Rousseau’s Social Contract: Public Persona over Private Self
...is flawed. The term “general will” seems to imply that there is a common interest to all people involved. Assuming this is true, a direct democracy run on this principal would be ridiculously impractical. In theory if the concept of the “general will” really were to work and all people agreed, it would be completely unnecessary to have a powerful State as suggested by Rousseau. Rousseau argues that his ideal society under the “Social Contract” would be under the direct control of “the People.” At the cost of individual rights there would be an abolition of special privileges. Therefore tyranny would be impossible because the People would never oppress themselves. Yet, this is contradictory. It would appear as if Rousseau was supporting some form of totalitarianism. Nowadays, individual rights could not be more important and it is offensive to think we are merely smaller parts of a greater whole. Rather than having the contract make freedom possible, it seems as if the system revokes freedom. Furthermore, questions are raised having to do with the legitimacy of this so-called contract. As with any traditional contract, it must be entered by both parties voluntarily not to mention that it must outline the conditions, including the rights and duties of those involved. Rousseau “Social Contract” does not satisfy these basic aspects of a contract. It is written that the contract would be voluntary yet if one were to refuse to enter the contract one would be forced to flee and have their land repossessed by the State although having committed no crime. Moreover and of greater importance is that the terms of this contract place the power and decision making in the hands of the State. The individual who enters the contract...