Societal Man is Free?

“An absolute surrender of the individual, with all of his rights and all of his powers, to the community, as a whole” (Rousseau Contract Social, I, 6, 9; II, 2, 4.).
For man to be a moral character, which is no longer seen as or acts as an animal, he must give up his personal being to the community as a whole. The claim being that this surrendering of oneself to the State is emancipation from an individual’s tyranny. In simpler terms, give of yourself into the public will and be free from tyranny. This idea sounds great but in reality destroys the individual and makes one susceptible to be ruled over by tyranny. Far removed from the desired liberty and far beyond any known tyranny lies the man who surrenders to the public will.
Rousseau makes claims that are invalid, and I will show most of the claims to be invalid by proving contradictions within those claims. This will hope to undermine Rousseau’s arguments and grant that his society is far removed from his claims.
On Liberty
I shall use the following definition of Liberty “1: the quality or state of being free: a: the power to do as one pleases b: freedom from physical restraint c: freedom from arbitrary or despotic control d: the positive enjoyment of various social, political, or economic rights and privileges e: the power of choice”
Rousseau talks of forcing freedom upon the individual by the state. “That whoever refuses to obey the general will shall be compelled to do so by the whole body. This means nothing less than that he will be forced to be free” (Rousseau I, 7). Does this follow the definition of Liberty, the power to do as one pleases? I believe not; even if it is for the betterment of the individual, the tyranny of the general will, force the individual to obey. There is no talk of what will happen if the individual does not follow the group, but I believe it is their removal from the state. Therefore, what follows is, if I do not want to wear blue clothes on Sunday (for example) than I can no longer be a member of the state. This seems far from liberty or freedom, though I can see where Rousseau sees this as equality, because if everyone wears the same thing, no jealousy can be displayed over clothing and everyone is the same. Of course Rousseau does not take the point to these extremes and even sets a safeguard for instances like this by having a sovereign. A person the general will trusts to direct the general will to be more virtuous and moral. Now the general will is entrusted to an individual who is not going to exert his or her own personal will to guide the general will. This point I still do not understand, because the general will trusts this individual enough to grant them power of authority, yet this person belongs to the general will? I am reminded of the philosopher king in this instance. A person the people trust to make them moral. I believe this is more of giving the general will over to a person whose individual will is what the general will believes to be moral. In simpler terms, we grant authority to the person we wish to be most like. How does this coincide with liberty? A person is not free if they are trying to be like everyone else, remember Rousseau’s society is without private property. “Each member of the community gives himself to it, at the moment of its foundation, just as he is, with all the resources at his command, including the goods he possesses” (Rousseau, I, 9). Therefore, it can be concluded that no one has anything and tries to be like the Sovereign. Nothing of liberty is in this equation, only Tyranny of the majority with a leader. Rousseau does not think of this as majority rule though, I believe it is seen more as a compromise of all the individual wills over an issue. I come across a problem with this, because given time, this society will all think the same on an issue and thus the sovereign will have complete control making him a tyrant. Does this make the society one of liberty, no; however, the society does become one of equality. This means liberty and equality are not hand in hand, perhaps it is the existence of private will that grants liberty and equality the hand in hand Rousseau wants.
On Government
“The government gets from the Sovereign the orders it gives the people, and, for the State to be properly balanced, there must, when everything is reckoned in, be equality between the product or power of the government taker, in itself, and the product or power of the citizens, who are on the one hand sovereign and on the other subject” (Rousseau 3, 1).
The government is a civil institution with no power in itself but delegates and applies the laws where needed. This institution with no authority gets its power through the sovereign, which is the citizenship and applies it to the citizenship. I wonder if the government is truly needed then. For it seems that if the society is to be drones of the mass will under the control of the sovereign than the application and enforcement of the laws is unnecessary because everyone agreed to them. No this institution must serve another unspoken purpose and I believe it is to keep inline those who wish to exercise their liberty. The few who speak out against the general will shall feel the oppressing thumb of the government. This institution is corrupt by its very nature in these conditions because it forces equality and tarnishes the individuals will. How can moral character be developed if liberty does not exist to exercise one’s own free will.
The problem with Rousseau’s society is that it extinguishes free will. The individual will surrenders to the general will. “I love my city more than I love my soul” becomes Rousseau’s slogan, and this destroys free will. When society makes decisions for you, while making you believe you are part of that process, than it has total control over your will. This form of tyranny is far beyond the tyranny of the world today, where the individual will still exists and up-rises against tyranny.
Property
If we take Rousseau’s society and include room for private property and time for the individual, an equal and free society can be made. It should be the role of the sovereign to instill Moral character into the society but not by directing the general will but rather to inspire participation into politics. If man is allowed to exercise his individual will in the private sphere while in the public sphere participate into the general will by injecting ideas and discussing laws, than he is equal with everyone else having a voice and enjoys liberty by doing what they wish for the most part because the enforcement of the group will follows that he should. If the individual disagrees, they are not forced to agree, they are free to speak against and demonstrate against the law. This builds a truly moral character and not a moral drone of the sovereign. Thus, democracy is Rousseau’s Free State, not a republic but a true democracy. The issue arising is size, and here I think a federal democracy is important. Let the will follow through from individual levels to more federal levels. Tally votes not by representation but rather by individual communities overall will, creating a better shape of the countries will. An informed and educated federal democracy will be free and equal.