ROUSSEAU - THE ANSWERS

<BODY> <CENTER><FONT SIZE=5><B><FONT SIZE=6>ROUSSEAU</FONT><BR> HISTORIAN OF THE HEART</B></FONT></CENTER><P> <FONT SIZE=4><B>All is Revealed</B></FONT><P> <FONT SIZE=4><B>THE SOCIAL CONTRACT</B></FONT><P> <TABLE ALIGN=Left BORDER=0 CELLSPACING=2 CELLPADDING=1> <TR> <TD><IMG ALIGN=Left SRC="1404a.jpg" WIDTH="200" HEIGHT="241" ALT="MAN IN CHAINS"></TD> </TR> </TABLE> History had proven (and continues to prove) that the state restricts the individual freedom of its freeborn citizens when they are seen as a threat. In a Europe where some kings had taken to claiming divine right to power, people were often imprisoned for opposing the ruling powers (often on religious grounds). But this is not what Rousseau refers to when he says: "Man is born free and is everywhere in chains." Propaganda pamphletts such as this make much of the issue of freedom, but the major political philosophers all recognised that no society could survive if all individuals had the total freedom to do whatever they liked. A stable society required that individual freedoms be sacrificed for the good of the group.<BR clear=left><BR> Under what circumstances and to whom should individuals relinquish their right to individual freedom? This is what Rousseau seeks to explain in "The Social Contract". Natural man is free, solitary and driven by the need for self preservation. The forming of societies involves a <A HREF="../t03/g048.html" TARGET="_top">social contract</A> in which individuals sacrifice freedom in the name of self preservation. In this, Rousseau differs little from <A HREF="../t06/t06f12.html" TARGET="_top">Hobbes</A> and <A HREF="../13/13f01.html" TARGET="_top">Locke</A>. But where they saw property as a natural right to be defended, he saw it as the source of inequality and corruption. Where their social contract awarded sovereign power to an individual, in Rousseau's state, the "general will" of the people is sovereign. The social contract creates the "chains", but the chains are self imposed and the citizen lives a more secure existence than man in a "state of nature".<P> <FONT SIZE=4><B>THE GENERAL WILL</B></FONT><BR> For Rousseau, natural freedom is in fact slavery to individual passions. To set aside individual freedom and accept the general will is to accept a higher moral order. To be "general" the will need not be unanimous, although every vote must count. Every citizen is bound by the general will and individual interests are sacrificed for the common good. These chains are more binding than those proposed by Locke with his emphasis on inalienable rights to personal property. <BR clear=left><BR> <HR width=100%> <A HREF="http://www.creatorix.com.au"><IMG SRC="../creatorix.gif" WIDTH="85" HEIGHT="40" BORDER="0" ALT="Creatorix" align=right></A> </BODY>