Jean Jacques Rousseau, in The Social Contract, describes the passage from a state in which men are naturally free, called state of nature, to another state in which they no longer have their natural freedom. In this state, individuals unite their power and freedom to form a corporate, which gives them civil freedom and can be called city, State or body politic. Such corporate is only viable through the settlement of a social contract of each individual with each other and themselves. In order to secure their survival, which was no longer possible in the state of nature, individuals alienate themselves, together with their freedom and power, to the “common under the supreme direction of the general will” (Rousseau, 1762, pp 192). In exchange, they receive civil freedom and rights of citizenship. This city, as Rousseau mentions in the title of chapter 6, The Social Compact, needs the compromising of all subjects in order to function, therefore, being compact. In this passage, Rousseau states that, it is completely possible that an individual, seeing himself as a man, can have a particular will which differs from the general will which he has as a citizen. So, even though this individual is a part of the Sovereign and so has a general will, when thinking of himself as an independent man, he might think that what he owes to what Rousseau calls, “common cause” (Rousseau, 1762, pp 194), does not give him any benefits, being then a “gratuitous contribution” (Rousseau, 1762, pp 194). In this case, because the State is a _persona _ficta, or in other words, it is not one individual person, he may desire to benefit from his rights as a citizen, sharing in the sovereign power and authority, without being bound to the duties of a subject, being then under the laws of the State. Because of his particular will, this individual breaks the body politics, due to the fact that it breaks the dual relation that individuals have with each other and the Sovereign. If this in fact...