Actual contract theories typically serve to justify political obligation, although as we have seen they are not very successful at that.
Hypothetical theories serve to justify the existence of the state, or of a certain kind of state.
This seems to be the nature of Locke s and Hobbes s theories. They are not very successful as actual contract theories grounding political obligation, but they are much more powerful as hypothetical contract theories justifying the state or certain kinds of state. Hobbes s can argue that since people in the state of nature would , if rational, unanimously contract to form a state this justifies the state. Locke s can argue that since people in the state could , given the laws of nature, contract to form only a certain sort of state one in which the government has the attitudinal consent of the majority only this sort of state is legitimate. Rousseau s contract theory is exclusively of this kind, a hypothetical contract theory aimed at establishing what kind of state is legitimate, although its conclusions are more radical than Locke s. 2.