A contract is by definition an agreement... how, then, does the social contract work?

It´s not an agreement it´s just an idea. It´s a philosophical form of legitimation f.e.democracy and very popular 200 years ago.

The Social Contract works off of the idea that you are in the state because you have made an agreement, or a "social contract," to be in the state, and this is evident by the fact that you are in the state, have been in the state, enjoy the goods of the state, and as such agree to the rules of the state as a tradeoff, for example, in a State of Nature, no govenment, if I want that apple you're holding, I can just kill you and take it for myself; naturally, however, if this is the case, as it is in the State of Bature, and the one rule is that there are no rules but to survive and do as you wish, then ANYONE may do as the wish--unlimited. Anyone may kill anytime they wish, anyone may steal when they are hungry, and as the best generally survive and are strongest, these people are targeted, so you live in constant fear in light of this paradox; too strong and you'll attract attention and be seen as a threat and likely be attacked by a hord afraid of your increasing strength, and too weak and people will take advantage of you and rip you apart.

Just like Diplomacy.

The Social Contract essentially states that you'll give up your natural right to UNLIMITED freedom of this nature in order to join a government with rules and with safety in numbers; you lose the right to kill whenever you feel like it or threatened by someone growing strong, but you gain a police force and Army that act as protection so you don't have to attack otehrs, and as a government allows for a pooling of resources and agreements about who gets what in society, there is no need to steal apples, we have currency, go down to the store, and exchange the money for the apple instead of every one of us just rushing the Wal-Mart gorcery isle for whatever we want and biting and clawing whoever stands in our way.

As you live in and benefit from the State, you have, the theory goes, a Social Contract with that state; it may be broken, of course, you may leave...

But then you also leave behind the benefits of the state, ie, currency for food and ample food for all, and must make it on your own in nature, where anyone is fair game and no rules or government protections or supplies are there to help. The same way you have to pay money for the right to bowl at a bowling alley, you must pay a certain due, in this case forfeiting the right to do whatever you want to the extent of killing and stealing for supplies or taking jsutice into your own hands, for the right to enjoy the goods of the state, ie, roads, pooled food supplies, homes and all infastructures in that state, protection from outside threats...

That's the Social Contract--an agreement, yes, to give up the unlimited freedoms man has in order to have order and not have to face the State of Nature, where there are no rules and anything goes, and so anyone can kill or rape or steal from you if they wish, and as this is not attractive to most people, the Social Contract and its by product, a government, are seen as the more attractive option.

@Miro, why call it a contract if it isn't one then. The only reason it seems reasonable is because it is called a contract, and so if it actually isn't one, that is a serious issue.

Regarding the "you actually do agree to it" line, that isn't justified. I cite the analogy of the ship as argued by Hume, I believe. Basically the point is that a captain of a ship can always say, "if you don't like it, you can leave the ship" when he starts breaking agreements and changing the rules etc. but that the sailors don't choose to go overboard in an ocean doesn't amount to agreeing with the captain.

Is your only problem the word "contract"? Well, i guess i said it allready, it is NO contract it is just an idea. I don´t get what your problem with "social contract" is, everybody knows it doesn´t need agreement by the people, because again it is just an idea for legetimation. If you know what social contract means, you shouldn´t hang on the word "contract".

@Obiwan: There is no "social contract". I have never agreed to anything, and the only reason I use what the state has to offer is A) Usually no one else provides the same service, or B) It would cost me more, because I have to pay for the alternative service, and still pay taxes. Otherwise, I wouldn't accept anything the state has to offer. InSo, because of taxes and monopolies on markets, the state is basically forcing me to choose it's services, and there most definitely can NOT be a "social contract".

bump

Everyone should be armed with a paintball gun, funded by government savings. Then - FREE FOR ALL! ;)

@Conservtive Man:

It doesn't matter WHY you use the state, the fact that you use it and abide by its lawsz is enough to make it a social contract, ie, you use the utilities of the state, and you don't go on a murderous rampage as the state prohibits.

The government should keep peace and order. A police force, justice system, and jails. There should not be capital punishment. The government should own all companies and there should be a maximum wage as well as a minimum wage. As well there should be free healthcare. Everyone child born in the society should have an equal chance at living the good life. You shouldn't get to become rich just because your parents were. So education should be free, even university. The government should also pay for infrustucture making many services available like public transportation. There should be strict laws on guns - guns only for hunting should be allied. Everyone in the society is allowed to have shelter, food, and water. People who are too lazy to work can have these things, however they would have to live in a place that is similar to jail. The government itself would consist of ten elected people who would have limited power.

Although I haven't figured out all the details.

Slightly odd question here: is this discussion limited to states run by humans?

I ask this because I believe that humans are inherently corruptible and corrupt (dark, I know). To paraphrase something out of the Federalist Papers, if men were angels, no state would be needed (for all functions performed by the state would be done voluntarily). If angels ruled men, no safeguards would be needed, as the angels would not be corrupt. But as it is, corrupt beings rule one another. A state, being composed of people, like society, is then inherently corruptible, since no thing can be greater than its parts (rusty car parts can't make a good-functioning car).

This, of course, all immediately falls apart if it turns out that human nature is not inherently corrupt or corruptible.

So, society, consisting of imperfect humans, can never be perfect, but the state, if it consisted of something other than humans or man-made things, could in theory be perfect.

So a utopia (which, to me, implies a perfect society as well as state), is impossible, but a perfect state, in theory, is not.

And there are my views.

PS anarchism=bad idea, as NOTHING will restrain ANYONE. In that sense, it's worse than an absolute dictatorship, where only the dictator is unrestrained.

"Is your only problem the word "contract"? Well, i guess i said it allready, it is NO contract it is just an idea. I don´t get what your problem with "social contract" is, everybody knows it doesn´t need agreement by the people, because again it is just an idea for legetimation. If you know what social contract means, you shouldn´t hang on the word "contract"."

The issue is that the use of words does make a difference. The only reason a social contract idea would be compelling would be if it was a genuine contract.

Furthermore, the idea is based on implicit agreement and/or the idea that under a particular circumstance people would agree. It is important to emphasise here that in neither case has anyone actually agreed to give up rights. That someone would sell their goods in a certain situation is no argument for forcing someone to cede their property for payment.

Wait a moment, why is it on those who want to change society have to describe that society down the last detail. I understand people want to know what it will be like, or how something works, but here I see people asking others about the most minute of details. It's not as if the Parliamentarians or the Legislative/National/Constituent Assembly/the Convention knew exactly how everything would turn out.

Marx and Engels say that they can't detail such a society themselves, n one can. Many things would have to be decided by the public at large or the revolutionaries themselves.

largeham, there is always rational risk-aversion. I'm pretty sure that the poor in Soviet Russia or Maoist China would wish the revolutionaries had been more risk-averse.

@Obiwan: I will pay taxes when I'm an adult. That is all the state deserves for their services. Saying it deserves complete obedience is like a restaurant that you have to be completely obedient to them because you used their service, or you have to be completely obedient to UPS because you used their service.

restaurant *saying*

Who said complete obedience? You just have to follow the rules. Similarly you have to follow the rules in a restaurant. For example you have to wait for the food to be taken to you, you can't just get it from the kitchen.

Unless you consider following mostly reasonable rules complete obedience.

@CM:

I am not at all saying the state deserves "complete obedience," that's not what a Social Contract implies...it cAN be taken to that length, as Plato and, to a lesser extent, Hobbes suggest, but as Locke and Rousseau point out, with their systems being democratically-minded, the goivernment should work for teh people, not the otehr way around.

You are only "completely obedient" insofar as you agree not to break the laws, ie, you agree not to murder, not to steal, not tor rape, not to take justice into your own hands, etc.

Aside from that, you're free.

@baumhauer:

I fail to see how angels would make good leaders and improve upoin mankind's governments, as that sounds like a dictatorial sort of government, and besides that one with a divine rationale to use as justification...that's getting close to a theocracy, and NO ONE needs THAT, God-loving or no.

"Unless you consider following mostly reasonable rules complete obedience." Pretty much. And I usually do follow the rules, because they are mostly reasonable. I dislike government because of the prison system and all the wars and murders they commit.

Well those things change greatly from one nation to another as opposed to governments in general.. What is your problem with prison?

I don't believe it is our place to judge others and keep them in cages.

Jail does not only serve to keep people out of society, but also to punish (ten years of jail time is worse than a death sentence) so it serves as a deterrent for murder and things like that. If anything could be improved, it would be the justice system...

@Provectus: People should not be kept out of society.

@CM: So you would rather people who murder be free to continue murdering?

Generally, people who murder do it once, out of passion.

That is because they go to jail and are not given the chance to murder again.

Why would someone who kills out of passion and anger kill again? It makes no sense.

@obi:
The "angelocracy" was entirely beside the point. It was just a theoretical example--the first that popped into my mind.

Did you understand what I meant by my initial proposition? You did not address it at all, which makes me wonder whether you did or not.
It was this: ideal governments directed by humans are impossible.

@Obiwan: Plato, Locke an rand...no Hobbes or montiesque or rousseau? Compare locke to his contemporaries fo Petes sake. Makes or far more interesting discussion.

I don't think ideal governments directed by humans are impossible. We just haven't got to that point. Only a few hundred years ago slavery was still around everwhere. In fact I think we are very close to achieving the ideal government. I am not saying the governments of today are close I am just saying the time we are now in (2010) is close to the time when the ideal government will have been made and is used (2020-2030).

I like the idea of a social contract but it raises big issues. For example, to contract for something you must have the capacity. What happens to people who don't have capacity - the young, the insane, the drunk, those high on drugs. How do these people enter into a contract?

Also what happens when the state breaks it's obligations? It fails to educate a child, it enters into an illegal war etc? It is not good enough to say we can change the people who run the state (the politicians) because that allows the politicians to breach the contract and get away with it providing they are still popular enough to win a subsequent election.

Also what happens when all the politicians break the contract? I'm thinking of the UK expenses scandel.

@ava:

I know, I actually did have Hobbes in the originally title, but it was too long, someone had to go, and since Plato started so much, Locke's the founder of Anglo-American democracy in his writings (or at least he's the Grandfather of America in a sense, so perhaps a bias there, sorry) and Rand gets so much attention on the site, sadly I had to dump Hobbes...who is even my favorite of the bunch (with Locke a close second...odd as they're often at odds...and then overally my favorite philosophers are Nietzswche and John Stuart Mill, who really hated each others philosophies, so I guess I just like conflict in my ideas, I value that, a sort of natural conflict, the same way Spock and McCoy are always going at it...)

@baumhauer:

To adress your direct question...define "human," because I'm going to say that by human beings as they are currently, yes, it's rather impssoble to have perfection in government, or really anything...but for an Ubermensch, a Superman, a BETTER race of man (if we're going to be theoretical) then at that point I think we CAN have the perfect government...but then again, if we get to that state of being, will we NEED government, if we're essentially gods on Earth and not killing each other, for governments exist, largely, for protection and to elevate, suppose we're already elevated to a whole new plane of being for mankind and we no longer are warring and vicious creatures--do we NEED a government then?

To Maniac. As far as I know (I'm drawing mainly from Rousseau here, and I'm getting this from my study of the French revolution), a social contract isn't an actual contract, i.e. on paper which you actually sign. I think it means it is sort of a bond b/w you and the state/government/monarchy/what-have-you. You work for the betterment for the it, and others around you, and it protects, provides you with services, protects your rights, etc.

Rousseau stated that if the state/etc breaks the contract, the people are entitled to remove and replace it.

I don't if it is quite right to include a real philosopher like Ayn Rand with wannabes like Plato and Locke. Rand should be in a joke other philosophers who are worthy of being mentioned in the same breath. L Ron Hubbard perhaps and that guy who wrote Mens are from Mars and Women are from Venus?

This thread poses too many questions - five seperate questions which are all serious questions in their own right.