According to the question that is given above this paper will attempt to show that, the minority will be oppressed by the social contract as Rousseau claimed in his book that a private contract made within minorities would be illegitimate and damage the main social contract.
             My thesis has three parts, the first part analyzes the illegitimacy of the private contracts that are made within the minorities and the second part focuses on the damage that the private contract causes on the society and the last part justifies the oppression upon the minorities. I will defend each part with a separate argument.
             First of all, I want to focus on the meaning of oppression. Generally, it is the condition of keeping down by ruling unjustly or cruelly. With respect to this meaning, Rousseau's social contract contains oppression upon minorities according to my thesis. However, the oppression occurs in a different manner where the cruelty or the unjust treat to them cannot be seen clearly. In other words, the prevention upon minorities' opinions indicates the oppression which I try to justify.
             There are two reasons why oppression occurs. The first reason is that the minority has to accept the laws which are made by the majority. The social contract does not include the minority's opinions. So the minority may want to make their own laws with respect to their choices but as their laws would not be related with the social contract and the general will, the they would not be right and ,therefore be illegitimate. The second reason is related with the private contracts that the minority has made. Private contracts may be made within minorities because the social contract is done according to the general will of the majority. So the minorities should have freedom to make some contracts according to their free will. However, if they would make such private contracts among themselves it would cause social contract to break up and mo...