Humans are born to be free.

Introduction

At birth, humans are given a basic right to freedom. Humans do not, however, live lives of freedom. Men lost this freedom when they transitioned from the mundane lives of the past to the complex lifestyles of the present. Man is born free, but Rousseau claims that he lives his entire life in chains. As a result of each man's obligation to make personal contributions to society, there is a lack of freedom for men. Guys willingly give up their independence in order to provide for their needs. This essay explores Rousseau's justification for why people voluntarily cede their freedom. In his Second Discourse, Rousseau, argues his opinion on foundations of inequality in the society. He examines man's mental and physical traits and concludes that he is an animal like any other, and is motivated by self-preservation and pity. On the other hand, man is different from other animals owing to his ability to be perfect. This quality shapes and changes man in response to his surroundings. As men frequently come into contact, small societies start to form, his mind develops, and he becomes aware of others and develops a series of needs.

Submission to Superiors

Humans willingly submit to their superiors out of necessity, not by choice. He believes that bonds of servitude are formed by mutual dependence that exists among men. Men willingly give up their freedom out of reciprocal necessities that unite the strong people in the society, and the weak. However, since strong is relative, the effect of this right is bound to change over time. People overthrow each other in a bid to obtain the right to be the strongest and to gain power and influence over others.

Legitimacy of Authority

He argues that legitimacy of authority is dependent on a convention since no man has natural power over other men who are equal to him. He is of the opinion that force cannot establish a right to rule a group of people. He disagrees that people can give up their liberty without obtaining something beneficial in return. He refutes Grotius argument that people can alienate their freedom and surrender to a king. Rousseau refutes a considerable evidence that people can surrender their liberty in exchange for public tranquillity and accords that this public calm is insignificant as the rulers place unnecessary demands on the citizens and drag them into numerous wars.

Rousseau's Reasoning

Rousseau's argument on why humans give up their freedom willingly is reasonable as he draws evidence from simple life that man lived in early days. His explanation of the kind of life that old man lived and how he transitioned to a civil society kind of experience gives his argument credibility. This argument is the fact that one cannot fully understand the causes of inequality among humans without attempting to understand them fully. The correlation that he generates between early human life and inequality in his book, Discourse on the Origin of Inequality is irrefutable.

Refutations and Criticisms

According to Rousseau, early man was liberal, and his life was simple and peaceful. His concerns were his preservation; therefore, he was not in conflict with others. As man transitioned to modern life, some men became superior to others regarding property and wealth. The less fortunate men became submissive to their superiors in a bid to obtain necessities of life. A mutual interdependence between the strong and the weak people in the society resulted in a civil society where men gave up their liberty to the healthy people in the nation. This willingness to give up their freedom was not in vain according to Rousseau, the inferior members of the communities drew some benefits from serving their superiors.

Humans have been subjected to others who are more powerful than them even without their consent. In many societies around the world, people have submitted their liberty to leaders they do not personally believe. Therefore, humans do not give up their freedom willingly at times and trying circumstances force them to give up their liberty. Rousseau's argument that humans give up their freedom willingly is questionable. In a government where are slaves, the freedom of slaves is not obtained voluntarily? Humans value their freedom and try to safeguard it. However, at times people are faced with circumstances that take away their liberty unwillingly.

According to Grotius, whose arguments face rejection by Rousseau, a legitimate state can exist even where people are slaves, and the government is their master. In such a country, people alienate their freedom to serve a king even when they do not benefit from helping their king. It is possible for a more powerful and influential person to get his inferiors to submit to him through coercion. In the past, powerful nations colonized less powerful countries, took their property and their liberty forcefully and harshly. Despite having a high need for independence, a nation submitted fully to their superior colonizers. Human rights to representation and worship were profoundly affected by colonial powers, yet the colonies presented since their liberty was taken away.

My argument is that Rousseau's evidence that humans will give up their freedom is refutable. Humans have been forced to give up their liberty and have served their superiors even when they did not entirely agree with this kind of a situation. Even in our current day people in their workplaces and also in schools, have their superiors, and at times these leaders may require the subjects to something, and they have to do it as they are obliged to follow their leaders. It is evident that even in our current day institutions, people dislike having their liberty taken by others.

My criticism of Rousseau's argument is that humans do not willingly give up their liberty they are forced by particular circumstances. On the other hand, this criticism can also be criticized. In some cases, humans have willingly given up their liberty. People who are loyal to their leaders, serve them faithfully in a way that their freedom is limited. There exist a free will among some people to serve others and to be submissive to them. Therefore, people are not always forced by certain circumstances to give up their freedom, and some give up their freedom willingly even when they are not up to personal gains.

Conclusion

In conclusion, humans are born to be free. However, life subjects them to a less liberal environment. Different philosophers have expressed their ideas regarding human freedom and reasons as to why people give up their liberty in service of others. A sound understanding of humans is essential in coming up with an answer to this question. Inequalities in our society have contributed to the erosion of human liberty.