Rousseau: Forcing to be Free

"Perhaps the most widely shared account of how, for Rousseau, the use of coercive power to force compliance with the law can amount to forcing to be free is the so-called social-autonomy account.' That account turns on Rousseau's important distinction between natural freedom and what he calls moral freedom or autonomy, a distinction that is understood as, roughly, a distinction between being able to do what one wills to do without interference or impediment and self-conscious rational self-determination" (p  303). 

Steven G. Affeldt. "The Force of Freedom: Rousseau on Forcing to be Free". Political Theory. Sage Publications. Vol 27-3. pp 299-333. Accessed on Jstor 09/06/2013. 

One of the unresolved paradoxes from Rousseau's text is the one about the legitimacy of force in politics. In Rousseau's opinion, force precludes right, or duty. Therefore anything that is accomplished by means of force is not politically legitimate. However, apparently, when it comes to unifying all the particular wills of the people and transforming them in order to attain a general will, it is perfectly alright to use force. Dissidents must be made to see the light, "forced to be free". This tension in Rousseau's work about whether force is ever a good thing has been the subject of much debate.

The paradox is open to more than one interpretation. The first one relies on the presupposition that republicans owe their republic for the protection that it gives them. Acting according to the rules -the general will- is a means of showing that gratitude and in the end results to nothing more than being a good citizen. After all, there is something illogical about entering or being part of a republic, and thus being guaranteed to have your best interests looked after, and then simply not cooperating. In this respect people can forced to be free.

Another interpretation, and widely thought to be a more insightful one, is the interpretation that discerns two different kinds of freedom, one that is associated with the republic, and one found in natural condition. In the latter state, freedom means being free to give full vent to your passions and desires without anybody judging or limiting you. In the republic however, this kind of freedom is construed to be false. After all, being a slave to your senses does not even come close to what liberty truly is. The republican idea of freedom means being subject to no one, except to yourself, and the rules that you put down. This is called autonomy, a quality that is capable of transforming people from animals into true moral and political human beings. It is this quality that enables people to separate that which is good for oneself, from that which is good for everyone.