The True Objective Of The Social Contract

THE TRUE OBJECTIVE OF THE SOCIAL CONTRACT

In this essay, the objective of the Rousseau social contract will be seen that is based on 4 books where each explains elements and principles of the social contract and on which the majority of the essay will focus, in addition to the most important concepts that are They will deal with are the concept of freedom and human nature with the powers of the State, as well as the sovereignty and the general will of the people. Rousseau says that the social contract does not submit to anyone in particular, since he believes that everything is not the work of God, but is the work of man, he also says that the problem is to reconcile obedience, order and authority with The inalienable freedom of individuals, in addition to venerating democracy as the best that can be added to a civilization since the people are the one who chooses.

Like knowing that the social contract is a work that has left modern thinkers a lot, since he left a land of political theory and practice which is taken into account today. Rousseau considers a society in which we return to a state similar to the one we had in our natural state.

In the social contract, there are several issues that, without a doubt, have currently been relevant and necessary, both worldwide and in the Mexican country. Living such a different time where there is such a different government regime and in a society so divided and intolerant with any person, Rousseau advances to today’s societies, so he was a thinker too wise for his time, his Political thinking looks very correct that our own governments and even, I think that, our mistakes, the causes of our crisis and also that of our successes.

And just like Rousseau gives us too much about how we are governed, as they control us without even realizing that that happens, becoming slaves without us knowing, thus selling our freedom or rather giving it to our consent but involuntarily thought that weWe are the people who choose our political representatives, when in reality we are very wrong, however with a good democracy and with changes to certain laws you can become a democratic civilization and not resort to the monarchy giving way to tyranny and despotism whereThere is no reason or opinion and only a tyrant would rule what he wants. That is why the social contract tries to make known that the people have the power of everything.

Developing

“While a people are obliged to obey and obey, it does well;As soon as you can shake the yoke, and shake it, work even better, because regaining your freedom with the same right with which it was taken away, proof that was created to enjoy it.”Rousseau was a great very advanced thinker for his time and for ours and his social contract is a sign that this is true, Rousseau shows chapters in his various books in which his work is divided, so if he talks aboutEach would be much, however, only the most outstanding ones that are considered will be taken.

Rousseau speaks in the chapters of the first part about how a society can be a slave of people with power over them, the first societies and force as power before others.

A perspective is taken in which the only natural society is that of the family, and only exists by convention since the children when they grow and also explains human nature with what resembles the political hierarchy thus giving the fatherAs the political chief and his children as the people who are under control and depends on the representative, however there is also tyrannical behavior, when the decisions of the people are not heard and only the boss does what is pleased.

Grotio gives us to think that if the human genre belongs to a hundred men or if the hundred belongs to the genre, for Rousseau it was more inclined to the second, since Rousseau thought that man was good by nature and therefore the first one takes off the firstopinion.

The force as Rousseau mentions is the most the power that can be exercised both physically and psychologically and which cannot be corrected since the person who has the power has everything, the people obeys people who have more power andTherefore they idolize it so that nothing happens to them. Also the people who are controlled under the power of someone give their rights and are practically slaves.

“It is, therefore, that the right word does not add anything to force or mean anything here at all. Obey the powers. If this means: yield by force, precept is good, but superfluous."

His Rousseau position in part of the injustice of the laws where the poor followThey have money that people who are slaves with the hegemony of other people and have no money to stay, because these are destined for laws to never be in their favor and step on the few rights that protect them. That is why Rousseau believes that the bad government cannot change and they are the majority, however, a good governance is one that sees them all equally and there is no distinction and where the laws become equal to all applying justice and endingWith a government that is full of influence and corruption.

"The first and most important consequence of the established principles is that the general will can only direct the forces of the State according to the purposes of its institution, which is the common good"

The will can be defined according to the book as a fundamental concept of democracy when making decisions and in which these decisions that are made by the people become a sedation of a power or the thought that is considered correct, alreadythat the majority of the people take the disposition, and although the sovereign can decide this is not in itself the will of the but that of the people in general that will always be based on democracy before anything.

Rousseau shows this condition in the contract, saying that: “sovereignty is indivisible for the same reason that is inalienable;Because the will is general or is not;The declaration of this will constitutes an act of sovereignty and is law;In the second, it is nothing but a particular will or an act of magistracy;A decree to the most."Therefore, this text is more than enough that shows that sovereign decisions are taken into account as a society as a society and the general will may or may not enter into certain decisions that make up the magistrate or the representative.

The will of all and the general will should not be confused since one is partly the fundamental decisions as the part of the democracy and the will of all only the previous interest of individuals and it is only that, so clearlyIt doesn’t have much resemblance.

“Fear and flattery change in acclamations the suffrage;It is not deliberate;is talled or cursed. Such was the vile way of voting from the Senate under the Empire, sometimes taking ridiculous precautions.”The suffrage must be treated very seriously since it is an issue in which Rousseau gives a lot of importance in which people must be the ones who choose, the people itself is the one that has the power to make this possible, and it is also where democracy becomes more importance than what it already has, since together with the suffrage these two get the people to be sovereign and not that an external power takes this whole command to create a tyranny.

Rousseau says that there is only one law by nature and which demands unanimous consent, this law is the social pact because she says that she is the association that voluntarily is done and is in each person, as a person, since she is born of every manAnd he does not own someone who takes advantage of this, since according to Rousseau the social pact finds opponents and that such opposition does not invalidate it, and only implies the exclusion of them, which will be considered as foreigners among citizens among citizens. However, these oppositions can fail and validate the exclusions not only of this but of the laws that exist at a point where they are not respected and creating problems in society that only harms the daily lives of people living in it.

In itself Rousseau sees democracy the best that has existed in life asHowever, according to Rousseau “democracy is a government without a government according to this, that there could be no better constitution than the one in which the Executive Power was attached to the legislative more this would do such an unable government, from a certain point of view, because whatThat it must be distinguished, it is not, and confusing the prince with the sovereign body, it would not exist ”of course that democracy is not perfect, however Rousseau considers it the easiest to carry and where according to the decisions of the entire people you cancreate a state which is sustainable and does not fall into hands that repress free thought and reason.

Conclusion:

In conclusion, I believe that Rousseau has a social impact on which his political thoughts are very structural where they are given in view of the certain training of the powers that govern a people, although the people must govern themselves, or at leastThis is what democracy is about to do, to end once to despotism and the tyranny of the monarchy.

However, I do not agree with Rousseau to call democracy the best option for society, certainly in a perfect state democracy would fit very well, however, the changes that have been made in society have caused democracyIt loses value, since at present the people no longer have the power to exercise democracy and this has been a cause that undoubtedly discredited this unique element in society. Today the people have poor sovereignty which they cannot exercise due to the oppression of the government itself as such.

These days democracy is very poor, I do not mean that democracy cannot recover peo today this is very difficult for society that focuses on having hegemony to less powerful people. Today everyone believes that their ideas are good, that their actions are of goodwill, as in the war, one struggles for their ideals, with what he believes is correct, so some people like terrorists arecall freedom fighters in what I believe that ideas must be governed today, the same goes for capitalist or socialist countries and that is why no one will convince anything to the rest.

I think that all political persons currently refuse to admit that people who are right are those who have power and not ideas like Rousseau can mention these, of course, it does not deny that the force of power between one to person toAnother is considered as a slave, however, his thought implied that ideas are one of the sources of reasoning, but time has changed that and above all the evolution of society, his change of ideas that have constantly presented aroseThey make democracy lost value, however not everything is bad, since it can be corrected and make democracy again to have the value that must always have.