Final answer:
Rousseau might agree with property confiscation for public good if it serves the general will and does not harm individual rights, reflecting the nuanced balance he believed should exist between private interests and community needs.
Step-by-step explanation:
Inquiring whether the philosopher Rousseau would agree or disagree with the government's authority to confiscate a person’s property for the public good takes us deep into his political philosophy. Rousseau might agree to some extent, as he believed in the concept of the general will, which holds that the needs of the community as a whole can be prioritized over individual interests. His belief in the social contract suggests that individuals enter into a collective agreement where some liberties may be surrendered for common benefits, such as security and public goods.
However, Rousseau would also insist that any confiscation of property must strictly serve the public good and not be a disguised benefit for a select few. He emphasized that private property should be protected as long as it does not harm the general will. Considering that a seizure of property through eminent domain for economic benefits must still align with the collective well-being and must provide just compensation, Rousseau's stance appears nuanced, potentially supporting the idea if it aligns with the general will and ensuring that it does not disproportionately harm the individual's rights.