Rousseau is a strange philosopher. Some of his idea are dangerous, too.
For example, his theory of social contract doesn't provide any limitation to the power of the 'General Will': the opposite of the other equally famous theory, Locke's one, which requires some check and balances and doesn't have absolute power toward the citizens (the results are easy to see: Rousseau's legacy are Napoleon and Urss, Locke's the United States).

Aside from that, Rousseau's account of the birth of human societies (the argument of this book) is bit fuzzy and misleading.
I think that Hobbes' one -100 years older- is far more near to reality: the first societies arose out of men's desire of selfpreservation and this happend always with the absolute subjection of them to a central authority, a leader (though obviously Hobbes approves this absolute power and we do not).
Rousseau brings a fundamental detail to this picture: the cause behind this association, the element that made an ever-continous (yer not very harmful) state of war a deep problem was agriculture.
Agriculture pushed men toward bigger and hierarchical societies: those societies thus gained a remarkable advantage toward the less efficent ones, and started the age of slavery . ( )

"Savages are happier than citizens, and brutes are happier than savages! Voila the Sum of J. J. Rousseau's philosophy! A poor atonement for such poisonous stuff is made by all the divinity of his eloquence. His panegyrics on nature, on savages and beasts: his philippics against art, sciences, society and civilization, contributed however to make Europe uneasy under their religion and government and promoted the revolution that is begun! 1791." (Inscribed on page 38).

Rousseau starts with the proposition that inequality is based on either natural or political reasons. He then fully expands on each. He takes us through the natural development of man into a social being. The natural man evolved enough to value the self, and then saw certain opportunities for interdependence, which led to society and man's growing softer all the way. Once social beings organize into groups, the strongest can and do prevail. Walking us through the natural development of man, Rousseau discusses the nature of mate selection, the development of skills, the learning of the use of fire, metallurgy, and agriculture. He refutes Hobbes assertion that man is inherently lacking in virtue -- in the state of nature, there is no virtue save strength and constitution. Rousseau also allows that man has a natural compassion that helped him become social. He is not totally "brutish." His explanation of property became the basis for property law, including the homesteading process in the USA. His summary of inequality: "In this state of affairs, equality might have been sustained, had the talents of individuals been equal, and had, for example, the use of iron and the consumption of commodities always exactly balanced each other; but, as there was nothing to preserve this balance, it was soon disturbed; the strongest did most work; the most skillful turned his labour to best account; the most ingenious devised methods of diminishing his labour: the husbandman wanted more iron, or the smith more corn, and, while both laboured equally, the one gained a great deal by his work, while the other could hardly support himself." [recorded quote sans name of translator] This inequality causes insecurity and by the end, we have Rousseau crying out against the trouble man has brought against himself in seeking personal property: war, piracy, illness (caused both by poor nutrition in the poor and indulgence by the rich), a weakened constitution, arranged marriage (between "ill-starred" couples), urban living, and abortion.
Given the primacy of the state of nature grounded in pre-society, he doesn't give us much basis to solve the modern problem. If he focused more on the post-civilization's natural state, we would have a practical foundation, it seems. Still, this work was a key step in the evolution of political philosophy and it remains an important classic. ( )

Philosophy, political theory

It Is Of Man That I Have To Speak; And The Question I Am Investigating Shows Me That It Is To Men That I Must Address Myself: For Questions Of This Sort Are Not Asked By Those Who Are Afraid To Honour Truth. I Shall Then Confidently Uphold The Cause Of Humanity Before The Wise Men Who Invite Me To Do So, And Shall Not Be Dissatisfied If I Acquit Myself In A Manner Worthy Of My Subject And Of My Judges.