on today's world, Society would be much different if these were not in place. Both documents have roots in the arguments of the Enlightenment, and in philosophies of Jean-Jacques Rousseau, John Locke and Baron De Montesquieu. Crucial to both, America's "Declaration of Independence" and France's " The Declaration of the Rights of Man and Citizen", was the idea of a social contract, which states that the general will and the people were sovereign, and if a king abuses the liberty of the people they have a right and a duty to dissolve the current government and create a new one, these are views published by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. The social contract is featured in this passage,"It is the right of the people to either

Rousseau establishes the Social Contract (Compact) that will provide the solution for a protective community of free individuals, who submit their freedoms or duties to the betterment of the whole collective body. While the individual is still free to conduct his life in freedom, the same citizen has a requirement to conduct business and make decisions that will be what’s best for the body. If everyone in the body commits to the arrangements of the contract, then the general members will have no problems with compelling to the political structure (Rousseau pg. 11).

Rousseau’s state of nature differs greatly from Locke’s. The human in Rousseau’s state of nature exists purely as an instinctual and solitary creature, not as a Lockean rational individual. Accordingly, Rousseau’s human has very few needs, and besides sex, is able to satisfy them all independently. This human does not contemplate appropriating property, and certainly does not deliberate rationally as to the best method for securing it. For Rousseau, this simplicity characterizes the human as perfectly free, and because it does not socialize with others, it does not have any notion of inequality; thus, all humans are perfectly equal in the state of nature. Nonetheless, Rousseau accounts for humanity’s contemporary condition in civil society speculating that a series of coincidences and discoveries, such as the development of the family and the advent of agriculture, gradually propelled the human away from a solitary, instinctual life towards a social and rationally contemplative

He considered the human as a free being who is not intrinsically mischief or corrupted but he is one who bind himself to the society by overlooking his mere freedom and ceding some of his authorities to the society and government. Then, Rousseau tried to harmonize between the individual and social liberty, as he argued that forgoing of the individual liberty is forgoing of the humanity and human rights. The human’s liberty is based on the obeying the superior moral norms and laws alongside with respecting his own and the others’ rights. Consequently, the morality is necessary for the society in which the members respect to each other. Yet, there is no freedom without equality. Thus, the government ought to be egalitarian and, also, provide the most commonweal and liberty for its

At some point they cannot survive by themselves and everyone needs to come together for the common good In giving everything to the community the individual receives everything he or she has lost plus "more power to preserve what he has" (189). Lives must be lived in and for the group; the life as an individual must be merged into the life of the state, and the people must be involved in all aspects of government. There can be no clubs, separate churches, power groups, or political parties, because these would create separate rights for individuals, and give some individuals more power than others. By creating this, Rousseau annihilates power struggles between the rights of a group and individual rights. In this system, there is no one ruler of the community. A citizen who puts his or her community first is ruler, and ruled. The political government is one united system, it does what the community wants it to do.

Everyone has their own very unique views on everything in the world. What’s right and what’s wrong is a good example of how humanity views different subjects let’s say a man kills another man to protect his family from harm he may see it as okay to do but in the bible it says “thou shall should not kill” so it’s all how you look at it. In this paper I will be discussing the different view point of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau on the most basic tenets of classical liberalism. For example the states of nature, the social contracts, and the sets of view of the rights and obligations of citizens and states. My first topic that I will be discussing is the different views of social contracts. It will go in order from Hobbes to Locke then to Rousseau.

The federal government of the United States empowers a wide range of law enforcement agencies to maintain law and public order related to matters affecting the country as a whole. The Federal Law enforcement agencies are only authorized to enforce various laws generally only on a federal level. Majority of these agencies have broad federal enforcement powers, but most enforce only narrow portions of federal law. In some cases, they may be empowered to enforce state and local law as well. These agencies may generally have nationwide jurisdiction for enforcement of designated federal law but

Since the beginning of the modern age, governments and states have existed in order to maintain moral law. Essentially these institutions are for the greater good of humanity. However, little thought is ever given to how humans lived without governments. Each and every person in the modern age is born into a state, and becomes a part of that state regardless of their will. The concept that humans are born into a state is derived from the social contract. The social contract is a voluntary agreement that allows for the mutual benefit between individuals and governments with regards to the protection and regulation of affairs between members in society. Essentially the idea is that citizens will give up some of their freedoms to the government in return for protection of their remaining rights. Throughout history, there have been a number of philosophers that have discussed the social contract and each philosopher has had there own social contract theories. Leviathan by Thomas Hobbes was the foundation for social contract theory in Western political philosophy. While The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau was written a century later and inspired political reforms in Europe. Both Hobbes and Rousseau in their theories appeal to the social contract as being needed as a means to control man in society. However, their theories differ significantly on the basis of the state of nature, the phase after man has left his natural state and

‘The Social Contract’ was written in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau. Often viewed as one of the most important philosophers during the Enlightenment Era, Rousseau wrote ‘The Social Contract’ to explain his theory of how society originated, as well as how much authority government should have over those under its power. He also explained why people within a society should have more authority when it comes to establishing laws. Rousseau concluded that Legislative and Executive bodies must be established within government to help regulate laws and the people. Throughout his writing Rousseau was able to clearly establish what the social contract actually is, as well as what the roles of governments and citizens under those governments are. By studying ‘The Social Contract’ a better understanding of how Rousseau’s ideas helped change Absolutist governments can be achieved.

The protection of private property and the inalienable right to pursue wealth and possessions through labor are two of the most fundamental aspects of any just society that wants to stand the test of time. This attachment to these personal liberties is a closely held belief by Locke, which is explicitly expressed by him in his Second Treatise. The person prompted in the quote, whom I will refer to as the speaker, sticks closely to Locke’s beliefs and uses them to their advantage in their argument. However, I believe the speakers perceptions of Rousseau's arguments in the Discourse on Inequality and The Social Contract are naive. They display traits of the stereotypes that Rousseau elaborates on in the Discourse on Inequality. Furthermore,

1. The quote was made by Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) in his creation “On Social Contract (1762)” (Rousseau, Social Contract, 4). Rousseau’s discourse on private property can be understood as a response to John Locke’s theories regarding property – and especially to Locke’s labor theory and the government’s role in it (assumption based on the similarity of their discourse). According to Locke’s labor theory, a man’s labor defines his right to own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 16) and that one of the government’s top priorities is to guarantee inheritance of private property for those who have and own something (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 37). The theory also contains the aspect that one can own something if he improves it (Locke, Second Treatise Government, 15).