General Will

General Will as define by Rousseau is the will of the state and is the product of reason. As such, if an individual who is logical were to come down to reason, he would allow himself to follow the general will as that would be the best decision as decided by the majority. Thus if an individual were NOT to follow the general will, he is thus considered not free. The state has the right to make him be free in forcing him to follow the general will.
For example, during a vote to find the general will of the state as to whether to have a nuclear power station, the vote favours the presence of the nuclear station. This thus becomes the general will. As the general will is a result of logical thinking and reasoning, this is thus taken as the best options a state should take.
If an individual is against the presence of the nuclear station, then his thought run against the "most correct thought". As such, that individual would be wanting something that is against the general will. Acting against the general will is considered as doing something which is wrong, which the individual should not want. Thus that individual is enslaved to his particular will, and as he is enslaved, thus he is not free. The state then has the right to promote freedom by ensuring that that individual is not enslaved and should follow the general will of the people and should allow the presence of the nuclear power station. The state should be allowed to used force as necessary to force the individual to be free. This idea of forcing individuals to be free has lead to totalitarian rules in several cases.
Rousseau.
If a vote has been taken, can we consider Rousseau idea of the general will to be equal to democracy?
Democracy, two similar but with fundamental differences.
Simple democracy, where ever opinions from every individual counts in making decisions. Quite similar to have a family discussions on where to go for family vacations. It is here that democracy differs with Rousseau. Rousseau believes that there should be one options and that options is one that has been voted on by people using logical reasoning. Rousseau does not believe in considering the opinions of many others and that will include their particular wills. For example, the general will of the family are to go and visit Penang, but the son is of an opinion to stay a day at KL. The family hears his opinion and takes that into account. As such they'll be a day or two late to reach Penang. If every member of the family opinions were to be taken into account, the family may not even reach Penang especially when there are many members in the group.
Another drawback of simple democracy would be the fact that EVERY member has to be consulted on EVERY matter that pertains to the state of which that individual in a part of. Would that be a very efficient arrangements. If every Singaporeans opinions were to be noted for every matter, for example, the position of ERP gantries, the type of HDB houses to build, it may be too troublesome. As a result if asking and noting down opinions becomes too complicated, governments may just NOT asked for opinions.
Next we come to representative democracy. In this environment, people elect representatives to enact and enforce laws on behalf of themselves. Would this be considered an environment where the state should be run that the people govern themselves, How does the people govenr themselves when decisions are made for them and not BY them. Decisions are made by the representatives they elected. And thus Rousseau contents that the right to govern themselves are only apparent on the day the vote for their representatives. Here, the people do not vote for laws to be enacted or passed or to be made redundant but to vote for people to be elected into government who then makes decision for them.