Rousseau's Absolute Monarchy

From the very beginning of the book, Rousseau rejects the idea that any political authority is found in nature but rather the only natural authority is that of a father over their children. This only exists for the preservation of the child. This is consistent with the words of Hobbes who also say the relationship between the subjects and their ruler as a father and a child. This political superiority over the subjects comes from a force, not nature itself. “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.” (Rousseau, Ch.1) By this, he meant that although people see themselves have free will and are about to do as they seem fit but they are bound by responsibilities
Rousseau proposes the argument that no social contract can be forged with an absolute ruler. These ideas rest of the concepts that when the sovereign surrender their liberties to their monarch, they are consent to a social contract that voids all other contracts with the monarch. He also states that our freedom and liberties are closely linked our will to make choices on their own. If the monarch is absolute he concluded that we lose both our humanity and our liberties and we become slaves. This in effect gives the sovereign no reason to honor the social contract with the monarch and can lead to uprisings and
Rousseau would counter my argument by saying that we are not free at all. As a collective group, we may lack any kind of initiative to work towards any goal which can leave us spinning our wheels as we all move in different directions leaving the group motionless. We often have difficulty interacting with one another in any meaningful way, and it could be argued that our decisions and behavior are largely dictated to us by a consumer culture that discourages individual thought.
Rousseau might also claim that his system only seems unattractive to us because we have lost the community spirit that brings people together that want to accomplish a goal or have a common interest. Citizens in his ideal republic are not forced into a community but rather they agree to it for their mutual benefit. He would argue that the citizens of his community were very active and able to accomplish their goals the community spirit that united them did not intrude upon their individuality but instead it gave individuals an outlet for them to express their personal individuality to the