[en] Abstract from English Wikipedia: In moral and political philosophy, the social contract is a theory or model that originated during the Age of Enlightenment and usually concerns the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual. Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority (of the ruler, or to the decision of a majority) in exchange for protection of their remaining rights or maintenance of the social order. The relation between natural and legal rights is often a topic of social contract theory. The term takes its name from The Social Contract (French: Du contrat social ou Principes du droit politique), a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rousseau that discussed this concept. Although the antecedents of social contract theory are found in antiquity, in Greek and Stoic philosophy and Roman and Canon Law, the heyday of the social contract was the mid-17th to early 19th centuries, when it emerged as the leading doctrine of political legitimacy. The starting point for most social contract theories is an examination of the human condition absent of any political order (termed the state of nature by Thomas Hobbes). In this condition, individuals' actions are bound only by their personal power and conscience. From this shared starting point, social contract theorists seek to demonstrate why a rational individual would voluntarily consent to give up their natural freedom to obtain the benefits of political order. Prominent of 17th- and 18th-century theorists of social contract and natural rights include Hugo Grotius (1625), Thomas Hobbes (1651), Samuel von Pufendorf (1673), John Locke (1689), Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1762) and Immanuel Kant (1797), each approaching the concept of political authority differently. Grotius posited that individual humans had natural rights. Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a state of nature, human life would be solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short. In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited natural freedoms, including the right to all things and thus the freedom to plunder, rape and murder; there would be an endless war of all against all (bellum omnium contra omnes). To avoid this, free men contract with each other to establish political community (civil society) through a social contract in which they all gain security in return for subjecting themselves to an absolute sovereign, one man or an assembly of men. Though the sovereign's edicts may well be arbitrary and tyrannical, Hobbes saw absolute government as the only alternative to the terrifying anarchy of a state of nature. Hobbes asserted that humans consent to abdicate their rights in favor of the absolute authority of government (whether monarchical or parliamentary). Alternatively, Locke and Rousseau argued that we gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to respect and defend the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so. The central assertion that social contract theory approaches is that law and political order are not natural, but human creations. The social contract and the political order it creates are simply the means towards an end\"the benefit of the individuals involved\"and legitimate only to the extent that they fulfill their part of the agreement. Hobbes argued that government is not a party to the original contract and citizens are not obligated to submit to the government when it is too weak to act effectively to suppress factionalism and civil unrest. According to other social contract theorists, when the government fails to secure their natural rights (Locke) or satisfy the best interests of society (called the general will by Rousseau), citizens can withdraw their obligation to obey, or change the leadership through elections or other means including, when necessary, violence. Locke believed that natural rights were inalienable, and therefore the rule of God superseded government authority, while Rousseau believed that democracy (self-rule) was the best way to ensure welfare while maintaining individual freedom under the rule of law. The Lockean concept of the social contract was invoked in the United States Declaration of Independence. Social contract theories were eclipsed in the 19th century in favor of utilitarianism, Hegelianism and Marxism; they were revived in the 20th century, notably in the form of a thought experiment by John Rawls.

[es] Resumen extraído de Wikipedia en español: El contrato social: o los principios del derecho político, más conocido como El contrato social, es un libro escrito por Jean-Jacques Rousseau y publicado en 1762. Es una obra sobre filosofía política y trata principalmente sobre la libertad e igualdad de los seres humanos bajo un Estado instituido por medio de un . En filosofía política, ciencia política, sociología y teoría del Derecho, el contrato social es un acuerdo realizado en el interior de un grupo por sus miembros, como por ejemplo el que se adquiere en un Estado en relación con sus derechos y deberes y los de sus ciudadanos. Es parte de la idea de que todos los miembros del grupo están de acuerdo, por voluntad propia, con el contrato social, en virtud de lo cual admiten la existencia de una autoridad, de unas normas morales y de unas leyes a las que se someten. El pacto social es una hipótesis explicativa de la autoridad política y del orden social. El contrato social, como teoría política, explica, entre otras cosas, el origen y el propósito del Estado y de los derechos humanos. La esencia de la teoría (cuya formulación más conocida es la propuesta por Jean-Jacques Rousseau) es la siguiente: para vivir en sociedad, los seres humanos acuerdan un contrato social implícito que les otorga ciertos derechos a cambio de abandonar la libertad de la que dispondría en estado de naturaleza. Siendo así, los derechos y los deberes de los individuos constituyen las cláusulas del contrato social, en tanto que el Estado es la entidad creada para hacer cumplir el contrato. Del mismo modo, los seres humanos pueden cambiar los términos del contrato si así lo desean; los derechos y los deberes no son inmutables o naturales. Por otro lado, un mayor número de derechos implica mayores deberes, y menos derechos, menos deberes.