The proper use and limits of governmental power have different implications for each theorist we have studied. Some see its power as all-encompassing, while others see it as more narrow, controlled and regulated. For this essay, I have chosen to examine the philosophies of the theorists with whom I least disagree: Rousseau, Locke, and Rawls. One can always remember the famous phrase of Jean-Jacques Rousseau: “Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains." This phrase expressed his opposition to the idea that the individual should be forced to give up his natural rights to favor of a king. His idea of ​​political power is one that derives from a social contract, and is entered into by participants who desire protection of life, liberty and property, while maintaining a good deal of freedom citizens renounce their right to community, and their role is to decide their own individual will, and then come together to exercise the general will, voted on by all citizens, in determining the laws for the public good individual will can coincide with the general will, especially with regard to religion. On this issue Rousseau expresses opposition to theology, because if anything, the only "religion" he would approve is the one that holds the sacredness of the contract social. If anyone disagreed or disobeyed these laws, they would be “forced to be free,” meaning that residents of the state would have to follow the laws or be exiled. Compare such direct democracy to Geneva. However, if the population decided not to care about such matters, the government would be dissolved. Therefore, in this vision, all political power, without separation, is in the hands... middle of paper... who create a well-ordered society, which concerns the overall doctrine of each individual. Rawls suggests that it is possible to set aside all-encompassing doctrine to bring about a sense of justice in government, so that people can reach an overlapping consensus. This would create the desirable basis for stability, since the government would be stable for the right reasons: everyone affirms a moral doctrine for moral reasons. In conclusion, the three theorists each chose some type of democracy. Rousseau presents an extreme type, where people have a say in most matters. Locke, on the other hand, is on the side of a reluctant democracy because he sees it necessary to protect its insecurities regarding natural rights. Finally, Rawls is in favor of a "just" democracy, as its goal is not necessarily an efficient society, but is to create a more noble one..