I understand what you mean is the conflict between the individual and the collective, or the conflict between the minority and the majority.

Indeed, if the principle of unity is followed, the minority will always be ruled by the majority, easily forming what Tocqueville called "democratic tyranny."

But there is a question, that is, who is more important, the minority or the majority? On the one hand, it is difficult to say clearly in theory, and on the other hand, it depends on the actual situation, so based on my knowledge Philosophers are very careful to speak rigorously so as not to make people pick on their pigtails. They have discussed the need to ensure that minorities are free from oppression, but they generally do not directly say that mechanisms to protect individuals are more important than unity or collectivism.

The famous sayings in this regard include: First, Locke mentioned in the second part of "Treatise of Government" that in a good society, no law-abiding citizen will be afraid of any other person or force; second, Mill Jr., also known as Mill, defined social freedom in "On Liberty", that is, only when individual behavior harms others can collective power be used to stop it, otherwise it should not be subject to any interference. What I have said is general and I have not reproduced the original text accurately. If necessary, you can search it on Baidu, or look through these two books. Both books are very thin and the content can be explained in simple terms. If you want to know more, you can read Tocqueville's "On American Democracy", Rawls's "A Theory of Justice", etc.