Jean-Jacques Rousseau
The 18th century French philosopher Jean-Jacques Rousseau, in his book The Social Contract, put forward a system of political thought which was closely related to those of Hobbes and Locke, but different in important respects. In the opening sentence of the book, Rousseau argued that "...man was born free, but he is everywhere in chains"[22] He defined political authority and legitimacy as stemming from the "general will", or volonté generale; for Rousseau, "true Sovereignty is directed always at the public good".[23] This concept of the general will implicitly "allows for individual diversity and freedom...[but] also encourages the well-being of the whole, and therefore can conflict with the particular interests of individuals."[23] As such, Rousseau also argues that the people may need a "lawgiver" to draw up a constitution and system of laws, because the general will, "while always morally sound, is sometimes mistaken".[22]
Rousseau's thought has been seen by some scholars as contradictory and inconsistent, and as not addressing the fundamental contradiction between individual freedom and subordination to the needs of society, "the tension that seems to exist between liberalism and communitarianism".[23] As one Catholic scholar argues, "that it [The Social Contract] contains serious contradictions is undeniable...its fundamental principles--the origin of society, absolute freedom and absolute equality of all--are false and unnatural."[24] The Catholic Encyclopedia further argues that Rousseau's concept of the general will would inevitably lead to "the suppression of personality, the reign of force and caprice, the tyranny of the multitude, the despotism of the crowd", i.e. the subordination of the individual to society as a whole.[24]
John Stuart Mill
In the 19th century, John Stuart Mill pioneered the liberal conception of politics. He saw democracy as the major political development of his era[25] and, in his book On Liberty, advocated stronger protection for individual rights against government and the rule of the majority. He argued that liberty was the most important right of human beings, and that the only just cause for interfering with the liberty of another person was self-protection.[26] One commentator refers to On Liberty as "the strongest and most eloquent defense of liberalism that we have."[26] Mill also emphasised the importance of freedom of speech, claiming that "we can never be sure that the opinion we are attempting to stifle is a false opinion, and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still."[27]
