Phillosophy Summary: The Social Contract by Rousseau part 1

Introduction

As explained in the introduction post my motivation for writing is that this particular book has been unfairly maligned as a proto-communist call for an absolute state. To the contrary though it shares many of the same criticisms of unrestrained democracy as the classical-liberal/libertarian tradition. I can only assume that many who have invoked it be they socialist or individualist have grabbed onto terms such as "general will" without reading Rousseau's own definitions of these. I will be pointing out this books own shortcomings in future posts but there is much here that greatly clarifies the problems Libertarian thought grapples with.

Summary

Preface

Raises question of if there is a good form of government at all
Clarifies that by good he means not compromising deontological justice or utilitarian goals
His right to vote implies an obligation to be informed on politics

Chapter 1

"Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains"
"Those who think themselves the masters of others are indeed greater slaves than they"
How this came to be is a mystery
If only considering force citizens should rebel if strong enough or submit without complaint
However we tend to think in terms of rights derived from the structure of society
Different societies are built of different agreements rather than a single template from nature
Therefore a persons exact rights differ from one society to another
Exactly what the agreements (and by extension rights) are is not obvious
All of the above will need great clarification before proceeding

Chapter 2

The oldest and only truly natural society is the family
...which dissolves on the children reaching maturity
Continuing friendship with parents / siblings as adults is a choice outside of nature
Adults are responsible for their own well being
Individuals are the best judges of how to carry out this responsibility
Therefore needing freedom to carry out their duty
Traditionally states have been modelled on families with the king as father and citizens as children
Such a state should be built on citizens following the king voluntarily like a family of adult sons still following their father
However a father's reward is love whereas the king's reward is the pleasure of control
Grotius argued that slavery proves that at least some states are not benevolent
Further he compared humanity to herds of cattle owned and eaten by farmers
Aristotle claimed that some men are born to be masters and others born to be slaves
But he confused effect and cause. People raised as slaves do not know how to be anything else
This is a "natural" result of violating natural law
Rousseau jokes that being descended from Adam and Eve he is a prince and inline to being king of Earth
Returning to seriousness he explains that hermits are monarchs by default
This is the only time a "ruler" has no reason to fear rebellion or war