The Social Contract By Jean-Jacques Rousseau

Improved Essays
Are we all free? The simple answer to that question is no, but if only comparing people who live in countries that classify their people are free, are they free? Jean-Jacques Rousseau states in “The Social Contract, 1763” “Man was born free, but everywhere he is in chains.” People consider themselves free but the government and the laws it creates owns everyone. Voltaire implies that governments govern man because man cannot govern himself. If man governed themselves it would allow for their personal interests to be the basis for laws and not the governments. 1 Montesquieu, Voltaire, and Rousseau describe the faults within society and suggest changes to the government structures, or a method of governing ourselves to provide liberty …show more content…
His overall thought is that the government must be organized in a way that no man fears another. If the system follows that principle, then it reduces the corruptness and everyone freely makes decisions and suggestions without fear. In addition, to eliminate corrupt officials all branches must be separate as well as their powers. So, the executive branch will cover the law of nations led by one elected person, but any law created has the right for the legislative branch to review it, but this does not affect the leader. So, the leader cannot initiate a law that does not benefit the whole if so the legislative branch can review and change the law. The executive branch for civil law or judicial branch composed of common people, with similar minds of the public organizes as the army.3 The army answers to the executive branch because it’s business is often actions not issues of debate, such as the legislative branch handles. The army is the voice of the people, and they answer to their own leader within the army, therefore they are not subject to fear of following the orders from the executive branch. Then the legislative branch is composed of a completely different group of individuals to avoid conflict between it and the executive branch. The legislative branch should only assemble as scheduled by the executive branch during times of need to …show more content…
Ideally, everyone would exist as one, but not individually. Although, people may struggle to realize this is what is best for them because we live in a society that fools everyone about what is important or necessary. The governmental structure would have to be completely erased, and the collective principles discussed that benefits everyone. A system of morality would need to be decided upon, implemented and then a massive assembly where everyone dedicates themselves to their neighbor; and the skills of everyone organized so the country can still operate, but the simple idea of what is best for everyone, not themselves would dictate everyone in their decisions to live free, free from government, free from law, and free from each

Related Documents

  • Improved Essays

    Although we have many rights, we unknowingly give many of them up to our political society; our government. One government, however, cannot guarantee safety and self-preservation to all its subjects through the “social contract” Hobbes adheres to. They must pick and choose who is worthy of this even if everyone has innate rights. This judgment is not dictated by one’s loyalty to the government, instead, it is motivated by self-interest and prejudice that constantly fluctuates from leader to leader who decides what group or individual has freedom. Therefore, even if Hobbes hoped for a more submissive constituent that only questions government in result to a direct threat of life, this cannot be the case in our current political time.…

    • 1147 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    When Rousseau was writing The Social Contract, the term “liberty” was not new. In fact, Hobbes and Locke already used and had their own definitions of these terms (another similarity between the three philosophers). He used this term to introduce to us the current problem of “What would it take to bring a man out of the state of nature into an organized society?” Some people, liberals, would say that the incentive of protection would cause them to move toward this type of lifestyle. However, Rousseau’s definition of liberty was a little different. He believed that dropping the state of nature into an organized society should allow more than just protection.…

    • 1060 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Locke on the other hand, follows a more modern view on government, power should not be absolute, and the people have the right to rebel if they feel they are being mistreated. According to Hobbes, a common wealth is established when men agree to give up rights to all things to a sovereign to have absolute control. There can not be a new contract with the permission of the sovereign, nor could anyone protest against the sovereign. The sovereign had the right to judge what was best for society, including laws, taxes, and policies. Legislative, executive, or judicial…

    • 1195 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    This is why the people vote who they deem fit to make life impacting decisions about the country. "The government itself, which is only the mode which people have chosen to execute their will, is equally liable to be abused and perverted before the people can ask through it” (Thoreau). If the candidates that the people voted for change their views or were pretending to have certain viewpoints on different matters, then the people have every right to go against the government. The government overall, as a whole is only a small percentage of the population; furthermore, what they say that they will stand for should not be able to change once…

    • 1591 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Hobbes would best undermine my values because in his view, the government’s command is to be obeyed at all times and they can essentially do anything they want. This would be troubling because society would have to obey the governments commands regardless of how bad it is and there would be no supervision of people and their rights, but instead a leader with power that does whatever he wants, which can lead to a tyrannical government. The threat of society being negatively controlled by a tyrannical leader would confiscate the virtues of liberty, the right to life, and the right to property because the government can restrict citizens in any way they desire as well as take property as they see fit. The oppression that would manifest would depreciate the lives of people and the essential virtues of Locke’s political philosophy would be lost in the power of the government. On another note, the individuals discussed above would do worse under Hobbes’s political system because they would all be directed to endure tasks that would serve as a sacrifice, rather than an improvement.…

    • 1396 Words
    • 6 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    So if a monarch, or other authority infringes upon any of these rights they have cast away their own entitlement to said rights. It is in these instances, where a ruling body decides without input from the persons mentioned; that Locke believes war is justified. However, Locke does not believe that war is something that should be practiced often, and he also believes that there are other ways to ensure the rights of each individual. This is the true reasoning behind society and governments, and by extension the definitive guideline to how a ruling body should be formed. Not by chance, power, or subjection but by the people that are to be governed, because these governments’ sole purpose is to protect each citizen’s natural rights.…

    • 711 Words
    • 3 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Forcing humans to give restrict their freedom to gain freedom from the state is a contradicting concept. This form of government is much more autocratic and demanding of citizens. This is no way of freedom. Negative liberty would be a much more successful approach to freedom as society is now highly civilized and this is a laissez-faire. The common goal of all people is freedom as everyone wishes to be able to achieve what they want without the government telling them it is not right.…

    • 1090 Words
    • 5 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Superior Essays

    Rousseau wanted the people to be able to govern themselves because of the negative way he saw the King govern his citizens. The King made decisions without thinking about how they affected his people; he never took their opinions into consideration and Rousseau believes that people should be in control of how the government affects their lives. I understand what he is trying to do, but there needs to be a more controlled system in place. Another downfall about his vision of governance is: what is the group to do when a law does not apply to everyone? Should they enforce it anyways because it is for the good of the majority, or would that be breaking the general will?…

    • 1580 Words
    • 7 Pages
    Superior Essays
  • Improved Essays

    He believed that society has the right to govern and protect themselves until too much harm was caused and only then should the government be allowed to intervene. Paine advocated for a representative democracy where each colony would have a nearly equal weight so that no state would have too much power over another because the government can get too…

    • 1939 Words
    • 8 Pages
    Improved Essays
  • Improved Essays

    Government functions should be performed by all of the people, not by representatives, as necessary to meet specific needs. Lockes’ state of nature has both the good and bad aspects of Hobbes and Rousseau. People had complete freedom to do as they wanted, as Rousseau believed, but exercising that freedom sometimes created conflict between people as Hobbes believed. Locke believed that people create governments to protect the rights of all the people without unnecessarily restricting the rights of individuals. Lockes’ view is more accurate because humans do have the flaws of Hobbes and the aspirations of Rousseau.…

    • 863 Words
    • 4 Pages
    Improved Essays