Rousseau "On The Social Contract" Book I

Rousseau begins by talking about the origins and purposes of a society. At the beginning, it sounds like he is writing to refute the works of Grotius, he clearly has a grudge against him. He also refutes Hobbe's argument of "might makes right". Then he goes in to explain in Chapter 7 that slavery is illegitimate. His argument for this, I believe, is his main argument in book I. It is very similar to Locke's. Consent is the basis for political legitimacy. In a slave-master relationship there is no consent, therefore the authority is invalid. He argues this point with conquests in the later chapters of the book. Like Locke's argument, I agree with consent being the basis for legitimacy, even if it is tacit consent. However, I would like to comment on his "social conflict" theory. In his argument against slavery he writes "Men are not natural enemies, for the simple reason that men living in their original state state of independence do not have sufficiently constant relationships among themselves to bring about either a state of peace or war." This sounds like he is saying that men, in a state of nature, lack relationships and property. I disagree. Even in a state of nature man has "putative" property. If this putative property is infringed, conflict will occur. More so in the state of nature than in society will conflict or war arise between two parties when property of any kind, be it real or putative, is infringed.