My intention here is not to exclude the approval of the people, to be a fair basis for the government where it has its place. It is certainly the best and most sacred of all. All I`m saying is that it very rarely erupted in any degree and never almost at its full scale. And that we must therefore authorize another government base. The social contract begins with Rousseau`s most frequently mentioned line: “Man was born free, and he is chained everywhere” (49). This requirement is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the second speech and the temporary work to come. Humans are essentially free and free in the state of nature, but the “progress” of civilization has replaced submission to others with dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves by comparisons with others. As a return to the state of nature is neither feasible nor desirable, the aim of the policy is to restore freedom and thus reconcile who we really and essentially are with coexistence. This is the fundamental philosophical problem that the social contract wants to address: how can we be free and live together? In other words, how can we live together without succumbing to the violence and coercion of others? We can do this, says Rousseau, by submitting our individual and special will to the collective or general will created by the agreement with other free and equal people. Like Hobbes and Locke before him and unlike ancient philosophers, all men are naturally made equal, therefore no one has the natural right to govern others, and therefore the only justified authority is the authority that arises from agreements or covenants.
On the day he was introduced as Mitt Romney`s candidate friend, Congressman Paul Ryan said that citizens` rights were “nature and God, not government.” Ryan made failed accusations to Obama and pointed out that governments, as stated in the Constitution, deduce “their powers from the approval of the governed.” If that`s Ryan`s argument for the need to remove Obama, then it`s a pure Malarkey. The founding fathers invoked the “consent of the governed” as an argument for the “separation” of Britain. What we have now is not a revolution, but the normal four-year cycle of the presidential election. The problem with Magna Carta is considerable. If a king can grant rights, a king can withdraw rights. If rights are inalienable (not granted by a person or government), individuals should never be separated from those rights to life, liberty and property. Governments can protect or violate/restrict rights, but they do not grant them or do not grant them. The starting point of most theories of societal contracts is a study of the human condition without a political order (described by Thomas Hobbes as the “natural state”).
 In this state, the individual`s actions are related only to his personal power and conscience.