What are the differences between natural freedom, civil freedom and moral freedom? Why does Rousseau make this distinction? In addition to the concept of freedom, Rousseau poses two concepts: the first is the social contract based on agreements stipulated between individuals to allow good coexistence between them, the second is the concept of state authority as natural law. Man's freedom is innate in every being, man is free by nature; freedom must not be alienated, but freedom must not fall into debauchery, and must always be based on mutual agreement and the use of reason. Furthermore, the ruler should be granted both natural freedom and individual conditions. The people should be represented and adhere to the rules imposed by the sovereign for their own good. Rousseau also specifies that one's freedom should also be exchanged for civil freedom, which I partially disagree with, because there may be some aspects present in natural liberties that could not be developed within civil liberties. For example, because countries have rules that protect their borders, a person cannot freely cross countries. These rules impose, in my opinion, serious limits on a person's ability to live new experiences. Another example could be that if a person does not follow the rules dictated by a certain regime, he would lose his civil freedom, but at the same time he could acquire or strengthen his natural freedoms. The person may even realize who they really are, because they no longer feel the pressure to perform according to the normal standards imposed by the government. The concept of freedom is related to the type of society in which the person finds himself. As regards moral freedom, this appears with the constitution of civil society... in the middle of the paper... the state experiences an internal conflict, another state cannot intervene because it is an exclusive problem. A state cannot impose its laws or rights even on another state, because that would constitute a violation of the rights of people battling an “internal disease,” as Kant calls it. The intervention of an external agent will be justified as long as the main objective is the restoration of order. Otherwise the intervention would not be necessary because it would undermine the integrity of the established government.6. According to Kant there must be a certain trust in the soul of the enemy in war. Because without such trust it would be impossible to achieve peace. Kant also identified war as the means to obtain the affirmation of law by force. Therefore no enemy can be considered unjust, but the result that emerges between the laterality decides which side is right.