Public and Private InterestRousseau was interested in one of the central concerns of political hypothesis from classical times to the present: how to reconcile conflicting cases of open and private interests. Figures like Hobbes had settled the question of distinction between people in general by requiring that the sovereign have the supreme power to decide this question. Given the diversity of petitioners in the running, it was important that a judge be appointed to ensure the benefit of all. Rousseau had central complaints about this. First, qualifying everyone's benefit without reference to the will of the general population was domineering and shameless. Second, considering the degenerate state of 18th century culture. Similarly to Plato, Rousseau set out to create social and political organizations that would shape the character and temperance of men with the goal that they could see their own real advantages. Crucial to his political enterprise was the claim that the Great Resident was the result of good political foundations. Much of what remains of the book is of interest to Rousseau's efforts to improve the Athenian constitution for life in the 18th century. Once again, as in the case of the Greek polis, the emphasis was on everyone's investment in government and legislative action. The hidden norm was that the administration was not the administration of the bosses within the group, but rather an organization responsible for teaching its residents the meaning of nobility and morality. The abrogating purpose of Rousseau's analysis regarding the capacity and nature of metro establishments is that enactment procedures and laws are the best method to develop good sensitivity within the group. The role of government is to create a feeling of deep quality and freedom: since everyone must participate in government, it is a condition of good opportunity given that thanks to the gadget of self-confidence, subjects are self-sufficient. For Rousseau, the legislator is then a specialist in good perfectibility rather than a management machine intended to guarantee singular rights or properties. In fact, Rousseau recommends that the goal of good government is to protect and change the group: this desire would be realized when “each inhabitant is nothing and can do nothing without the others.” This objective of putting the need of the group before the individual interests of each individual does not correspond effectively to current liberal origins. It must be understood, however, that for Rousseau it was not a question of resistance from a tyrannical government, but of an effort to advance freedom and liberty.