**Expanded Article**

"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains."

After delving into Rousseau's Discourse on Inequality (1755), which I found to be truly radical and thought-provoking, my expectations for The Social Contract were sky-high. I recalled his criticism of Locke's Social Contract concept, where people traded freedoms for security. So, I wondered how he would define the social contract, the reasons for our transition from a state of nature to a state of society, and the conditions for political legitimacy.

In The Social Contract, Rousseau presents a normative social contract, distinct from the naturalized one in his Second Discourse. Here, his main argument is that the ideal situation is where citizens surrender their natural rights to the community (representing the 'general will'), which would safeguard their rights, freedom, and equality while preserving their freedom in determining the political arrangement they live under. The key difference between his SC and Locke's SC is that Rousseau's government should uphold freedom and liberty, while Locke's is more focused on delivering justice. I learned a great deal about 18th-century political theory and how certain ideas have (or haven't) endured. Rousseau's thoughts on various issues, from the death penalty to the role of religion in political history, offered fresh perspectives and, in some cases, strengthened my own views. However, I had a minor gripe with the text's awkward structure. Why does it end with a discussion on religion and a conclusion that doesn't reiterate his main points but instead mentions issues he wants to discuss in the future? Anyway, read on for my exploration of some of his points!

1. Rousseau's Definition of the Social Contract

As I previously mentioned, in The Social Contract, Rousseau proposes an ideal form of political organization that would restore the freedom of life in the state of nature. Examining humanity's decline from that peaceful and equal state, he writes that our main challenge is finding "a form of association which will defend the person and goods of each member with the collective force of all, and under which each individual, while uniting himself with the others, obeys no one but himself, and remains free as before." His response is to have "Each one of us put into the community his person and all his powers under the supreme direction of the general will; and as a body, incorporate every member as an indivisible part of the whole." One of the key differences between the English Enlightenment, of which Locke was a part, and the French Enlightenment is that French thinkers were more confrontational. While Locke's social contract is based on the exchange of freedoms for the preservation of natural rights and the assurance of justice regarding private property, Rousseau's emphasis lies largely on the former, that is, the restoration of the people's/sovereign's natural freedoms through civil liberties. Indeed, it must be emphasized that Rousseau identified the invention of private property as the cause of mankind's fall from the State of Nature.

2. Categories of Will/Interests

Rousseau identifies three different categories of will/interests: the general will (of the sovereign/citizenry), the corporate will (of any organization, like the government), and the particular will (individual interests). Regarding the general will, which pertains to the public good, I have reservations about what it constitutes. For example, in modern-day China, the general will could arguably be that of the 92% Han population, whose interests might conflict with those of the Uighurs and Tibetans. So, the CCP government is legitimate for the majority Han Chinese. But surely, the political arrangement is not legitimate for the aforementioned unrepresented minorities. Perhaps the general will is the same for all citizens worldwide, in all societies, regardless of our differences - to have the right to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness. If the CCP government could guarantee those rights to every single citizen on its soil, then it would probably be entirely legitimate.

3. The Incorruptibility of the People

Rousseau also argues for the incorruptibility of the people - "the people is never corrupted, but it is often misled; and only then does it seem to will what is bad." I think this is true... as much as we like to call Trump voters deplorables, surely they are still voting for what they think is good for themselves and their people? I believe they have legitimate grievances and concerns, and most of them have been expressing them through legitimate democratic means. However, moving on. For the "general will to be clearly expressed," Rousseau writes, "there should be no sectional associations in the state and that every citizen should make up his own mind for himself - if there are sectional associations, multiply their number and prevent inequality among them." Ideally, yes, everyone should make up their own mind, but I think this is one of the pitfalls of the Enlightenment project. We now have a culture of false enlightenment worsened by a post-truth intellectual climate. Most people are just not intelligent enough to see the common good and invariably participate blindly in politics, getting manipulated by demagogues to their own detriment. Maybe better education can remedy this, but still, people tend to believe what they want to believe, especially with how social media is used nowadays. While the internet was thought to have the potential to further democratic dialogue and strengthen a culture of democracy in society, it has merely allowed citizens to communicate with those who share the same views, and then have those views reinforced, no matter how out of sync they are with the general will. Honestly, how many even use the internet to read diverse writings and then contribute to online discourse?

4. Law Formation

When it comes to the law, Rousseau identifies two key players in its formation: 1) the sovereign, and 2) a noncitizen, impartial lawgiver whose laws express the general will of the sovereign but who lacks the authority to execute them. Here are some tangential thoughts I had: In countries like the United States, the judiciary has significant power in interpreting laws, whereas in the United Kingdom and Singapore, laws are redefined by the legislature. While the former can deliver 'justice' regardless of public opinion, the fundamentally undemocratic nature of the Supreme Court and the heightened polarisation of views seem to undermine both the legitimacy and viability of such an arrangement. Why should the words of a group of dead white men be interpreted by a handful of appointed justices and not a democratically elected assembly? Yes, it is more convenient to do so via the courts, but one should also remember that the justices are not objective students of the Constitution but individuals with their own sets of beliefs and values. I believe in LGBTQ+ rights. But if 50% of the population does not, and the Supreme Court does not vote unanimously, how legitimate and convincing is the reinterpretation of the law anyway?

5. Punishment of Lawbreakers

Rousseau writes that lawbreakers both compromise our ability to live freely and, more importantly, go against the state's social pact ("it is in order to avoid becoming the victim of a murderer that one consents to die). As such, they are enemies of the state and should be treated as such; exile and the death penalty are thus legitimate. I don't dispute this. In a state where the laws are entirely in line with the general will, whoever breaks the law should be punished and, if I may add, rehabilitated. Interestingly, Rousseau also argues that "no man should be put to death, even as an example, if he can be left to live without danger to society." I'm not sure where I stand on the death penalty, but I do think it is a legitimate form of punishment when administered to one's citizens when others' right to life is compromised. In the same chapter, Rousseau also observes that "in a well-governed state few are punished, not because there are many pardons but because there are few criminals." In that case, the United States of America must be a terribly governed state (which I think it is), for it not only has shockingly high incarceration rates and an unjust incarceration system but the President also has the arbitrary power to pardon whomever he wishes - how is that legitimate at all? Gosh.

On a side note, Rousseau's discussion of punishment also made me wonder if a state's ability to tolerate transgressions of the law, such as the decriminalization of sex work, is a sign of the strength of the social compact. Even though most people agree that prostitution should generally be avoided (and is thus illegal), there are times when people have no choice but to turn to it as a means of survival. The refusal to impose criminal penalties can then be a sign of the strength of the social compact - that such transgressions can go unpunished without posing a threat to our political arrangement. Of course, it could also indicate the changing values of a society, in which case decriminalization is the first step in legitimately expanding the limits of the law.

6. Religion

Rousseau's discussion on religion. He believes in a "civil religion," which does not consist of "strictly religious dogmas but expressions of social conscience" (like contemporary civic nationalism, for example?) and that there can exist both positive dogmas ("omnipotent, intelligent, benevolent divinity that foresees and provides; the life to come; the happiness of the just; the punishment of sinners; the sanctity of the social contract") and the negative dogma of intolerance. I wholeheartedly agree with him! I think the most powerful argument against religion is that it is fundamentally intolerant, especially since we live in a world with multiple religions. If I don't profess your religion, I'm essentially different from you, at least in your eyes. And such theological intolerance necessarily leads to civil intolerance. If all the world professed a single religion, religion would not be a problem. But alas, that's why science is a much better way of dealing with reality.

7. Voting

On voting. Rousseau provides two examples of legitimate voting: 1) for important and serious matters like the enactment of laws, there should be near unanimity, 2) for swift decisions like the dispatch of administrative business, a smaller majority will suffice. I think this is a really significant point of contention still, especially in America right now. If I'm not mistaken, the Democrats want to scrap the filibuster, which requires 60 votes (out of 100) to be overridden, so that most legislation can be passed with a simple majority. Firstly, pragmatically speaking, this is not wise since the Republicans will mostly have undemocratic control of the Senate in the coming years, given that all states, regardless of population size, are represented by 2 senators and most population growth is occurring in blue states. It's simply shortsighted to abolish the filibuster now, when the Democrats lack a strong mandate anyway. In 2013, the Democrats resorted to the 'nuclear option' to eliminate the use of the filibuster on executive branch nominees and judicial nominees, except for the Supreme Court until 2017. In 2017, Senate Republicans then eliminated the sole remaining exception to the 2013 change by invoking the "nuclear option" for Supreme Court nominees to allow a simple majority to confirm Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court. The power of precedence is crucial in a democracy, and the Democrats should seriously consider the potential consequences of abolishing the filibuster. Secondly, in a nation as divided as the US, the filibuster's accompanying spirit of consensus and reconciliation is even more vital - America's problems are so severe not because the Democrats (assuming they are on the 'right side of history') have weak control of Congress but because the Democrats are a narrow majority in the nation. Assuming also that the Republican Party is hopeless, the Democrats should strengthen the spirit of consensus-building in Congress and enhance their appeal to all Americans, not just Democrats. Anyway, it's just silly to pass a law with a 51/100 majority and think the will of the people has prevailed. Instead of abolishing the filibuster, both Democrats and Republicans should reform it somehow, perhaps by "making it more difficult to conduct a filibuster by eliminating the two-track system, forcing senators to remain on the floor and take up precious time."

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's Social Contract

Also known as the Principles of Political Rights

It is a book on the philosophy of governance and the politics of societies. It touches on the language of governance systems, the roots of corruption and extravagance, and the rule of chaos that our societies are mired in. It analyzes the methods of governance, the reasons for the downfall of states, and the best ways of the politics of the ruled.

The edition in front of us contains very important facts about the life of the French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau.

He belonged to a French Protestant family that fled the religious wars and persecution from Paris and settled in Geneva, the capital of Switzerland. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was born, and soon his mother died. He received an education at the hands of his father, who fled Geneva from the influence of powerful figures in the city. Rousseau was apprenticed to one of his uncles. He practiced some professions before getting involved in vices outside the city walls, and his morals declined and his behavior deteriorated.

He received the principles of Catholicism at the hands of an Italian priest

After leaving Geneva between modest or humble occupations, he moved to the care of a noble lady who later abandoned him to marry a common woman (Therese for a quarter of a century). She gave birth to five children for him. He abandoned all of them in an orphanage without leaving anything to indicate their paternity, in a cruel and unfeeling way, and this is poverty..... He later wrote the book Emile##### to disown this shocking act of his.

And in his book, Emile or Education, he denies the dogma of revelation while admitting God. He then flees to England, and after years he returns to Paris, denying it, in a state of great unity and poverty, where he dies.

The book appeared after the intellectual maturity of the author in 1762, when France was experiencing a crisis that reaped the souls of the poor while the aristocrats were living in luxury and enjoying all kinds of perfections.

The book is an attempt to blend what is right with what is beneficial, as an attempt to bring together justice and interest.

The family is a miniature picture of society, where all natural ties are dissolved after the children grow up (the tie of obedience/care) and only voluntary ties remain, so that the father emerges as the leader.

Each individual, within the context of society, remains in possession of his freedom and shares his strength for his own interest and for the interest of all, and this is the social contract that does not allow the slightest change in its terms and details, otherwise it will collapse. That is, it is the minimum of the social covenant.

Despite the difference in people's strength and intelligence by nature, the social covenant turns this difference into equality of covenant and right.

The obedience of the people to the sovereign of society is not a measure to ensure the impossibility of all the people falling into the hands of one man in the future.

If the ruler exploits the power of the group for personal gain, all the covenants of society collapse and no one is obliged to abide by the requirements of these covenants. For all tyrannical power is false.

It should be noted that the names of Jean-Jacques Rousseau must be used accurately, otherwise the meaning will be lost. For the prince does not necessarily mean the person of the ruler, but rather it is an abstract entity that applies to the concept, not to the person himself. Unlike the ruler or the master.

Inquiry about what is the meaning of Albi? As it is mentioned in this context, for example:
Our prince is an abstract person, Albi, united with the power of the laws and entrusted with the executive power in the state.

The Estates made inheritance a tradition in some families, establishing a system of inheritance that prevented all disputes upon the death of kings, that is, if the testamentary provisions regarding the throne were abolished, a position was established for the abolished elections, and if the apparent peace was preferred over good governance, and if the adventure of the sons or ###s or ###s or ###s of the ###s, even against the opponents regarding the choice of good kings, and if we do not consider this with due consideration.

Up until now, it should have been read. Now, it will be read again and must be read.

This simple statement holds a certain significance. It implies that there is something of value or importance that was meant to be read earlier but perhaps was overlooked or not given the proper attention. Now, there is a recognition that it needs to be revisited and read once more. Maybe it is a book, an article, or some other piece of written work. By reading it again, one may gain new insights, a deeper understanding, or simply a refresher on the content. It serves as a reminder that sometimes, things are worth reading more than once to fully appreciate and absorb their meaning.

Throughout history, societies have been constantly in search of that one definitive answer regarding what constitutes a good form of state and government, and the means to achieve it. Rousseau, like many others before him, endeavors to address this crucial issue through his concept of the social contract.

For a relatively short book, "The Social Contract" is remarkably dense. This is likely due to its nature as an essay, where the primary purpose is not mere enjoyment but rather the pursuit of a solution. Nevertheless, it is a work that can impart a wealth of vital knowledge. It delves into how civil society has evolved under different forms of government and offers insights into how these ideas can be applied in the contemporary world.

Personally, this book has raised numerous questions that I would pose to Rousseau if given the opportunity. I have perused some texts on Bentham's utilitarianism and am aware of how many thinkers have criticized it. However, in my view, Rousseau represents a more evolved form of utilitarianism. His main emphasis lies on liberty, and he attempts to resolve the complex issue between the general will and the individual will.

In conclusion, this book is an absolute must-read for anyone with an interest in politics, law, or economics. It provides a profound and thought-provoking exploration of fundamental concepts that continue to shape our understanding of society and governance.

In the great, as Rousseau himself warned, finding a manual of political law, I cannot say that it attracted me so strongly.

However, the references to Plato, to events in the history of Sparta, the Roman Empire, and not least, the presentation of some principles for a reconstruction of the world in which man would be much better off, have given this treatise on political philosophy a great deal of charm.

Regarding wealth, no citizen should be so rich that he can buy another, and no one so poor that he is forced to sell himself.

Honest and simple people are difficult to deceive, precisely because of their simplicity: lies and diplomacy have no place in their eyes, for they are not sophisticated enough to be deceived.

Just as the regime of a healthy man is not suitable for the sick, so you should not govern a corrupt people with those laws that are suitable for an honest people.

This is a book that is really worth reading to know about people and I don't have enough proficiency to dare to vote in any way =))). There are quite a lot of very good passages, which are quite inspiring, but when it comes to the real meaning, I forget it right away because politics and philosophy are quite difficult to understand for a person as confused as me.

Anyway, I have finished reading it and I am proud of myself!

This book has provided me with a lot of new perspectives and ideas. Although I may not fully understand all the profound meanings, the process of reading has still been very beneficial. It has made me think more deeply about various issues and has broadened my horizons.

I believe that as I continue to learn and grow, I will be able to better understand and appreciate the content of this book. For now, I am satisfied with having completed this reading journey and look forward to exploring more wonderful books in the future.

“Every man having been born free and master of himself, no one else may under any pretext whatever subject him without his consent. To assert that the son of a slave is born a slave is to assert that he is not born a man.”

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" is a truly remarkable and seminal work in the realm of political philosophy. Published in 1762, it delves deep into the intricate nature of authority, legitimacy, and the complex relationship between individuals and the state. This book has had an indelible and profound impact on political thought throughout the centuries, sparking intense and often passionate debates.

One of the central and most captivating arguments in "The Social Contract" is Rousseau's concept of the general will. He passionately contends that the legitimacy of government springs forth from the collective will of the people, which reflects the common good. This revolutionary notion provides a solid and unwavering foundation for democratic governance and the idea that individuals, in a spirit of cooperation, surrender some of their personal liberties for the greater benefit of society as a whole. Supporters of this view argue that this approach not only fosters a strong sense of community but also ensures that laws and policies are in perfect alignment with the interests of the majority.

However, this emphasis on "the common good" is not without its risks. There is a legitimate concern that it may, in some cases, sacrifice individual freedoms, thereby creating a potentially dangerous conflict cycle. The subjugation of personal desires to a communal will might, unfortunately, lead to a form of authoritarianism where the rights and voices of minorities are neglected and marginalized. The tension between individual liberties and the common good thus remains a recurring and highly significant theme in discussions about the applicability of Rousseau's ideas.

Rousseau also presents the fascinating idea of the "social contract" itself. He asserts that individuals enter into an implicit and unspoken agreement to form a government for the purposes of mutual protection and the promotion of the general welfare. Advocates of this concept praise its theoretical foundation for the legitimacy of political authority, firmly believing that it provides a moral and ethical basis for the establishment of governments and their subsequent laws.

On the contrary, some critics argue that the concept of a social contract is more of a theoretical abstraction than a historical reality. The idea of a unanimous agreement is, in their view, highly idealized and does not account for the fact that societies often evolve through far more complex historical processes rather than simple and explicit contractual arrangements. This skepticism poses a significant challenge to the practicality and realism of Rousseau's social contract theory.

In conclusion, Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" has been both lauded and criticized for its enduring and far-reaching influence on political philosophy. Its emphasis on the general will and the social contract has undeniably shaped countless debates on governance, individual rights, and the very nature of political authority. While supporters commend Rousseau for providing a moral and philosophical framework for political legitimacy, critics remain skeptical about the feasibility and potential drawbacks of his ideas. The enduring relevance of these arguments serves as a testament to the lasting impact of Rousseau's work on our understanding of social and political structures.

The individual's dissolution in society, finding the meaning of individual freedom only when following the will of the majority, sacrificing individuality for the common will, all these are concepts that make this book terrifying.

There are several translations of the book available. In my comparison between the abridged translation and that of the Colliardians at the beginning of chapter seven of book three, I have come to the conclusion that the abridged translation is more accurate but has an older style and may be difficult to read. The Colliardians have given a certain meaning to many words everywhere and sometimes have not given a meaning to some. Compare the mentioned part, for example.

Also, the book published by Éditions Gallimard with the translation of the Colliardians contains the translator's intrusive footnotes for justifying and expressing the translator's opinions. Also, two-thirds of the volume of the book is dedicated to "marginal notes" that have been added by the translator (?). With the justification that these are considerations similar to those of Rousseau and it is good to read them! I did not read the additions of the Colliardians and in some places I had to constantly compare with the original text because the footnotes are not information for the equivalents. Even the information about the language culture for the equivalents is not in a French book that has been translated from English. Woe to Éditions Gallimard.

**Intro by Lester Crocker**
The text presents a complex analysis of certain ideas. It highlights both the intriguing aspects and the concerning elements within a particular set of views.

**Expanded Article**
I find myself in a bit of a quandary when it comes to making sense of this. There is an abundance of information here that is factually incorrect. For instance, Rousseau's perception of the progression of governmental systems throughout history is inaccurate.

Moreover, some of the views go against common sense. There are also ideas that failed to anticipate modern communication capabilities. The argument that the type of government is determined by the size of the country, suggesting that democracy cannot function in a large state, is rather shortsighted.

However, many of the ideas are truly captivating. The concept of the General Will, which is always right and distinct from the majority, is quite thought-provoking. If one voted against the General Will, their view was considered "mistaken."

The integration of religion into the state, but only as a call to virtue and without influence over the laws or a path to intolerance, is an interesting take.

The notions that the people should be sovereign, legislative and executive power should be separated, and the gap between the rich and the poor should always remain narrow are all democratic ideals.

Despite these democratic ideas, there are disturbing streaks of totalitarianism. The claim that censorship is necessary to guide popular opinion, that particular will should be subdued, that discussion is seen as destructive to the social order, and that unscheduled assemblies should be illegal are all cause for concern.

There is an underlying current of thought that the pure, simple, natural peasant-farmer is virtuous, while "learned, polished" people are labeled as "effeminate" (a term he uses frequently) and immoral. It is all very interesting and complex stuff.

In Du Contrat Social (1762), Rousseau endeavors to expound on how an ideal political society ought to be constituted. This work is arguably Rousseau's most significant misstep and his most abstruse creation. I, for one, did not take a liking to it; it is arid, tedious, and lacks overall coherence.

Its contents have been lauded as the most potent ideological force underlying the French Revolution and the bedrock for future forms of totalitarianism. This was the backdrop of knowledge with which I embarked on reading this book. However, as is the case with nearly all second-hand claims made by philosophers or historians, it is rather invigorating to peruse the original texts and observe what remains of such contentions. I find these extraordinary claims to be greatly exaggerated - this is simply not a good book; nothing more, nothing less.

Rousseau posits that individuals cannot derive rights from power over others, as it is infeasible to maintain this power in perpetuity. Consequently, people enter into a social contract: they will subordinate their particular will to the 'general will' of the entire society. This general will is the net result of all the individual wills; adhering to this will is - according to Rousseau - what constitutes freedom. Thus, man relinquishes natural freedom in order to acquire civil freedom. At all times, the individual should defer to the general will, and deviations should be treated as defections and punished accordingly. It is facile to discern how this neatly aligns with later totalitarian systems such as communism and fascism.

The general will is what constitutes sovereignty. But as Rousseau aptly elucidates, a will alone is insufficient to perform actions - just as a person requires motivation and the use of limbs to move, so too does a society need a will as well as an executive power. This power is termed government. By making this precise distinction, Rousseau thereby promotes the division of labor between the legislative power and the executive power.

The general will, when translated into laws, influenced by climate and customs (evidently based on Montesquieu's d'Esprit de Lois), is what constitutes the legislative power. The laws should be crafted by the people, for the people. The government constitutes the executive power - it should solely execute the general will (i.e., the law), and any deviation is regarded as despotism and thus illegitimate. If a government acts contrary to the general will, civilians have forfeited their civil freedom and regained their natural freedom. They should only obey when necessary to safeguard themselves and are free to lead their lives as they deem fit.

How should this government be formed? Rousseau responds that the government can assume diverse forms. The form of government should be predicated on the characteristics of society. Large territories/populations necessitate small governments (i.e., monarchy); small territories/populations require large governments (i.e., democracy); medium-sized territories/populations demand medium-sized governments (aristocracies). Of course, it is possible to have mixed governments, amalgamating multiple forms of government into one.

The individuals comprising the government (i.e., the magistrates) should be selected from society; the manner in which this is accomplished depends on the type of government and other situational factors. For instance, it is possible to appoint magistrates by lot or through votes and elections.

This is all well and good, but as Rousseau remarks: all governments tend to devolve from democracy towards monarchy and beyond (into despotism). It is therefore of utmost importance to circumscribe governmental power by dividing the whole into a large number of individual magistrates. This demands a colossal government (which, in a sense, contradicts his own assertion regarding variable sizes of government). In general: magistrates should possess as limited power as possible, and positions of power should have clearly defined time periods.

This, in broad strokes, are Rousseau's ideas regarding how a state should be organized to ensure the maximum degree of individual freedom possible. Rousseau's objective was to uplift (enlighten?) the French people, who were languishing under the yoke of absolute monarchs and the landed nobility. For this, Rousseau merits our respect. The solution he proffers, however, is not without flaws, and one can envision how his \\"the subject is subservient to the general will\\" can easily give rise to new forms of oppression and suffering.

I believe the principal lessons to be gleaned from this work are: (1) to have a clear separation of powers to prevent abuse (although Montesquieu's ideas are more apposite, in my view), (2) to impel people to consider and embrace the broader interests of society (within clearly defined limits; limits that should be founded on universal human rights), and (3) to preclude the development of hereditary institutions. This last point cannot be emphasized enough: from both the state's and the individual's perspective, meritocracy is preferable to aristocracy!

One final observation: it is amusing how Rousseau contends that Christianity corrupts the state. It causes people to focus on the afterlife and become indifferent to this life. Especially when this attitude is coupled with the existence of a clergy, the power of the state becomes subservient to the church. It is the church that dictates the law: the government can, at best, only function as a minister (of the church). It requires no great intellect to perceive how accurate Rousseau is in stipulating this problem, and I believe a similar claim can even be made about Islam. This would be of great significance for modern-day democracies and perhaps even nullify the possibility of constructing democratic constitutions in the Middle East.

I cannot recommend this book; it is an important historical document that has had a profound impact on our political thinking, but it is too dry and abstract for the casual reader.

The original article is not provided, so I can't rewrite and expand it specifically. However, I can give you a general example of how to expand an article.

Let's say the original article is: "The cat is on the mat."

Expanded version:

The cute little cat is peacefully lying on the soft mat. Its fur is smooth and shiny, and it seems to be enjoying the warmth and comfort of the mat. The mat is colorful and has a nice pattern on it. The cat's eyes are half-closed, as if it is about to take a nap. It is a very lovely scene.

If you provide the specific article you want to be rewritten and expanded, I will be able to give you a more accurate and detailed response.

The author presents a study on the nature of healthy and organized relationships, that is, the rights and duties among the components of the state (the people, the ruler, the representative council, the government, the public prosecutor). It is a wonderful book, but it is better to read it more than once for a better understanding.

Although almost two and a half centuries have passed since the publication of this book and it is powerful as it has had an impact on most of the world's peoples and it is said that it was a constitution for the French Revolution that took place about thirty years after its publication.

However, there are regions on this planet that remain under the yoke of dictatorship that exploits their peoples as if they are slaves. When reading a book like this, I feel that these regions are still living in the past and as if time has stopped for them.

Ignorance + dictatorship = a backward being.