edom, property. At the same time society gives it back with securing the rights to that property to the extent that it is enough to survival, and also setting a rejection to other properties as well. So, it indicates that the right to own a property also means that you can not own other s properties. These statements can be found in communist ideology, where equality was the main proposition. In fact, if to look into communist ideology, it can be concluded that it has nothing in common with development and social welfare (eg Vietnam, Laos, Cuba). De Tocqueville (1835) argues that freedom and private property can only co-exist along with democratic regime, while intervention of government to economy and to freedom of citizens creates serious danger to that. Whereas, communist ideology mainly has a command economy which obliges a government to directly intervene to economy and citizens life. That could destroy social inequality and make all people equal, but it would make them equally poor, having law rate of wellbeing or social-economic development. So, from this I conclude that as Rousseau s theory of property and equality is mainly reflected in communist ideology, it is not efficient and can not be applied in the world where social welfare requires high prosperity level.is also another quite similar analogy to Rousseau s offer in modern world that are used to equalize the distribution of wealth among its citizens. For example, progressive taxation, the system that takes a greater percentage of income from those who are relatively wealthy. It is used in many developed countries such as UK, Japan, Australia, New Zealand, etc. However, even in this case Shively (2011) claims that tax policies overall have not changed the distribution of incomes very much. Therefore, considering these examples, I would say that Rousseau s theory of making people equal is not really accurate. I think it was just a utopia or may be an issue that needs completely different ways of solving. talks about another fundamental concept in the social contract - general will. It is not the sum of private wills, but movement to one single will that is run by the general aim of everybody, which is common welfare (equally upright) (Rousseau, 59). As a result, the decisions made according to the general will are always right, because no private interests are concerned. But how the decisions should be made if there are different opinions about that? Rousseau solves this by explaining that the general will is the one which got the majority of votes, even if there is only one vote overweighing (Rousseau, 59-60). What do non-contents do then? If a one s private opinion contradicts the general will, that just means that he was wrong, and he is happy that he now knows the truth. I associate this theory with French Revolution. Despite the fact that it was initially started for the sake of common welfare and happiness, it brought a lot of death and anxiety. The main reason was that people were not ready to unite for the sake of so called general will. The revolutionists thought that people would act naturally creating common good reserves. But as it turned out that people s nature was not commonality but selfishness, the revolution took different character which was similar to dictatorship. To sum up the points mentioned above, I claim that general will can not be an assurance of real governmental system. Again I refer to people s natural inequality, that people want different things. Therefore, they need a system with rules and orders. will is closely related to sovereignty. It is the power over its members which run by general will and which perform the general will. Rousseau says that sovereignty has two main properties: it is inalienable (a will can not be passed on, Sovereign represents itself) and indivisible (Rousseau, 57-58). How the sovereignty is realized? In others words, how is the society governed? The answer is by laws. A law in its turn is a result of collective decision, which never considers private interests. Purpose of any law is a social welfare which is expressed in terms of liberty and equality. One of the most difficult questions then is - who can issue these laws? Rousseau says that a lawgiver should be supremely intelligent, impassive and willing to work selflessly for the sake of people (Rousseau, 68-70). In other words he should resemble a divine creature. He must not have a power, but his position is the highest. What is necessary to maintain the effectiveness of laws? Rousseau says that laws should regularly be updated in regular meetings. Uppermost, none of the authorities has a power during such meetings. Secondly, all people should gather by themselves without any representatives (Rousseau, book 2, ch: 8). Mostly these theories happen in Switzerland. In the 136 th article of Swiss Constitution the following laws are written: All Swiss citizens over the age of eighteen, unl...
