THE SOCIAL CONTRACT-

Jean-Jacques Rousseau in the text, which is called the social contract gives a view of how the social contract has been involved in the story in different ways, since the formation of human society itself between human dominated by another playing field, where there was no real thought of community.
According to Grotius, he said that there can be no termination where it is between that if the human race belongs to mankind or humanity belongs to mankind, so Grotius gives us an idea of ​​how the man since he is considered well, has been divided into flocks as they won with a head that protects them to devour, to take advantage of them.
Like Rousseau tells us at the beginning of his book one as from time immemorial, the sublimation of man by man has been printed on memories of influential in historical thinking, as in the case of Aristotle, who said that men are not equal in nature, some are born to be slaves and others are born to dominate, giving us an idea of ​​what has always been the idea that man has to be dominated by a superior, which obviously goes against the natural laws, however, has been said in this text that the man born in slavery is born and to become a slave, waive any right to be free, indeed, love and crave being dependent and chained to abandon his ideals service .
The right of freedom that comes with himself as innately human, tells us how every man born anywhere metaphorically born free but everywhere in chains, which is supposed to be is to realize his condition, the yoke of power exercised about whether and regain freedom based on the same law by which it was seized.
The first societies, where we argued that the first company and the only natural family, where the father and children represent the father as the head and the children born the same as the town where the family brand Rousseau as the first social contact, where we learn the rules of functioning and behavior, also, mark the permanence of children in the family until their subsistence needs are met, from that moment, the natural bond disappears, so the children are free from obedience to their parents and the father is free of care owed to their children. So Rousseau brand and defines the family as the first model of political society.
The law of the jungle, where he speaks and says that the man is not always strong enough to be always the master, if it does not convert strength into right, and obedience into duty. Rousseau gives ephemeral power the man who has greater force, since the force seen as mere physical ability so that gives it a moral proceed to holders stronger, therefore no right of superiority towards other people .
Slavery, with regard to slavery, Rousseau says there are many words that are misused her, so just focus on one that is alienating, which means to give or sell, speaks to the human condition of slavery voluntarily, and that man is alienated, sold to another, at least to change their livelihood.
Speak on this topic on citizenship status or men as to the condition of war, where the subjects are only used as cannon fodder, just to please the insatiability of its ruler and the abuse of ministers, only to keep some reassurance to obey his boss, though this worthy to his own dissatisfaction.
Back to the subject of slavery, talking about it that every man at birth, born free, compared to the children of slaves born within the same system without this condition will snatch your free men, however, speaks of the freeman status is lost only when these children become adults and so decide, or putting in front of the alleged meeting their needs, parents have to their children slavery before they have use of right to decide for themselves, which would be against the natural rights of the child and the right of paternity transgresses.
Spinning the subject of war with slavery, regarding this Grotius q, believe that war is one of the many origins of slavery, to make note that the winner of this war, had the right to kill up as the loser would buy his own life in exchange for his freedom, do not know what would be worse, if you die defending your ideals or become a slave to your enemy who was about to kill you.
The war can never be given to a man to a state, so that there is always the condition of war must be from state to state, individual combat, duels, skirmishes are acts which do not constitute any state so that each state can have as enemies only to other states and not men, as among things in nature indistinct, you can establish real relationships (Rousseau 2004), would be seriously something totally uneven.
Reaching the middle of the book is mentioned as an example of "when isolated men are subjected to a single individual, regardless of their number, there is a village and a head, but a master and slaves" (Rousseau 2004).
This is shown as an imposition, contrary to what is examined, the act by which the people elect their king, this is truly the act that builds to a free society, free choice of their leader to ensure his people.
Therefore we conclude that this king was elected by the majority rule, which has been established by agreement and requires that there was unanimity at least once, so well can realize that society thinks of equality conditions, and once unanimity existed, may exist above the law of the majority.
The social contract, where talks about the workforce that every man has, and sees in joining forces aggregation and the only way to overcome the resistance, you can set them in motion toward one goal and making them work together agreement.
Returning to the fundamental problem and it solves the social contract that is "find a form of association which defends and protects with all common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, uniting everyone else, does not obey but himself and remains as free as before.
Similarly, we deduce that if we eliminate the social compact among men, would miss the free union between common, which are part of a whole, as each member, turning essential and indivisible part of all, before the union of the whole of men was called city-states, now called the Republic, as members associated with this scheme are called by the name of people.
The sovereign, giving the image of power in the most powerful by giving the meaning of all above, the crowd of people who together constitute a body, which you can not offend without its members feel affected.

On the other hand each individual may have a particular will, opposite or completely different from the general will as a citizen, that is, as an individual man has an opinion, and the same man as citizen may think differently or opposite.