I do not believe that the social interactions that happen to parallel the sovereign make the state justified, nor the sovereign will. The public is easily manipulated by propoganda, fear, fanaticism, etc.

I am too used to the term social contract now to break away from it. While a contract implies something more concrete it is obvious that we are talking about something intrinsic and fundamental to social interaction.

I am still confused though with the version of actuality and reality you give.

I have this sort of idea in my head that reality is 'real' but only to what has potential by means of being coherent to the mind. It is not really the actuality of the universe though. The actuality is what is sort of underlying of reality. It makes reality possible, but we situate reality. We have no perception of actuality, only reality.

And actuality has no potential in itself, because it is absolute, therefore reality sets in with causality included, linking potential to the environment.
Both reality and actuality are the environment; just that actuality can never be linked to potential, and reality is always.

That was my view of it all. Obviously I'm lost though.

Also, I see no problem with trying to understand society. Fight the power, you seem to think that is just not possible though.

Yes, I'm for the pure communism, and democracy.

Once what people deem 'good' has changed in a way that would define the form of state as 'bad' the form of state will follow to conform to the peoples views.

The problem with this is that it assumes the public will always be able to revolt, when that is just not the case. I'd also say that the state has in history shown great control over the public's interests. The public only holds rational regard, need for rights, in time when irrational behavior is blatant.

And yes, we need to get into paradoxes, which I will start the thread on hopefully tonight around midnight GMT -4 time. Any suggestions on how to start off? So that we can come back to this thread as well.

I never gave a version of actuality and reality. I don't know what they have to do with the social contract or society. There is not much reason to go into archaic metaphysics on this one.



Not at all, I think that society is understandable.



I am a market anarchist.

Yes I like anarchy as well, except I just don't see it as possible so I don't really focus on it.

And the actuality and reality stuff I was refering to Arjen's comments above.

There are real examples of the social contract, some of which go back to the story of the Iliad, or at least to the death of Agamemnon. When people had honor as their sole economy, they were obliged to defend it at a moment's notice. Look at how suddenly Cuchelain would slay for a slight of honor. But we cannot have broader economies, or nation states without laws regulating human behavior. So people at some point, give up the right to instant vengeance for every wrong, and instead appeal to the larger society for justice, and justice is an essential price of honor. It is not nothing for nothing; but something for a due consideration. Certainly, where honor is not an essential to economy, and money becomes a substitute for honor, then there gets to be a class of people who believe they can deny justice for honor because honor is meaningless, and so is justice to them. But the fact is: that people give peace, and demand justice so that without the shadow of violence darkening every door, that they may still have their essential honor. So look at the situation. To have his honor Orestes killed his mother. And it was necessary that she be killed so that her murder in the temple, and in the community did not draw the wrath of the Gods onto the innocent, and that killing, by Orestes, as was demanded by Electra, was his obligation to his community, because no matter what her guilt was, her killing by another would have called forth vengeance. As among the native Americans; if yours needed killing, no one but your own group would do the deed. Honor, ones place in the community, habitation, as rehabilitation means: restored to honor, demands that no one accept injury or give hurt to others. The social contract means giving peace for the promise of justice, because justice is as essential to us in reality as it was for primitive peoples. And you should ask: Why are our first, and some of our best dramas centered around crimes and affairs of honor. If you wish to see the thing at its turning point, look at Romeo and Juliet. As a formal drama that some what misses the point, it also serves as an illustration of the state taking over the management of justice and law. As does the story of Orestes.

Fido, I too view such moments in time as examples of the social contract at work, they can also be called anarchy though. As I stated before there are many ways to view the social contract. I am hoping Mr. Fight the Power will treat us to a clear explanation of his thoughts on it. After that I would like to respond and explore his reasonings.

You are conflating the creation of rights, duties, and obligations between people under a civil government with the social contract. The social contract is but one manner in which these rights, duties, and obligations have been created. Yes, legal rights, duties, and obligations within society are dynamic, and the social contract can be dynamic.

As I said before, the central characteristic of the social contract is free agreement. While we can certainly document where society has progressed and rights have changed by popular demand, but there has never been a situation where government was created and maintained through free agreement.

Just in case this helps the substance of the discussion, a contract (modern legal) is by definition a promise or a set of promises for the breach of which the law gives a remedy, or the performance of which the law in some way recognizes a duty. In so many words, modern contracts are legally binding agreements between two parties who agree to do something for something.

But in a contract (and this holds true to any contract that's ever been made regardless of historical context) there are five key elements that have to be fulfilled to make it legal.

Offer - The proposal to enter into the contract with the other based on acceptance of terms.
Acceptance - The acceptance to the terms offered.
Consideration - The exchange of one thing for another, whether it be a promise, service, or forbearance.
Capacity - qualification for one to make that contract in the first place
Legality - the scope of whether or not the contract was legal to begin with.

Interestingly enough, this basic framework in legal structure has an infinite amount of loopholes. Hence the dilemma in the interpretation of contractualism whatever its context. That's perhaps why lawyers exist in the first place.

Probably calling this thing a contract is confusing the issue. Likely the language translation is iitself presenting a problem. Evidently something is there, but how it works is not at all clear and most people wouldn't ink a contract with whatever state they happen to have been born in. Seriously, if you were born in Zimbabwe would you sign on to a million percent inflation? What a deal!

I think the fact that at least some implication of the term "contract" is helpful to fully understand the scope of the discussion. But I don't follow your point about lingual translations being problematic. Is it the terminology or the literal interpretation of the terms that could be misconstrued the issue? But like most things abstract, the social contract is never literal.

As far as I know the term 'social contract' first appeared in Rousseau's work, which was in French. 'Social Contract' is a translation of 'Du Contrat Social' which was not about contracts at all but about the principles of political right. But, the work was more utopian than philosophical and the philosophy of the state has yet to be written.

Actually, contractual theories of government were discussed in England long before Rousseau wrote The Social Contract.

And once again, the social contract is a theory about just government, not about contracts. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all used the social contract as a model for just government, one that, in the vein of contracts, requires the consent of the governed.

Mr. Fight the Power,

I beg to differ with your view on things. Although I appreciate the view and know there are people who view things in the same way you do I know things do not add up that way. Here are a few comments on your opinion.

1) Your opinion is similar to Hobbes' in many ways. It does not seperate the actual state of affairs from the social contract. This is quite peculiar because the entire idea is that the social contract facilitates or 'legalises' the state of affairs; that is what Hobbes was paid for, anyway.

2) A contract is an agreement with a formal tone. In the case of the social contract people do not sign anything, but 'agree' by accepting; not revolting against a certain 'state of affairs'. In that sense, in the social contract, the soverein will is formulated and decides either to accept or to revolt.

3) The reason Hobbes was paid to 'legalise' the monarchy is to ensure that the monarchy could survive. Locke's philosophies concerning the social contract suggested that humanity could easily (better?) do without the leadership of the monarchy. That was a revolution in the making. By leaving out the part where the social contract, the souverein will and the state of affairs are three seperate things there would be no more way to warrant a revolution (if people would believe it). This 'flat' world model only allowed, in a special section of the work Leviathan, for a change in leadership. Thus the monarchy itself was saved, while the possibility remained to lift the king from his throne by another of the royal family (in line for rulership) if the common consent was that the other would be better suited to lead the populace. It just so happens that this was the case at that time in England. The revolution took place, and the monarchy survived. Frances monarchy was far less lucky. The revolution being, in part, inspired by Rousseau.

4) By leaving out the differences between the social contract, the soverein will and the state of affairs a 'flat' world view comes into play. This 'flat' world view prohibits people from revolting against the state in itself, only being able to revolt against the current state form (the state of affairs) because the believe is raised that there in fact is no state of affairs without a state form, nor has been one. That way a solid grip on the populace can continue to exist; the state only having to replace the faces in the government. This reminds me frightningly much of democracy.

5) By creating a 'flat' world view a paradox is created. When the social will influences the souverein enough for a revolt to take place the government is rendered obsolete and the people rebel. The social contract is about to take a new form. In the 'flat' world view there is no social contract which differs from the state of affairs though, so it cannot change. The state of affairs is, in that philosophy, always the soverein will. There would be no need for a revolution if that were true. It is at this point where the difference between the three show themselves.

6) The paradox contained in the 'flat' world view consists of two parts. The first part is the fact that the souverein will is the same as the state of affairs; effectively placing the set (social contract) itself on the same level as the elements in the set (states of affairs). The way this is done is by defining the resultant of the set (souverein will) as equal to the state of affairs. The second part of the paradox is the fact that, once the souverein will has come to the state of revolt it would only revolt against the persons executing the state of affair instead of against the state of affairs itself, not asking for a change of affairs, but only a reckoning of sorts. The paradox is that the revolt is in effect a confirmation of the state of affairs, instead of an overthrowal in that case....which again reminds me frightningly much of democracy.



I suppose it will be superfluous to state that the elections in democracy are a 'peacefull' replacement of the revolutions (which only holds in said 'flat' world view). That way the government (and therefore the positions of power) remain intact and after the 'revolution' all that is done is place new faces in certain public offices, which are 'elected' from a list which is populated by the people in said positions of power, and then go about its business. If ever something is amiss a person might be removed from a public office, only to be replaced by another puppet on strings. If, in the end someone might object against the state of affairs all that needs be done is remind people of the fact that the government is the resultant of the souverein will (as expressed in elections) and for a change one has to await the next revolt (elections), but a change in the state form is not provided for; even if the souverein will would choose it. The paradox consists in the farce of a revolution every four years, while absolutely nothing chances, except for the puppets on strings....just as in the pit of hell Hobbes had envisioned for us.

Before their was civil government their was social and consguineous government, the basis of nations, and they had rights and obligations. It is not civil government that gives rights, but if the civil government is legitimate, it defends rights. And there is always a dynamic in all forms of relationship. It is not in the form, which is to the relationship as a skeleton is to the body; but some people can make their skeletons dance, and some can only make theirs scare.

Political rights depend upon a vigorous defense, but also upon recognition. It is a necessary step to building a larger society based upon the Natural Equality of all peoples, Nations if you will, and this goes back to the Roman Law of Nations which became the basis of Natural Law. A lot of things played into the social contract, but basically, it had to do with giving up the right that all free people have to instant vengeance upon any who take ones honor, for the promise of peace and justice through law. We give peace and get justice. It is the main price each pays to live in society. And it is true primarily of Western Law, where it is thought all people have a right to peace. In other societies, such a under Islam, those people are considered to have an absolute right to justice. Do you think our fathers, being so much like the Native Americans were different from the Muslims in this regard? They were not.

It may seem a small thing, but people in Europe discovering the vitality of primitive peoples and of native society began to wonder after their own lost vitality, and they were right to see that much of it was sapped by feudal orgaizations like the Catholic Church, and by Monarchy. And it was from small beginnings, when the church first sold itself to the German tribes, they had to sell it to the chiefs who were only first among equals; but when they valued the king's peace more dearly than the peace of all others in the laws they compiled for the kings, they formed an unequal relationship that in time reduced whole populations to serfs. It is the honest to god end of all natural societies to have inequality enforced by law. I know a good book that covers a lot of this in brief: Called Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, (by Berman), with this last opinion mine alone. What the social contract asserts is the fact, first denied by kings and Nobles; that all have an equal need for, and right to, justice. The fact is that there would be no kings and there would be no wealthy if justice everywhere reigned. And the flip side of the contract, is: no justice, no law. When law does not result in justice, but only in more injustice, everyone is released from the need to keep by the peace. Then the law is no longer the law; but the people are their own law, and their will is justice.

natural equality?

How is this possible as long as we have a state? And the state seems pretty natural to me in order for society to function.

Certainly, Jean Jacques Rousseau was a contractarian. But Thomas Hobbes as well as several others own to contractarianism well before Rousseau. Rousseau's treatise of political rights focused primarily on popular sovereignty, or the right and will of the people to govern.

But I do agree with you, like Hobbes Leviathan, Rousseau's work was more a picture of an ideal society than the way things actually are. But to tell the truth, I think we live in a somewhat state of contractarianism every day if you squint hard enough.

People clearly understand that if they obey the law and keep the peace they deserve the protection of law, and their own peace.

The state is always a result of conquest of some sort. It represents class division and represses class struggle. So, true social equality awaits the dest ruction of the state. We must remeber that people were people and will be people with or without the state. The cupidice of people and their vanity will always divide the ambitious from the slugs; but the end result of all that should follow people into the grave. By that I mean, people distinguish themselves one from another during life. Fine. That difference does not serve society when it is made hereditary. Government should work to equalize rather than to bless and support the differences people have by nature which are rather superficial. The differences always weaken and eventually destroy societies. The rich should be dragged down, and the poor should be encouraged and educated. No one has to be mean about it. Every one should understand that a good purpose is served when people kept as equal as possible because then people have only their virtues, or their hard work, or honor to raise them above average, and if no wealth can be handed on there is no great reason to injure society to accumulate more than is necessary. I wish I could find the line by Mark Twain, I think about the Natches, who had their great lords and commoners, but the system of marriage required that a king marry a stinkard occasionally just to keep the blood healthy. Consider how intermarried the ruling classes of Europe became in time trying to keep all their wealth corraled for nothing, and you can get the point. These people where not acting for their societies, or even, ultimately, in their own best interest. Thanks

In regards to post #37...too true in an ideal setting.

There is no such thing as "natural equality", and that is probably the central problem with the social contract theory.

There can be a moral equality that may or may not be feasible under the state and is, in the western liberal ideal, the justification for the state.