I.) IntroductionThe structure of society has been debated and contested since ancient Greece. Since then, man has developed social systems very different from anything the ancients had in mind. One such system is social contract theory, which rose to prominence during the Enlightenment. In simplified terms, social contractarians asserted that to achieve a balanced and stable society, all its members must sacrifice certain freedoms for the benefit of a government or similar authority. As Rousseau explains, the contract begins when “Each of us pools his person and all his power under the supreme direction of the general will” (148). Essentially, it is an agreement between the rulers and the ruled that produces a stable political state. John Locke's Second Treatise on Government and Jean-Jacques Rousseau's The Social Contract are both illuminating works that detail contractarianism, but each has a unique and different way of looking at the social contract. Although John Stuart Mill is also known for his work on utilitarianism, his essay On Liberty examines consent and other issues related to contract theory. These authors offer different perspectives on the social contract and often one rejects another's idea and proposes a new solution. Even after this meshing of ideas and solutions, contract theory remains far from practical. The idea is attractive because it appears at first glance to be a fair and just mode of governance. However, true freedom cannot be born from a contract, just as man cannot be “forced to be free” (150). Contractarianism has two fundamental flaws: it is impractical and it ignores human nature, and even if it were possible to establish a true contractual society, the city...... middle of paper .... ..tract the theory raises additional questions. Rousseau envisioned a society in which every voice was heard. One solution to this impracticality is the idea of ​​representation – something Locke advocated in The Second Treatise. The idea makes sense; have one person represent a group of people to improve functionality. But how can one man fully represent the interests of an entire group? Surely there must be differences between the representative and those he represents. If this is the case, can this be called justice? The man has already given up certain rights by accepting the contract. By being represented, he also waives his right to full participation in the system. Despite this and other problems with contractarianism, this theory has served as the foundation of the American political system and continues to inspire political ideologies around the world...