combination of the wills of each person in the society. Since the sovereign was directed by this general will, it would be impossible for the its interests to conflict with the priorities of the citizens, since this would be doing harm to itself. It would also be impossible for the sovereign to create laws which were immoral, since its morals were simply a collection of all of the citizens morals. The general will could not be swayed by any one section of the society, since it represented the entire body. It would be impossible for anyone to will unfavorable conditions on another, since these conditions would also be placed on them. Since Rousseau claims that man’s "first law is to attend to his own preservation, his first cares are those he owes himself”, the sovereign’s first concern would be for the liberty of it’s members. Therefore the general will, by transferring man’s individual wills to the will of the sovereign, would guarantee each man freedom under the new society. Although Rousseau’s view of the social contract seems fairly logically, it does contain some holes, which limit the existence of such a society. Rousseau does little to establish how the general will is to be collected, and passed on to the sovereign. We are left to assume that if general will is to drive the actions of the sovereign, this necessarily demands a completely democratic society. Rousseau also states that "sovereignty, being only the exercise of general will, can never be alienated, and that the sovereign, which is only a collective being, can only be represented by itself." Since it has been established that all members of the society must take an active role in the sovereign, and here it is stated that this power is not transferable, the citizens can only be represented by themselves. This necessitates democratic voting by all members of society, on all issues. Here the problem is obvious, especially in 18th centur...
