The Social Contract By Rousseau

1241 Words5 Pages
“The Social Contract” In his “The Social Contract” book Jean-Jacques Rousseau gives the word “sovereign” a new interpretation in which he differs from Hobbes who used the word “sovereign” to refer to the king. According to Rousseau, a sovereign is a unified whole of all the people acting bodily. This sovereign is the result of a social contract where people agree on the common good and the basic rights all which become the laws of the state and the general will of all. He believes that this sovereign cannot be given away and is indivisible; it can only be represented by the people collectively and not by a single representative. He supports his argument of making the people the source of the sovereign and having the state representing the people and not the king with a number of points. Firstly, Rousseau believes that if the…show more content…
Since the people as a whole agreed on a general will, they all have a sense of acceptance of that will. Therefore, this will protect the people against each other and more importantly, it will protect the minority against the majority. The minorities will have a voice in the general will. This means that the general will not oppose there overall needs. Also, Rousseau believes that these laws will give the individuals a “civil freedom” instead of a “natural freedom” and I like Rousseau believe that the “civil freedom” is more important. The natural freedom is not overseen by any laws and this will result in conflict and violence. The right for people to own everything and anything will be determined by their physical power and fights over the scarce resources will result. Thus, the civil freedom that people gain when becoming the sovereign will put matters into order. The laws established by the people themselves will enforce more equality among the members. The government’s role will be limited to monitoring these laws and will only interfere when needed explains
Open Document