Rousseau begins with his famous statement, "Man was born free, and he is everywhere in chains," which returns to his belief that man is in a decline from the state of nature. He feels these chains are limitations placed by governments not found in the state of nature. He disagrees with Hobbes' notion of the rule of a father over a child and believes legitimacy exists in a social contract. He disagrees with the rule of a king because a king does not offer preservation or security and because one cannot give up his/her freedom. He also feels that wars are between states and individuals should be left alone once they are defeated.
             The only way the social contract will preserve freedom is if everyone submits unconditionally; if so, the conditions for everyone are the same for everyone, no one would oppose the state, and no one would have more freedom than another. I feel Rousseau's reasoning is somewhat week: his state is ruled by a sovereign who is not bound to anyone except the contract. This sounds like Hobbes' description of why a king is most suited although his disagrees with Hobbes' notion of the rule of a father. He then argues that transgressors will be forced to be fee and that a gain of morals will compensate the loss of physical freedoms.
             The main goal of the sovereign is to preserve the common interest. However, investing in the people's common will the ability to declare war, he seems to remove the division between the people and the state that previously protected prisoners of war. The sovereign is only permitted to speak on matters of public interest and does not have absolute power. Rousseau also believes in the death penalty, but thinks there shouldn't be need for there should be few criminals in his society. He feels that law should only apply to the people as a whole and never to individuals. For this and other reasons, Rousseau argues that laws from the common people sho...