Jean-Jacques Rousseau had a very different and more complex point of view on the whole issue of law and how it was imposed. He had very strict
opinions and guidelines which in practice, may have proved difficult to
follow. He was of the opinion that we were born free and all had the right to our free opinions but, we needed
laws in place to keep everyone in order. However, he
believed that those laws should only be enforced and followed on
important issues. This would therefore still enable us to be free. He suggested that we all obey ourselves and this would therefore eliminate the problem of questioning whether the authority being imposed over us was legitimate or not. We would decide for ourselves which issues and laws were important, if the source was legitimate and, once we had decided both those factors, we would then either act within the laws being imposed or not – depending on the conclusion we had come to. If what the state wanted and believed was the same as our thoughts and beliefs, the state was therefore not in
charge. What he was suggesting was that if we think and act in this way, we would be giving the impression that the state was in charge and instructing us but in fact, we were in charge of ourselves and taking our own instruction because we believed in the same thing. He was of the idea that, if what the
general public want and what the state wants is the same, there is no question of legitimacy as the wills are identical. This would only apply to fundamental matters as, with any other matters of less importance; the public should follow their own minds to enable them to be free. Rousseau wanted to strike a balance between living in a state with rules and regulations and, being able and free to make our own choices and live by those choices and opinions. He believed that, the will of the state was best for the state because, it was the general will. The way to be free and strike that balance was therefore, in his opinion, to follow the will of the state. This was not a general rule though; it only applied to important issues. His thoughts and opinions were not fool proof because, what one person believes is important, another may not. Where should the line be drawn to decide what is important and what is not? I may decide that a particular matter is important to me but, someone else who may not be affected by the same issue would probably decide that it is quite unimportant. If the state made a decision on a particular issue and I decided it was important, someone else may not agree. Who in that case would be right, me and the state or the other person who disagreed? It is all a case of opinion and judgement. It also involves a bit of manipulation as he was in a way saying that, if the state made a decision and we managed to find a way to construct that decision to fit in with our beliefs and opinions, we would therefore be able to follow the state and still be free. That is not correct as all we would be doing would be to manipulate the situation to suit our purpose.
More summaries about the The Social Contract