Locke and Rousseau present themselves as two very distinct thinkers. Both use similar terms, but conceptualize them differently to suit very different purposes. Therefore, it is not surprising that the two theorists do not understand freedom in the same way. Locke discusses freedom on an individual scale, where personal freedom is guaranteed by laws and institutions created in civil society. In comparison, Rousseau's conception portrays freedom as an affair of the entire political community, and is best captured by the notion of self-government. The distinctions, but also the similarities between the conceptions of Locke and Rousseau can be clarified by examining the role of freedom in the state of nature and in civil society proposed by each theorist, the concepts with which each theorist associates freedom and the means to guarantee and safeguard freedom that At the heart of their theories, both Locke and Rousseau seek to explain the origin of civil society, and from there to criticize it, and similarly both theorists begin with the conception of a state of nature: a human existence that precedes civil society. in which the individual finds no institutions or laws to guide or control his behavior. Although both theorists begin with a state of nature, they do not both begin with the same one. The Lockean state of nature is populated by individuals with fully developed rational capacities. Furthermore, these individuals possess perfect freedom and equality, which Locke understands as granted by God. They conduct their affairs rationally, acquiring possessions and appropriating property, but soon realize the vulnerability of their person and property without any means coded to ensure their safety... middle of paper... being charged with protection. Rousseau's conception of freedom is more dynamic. Starting from the fact that all human beings are free, Rousseau conceives of the transition to civil society as the complete enslavement of human beings, with society acting as a corrupting force on Rousseau's strong and independent natural man. Subsequently Rousseau tries to make the individual regain his lost freedom. Rousseau's Path to Freedom is more compelling as it challenges the static notion of freedom as a fixed concept. He perceives that inadvertently freedom can be transformed from perfectly available to private to largely imperceptible, and as something that changes and requires active attention to be preserved. In this, Rousseau's conception of freedom emerges as more compelling and interesting than Locke's, despite the Lockean interpretation that dominates contemporary civil society..