To begin Rousseau starts the reading by saying that there cannot be a legitimate political authority because political authority puts restraints of freedoms that man was born with, Rousseau says that man was born with one natural form of authority, and that is the authority of a father over a child which exist only to keep the child alive all other authorities are rejected. The reasoning that some philosophers such as Hobbes assume that natural superiority of rulers over the ruled is the same as parental authority. However, Rousseau believes that this authority has no basis in nature because they use force to keep it. Rousseau says that the only answer to this problem is through some social contract made between members of society where people surrender their freedom …show more content…
The sovereign and the individuals are bound together individuals are bound to the sovereign, and the sovereign is bound to the individuals even though the sovereign is not bound by the contracts it cannot do anything that would violate the contract because it cannot violate itself because it owes its existence to that contract. However, Rousseau says that individuals, on the other hand, need the incentive of law to remain loyal to the sovereign, some might try to disobey their duties, however, will enjoy the benefits of being in that contract. To conclude Rousseau speaks of the ownership of land, he says that the ownership of land is legitimate if only someone did not claim it first and also if the land occupied is not more than the landowner 's needs. He says that people surrender all property to the sovereign however they do not give up the property entirely because they are subject to the