**Title: Thoughts on Rousseau's "The Social Contract" and Related Concepts**

Rousseau's "The Social Contract" is a significant work that calls on people to enter into a contract, surrender themselves to it, and work towards building a just and peaceful society where all individuals are equal in rights and duties. However, there are several aspects to consider.

First, while the idea of following a concept or belief is important, it is also crucial that the originator of that idea践行 it first. Rousseau, despite being regarded by some as a saint of the French Revolution, had actions that might seem contradictory. For example, he abandoned his four illegitimate children. But does this matter as long as the idea is sound? In a way, it does, as it can affect people's trust and belief in the idea.

The real question is whether an idea or belief is worthy of being followed. The number of supporters is not the most important factor; rather, it is the merit of the idea itself. This is perhaps what makes Rousseau's book so significant. It contains ideas that any rational person would not dispute and that are essential for building a civilized and prosperous society.

Another important point is whether we can convince society that a particular idea is the best to follow. This depends on many factors, including the ability of the idea to deliver what people expect and the presence of other viable alternatives. The democratic process can sometimes lead to分歧 and fragmentation, as different people may have different views on how to achieve salvation or progress.

The existence of special interests that conflict with the common good can also be a major obstacle to social progress. The only solution may be to have a strong leadership that can protect the common good and not rely solely on the idea being worthy of adoption.

In conclusion, while Rousseau's book does not offer a complete solution to the conflicts between nations, it does provide valuable insights into the nature of society and the importance of following what is right. The West has made progress after much suffering and struggle, by following what reason and logic dictate. Our societies, unfortunately, have lost their way after abandoning their lifeline and looking up to the sky for progress.

The book is a detailed research that clarifies the relationship that should exist among the components of the state: the people, the government, and the law. The book is considered a summary of the thoughts of this great thinker, who is regarded as one of the leaders of the French Revolution that changed the face of Europe and still remains a topic of research and analysis by scholars.

Although poverty weighed on this writer and thinker on one hand, and the tyranny of dictatorship in France at that time, he was able to come up with a great constitution for a revolution that erupted decades after his death.

If we make a simple comparison, Rousseau did not specify the nature of the crisis and its causes that led to the spread of corruption and dictatorship to an extent that it was impossible to predict and stopped at that. Instead, he analyzed and provided solutions for the people to get out of this困境, which does not seem strange when compared to our situation. For Jean-Jacques Rousseau was not one of those intellectuals sitting in their marble towers writing about the poor while looking down on the poor neighborhoods from their crystal windows. Instead, he suffered from hunger, worked hard, read, and educated himself. And this is the elite that our countries and peoples lack to rise from their long underdevelopment.

Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains

20 September 2010



This profound statement by Rousseau, an 18th Century philosopher, kicks off his treatise on good government. His work isn't merely about a particular form of government but rather how it should operate to best serve the people. One of his key ideas is that the law giver and the sovereign should be distinct. Having the power to make and execute laws in the same hands is abhorrent to him. In fact, although he does support monarchies, he elaborates on how the monarch should only have the power to execute laws, not make them.



However, when it comes to the essence of having good government along with freedom, it really boils down to the principle in chapter 15. The core of this argument is that once citizens stop fulfilling their duty (which is to participate in government) and pay others to do it for them, it's the first step towards slavery. Thus, the sentence 'use money thus, and you will soon have chains' is, in my view, the crucial statement in this book.



Obviously, the title 'the social contract' refers to the agreement that exists among everyone in a society. This contract governs our behavior, and being involved in government beyond election day is a vital aspect of our role as citizens. Sadly, in our current system, many of us tend to disengage as soon as we leave the election booth, thinking 'I've done my duty, now I can go and get a sausage on the way out and go back to playing Fallout 4'. While there are ways to influence government, most of us have limited opportunities to do so beyond visiting our local member of parliament (who usually just parrots the typical party line).



Rousseau is quite idealistic, and his concept of property is worth noting: there is no such thing as property. The only reason property exists is because someone in the past put up a fence around their land and claimed it as their own. By doing so, they alienate everyone else from that land, and they maintain this alienation through their power. It's interesting that there are still societies that don't have the same concept of property as we westerners do, and ironically, governments don't like it. This is particularly true for the Aboriginals in Central Australia. They essentially want to live as they have for thousands of years, but the government doesn't want that to happen. They lack the concept of ownership as we understand it. However, the west has repeatedly used one tactic to undermine an alien culture – alcohol.

This amazingly inspiring book begins with the following profound sentence: "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains. Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they."

It offers numerous insights. Man's first law is to safeguard his own preservation, and he becomes his own master upon reaching the age of reason. However, if there are slaves by nature, it is only because of slavery against nature. Force made the first slaves, and their cowardice perpetuates it.

The strongest man can only be master all the time if he transforms force into right and obedience into duty. Force is a physical power and cannot produce morality. Yielding to force is an act of prudence, not a moral duty.

If an individual can alienate his freedom and become a slave, why not a whole people? But it is absurd and unthinkable for a man to give himself in return for nothing. Even if an individual can alienate himself, he cannot alienate his children.

Renouncing freedom means renouncing one's humanity, rights, and duties. Such renunciation is contrary to human nature and strips actions of moral significance.

Men are not naturally enemies. War arises from conflicts over things, not personal quarrels. It is a relation between states, not men.

The question then becomes: How to find a form of association that defends each member's person and goods with collective force, while allowing each individual to obey only himself and remain as free as before?

The answer lies in the total alienation of each associate and all his rights to the whole community. This ensures equal conditions for all and makes it in no one's interest to make the conditions onerous for others.

The "right of the first occupant" becomes a true right only with the institution of property. It makes one aware of what does not belong to oneself.

The general will alone can direct the state's forces towards the common good. If a people simply promises to obey, it ceases to be a people. The general will is always rightful and tends to the public good, but the people can be misled.

Laws are acts of the general will. We should not ask if the prince is above the law or if the law can be unjust. The laws are but registers of what we ourselves desire.

Religion and politics have different purposes, but at the birth of nations, the one may serve as the instrument of the other. Nations, like men, are teachable only in their youth.

Since the power of the state makes the freedom of its members, civil laws are born. A people that never misused the powers of government would not need to be governed. Luxury deprives the state of its citizens.

Freedom with danger is better than peace with slavery. A little disturbance gives vigour to the soul, and freedom makes the species prosper.

I call the usurper of the sovereign power a "despot". The tyrant governs according to the law, while the despot puts himself above the law. The body politic begins to die as soon as it is born.

Using money can lead to chains. The word "finance" is the word of a slave. As soon as someone says "What does it matter to me?" about the state's business, the state is lost. Everyone is free to do what does not injure others.

It is the sovereign's function to determine the articles as expressions of social conscience, without which one cannot be a good citizen or a loyal subject.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau believed that before the emergence of the state, humans lived in complete freedom.

However, due to the conflict of interests, desires, and fierce disputes, individuals were forced to seek a system that could ensure their safety and achieve justice. So they contracted to create a political society that is subject to a supreme authority. This contract is considered the foundation of the emergence of the state. According to Rousseau, the contract unites power and the parties to the contract, and it leads individuals to give up their natural freedoms to the community in exchange for obtaining new civil freedoms that the community guarantees for them based on equality. The contract also gives birth to a general will, which is the will of the community. It is independent of the will of each individual separately and is a manifestation of the sovereignty of the community and an expression of this sovereignty. It is not allowed to give it up.

As for the ruler, according to Rousseau's theory, he is not a party to the contract, but he is the representative of the community (the nation) according to its will, and it has the right to remove him whenever it wishes.

This view of Rousseau has had a profound impact on political thought and the development of modern democratic theory. It emphasizes the importance of the contract, the general will, and the sovereignty of the people in the construction and operation of the state.

The concept of a social contract theory emerged prior to Jean Jacques Rousseau. However, the Frenchman elevated it to a different plane in his remarkable book.

Rousseau held the belief that people should be compelled to be free. For example, individuals determine what is most beneficial for themselves only when they act jointly. When a society concurs on a particular general will, everyone else must abide by it. Consequently, those who violate the law are harming themselves because the law does not restrict our freedoms; rather, it actually represents the manifestation of freedom itself.

This classical republicanism offers an intriguing interpretation of the social contract. Nevertheless, it does not necessarily imply that we must concur with it. There could be alternative perspectives and critiques that challenge some of its assumptions and implications. It is essential to engage in a comprehensive analysis and evaluation of such theories to better understand their significance and limitations in the context of modern society.

Could we go back to poetry please?

Poetry is a beautiful art form that has the power to touch our hearts and souls. It allows us to express our deepest emotions and thoughts in a creative and unique way.

We often get so caught up in the hustle and bustle of modern life that we forget the beauty and simplicity of poetry. We focus on work, technology, and other distractions, but poetry can offer us a much-needed escape.

By going back to poetry, we can rediscover the joy of reading and writing. We can explore different themes and styles, and let our imaginations run wild. Poetry can also help us to better understand ourselves and the world around us.

So, let's take a break from our busy lives and go back to poetry. Let's open a book, pick up a pen, and let the words flow. Who knows what beautiful things we might discover?

I had stopped somewhere around "The Right to Life and Death" when I got frustrated and deleted the pdf, blaming myself for getting on the train without taking anything to read with me. The problem was that I absolutely needed to make marginal notes (I suffer from this cancer) and I decided to abandon it and pick it up again when I would have the book in classic format in my hand. So, I went to a bookstore and, with the sacrifice of giving up a pack of cigarettes, I bought it. *Bah! Since there are always parliamentary elections and since it is in our nature to believe in promises, you too put your stamp on the one who promises to eliminate that literary tax crime!*

That being said, it must be mentioned that the editor, who has assumed the academic duty of writing footnotes, is a great BOY. I have a big problem with semi-doctorates. By the way, Lucian Pricop says. Beware of him. From what I know from the history classes I attended, this Rousseau went among the upright before the French Revolution. And at one point, the editor, the genius, comes with a footnote, with explanatory nuances, and says: "It is a reference to the suspension of the application of the 1793 Constitution, by the decision of the revolutionary government." He doesn't say anything else! So the comrade illuminist predicted history?!

To be more serious, we must state that the principles expounded by Rousseau in The Social Contract have fallen into disuse. The thinking was specific to the feudal period, its purpose being to cut the bloody claw of monarchy, so the notions that Rousseau explains and criticizes have been much better founded by the political practices and ideologies of the 19th and 20th centuries. *Now I think that this could be a really good topic for reflection: the rapidity with which the European world has evolved in the last two centuries, compared to the previous ones* I really liked the chapter entitled "On Civil Religion", although this one too does not escape the stigma of disuse. Rousseau speaks with so much passion that you can't help but imagine him in front of your eyes, pleading with tears in his eyes for a state if not ideal, at least better.

This does not mean by any means that we should not read Rousseau anymore. To him, to Voltaire, to Montesquieu, to Kant, to Locke and to the other illuminists we owe the freedom that we enjoy today...

Also, I believe that Rousseau's work had the same impact as Machiavelli's The Prince. Although dedicated to leaders, it represented a way of teaching the "subjects" to discern in the matter of the subtleties of tyranny.

If it weren't for them, the fall of absolutism would have occurred much later (or maybe never?!), so we should commemorate them as gods, as saints who brought the fragrance of freedom to America, to Europe, and later everywhere in the world.

"The people always wants the good, but it does not always see it by itself; the general will is always right, but the judgment that guides it is not always enlightened."

Andrei Tamaș,
27 November 2016.

I feel like Rousseau would have been so fascinated by the moral implications of The Sims game.

In The Sims, players have the power to control the lives of virtual characters, making decisions about their relationships, careers, and daily activities.

This raises interesting questions about morality and responsibility.

For example, should players be held accountable for the actions and choices of their Sims?

Do the virtual consequences of those actions have any real-world significance?

Rousseau, with his emphasis on the social contract and the importance of individual morality within a society, would likely have had a lot to say about these issues.

He might have explored how the actions of players in The Sims could mirror or diverge from the moral principles that govern our real lives.

Perhaps he would have argued that the game provides a unique opportunity for players to reflect on their own values and the impact of their decisions.

Overall, I think Rousseau would have found The Sims to be a rich and thought-provoking subject for his philosophical inquiries.

Jean-Jacques Rousseau's "The Social Contract" 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 maintain social order at the same time, the people are obliged, through the social contract, to disregard these natural rights and convert them into contractual rights, and by accepting this contract, individuals enjoy more and better rights and freedoms. In fact, this social contract is the manifestation of the rule of law that the people themselves have consented to.

The following is a summary of the principles and rules 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 the following points:

1) Social order is not only established by force but can also be achieved through a social contract, which is an accidental thing.

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 with the right to freedom.

4) According to the social contract, individuals disregard 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 ruling body, and at the same time, is obliged to fulfill the obligations of both aspects. The ruling body consists of all the people of a country.

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

7) The decision of the ruling body is the decision of all the people.

8) Ownership and disposition are legitimate as long as the ruling 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 not divisible and cannot be entrusted to one person or a few people.

Remark: The subjects of national sovereignty are divisible for better implementation, and their implementation is entrusted to the executive power, but they are a subset of national sovereignty and subject to its orders and instructions.

11) To ensure the common happiness, two goals must be determined, namely freedom and equality. These two values are complementary to each other. Equality does not mean that individuals should be equal in wealth and power, but that power should not be too strong and should be based on the law. Wealth should also not be such that the rich swallow the poor or the lower classes die of hunger.

12) The ruling body has no obligation other than legislation, and its implementation is with the executive power. The decision of the ruling body represents the general will.

13) The ruling 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.

Remark: It does not accept representation by the ruling body and believes that sovereignty is not transferable. The British people think they are free, and their real freedom is only the few days of elections, and after that, the people become slaves again.

14) Although the ruling body 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 "Tribune" is formed. Its members are appointed by the ruling body and elections are held at certain and short intervals to prevent the council from becoming self-serving.

The concepts of the social contract:

1) The general will is different from the unanimous will. Therefore, the ruling body takes into account the general will, which is the interests and concerns of the whole country, but the unanimous will, 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 considers it 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 enforce 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 ruling body, which is responsible for implementing the law.

5) Rousseau distinguishes between three types of government. One is an 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 a worthy salary, the favorites of the ruler are appointed.

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

The third is an aristocratic government that may be hereditary, which has the same problems as a monarchical government, or it may be an elected aristocratic government in which the people vote for them, and periodic elections pose the risk 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 in question 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 legitimate freedom through the social contract, and anyone who acts against it and is in conflict with that freedom should be forced to be free. This itself is a license for suppression in the government and is inconsistent with the culture of minorities, especially with ethnic minorities.

2) How should we determine the public interests and concerns? Suppose everyone disregards 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 have a view on a party or faction. Therefore, this practical problem still remains.

3) Although direct legislation by the ruling body, which consists of all the people of the country, is desirable, today, given the expansion of human 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 18th century. Therefore, it is also important from a historical research perspective, and we should not forget that these ideas were put forward at a time when many countries, such as France, were still monarchies.

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

This was the quote that my first philosophical essay in 12th grade was based on.

Rousseau has always been my favorite, ever since the philosophy classes in school.

He was an excellent thinker for his time, describing and arguing the principles of the organization of states with great insight. We can almost explain all political phenomena by standing on his thoughts.

Today, his theses about the geographical factor regarding the distribution of powers and the type of government are probably outdated. But this does not prevent me from reading these chapters with interest.

For better or for worse, he was almost always right in his conclusions about the consequences that governance can cause.

His ideas have had a profound impact on the development of political thought and continue to be relevant today. We can learn a lot from his works and use them to reflect on the current state of our society and the world.

Rousseau's philosophy challenges us to think about the nature of freedom, equality, and justice, and to consider how we can create a more just and democratic society.

His ideas are not always easy to understand, but they are well worth the effort. By studying his works, we can gain a deeper understanding of ourselves and the world around us.

In conclusion, Rousseau is an important figure in the history of philosophy, and his ideas continue to inspire and challenge us today.

One of the most remarkable things about this book is that it is comprehensive in all aspects.

What is astonishing about this book is how a person could be so brave as to write such a bold book.

In his time, society was unified and completely different from him. If Rousseau were alive today, what kind of creativity would he bring to us?

We can only imagine the possibilities.

This book not only provides valuable insights into the author's thoughts and ideas but also serves as a reminder of the importance of courage and innovation in the face of adversity.

It challenges us to think outside the box and consider new perspectives, even when it may seem difficult or unpopular.

Overall, this book is a must-read for anyone interested in exploring the human condition and the power of the written word.