Rousseau, in the first chapter of the second volume of the Social Contract, says that since sovereignty is an exercise of public will, it is always inalienable;Since the sovereign is a collective being, only it can represent itself.
Since the community, i.e., the sovereign, exists solely by virtue of the sanctity of the contract, it is absolutely impossible for one to do anything detrimental to the original contract, such as transferring a part of the community or being subject to another sovereign. To break the contract on which the community depends is to destroy itselfIf you don't exist, you can't do anything", in fact, Rousseau also emphasized this in the previous volume.
Either the Community should not be formed, or once it was formed, it would endeavour to preserve itself and preserve its sovereignty, or "the slightest encroachment on the Community would not fail to make its members feel the impact of the encroachment on them." In this sense, the Community will endeavour to protect each of its members, and each member will consciously defend the Community, so that "the obligations and interests of the two parties (the Community and the members) are to help each other and to find ways to combine all the interests that arise from this relationship under this dual relationship." ”
It is in itself a contradiction to want to establish a community and at the same time transfer its rights to others.
Many owners of the community, on the one hand, enjoy the convenience of the collective, on the other hand, they hope that another subject will manage the community, which is contradictory, essentially denying the community as a collective, is a typical "free ride" behavior, the consequence is to let other subjects take advantage of the void, infringe on the collective interests.
For example, if the owners' meeting and the owners' committee are not set up and the property is managed, the property will continue to encroach on the collective interests and infringe on the individual rights of the owners.
Some owners feel that they can let the community streets manage the community, and take it for granted that the superior manages the subordinate, and it is obviously wrong to reason according to Rousseau's theory of sovereignty.
The community is a collective, and the larger street is also a collective, and each collective should be responsible for its own public affairsStreets are supposed to manage public affairs within their own sphere – those that cannot be done by neighborhoods alone, but involve dozens of neighborhoods.
For example, it is easier to understand whether family affairs should be handled by the Owners' CommitteeOf course not, because the family is also a sovereign unit, even if the community includes all families, but the community can only manage the common affairs of the community, whether it is at the street level or the national level, the principle is the same.
Only when the owners are aware of their civic responsibilities and participate in the affairs of the community independently, the community will be well governed, otherwise, the more they want to rely on outsiders, the worse it is, as for how to govern well, Rousseau also has his own answer.