Primary
Source: from The Social Contract
By
Jean-Jacques Rousseau
Man is born free; and everywhere he is
in chains. One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater
slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make
it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.
If I took into account only force, and
the effects derived from it, I should say: “As long as a people is compelled to
obey, and obeys, it does well; as soon as it can shake off the yoke, and shakes
it off, it does still better; for, regaining its liberty by the same right as
took it away, either it is justified in resuming it or there was no
justification for those who took it away.” But the social order is a sacred
right which is the basis of all rights. Nevertheless, this right does not come
from nature, and must therefore be founded on conventions. Before coming to
that, I have to prove what I have just asserted.
The strongest is never strong enough
to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and
obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all
seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle. But
are we never to have an explanation of this phrase? Force is a physical power,
and I fail to see what moral effect it can have. To yield to force is an act of
necessity, not of will—at the most, an act of prudence. In what sense can it be
a duty?
Suppose for a moment that this
so-called “right” exists. I maintain that the sole result is a mass of
inexplicable nonsense. For, if force creates right, the effect changes with the
cause; every force that is greater than the first succeeds to its right. As soon
as possible to disobey with impunity, disobedience is legitimate; and, the
strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters is to act so
as to become the strongest. But what kind of right is that which perishes when
force fails? If we must obey perforce, there is no need to obey because we
ought; and if we are not forced to obey, we are under no obligation to do so.
Clearly, the word “right” adds nothing to force; in this connection, it means
absolutely nothing.
Obey the powers that be. If this means
yield to force, it is a good precept, but superfluous: I can answer for its
never being violated. All power comes from God, I admit; but so does all
sickness: does that mean that we are forbidden to call in the doctor? A brigand
[bandit] surprises me at the edge of a wood: must I merely surrender my purse
in compulsion, but, even if I could withhold it, am I in conscience bound to
give it up? For certainly the pistol he holds is also a power.
Let us then admit that force does not
create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers. In that
case, my original question recurs.