Another philosopher, John Stuart Mill, too argues for full participation in government by the common man(and woman), albeit with different reasoning than his predecessor Rousseau. Mill begins his chapter on representative democracy by directly codemnig despotism, arguing that no matter how effective the despot, absolute power means citizens are passive in decisions of the highest importance, those directly affecting the wellbeing of the population. Mill believes society functions best when citizens do not depend on others to make decisions for them, and their personal intelligence is free to evolve(Mill, Representative Democracy 65). Because of this, democracy, is best suited for society, as despotism would suppress these ideals. Mill goes against Rousseau in arguing for representative democracy. Nations are too populous for direct democracy to function effectively. Representative democracy requires every citizen to participate in government, albeit on a more limited basis, and fosters knowledge development amongst citizens. (Mill, Representative Democracy 67). In his writing On Liberty, Mill discusses the individual and the role of government in daily life. While Rousseau seems to put a greater focus on the general will of the public and majority, Mill focuses more on individualism. For Mill, defaulting to general will is a restriction on the freedom of the people and their individualism. A healthy government must have difference of opinion without pressure to conform to any one ideology, even if it is the opinion of the majority. Considering new and even unpopular ideas is vital for societal growth. This makes sense, as historically many discoveries valid today once began as radical and unpopular ideas. Rousseau’s general will concept, Mill would likely argue, would lead to a tyranny of the majority in which minority voices and freedoms are oppressed.>