How did Rousseau's social contract differ from Locke's social contract?

In political philosophy, the social contract theories of John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau differ significantly in their view of individual rights, the role of the state, and the nature of liberty.12

• Individualism vs. Collectivism: Locke’s theory is fundamentally individualistic. He argued that individuals enter a social contract to protect pre-existing natural rights, specifically life, liberty, and property. In contrast, Rousseau’s conception is more organic and collective; he argued that individuals surrender their natural independence to the general will, a collective body that aims at the common good.123
• Purpose of Government: For Locke, the state is an impartial arbiter created to protect natural rights and enforce the law of nature. If a government fails to protect these rights, it loses its legitimacy and may be overthrown. For Rousseau, the state is a moral person whose laws are acts of the general will. True political liberty is found in obedience to this general will, which he believed ensures the equality of citizens.143
• Property: Locke viewed the protection of private property as a primary reason for forming a government. Rousseau, however, was critical of private property, viewing it as a source of social inequality and vice that necessitated a fraudulent social contract to protect the interests of the rich.12