**Article on Rousseau in Two Parts**

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's political philosophy lies between Hobbes' absolutism and Locke's liberalism. In the first chapter of his book "The Social Contract", Rousseau explores the correct legal basis for governing the civil system that takes into account the balance between man's absolute freedom and the loss of part of his freedom within the framework of the social and civil system of the state. He says in the opening of the first section of this chapter: "Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer."

Rousseau's ideas have had a profound impact on political thought. His exploration of the relationship between freedom and the social contract continues to be relevant today. The two articles linked below, "Rousseau and the Problem of Freedom - Part One" and "Rousseau and the Problem of Freedom - Part Two", offer in-depth analyses of Rousseau's views. By delving into these articles, readers can gain a better understanding of Rousseau's political philosophy and its implications for modern society.

مقال عن روسو على جزئين:
روسو ومشكلة الحرية- الجزء الأول
روسو ومشكلة الحرية- الجزء الثاني

Human beings are born with certain instincts and responsibilities. The first law that a person should abide by is to protect his own existence. This is not only a basic need for survival but also a moral obligation. The first thing a person should do is to show the diligence that he owes to himself.

Protecting one's own existence means taking care of one's physical and mental health, as well as safeguarding one's property and rights. It requires us to make rational decisions, avoid unnecessary risks, and take appropriate measures to deal with various challenges and difficulties.

Showing diligence means being responsible for one's own actions and decisions. It requires us to work hard, study hard, and continuously improve our abilities and qualities. Only by being diligent can we achieve our goals, realize our values, and live a fulfilling and meaningful life.

İnsanın ilk uyacağı yasa, varlığını korumak; yapacağı ilk şey de, kendine borçlu olduğu özeni göstermektir.

This is why I don't read non-fiction.

Non-fiction books are often filled with facts and figures that can be dry and uninteresting. They lack the creativity and imagination that fictional works possess. Reading non-fiction can sometimes feel like doing homework or studying for a test.

Another reason is that non-fiction can be overwhelming. There is so much information out there, and it can be difficult to know where to start or what to believe. I prefer the escape that fiction provides, where I can lose myself in a story and forget about the real world for a while.

Finally, I find that non-fiction doesn't always speak to my emotions. While it can be informative and educational, it doesn't always touch my heart or make me feel something. Fiction, on the other hand, has the power to make me laugh, cry, and feel a whole range of emotions.

In conclusion, while non-fiction has its place, it's just not for me. I'll stick with my fictional books and continue to enjoy the magic and wonder that they bring.

The French Revolution found its gospel in the writings of Rousseau. I have read about "The Social Contract" in many articles, newspapers, and school books since I was a child. The name of this author has remained deeply engraved in my memory. In college, where I studied French literature, special topics were dedicated to the Enlightenment era, its philosophers, and the French Revolution. Jean-Jacques Rousseau was at the forefront of those Enlightenment thinkers who aspired to change the form of absolute monarchy. It was believed that the king was God's representative on earth. Many were influenced by Rousseau's progressive ideas, which led to the overthrow of King Louis XVI and the start of the French Revolution. Its ideas exceeded the boundaries of France and became a demand of all the peoples of the world.

Rousseau sets out in this book the principles of the relationship between the people and the ruler, how states are formed, the duties of individuals towards their countries and rulers, the responsibilities of the ruler towards his people, different forms of government, and the rights and duties of everyone in the state. He believes that the people are the essential element in the state and are free and no one has the right to enslave them under any circumstances. The general will is what guides the state. Freedom and equality are the basis of every sound social contract that benefits all.

When we read what Rousseau wrote in the 18th century about the organization of relations in the state and compare the progress of European political ideas in that era with the reality of our Arab policies, we see that there is a huge gap that we cannot ignore! This is what makes us feel sad and ashamed! Our rulers are back in the era of autocratic government and absolute monarchy while the world around us is developing and enjoying freedoms, democracies, and the will of the people that prevails over any other will. How much we need to study political science and have a complete re-education to understand political terms so that we can know our rights, duties, and responsibilities.
I have benefited from this book as much as I have been frustrated because of the poor translation. It seems that the translator deliberately used Google Translate!
-----
"Since every man is born free and master of himself, no one else can subject him to any kind of servitude without his consent."
-----

I read the book translated by Adil Zaiter, which was a difficult task for me and made me feel disgusted with the book.

I would like to advise anyone who wants to read "The Social Contract" to stay away from it.

The translation by Adil Zaiter seems to have failed to convey the true essence and meaning of the original work.

It left me with a sense of dissatisfaction and disappointment.

Maybe there are other better translations available, but based on my experience with this particular translation, I cannot recommend it.

It is important to choose a reliable and accurate translation when reading works of great significance like "The Social Contract" to ensure a proper understanding and appreciation of the ideas and concepts presented.

**"The Gospel of the French Revolution"**

Rousseau explains the necessity of the people governing themselves and how to safeguard their rights through an elected government, which acts as a mediator between them and the lord or president, with its main goal being to serve the people. To maintain its stability, it must achieve several objectives that Rousseau discusses and elaborates on in his book.

I like this quote about the need to narrow the gap between the poor and the rich.

"If you want to give the state stability, bring the two extremes as close together as you can. Do not tolerate the existence of rich and poor people. These two conditions, which cannot be separated from each other by the law of nature, are also a hindrance to the common good. From one of them, the assistance of tyranny appears, and from the other, tyranny itself. Between them lies the treatment of public freedom. One buys and the other sells."

This emphasizes the importance of social equality and how an extreme divide between the rich and the poor can have negative consequences for the entire society and its stability. It also highlights the role that the government should play in ensuring a more equitable distribution of wealth and opportunities.

'It is always an evil,' opines Rousseau near the end of this treatise, 'to unite several towns in one nation.' And you think - wait a minute - that's all nations, isn't it?

Except, perhaps - aha! - for the Swiss republics like Rousseau's own native Geneva, where state and city were coterminous and political theories could be tested and discarded like strains of bacteria in a petri-dish. It must have been a blow when the Genevans turned against him and burnt his books en masse.

And they were not his last critics. For Bertrand Russell, 'Hitler is an outcome of Rousseau,' and the top review on Goodreads takes violent exception to him as well. These extreme reactions seem very surprising to me, perhaps because I am not well read in political theory. In his vision of citizens who willingly subsume themselves within a state, they see the seeds of totalitarianism. But Rousseau's point is rather to identify the qualities that would make such a state so appealing in the first place.

Those qualities are, for the most part, fairly sensible and inspiring. He argues that sovereignty rests exclusively in the people; that slavery is invalid; that there can be no state religion, nor any religious intolerance; that inequality of wealth must be minimised; that private interest groups must be kept out of politics; and that there is no justification for any divinely-appointed monarch or king: 'All legitimate government is “republican”.'

Rousseau's idea of democracy is a very strict one. For him, it's something that constrains all the people to come together to make decisions directly. On such occasions, 'the person of the humblest citizen is as sacred and inviolable as that of the highest magistrate, for in the presence of the represented there is no longer any representation'. Stirring, although perhaps impractical. But Rousseau is not impressed by systems under which citizens outsource their decision-making powers to elected representatives.

The tiny chapters, combined with Rousseau's light, often aphoristic style, make this a far easier and more enjoyable read than I had been expecting. And overall I was amazed (given his dubious 'Swissness') to see quite how much of Rousseau's politics has survived into modern-day Switzerland - the direct democracy, the powerful quasi-city-states, the military service, the low taxation. If I had read this book when I lived in England or France, I might have supposed a lot of it to be purely theoretical. Here, where all my neighbours and colleagues are voting on laws every couple of weeks, it's visible all around you.

The Social Contract, along with Rousseau's Discourse on the Origin of Inequality, is one of the classics of political and social thought. I'm truly glad that I have finally delved into it.

Rousseau embarks on answering the crucial question of whether a legitimate government can exist and what conditions it must fulfill. At the start of Book I, he pens, "I mean to inquire if, in the civil order, there can be any sure and legitimate rule of administration, men being taken as they are and laws as they might be. In this inquiry I shall endeavor always to unite what right sanctions with what is prescribed by interest, in order that justice and utility may in no case be divided."

Rousseau rejects the Hobbesian view of concentrating political authority in a single individual, yet he shares a similar stance with Hobbes regarding the nature of sovereign authority. He states, "... the social order is a sacred right which is the basis of all other rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions."

Rousseau asserts that under a legitimate government, people enjoy as much freedom as they would in the state of nature. What individuals sacrifice in the transition from the state of nature is "natural liberty, which is bounded only by the strength of the individual. What they gain is civil liberty, which is limited by the general will."

The general will, the collective will of the citizens, is a complex concept. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article on Rousseau offers a helpful summary: "Rousseau’s account of the general will is marked by unclarities and ambiguities that have attracted the interest of commentators since its first publication. The principal tension is between a democratic conception, where the general will is simply what the citizens of the state have decided together in their sovereign assembly, and an alternative interpretation where the general will is the transcendent incarnation of the citizens’ common interest that exists in abstraction from what any of them actually wants."

Rousseau suggests that direct democracy, similar to that of ancient Athens, is preferable to representative democracy. However, he also acknowledges that not all societies, perhaps not even most, are capable of having a direct democracy. He writes in Book II, Chapter III that it would be better if voters "had no communication with one another" when they voted, an early proposal for the secret ballot. In the very next sentence, he warns that the general will becomes compromised when "factions arise, and partial associations are formed at the expense of great associations." This is reminiscent of Federalist #10 by James Madison, although Madison is quick to note that factions are inevitable in a free society, a point that Rousseau seems to overlook.

I had not read The Social Contract before (or rather, I attempted to but didn't get far). I had read the Discourse on the Origin of Inequality years ago, so I recalled some of his ideas about moral psychology, which are not as extensively discussed in this book. The Social Contract can largely stand on its own, but I recommend at least reading a quick overview of the earlier work before delving into this one.

The Social Contract

The Social Contract by Jean-Jacques Rousseau is among the most important books in political philosophy. It also had a significant impact on the occurrence of the great French Revolution. The theory of the social contract believes that in order for humans to use their rights and freedoms and at the same time maintain social order, the people, by virtue of the social contract, are obliged to set aside these natural rights and convert them into contractual rights, and by accepting this contract, individuals can enjoy more and better rights and freedoms. In fact, this social contract is the embodiment of the rule of law that the people themselves have consented to.

The following is a summary of the principles and regulations of this contract:

**The purpose of writing the book is to find laws for governing the country that are both in line with justice and meet the needs of humanity**

This law consists of:

1. Social order is not established by force alone but can come into being through a social contract, which is an accidental event.

2. Force and the power of the government are not rights unless the people consent to them, because obedience to illegal power is coercion, not a right.

3. Humans are born free and have the right to freedom.

4. According to the social contract, individuals set aside their natural freedom and convert it into contractual rights and freedoms.

5. Each member of the social contract has two aspects: first, a member of the people, and second, a member of the governing body, and at the same time, is obliged to fulfill the obligations of both aspects. The governing body consists of all the individuals of a country.

6. Any member who violates the social contract will face the reactions of other members and sanctions, which is the factor that maintains social order.

7. The decision of the governing body is the decision of all the people.

8. Ownership and disposal are legal as long as the governing body recognizes them.

9. The right of national sovereignty, which means the general will of the people, is not transferable, but power can be transferred to others.

10. National sovereignty is indivisible and cannot be entrusted to one person or a few people.

11. In order to ensure the common happiness, two goals must be defined, namely freedom and equality. These two values are intertwined. Equality does not mean that individuals are equal in wealth and power, but that power is not too strong and is based on the law. Wealth should also not be such that the rich swallow up the poor or the lower classes starve to death.

12. The governing body has no obligation other than legislation, and its implementation is carried out by the executive power. The decision of the governing body represents the general will.

13. The governing body is formed at certain and specific intervals. It is not the case that it is formed once, enacts a constitution, and then acts according to it.

14. The governing body, although it has supreme power and can change it, this has a high cost. Therefore, in order to create a balance between the two, a council called the "tribune" is formed. Its members are appointed by the governing body and the elections have certain and short intervals to prevent the council from becoming self-willed.

**The concepts of the social contract**:

1. The general will is different from the will of the majority. Therefore, the governing body takes into account the general will, which is the interests and concerns of the whole country, but the will of the majority, which is the sum of the wills of individuals, may consider their personal interests. For example, the people who form a country are opposed to an increase in taxes because it is not in line with their interests, but the general will believes that it is necessary for the interests and concerns of the whole country.

2. Freedom, which is placed within the framework of the social contract and provides people with the possibility of benefiting from it.

3. Legislation should be carried out through legislation, and its only function is this. Therefore, the ruler should not be the legislator because in case of his own interests, he will enact laws and also have the power to implement them. Therefore, the best legislators are the gods, and this makes it easier for the people to obey the laws. Although it is a lie, it is good for the people.

4. The government should be separated from the ruler. The government has the obligation to implement the laws and orders of the ruler, which takes into account the public interests. The ruler is all the people. The government is actually an intermediary between the subjects and the governing body, which is responsible for implementing the laws.

5. Rousseau distinguishes between three types of government. One is aristocratic government, in which power is in the hands of one ruler and has many disadvantages, such as leading to tyranny. The ruler takes his personal interests and power as the criterion. Instead of being paid a salary, individuals are chosen as the ruler's favorites.

The second is popular government, which means direct democracy, in which individuals make decisions and vote on all matters. However, this government has many practical problems, and Rousseau calls it the government of the gods for the people. But if these problems did not exist, he would support it and it is an ideal government. The most important problem is that it is impossible to gather all the citizens to make decisions on every matter, and it is only possible in small communities.

The third is aristocratic government, which may be hereditary, which has the same problems as monarchical government, or it may be elected aristocratic government, in which the people vote for them, and periodic elections increase the possibility of abuse of power. This government is suitable for medium-sized countries. Of course, he does not recommend a single version, and each country should determine the government it desires based on its culture, customs, and conditions. And this is better than the other governments.

**Criticism**:

Three important criticisms have been made of Rousseau:

1. Rousseau believes that the natural freedom of individuals is converted into legal freedom through the social contract, and anyone who acts against it and is against that freedom should be forced to be free. This itself is a license for repression in government and is incompatible with the culture of human rights, especially with minority groups.

2. How should we define the public interests and concerns? Suppose everyone sets aside their personal interests, but this practical problem still remains. Rousseau believes that in order to achieve this, individuals should vote in elections without consultation and without relying on a party or faction, but this view assumes an informed society, and on the other hand, it is far from the fact that the people do not consider a party or faction when voting. Therefore, this practical problem still remains.

3. Although direct legislation by the governing body, which consists of all the individuals of the country, is desirable, today, considering the expansion of interpersonal relations, this faces many practical problems and can only be implemented in a small country. Suppose every time a law is to be enacted, all the people must gather and elections must be held.

In general, Rousseau's social contract is one of the most important political ideas in the eighteenth century. Therefore, it is also of great significance in terms of historical studies, and we should not forget that these ideas were put forward at a time when many countries, such as France, were still monarchies.

FREEDOM - from a Revolutionary FRENCH ASPIE’s POV!

Remember when Freedom was a glorious ideal, like a bright, shining star in the sky? It was a fresh, untrammelled new territory waiting to be explored at will. We can look back and think of all those great thinkers who heralded the dawn of a new era. There was Thomas Paine in America, Edmund Burke in England, and Rousseau’s bright confrères among the philosophes. They all trumpeted the arrival of a fresh new day.

Of course, our own early days were filled with the sweet smell of freedom. It was like a breath of fresh air. And then, in the early days of the Enlightenment, that great powerhouse of political ideology that gave birth to the golden image of true democracy, the world was coming of age. But what happened to spoil all that? Well, the world grew older, and so did we.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau, despite his appearance, was at heart a green Golden Ager. His philosophy was not Utopian. He just wanted to return to the Age of Innocence, like Auden, perhaps a little more naïvely. He dreamed of universal brotherhood. Oh, those lost ideals! Yes, he was as naïve as we were in our early years. But he never stopped hoping, in spite of all the bullies and naysayers.

Like Jean-Jacques, I know that my teenaged springtime was far from perfect. The serpent had already entered the garden. Rousseau, like me, tried to do extensive damage control. His writing, with its extreme views, belies his constantly thwarted rationalization. He may have been successful on the outside, but inside, most of his life was lived on tenterhooks.

Now, like so many of us old Boomers, you may feel like a partial stranger in this brave new world. We can never go back to the Golden Age, it seems. Why? Because we have seen the enemy, and he is us. The serpent is always with us, even in these coarse, faded times. We moderns grew up faster because we were in sync with Accelerated Modern Time, and because the serpent is now in plain view.

Caught in this fast-paced world, we often neglect the monuments of undying intellect. So, to many of us, Jean-Jacques fades back into the chipped and forgotten statuary of the Enlightenment. But maybe his hope is still a valid grownup option. And as for the actual Rousseau, what he was, he was. What he is fated to become depends on us. Don’t you see? Just because we’ve all been hurt and have fallen from grace is no excuse for our modern cynicism. Maybe Rousseau’s historical fate, along with Democracy’s and the World’s, depends on us. Our attitudes, our emotions. We should be can-do-ers, not sad sacks. And if we’re as idealistic as he was, we need to have a grown-up sense of hope. It’s time we revisited that golden ideal. There is still room for goodness, decency, and hope in this fallen world, if we keep one ear open to the postmodernist mindset. And The Social Contract has all of those virtues in spades.

::General Impression::
---------
1_ The translation by Professor Abdul Karim Ahmad is one of the best for these three books. It is a classic, accurate, clear, and extremely comfortable to read. In addition, the comprehensive introduction summarizes the theories of the three philosophers. This book, in terms of its technical and production quality, is outstanding from Dar Afaq. Thanks for this effort. For me, this book is a winning deal in reading because you will learn about the theory of (the social contract) from three philosophers through what they wrote about that theory, and in addition, a fourth philosopher (Thomas Hobbes) will have his ideas about the contract included in the introduction. Thus, reading this book is more beneficial than reading ‫The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right‬ by Jean-Jacques Rousseau alone. Thanks to the translator and Dar Afaq.
2_ As for each philosopher's treatment of the theory, it's as if I am with each philosopher, shouting and saying, yes, what he says is correct! And after moving on to the next one, I shout the same shout and say, yes, what he says is also correct! Each philosopher presents his hypothesis and then confirms it with the evidence that supports it. Thus, we are faced with a theory that may be right or wrong, and each reader has his own perspective in extracting what he deems suitable for his own thinking. The true benefit is not in arriving at the truth or in judging a theory as correct over another, but in the mind's ability to circulate all those ideas in a wide and comprehensive manner. Circulating ideas is more difficult than believing and submitting to them. And the more the mind is able to circulate ideas from different sources, the stronger and more resilient it becomes in dealing with different situations, and thus the vision expands and distances are welcomed.
3_ In terms of the writing style, Rousseau's style is the most romantic, beautiful, and influential, while Locke's style is somewhat mathematical, rigid, and lacking in flexibility. The strangest of them all is Hume's style, which is the most skeptical in human history! Thus, each of them had his own style and approach in presentation, but I was more impressed with Rousseau's style for the elegance of his expression, his brevity, and his remarkable romanticism.
***
::The Social Contract::
-----------
1_ The social contract, within the framework of political moral philosophy, is an idea, theory, or conceptual model that usually relates to the legitimacy of the state's authority over the individual. It was presented during the European Enlightenment, and it is a fundamental concept of legal constitutionalism, even if it is not necessarily formulated and codified in a founding assembly or in the form of a constitution.
2_ The essence of the social contract is that individuals agree, either explicitly or implicitly, to give up some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of something (the ruler, or to the decision of the majority) in exchange for the protection of their remaining rights or the maintenance of the social system and its security as a whole. The relationship between the natural rights of the individual and the legal rights of the state is often a subject of the social contract theory.
3_ The term takes its name from the book (The Social Contract) published in 1762 by Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in which he discussed this concept. Although the precursors of the social contract theory existed in previous eras before Rousseau, in Greek philosophy, Roman law, and Canon law, the golden age of the social contract was from the mid-seventeenth century to the early nineteenth century, when it emerged as the dominant ideology of political legitimacy, in his opinion.
4_ The starting point of most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition in the absence of any collective political system (which Thomas Hobbes calls the \\"state of nature\\"). In this state, the actions of individuals are only related to their personal strength and conscience, assuming that \\"nature\\" prevents beneficial social relations for both parties. From this common starting point, the proponent of the social contract theory attempts to prove the reason for individuals' voluntary agreement to give up their natural freedoms in order to obtain the benefits of the collective political system.
***
::The Equation of the Social Contract::
--------------
(n) chooses (q) within (b) such that (n) is motivated to comply with (q) in the real world, to the extent that (n) has reasons to choose (q) within (b) and those reasons are realized or capable of being realized by (n)*
where: The trading environment (b); The organized rules, principles, and constitution (q); The people assumed in their original natural state who make the social contract (n); The individuals in the current real world who have made the social contract (n)*
***
::First, Thomas Hobbes and his book Leviathan::
-------------------------
1_ The first philosopher to formulate a detailed theory of the social contract was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). According to the philosopher, the life of individuals in the state of nature was \\"solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short\\", and it was a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the realization of society. Life was chaotic without leadership or the concept of sovereignty. Individuals in the state of nature were non-political and non-social. And this state of nature is followed by the social contract.
2_ He viewed the social contract as a convention in which individuals gathered and gave up some of their individual rights so that others would also give up their rights in turn. This led to the creation of the state, which is a sovereign entity that represents the individuals who were under its rule in the past and was supposed to set laws to regulate social interactions. Thus, human life was no longer a war of all against all.
3_ However, the system of the state that emerged from the social contract was also chaotic without leadership. Just as individuals in the state of nature were sovereign, and thus they pursued their self-interests in the absence of rights, now states act according to their self-interests in competition with each other. And like the state of nature, it was likely that states would conflict with each other because there was no sovereign above the most powerful state capable of imposing a system such as the laws of the social contract on everyone by force. For people need to fear some power; otherwise, they will not abide by the law of treating others as they would like to be treated.
***
::Second, John Locke and his book Second Treatise of Government::
-----------------------------
\\"Labour puts a distinction of value on everything.\\"\\n
1_ John Locke's (1632-1704) concept of the social contract differed from Hobbes' concept in several important aspects, as he only retained the central idea that individuals in the state of nature would voluntarily gather to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in the state of nature would be morally bound by the law of nature, where man has the right to preserve his property; that is, his life, liberty, and against injuries and attempts at aggression from other men. And without a government to defend them against those who seek to harm or enslave them, people will not have security in their rights and will live in fear. For individuals, they will only agree to form a state that is capable of providing an impartial judge who works to protect the lives, freedoms, and property of those who live within it.
2_ While Hobbes argued in favor of almost absolute sovereignty, Locke argued in favor of inviolable freedom under the law. Locke claimed that the legitimacy of the government comes from the citizens' delegation to the government of their absolute right to use force while retaining the non-transferable right to defend oneself or preserve oneself, in addition to other rights (for example, property is subject to taxes) as necessary to achieve the goal of security by giving the government a monopoly on force, where the government, as an impartial judge, can use the collective force of the people to manage and enforce the law, instead of each man acting as a judge, jury, and executioner for himself - which was the first state in the state of nature.
***
::Third, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his book The Social Contract::
-------------------------
\\"Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains. This man believes himself the master of others, and still he is more of a slave than they.\\"\\n
1_ Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) defined a different version of the social contract theory, considering it the basis of society based on the sovereignty he called \\"the general will\\". Rousseau's political theory differs in important aspects from Locke's and Hobbes' theories. \\"The general will\\" is the force of the common good of all citizens - and it should not be confused with their individual interests; rather, the danger to society increases if individual interests are preferred over the general will.
2_ Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps at that time the freest people on earth, he did not agree with their representative government, nor with any form of representative government. Rousseau believed that society is only legitimate when the ruler (i.e., \\"the general will\\") is the sole legislator. He also stated that the individual must accept a complete separation from society as a whole for every partner he has in all his rights. In short, Rousseau meant that in order for the social contract to be realized, individuals must give up their rights for the sake of the whole so that these conditions are equal for all. \\"The particular will naturally inclines towards partiality, while the general will inclines towards equality. The people always want the good, but they do not always see it. The general will is always right, but the judgment that guides it is not always enlightened.\\"\\n
3_ And thus the social contract can be summarized in the following conditions: Each of us places his person and all his power in common under the supreme direction of the general will; and in the body politic, we receive each member as an indivisible part of the whole. The individual, as a citizen, explicitly agrees to be bound if he does not respect his particular will as it is formulated in the general will.
4_ And since the laws represent a restriction on \\"natural freedom\\", they represent the leap that has been achieved among humans from the state of nature to civil society. In this sense, the law is a civilizing force that liberates the individual and is not restrictive. \\"He who commands the people must not command the laws, and he who commands the laws must not command the people.\\" Therefore, Rousseau believed that the laws that govern people help to form their freedom.
***
::Fourth, David Hume and his book Of the Original Contract::
------------------------
1_ The philosopher David Hume (1711-1776) was a friend of Rousseau, and he was one of the first critics of the social contract theory. He published an article titled \\"Of the Original Contract\\", in which he showed that the concept of \\"the social contract\\" is a pleasant fiction:
\\"All governments, at present, or which ever were in being in the world, have been founded originally, either on usurpation or conquest, or both, without any pretence of a fair consent or voluntary subjection of the people. When an artful and bold man is placed at the head of an army or a faction, it is often easy for him, by employing sometimes violence, sometimes false pretences, to establish his dominion over a people a hundred times more numerous than his partisans. He allows no such open communication, which, were it once admitted, would soon disabuse the people, and make them see, that the person, whom they are taught to revere as a ruler, is no more than their fellow-servant. It is thus by conquest or usurpation that all the great empires of the world have been established; and were the right of succession to be regarded as sacred and inviolable, it would never have been possible for these empires to have been founded.\\"\\n
2_ Hume claimed that the consent of the governed was the ideal basis that the government should rely on, but it was not the case in reality in general: \\"I do not here speak of that right which may be founded on long possession, or on present possession, or on conquest, or on succession, or on any other title which may be pleaded for the sovereignty of a prince. These titles are often contradictory; and many of them are founded equally on fraud and violence. Here I speak only of that original contract, which, as some philosophers pretend, must necessarily have preceded all government, and must be regarded as the true foundation of all political society.\\"\\n
***


*.*.*.*

The word 'finance' is the word of a slave; it is unknown in the true republic. I would've chosen this line as the quotable motto of The Social Contract instead of 'chains'.

Chapter 11 of Book III 'The Death of the Body Politic' really stood out for me. It was a surprise to realize that 'If we wish, then, to set up a lasting constitution, let us not dream of making it eternal.' And 'although even the best constitution will come to an end, it will do so later than any other, unless some unforseen hazard fells it before its time.' This was a shock to me because I naturally thought of the American Constitution and when I stood in the Lincoln Memorial reading the inscription around the walls surrounding the Lincoln Statue.

Book III Chapter 4 on Democracy states, 'Nothing is more dangerous in public affairs than the influence of private interests, and the abuse of the law by the government is a lesser evil than that corruption of the legislator which inevitably results from the pursuit of private interests.'

Rousseau saved the best till last with Book IV Chapter 8 The Civil Religion. It is stated so clearly and irrefutably.