Tentative Answer: Rousseau on the Social Contract

Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau all argue that the Social Contract/Covenant establishes a sovereign power. What are the differences? How does the varying conceptions of the ‘State of Nature’ affect those differences? Does the ‘General Will’ equal the ‘legislative power’ in Locke?

After reading Rousseau's writing on the Social Contract, I concluded that there is a direct relationship between each philosopher's conception of the ideal sovereign power and their respective perceptions of the State of Nature. Hobbes thought of the state of nature as a harsh place fraught with continual violence. For this reason, Hobbes argued that any form of government--even an oppressive dictatorship--would be beneficial to mankind. Since for Hobbes, the state of nature was the worst possible condition for in which man to live, government was necessary for man to survive and flourish. However, it seems as though conceptions of the state of nature became more subdued as time went on. Locke reformed Hobbes' idea that the state of nature was a state of continual violence, and Rousseau actually praised many aspects of the state of nature in Discourse on Inequality. Although Rousseau does not favor the state of nature as ideal conditions for mankind, he stresses that people who existed in the state of nature had heightened abilities that the "domesticated man" has lost. Rousseau also mentions that creation of government and formation of a structured society is more or less a natural process. This deviates from Hobbes, who stresses instead the natural competition and violence in the state of nature, making it seem as though an executive/leader of government is practically a savior to the people from the state of nature. Thus, it makes sense that Hobbes would support the sovereign having almost unchecked power, while Rousseau--who views government as more natural--emphasizes equality and the difference between the ruler-subject relationship and the slave-master relationship. 

In the Social Contract, Rousseau discusses the General Will, which can be loosely defined as the common desires of the sovereign (which in itself is the citizens acting collectively). I would argue that the General Will does not equal the legislative power in Locke because it is supposed to be encompassing of the needs and desires of the entire population, as well as a set of ideals that would be supported by everyone. The General Will is perplexing because in reality, it does not seem like it would exist, perhaps a large factor in Rousseau's support of small, homogenous states.