Micah Reigstad
Professor: Douglas Pierce
History 0222-21
6 October 2017
Social Contract Book Review The Social Contract was written by the Swiss born Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and the first publication of the book was in the year of 1762 in the French language. In 1968, Maurice Cranston translated the book in English and the book has around 190 pages in Penguin Classics edition. In this non-fiction book, Rousseau tried his very best to theorize the most superior way possible to make a political community by considering the issues a commercial society would have. Moreover, Rousseau noted that a country or city needed a strong medium ground or principles between government and sovereign, and government and citizens. This paper will …show more content…
The actions of a state, that are similar to those of a citizen, can be broken down into will and strength. The “will” is the human decision to do something and the “strength,” is simply the power or strength that an individual has if he would like to do something. After this, Jean-Jacques Rousseau moves onto a different that relates to the social contract. He claims that there is no kind of social contract between a government and the rest of the citizens, since the people do not surrender their beliefs to the government in the way that they do to the sovereign. Nevertheless, the more power the government has, the more tempted the magistrate in the government will likely to abuse their power and capitalize in their favor. Rousseau explains that there are three forms of government. When most of the people are magistrates, the government turns into a form of democracy. If less than half of the people are magistrates, aristocracy appears. The government is monarchical when there is one magistrate left. Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggests the smaller states are well suited to democracy, the intermediate states to aristocracy, and lastly, the larger states work well under monarchy. He quickly notes that he recommends balanced forms of power instead of a one form of government. Towards the end of Book III, Rousseau argues that government is not made up of a contract, but by law. …show more content…
I will give my opinions on it and answer a few questions that may arise. Early on, Rousseau wrote, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (“Chains.”) this essentially means that the “chains” are the laws placed on the freedom of people in my observation. He also could be saying that God has set rules on people on which they live their lives, but the former I hold strong with. Rousseau now mentions the topic of slavery in wartime, “But as soon as they lay down their arms and surrender, they cease to be either enemies or instruments of the enemy; they become simply men once more, and no one has any longer the right to take their lives.” (“Slavery.”) This is sort of confusing to be honest. Does there not come a point where soldiers have a choice in killing another human being even if it is on the opposite side? Moreover, if a soldier has committed thousands of murders during wartime, does he become clean just by simply producing a surrendering
Professor: Douglas Pierce
History 0222-21
6 October 2017
Social Contract Book Review The Social Contract was written by the Swiss born Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) and the first publication of the book was in the year of 1762 in the French language. In 1968, Maurice Cranston translated the book in English and the book has around 190 pages in Penguin Classics edition. In this non-fiction book, Rousseau tried his very best to theorize the most superior way possible to make a political community by considering the issues a commercial society would have. Moreover, Rousseau noted that a country or city needed a strong medium ground or principles between government and sovereign, and government and citizens. This paper will …show more content…
The actions of a state, that are similar to those of a citizen, can be broken down into will and strength. The “will” is the human decision to do something and the “strength,” is simply the power or strength that an individual has if he would like to do something. After this, Jean-Jacques Rousseau moves onto a different that relates to the social contract. He claims that there is no kind of social contract between a government and the rest of the citizens, since the people do not surrender their beliefs to the government in the way that they do to the sovereign. Nevertheless, the more power the government has, the more tempted the magistrate in the government will likely to abuse their power and capitalize in their favor. Rousseau explains that there are three forms of government. When most of the people are magistrates, the government turns into a form of democracy. If less than half of the people are magistrates, aristocracy appears. The government is monarchical when there is one magistrate left. Jean-Jacques Rousseau suggests the smaller states are well suited to democracy, the intermediate states to aristocracy, and lastly, the larger states work well under monarchy. He quickly notes that he recommends balanced forms of power instead of a one form of government. Towards the end of Book III, Rousseau argues that government is not made up of a contract, but by law. …show more content…
I will give my opinions on it and answer a few questions that may arise. Early on, Rousseau wrote, “Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains” (“Chains.”) this essentially means that the “chains” are the laws placed on the freedom of people in my observation. He also could be saying that God has set rules on people on which they live their lives, but the former I hold strong with. Rousseau now mentions the topic of slavery in wartime, “But as soon as they lay down their arms and surrender, they cease to be either enemies or instruments of the enemy; they become simply men once more, and no one has any longer the right to take their lives.” (“Slavery.”) This is sort of confusing to be honest. Does there not come a point where soldiers have a choice in killing another human being even if it is on the opposite side? Moreover, if a soldier has committed thousands of murders during wartime, does he become clean just by simply producing a surrendering