[General] One sentence from the Social Contract

[PteroHenry]

I've been recently reading Rousseau's Social Contract to improve my reading comprehension. There are several sentences I can't get hold of. Here's one:
What right have the hundred who want to have a master to vote on behalf of the ten who do not?
Can anyone help me translate this sentence into a simpler one?

Since the original book is written in French, there exists another English version of this sentence:
How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not?
It appears in Book one, Chapter 5: 'That we must always go back to an original covenant', where I think the author argues an unanimous agreement is required antecedent to making it righteous for the majority to rule.

Please correct me if I've made any mistakes in posting this thread.

 

[konungursvia]

Eighteenth century rhetoric is different to ours; you need more context. What kind of proxy voting is he talking about in that passage?

The literal meaning should be clear: why is it fair for 100 people who want to be told what to do, to vote in the place of 10 who do not?

But I can't remember Le contrat social well enough to answer in full.

I've been recently reading Rousseau's Social Contract to improve my reading comprehension. There are several sentences I can't get hold of. Here's one:
What right have the hundred who want to have a master to vote on behalf of the ten who do not?
Can anyone help me translate this sentence into a simpler one?

Since the original book is written in French, there exists another English version of this sentence:
How have a hundred men who wish for a master the right to vote on behalf of ten who do not?
It appears in Book one, Chapter 5: 'That we must always go back to an original covenant', where I think the author argues an unanimous agreement is required antecedent to making it righteous for the majority to rule.

Please correct me if I've made any mistakes in posting this thread.

 

[PteroHenry]

Forgive me. I have only the vaguest notion of rhetoric. Do you mean if today's rhetoric is applied instead, the sentence would look like 'What right does the hundred, who want to have a master, have to vote on behalf of the then who do not'?