As much as we may tear Rousseau apart in class, his last (& long) sentence in Part Two rung particularly true to me.

It follows furthermore that that moral inequality, authorized by positive law alone, is contrary to natural right, whenever it is not matched in exact proportion with physical inequality - a distinction which sufficiently determines what we ought to think of that form of inequality which prevails among all civilized peoples; for it is manifestly contrary to the law of nature, however defined, that a child should govern an old man, that an imbecile should lead a wise man, and that a handful of people should gorge themselves with superfluities while the hungry multitude goes in want of necessities.

He observes the contradictions of his own society, yet this makes me think of our own. Beyond the the idea of some having too much while others have none, we now observe that the rich stay thin while the poor grow obese. Older, and more experienced employees are fired and replaced with younger ones. Physical strength only gives an upper hand in low-paying labor jobs.