It would be absurd to admit that the individual should make himself the oppressor, for the individual will is part of the general will. I may be mistaken about what is useful or harmful to my freedoms, but the general will is always right, as is the consequence of this will - the law. The conviction that Rousseau was able to instill that the law is the result of the will of every individual, the conviction to which he led with his brilliant knowledge, completely overshadowed the contradictions concluded in Sotigaya 06a, for example, in the form of an oath to the dogmas of natural religion and forced them to be considered the truth. And here the contradiction can be smoothed out if we take the point of view of Rousseau and admit that an apostate from such a religion is a completely unsuitable element of the political structure being built. Such an apostate will not even be able to fulfill the terms of the social contract, etc. (Here, probably, the bias of Calvinist Geneva manifested itself). Looking at Rousseau's system, it is now easy to see its shortcomings. But the historian’s job is also to recognize its real elements in order to create a well-known doctrine. And there is undoubtedly such a positive result: the principle is firmly established: every political individual participates in the creation of the law, being part of the people, thus the right of a citizen is established and consistently recognized not only in legislation but in the entire scope of power, and not through representatives. In other words, sovereignty is based on the principles of personal law D). This was a mechanical and rationalist explanation of the lawmaker, but Rousseau is a political dogmatist. And such dogmatism was enormous.
How such a law will react to us is the result of uniting our individual wills, this is another
1) This theory was subsequently adopted by Robespierre when he said that sovereignty resides in all individuals of the people.
— 353 question. But to inspire a person that his political destiny also depends on him, that his political environment is an associate and associate voluntary, even if it leads to voluntary restrictions, the necessity of which is recognized, that the law is the result of the will of this associate, explained so simply and naturally, that a representative of power is only an authorized agent, and not a being called and endowed from above, - this meant laying the fundamental foundation of the theory of democratic doctrine ‘), where the individual is a logical person, and the state is a logical one.
Let Rousseau's theory lead at some points to Hobbism. But this is Hobbism, which at no point in development can extract from the individual the consciousness of his co-determining will in the state. And such consciousness was expensive, it was charming for political slaves.
If it is once and for all conscious that my “I” will participate in the creation of a law, and if, for example, the result is a law that oppresses me more than my nature allows (for example, belief in certain dogmas), then I may have more doubts about the correctness of this law. But my mind cannot find another, more individualistic process of state legislation: either accept it or refuse it. This is the dilemma. But to accept the latter: to renounce all state law-making means to renounce the state.
USH.
Historians of revolutionary events and doctrine point to the spirituality of political individualism among the social and literary leaders of that era. (Not to mention that these latter days, like their Anglo-American predecessors,
r) Rousseau believed that the democrat is the primary form of human cohabitation.
re m lat NR b A VaOBaAe G yy al ko yvaa > Pekklaa VM
and comrades - with a few exceptions 1), did not apply the idea of equality to the social economic system. In the majority, they recognized the property qualification, i.e., small income, as an indicator of civil legal capacity. Sleyes - @'ezЁ se asche 1e Megz 65 - belongs to the division of citizens into passive and active).
Thus, on the question of the correspondence of political freedom with the form of the state, Rousseau recognized the unsuitability of the republican-democratic form for large states 2)