Rousseau`s striking sentence that man “must be forced to be free”[16] must be understood [according to whom?] as follows: Since indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then when an individual falls back into his ordinary egoism and despises the law, he will be forced to listen to what has been decided, when the people acted as a collective (as citizens). Thus, the law, to the extent that it is created by persons who act as a body, is not a restriction of individual freedom, but rather its expression. Prrr prrr no matter what he says, best president ever. I love you, Daddy Trump. One of the first critics of the theory of social contracts was Rousseau`s friend, the philosopher David Hume, who published an essay “Of Civil Liberty” in 1742. The second part of this essay, entitled “From the Original Contract”[21], points out that the concept of the “social contract” is a convenient fiction: however, the state system that emerged from the social contract was also anarchic (without leadership). Just as individuals had been sovereign in the state of nature and therefore allowed themselves to be guided by self-interest and the absence of rights, so States were now acting in their own interests in competition with each other. Just like the state of nature, states were therefore forced to come into conflict because there was no sovereign beyond the (more powerful) state who was able to impose a system such as social contract laws on everyone by force. In fact, Hobbes` work served as the basis for the theories of realism of international relations put forward by E. H. Carr and Hans Morgenthau.
Hobbes wrote in Leviathan that people (“we”) need to “terrify it with power,” otherwise people will not observe the law of reciprocity, “(in short) to do to others what would be done for the little ones.” [13] Quentin Skinner argued that several critical modern innovations in contract theory can be found in the writings of French Calvinists and Huguenots, whose work in turn was used by writers in the Netherlands who opposed their submission to Spain, and later by Catholics in England. [11] Francisco Suárez (1548-1617) of the Salamanca School could be considered an early theorist of the social contract who theorized natural law to restrict the divine right of absolute monarchy. All these groups were led to articulate notions of popular sovereignty through a social alliance or contract, and all these arguments began with proto-“state of nature” arguments, arguing that the basis of politics is that everyone is inherently free to submit to any government. While Rousseau`s social contract is based on popular sovereignty rather than individual sovereignty, there are other theories defended by individualists, libertarians, and anarchists that do not involve accepting more than negative rights and creating only a limited state, if any. There is a general form of social contract theories, namely: What is the social contract really? An agreement between the citizen and the government? No, it would only mean the continuation of [Rousseau`s] idea. The social contract is an agreement between man and man; an agreement from which what we call society must result. In this is the concept of commutative justice, first put forward by the primitive fact of exchange. is replaced by that of distributive justice. If you translate these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is, in its highest sense, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers and renounce any claim to govern each other. With M as the deliberative framework; R rules, principles or institutions; I the (hypothetical) persons in their original position or in the state of nature which form the social contract; and I* am the individuals in the real world who follow the social contract. [6] The formulations of social contracts are preserved in many of the oldest documents in the world.
[8] The second-century BC Buddhist text, Mahāvastu, tells the legend of Mahasammata. The story is as follows: David Gauthier`s “neo-Hobbesian” theory holds that cooperation between two independent and selfish parties is actually possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics. [19] Gauthier points in particular to the advantages of cooperation between two parties when it comes to challenging the prisoner`s dilemma. He suggests that if two parties respected the originally agreed agreement and morality set out in the contract, they would both achieve an optimal result. [19] [20] In his social contract model, factors such as trust, rationality and self-interest keep each party honest and prevent them from breaking the rules. [19] [20] In his influential 1762 treatise The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) sketched a different version of the theory of social contracts as the basis for political rights based on unlimited popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps the freest people in the world at the time, he did not approve of their representative government. Rousseau believed that freedom was possible only where the people as a whole ruled directly through legislation, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable.
However, he also claimed that people often did not know their “true will” and that a real society would only emerge when a great leader (“the legislator”) seemed to change the values and customs of the people, probably through the strategic use of religion. The first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed theory of contracts was Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679). According to Hobbes, the life of individuals in the state of nature was “lonely, poor, evil, brutal and short,” a state in which self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented the “social” or society. .