Talk:Social contract

message: Before the debate here picks up much steam, I'd suggest social contract theories as a good starting place.  --TMC
:Note: the above link now redirects to the article (Social contract) attached to this Talk page. -- 64.142.24.60 01:20, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Social contract theories]] 

message: The following "rebuttal" to criticisms of the Social Contract idea:
:However, the usual response to this objection is that many contracts and acceptances of same in a modern economy also tend to be implicit, e.g. copyright which exists in a work regardless how marked, entry into private spaces where rules of access and exclusion are posted (but not explicitly accepted other than by actually entering premises), and software and web site licenses.
...is hopeless, is not referenced to anyone notable's actual work (for the very good reason that it is bunk) and sounds to me like someone's own research. I have deleted it. My reasons are as follows:
*Copyright protection is simply not afforded by some sort of implicit contract, but by legislation. There are international conventions on copyright (again, legislated) which have the intent of ensuring copyright law is pretty much the same in most parts of the civilised world - to ensure consistency - but to suggest copyright is contractual (it may have arisen as a *tort* under the common law - but that is a totally different type of civil action and does not amount to saying it's some implied contract between a reader and a writer) is simply nonsense.
*entry into private spaces where rules of access and exclusion are posted is an explicit contract, with unequivocal offer, acceptance and consideration, on exactly the terms which are posted. This is elementary. There is nothing implied about it. Same goes for software and website licences: you have a choice - either enter, in which case you have no choice but to enter on exactly the terms posted, or don't enter. Action by the user is completely informed, and voluntary. On the other hand, members of a community have no choice as to obeying rules imposed by their government, even if they have specifically rejected it - by voting for someone else. There is no analogy between the two whatsoever. 
ElectricRay 20:47, 23 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Analysis

message: This entire section is original research written for the purpose of supporting a specific POV. No sources are given for the comparison; indeed, the author (whoever it was) has virtually admitted to doing original research by stating that the section is based on the definitions used in the Wikipedia article contract. No explanation is given as to why the requirements for common law contracts were chosen as the benchmark of comparison for the social contract. The comparison is even somewhat absurd, because the social contract is a philosophical concept as opposed to a legal one, and particularly because the laws used as a benchmark (common law) were established by governments themselves. If government is illegitimate (as the argument seems to imply), then common law contracts also have no legitimate basis.
With statements such as "the contract should be rendered null and void" and "the mutual obligations are ultimately unadhereable", which are blatant POV, I am surprised the section was not removed sooner. -- 69.6.100.199 08:19, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: If no one wants to discuss, then you make the changes. You're right, there is no Wiki policy that requires validation, it's just common courtesy to fellow editors who may be working on the article. Also, since you're an anonymous editor, there's a likelihood that it will be construed as vandalism. I'm going to leave now since I know nothing about this subject, but I'd recommend at least allowing some time for discussion to happen before making such a big change. We have all the time in the world here, and it'll do a world of good to let things simmer, I promise. Blackcap | talk 08:33, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree that we have all the time in the world. Wikipedia is one of the most popular websites on the internet. I bet this article alone has a few thousand hits, at least. Errors, faulty original research or POV, if left uncorrected, can do enourmous damage. I will remove the section one more time, then leave. You or anyone else can put it back if you wish, though I strongly you read the section itself before making such a decision. I'll return in a few days to see what happened... 69.6.100.199 08:40, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

text: Ignore what I said about me doing one last revert. Apparently there's a rule against it. Honestly, if you're going to be this aggressive towards new arrivals, you might as well just ban annonymous editing altogether. Is it so hard to actually read the disputed text before coming in with all guns blazing against the "vandal"? 69.6.100.199 08:45, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison of the social contract to the requirements of common law contracts

message: I'm not at all happy about the contents of this section.  It seems to be a cross between an inaccurate summation and a veiled criticism.  If the former, it must be made accurate.  If the latter, the veil must be removed.  As it stands, I don't see it adding value to the article and would gladly axe it.  However, I'd rather discuss it here before acting unilaterally, so please respond with your view on this matter.
I think this adds value to the article because it attempts to demonstrate how states form - it attempts to illustrate how a social contract may have come about. Yes, there are references to criticism but they can be removed...but not the entire section. It is again meant to be a starting point from which others can build on...it is not meant to be a be all and end all - it is merely trying to "nut out" what the social contract actually is...(im thinking it is basically law and its enforcement - or something like that)...please add to it and revise it but don't cut it - It will leave the page with almost no explanation. Theprivateer83 18:16, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "A first principles formulation and nature of the social contract" 

message: "The social contract, as a political poopie" Is poopie supposed to be there? I didn't want to change it myself, in the case it is there on purpose, but it just doesn't seem right, please fix this. (unsigned)
:Be bold.  When you see vandalism, revert it.  Uhm, also, remember to sign your name with ~~~~.  Alienus 05:17, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weird 

message: I recently reverted a pair of changes my by RJII because I thought they made the article worse and didn't see a way to modify the content so that it contributed positively.  However, RJII might be able to, and deserves an explanation regardless.
First, RJII changed the second paragraph's start from:
:The social contract, as a political theory,
to:
:The most popular version of social contract theory 
As far as I can tell, the definition of SCT in that paragraph is general enough to encompass most, if not all, variations.  In other words, it's not describing a specific version, just generalizing about many versions.  Also, if we say that this is just the most popular version, we need to give some indication of what less popular ones might look like.
Perhaps this is what RJII was trying to do with the following sentence, which he added to the end of the paragraph:
:This theory conflicts with individualist theories of social contract that hold it is a contract to refrain from infringing on individual liberty, by the state or other individuals.
I'm still not sure if I understand this sentence correctly, but my impression is that RJI is referring to libertarian versions of SCT that emphasize negative right and downplay or remove positive rights.  So, for example, it's typical for a social contract to grant the right not to be shot at, with the matching obligation not to shoot at others; that's a negative right.  However, all but the most libertarian of versions includes positive rights.  For example, you might have the right to be actively protected from certain forms of economic harm, which means others have the obligation to actively protect you. Being fired due to your sexual orientation might be one example of an economic harm that society protects you from.
Now, if that is in fact what RJII was getting at, then it still doesn't make sense in that location.  After all, the paragraph had little to say about negative and positive rights to begin with.
I'd appreciate it if RJII could explain his intent so that we can figure out how to best integrate it into the article. Alienus 06:41, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The most common form of the social contract (Rousseau's) says that the individual submits his will to the "general will." But this is directly contrary to the social contract espused by Proudhon, that says, individuals agree to not rule over each other (ruling over each other includes forming a state and coercing people, through taxes, etc). The first is collectivist, and the latter is individualist. In the latter, the individual does NOT submit his will to the general will --he retains his autonomy. RJII 16:25, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I went in and did a rewrite of the intro, keeping most of your text.  Hopefully, it all makes more sense in context. Alienus 22:29, 1 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation regarding recent change 

message: I'm removing this misunderstanding :
:"Contract theory is certainly not new; in Plato's Republic (c.360 BCE) Glaucon suggests that justice is a 'pact' among rational egoists, while Cicero (106-43 BCE) posited such a theory in the latter stages of the Roman Republic".
I'm not sure what exactly is refered to about Cicero, but concerning Glaucon, it is a misunderstanding. Glaucon is simply an advocate of conventionalism concerning the definition of justice, which basically means he's a positivist and relativist who thinks there is no absolute justice, as he argues, as a sophist that he is, that there is no universal truth. Contractualism, as understood in terms of history of philosophy, is relevant only for the school based on natural rights (Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau). Santa Sangre 19:05, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know about it only applying to natural rights.  Im doing a crash course in morality at university at the mo, and one of the advantages that has been put forward is that contractarianism does not necessarily rely on any natural rights at all, but rather is a practical solution to a practical problem.  It does not assume that we possess "natural rights"  (natural in that we somehow are entitled to them, naturally), but rather asks which rights would improve our overall standard of living and then makes them a part of the contract.  These rights are not natural and so must be regulated, or enforced by some sort of government. Khain.Khain 19:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is certainly interesting but is a modern interpretation of it. If you read Hobbes, Lockes & Rousseau you will see that they clearly refer to "natural rights". You may claim that's only a strategy for them, but that's another topic. Santa Sangre 17:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rm of Glaucon (history of contract) 

message: Not to sound too pretentious, but anybody editing this page really ought to have a look at Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and John Rawls. And better yet, read them! This will insure mistakes about comparing social contract in philosophy with contract in law, or adding in Glaucon as a surprising ancestor of contractualism. Santa Sangre
:You've added a lot of good material, but there are clearly some language problems and other errors.  I've done my best to clean it up. Alienus 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, please sign with ~~~~ so that there's a timestamp. Alienus 05:20, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  About writing on social contract: have a quick look at Hobbes, Locke, Roussean & Rawls! 

message: Does anyone think that Kant's notion of the social contract should be illuminated here? Kevin L. 18:22, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Kant will always be relevant! Santa Sangre 20:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kant 

message: I was just looking to see if there was any information on T.M. Scanlon and discovered that the wikipedia page of Contractualism redirects to this page. Reading over the article, it seems like there is a major conflation of contractualism, contractarianism, and social contract going on that at least deserves it's own subheadings. Furthermore, the article, it it's all going to remain under Social Contract, might benefit from being split into a section on social contract as it refers to jurisprudence and a section on social contract as it refers to metaethics. The ideas are connected but not the same.JFQ 00:29, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scanlon 

message: After reading the first couple of paragraphs, I can't make out what a social contract is. An "agreement within a state regarding the rights and responsibilities of the state and its citizens" - that sounds like a normal legal system? Perhaps someone can add a couple of easy to understand examples? - s<span
style='font-size:7.5pt;mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif";color:red'>Y</span><span
style='mso-bidi-font-family:"Microsoft Sans Serif"'>ndicate</span> talk 16:53, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article vague 

message: Someone asserted that contractualism could be already found in Plato & Epicure. This is an obvious anachronism for any student of political science, and obeys to the common myth of "nothing new under the sun". There is in fact little to do between Hobbes & Rousseau's theories & the sophist' conventionalism. Stating, as did Glaucon or Epicure, that justice is the product of social conventions is nothing close to social contract, which is based on natural law and is a theory of sovereignty. I allowed myself to relativize the statement, which is supported by a quickly-read reference to the "Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy", which in no ways contradict my statement (the reference, which abusely speaks of "social contract" - demonstrating that this "Internet Encyclopedia" should in no ways be considered as a definite reference for Wikipedia -, clearly states that it was Glaucon who proposed it, that it was rejected by Plato, and that in fact it wasn't "social contract" but moral conventionalism, which is not at all the same thing). Furthermore, I removed the quote of Machiavelli, whose inclusion is difficult to understand here & should be in the least sourced with some authoritative reference. Lapaz 19:56, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greeks & the Internet Encyclopedia 

message: Since this page refers to the theory, not what a social contract is, shouldn't the name be either 'Social Contract Theory' or 'Contractarianism'?
Spyforthemoon 20:59, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or "contractualism". At the very least, there should be a brief description of the differences, if any, between "social contract," "contractualism," "social contract theory," and "contractarianism." --70.111.218.254 00:50, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Naming? 

message: Could some expert in the field add some information about the pioneers of the social contract, the sophists? Protagoras in particular. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 165.196.194.98 (talk) 20:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Sophists 

message: These could go in the section on natural rights, but it seems such a glaring omission I'm giving it its own section here.  This is not my area of expertise so I won't attempt to to summarize the various feminist arguments against the way the individual has been constructed within the social contract.  However I urge someone more familiar with feminist work in this area to undertake this project.--Shiny Shellac 19:30, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Feminist Criticisms 

message: "According to Hobbes' and canonical theory, the essence is as follows: Without society, we would live in a state of nature, where we each have unlimited natural freedoms. The downside of this general autonomy is that it includes the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to harm all who threaten one's own self-preservation; there are no positive rights, only laws of nature and an endless "war of all against all" (Bellum omnium contra omnes, Hobbes 1651). To avoid this, we jointly agree to an implicit social contract by which we each gain civil rights in return for accepting the obligation to honor the rights of others, giving up some freedoms to do so."
I have a number of problems with this section.
1) it is muddled. What is meant by cannonical theory? Why are "a right to all things" and self-defense a downside? The term "positive rights" is introduced without definition etc.
2) it is incorrect in its assertion that "we gain civil rights" under social contract. Rather according to Hobbes/Locke/Rousseau we gain an improved quality of life defined as the absense of war (Hobbes), protection of property (Locke) and equality/security (Rousseau). 
I think the points this section attempts to make are covered in the introduction and advocate the removal of this section.Jpat34721 01:55, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Rousseau also agreed with Locke that the state protected property rights. This is especially explicit in his Encyclopedie article, "The Discourse on Economy." Canon and Medieval law were essentially the same thing, I believe, no? The definition of "Positive law" is man-made law (or, legislated as opposed to Natural law --i.e., found all over in all human societies) and not passed down by custom or part of common law. I agree that positive law should be referred to here.24.105.152.153 (talk) 19:21, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  Correction -- according to Wikipedia canon law refers to the internal laws of the Catholic, Orthodox, Anglican, and possibly some other churches.24.105.152.153 (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

text:  Also, it is inconceivable that canon law and Hobbes would share the same theory. Hobbes was an atheist. 24.105.152.153 (talk) 19:51, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of nature & social contract 

message: The title of this article should be "Contractarianism," not "Social contract," because the subject of the article is not the social contract itself (i.e., the actual agreement by which individuals subordinate themselves to a social order in order to enhance their freedom) but rather the theory of such a contract (i.e., the set of reasoning that gives cogency to the concept of a social contract). If nobody objects, I will change the article's title accordingly. -- WGee 04:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, if it is of any interest to anyone, this article's counterpart in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy uses the title "Contractarianism" . Like this article, it discusses a theory rather than a fact of life. -- WGee 04:39, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How about "Social Contract Theory"? -69.47.186.226 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article's title 

message: "Contractualism is based on a philosophy of rights being agreed to in order to further our interests, which is a form of individualism: each individual subject is accorded individual rights, which may or may not be inalienable, and form the basis of civil rights, as in the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. It must be underlined, however, as Hannah Arendt did on her book on imperialism, that the 1789 Declarations, in this agreeing with the social contract theory, bases the natural rights of the human-being on the civil rights of the citizen, instead of doing the reverse as the contractualist theory pretends to do.[12] However, this individualist and liberal approach has been criticized since the 19th century by thinkers such as Marx, Nietzsche or Freud, and afterward by structuralist and post-structuralist thinkers, such as Lacan, Althusser, Foucault, Deleuze or Derrida. Several of those philosophers have attempted, in a spinozist inspiration, of thinking some sort of transindividuality which would precede the division between individual subject and collective subject (i.e. society)."
huh? -69.47.186.226 20:30, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought I was the only one, but I second the "huh?"  Also, I saw on the wiki article about Benjamin Tucker that Natural Law theorists attack the social contract theory.  I would like a serious, but readable, discussion of these issues, particularly from the anarchist perspective.  Until then, I be confused.72.78.8.51 (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms of natural right 

message: The writing style of the overview seems to be taken straight from someone's essay and given headers. I'm not sure if this sort of tone is frowned upon in Wikipedia, as I'm a fairly new contributor, but I thought I'd point it out and see what more experienced editors have to think. Vendretta 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Writing Style 

message: Locke must have his own section! And Hobbes should be expanded. The other ones are interesting and should be kept but the above should receive far larger mention  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.33.225.219 (talk) 03:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Locke must have his own section! 

message: Shouldn't that be "give up some rights to society"? — Omegatron 00:33, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  "give up some rights to a government" 

message: No more cat.!!! Vandalism? --77.4.101.37 (talk) 16:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: CAT

message: The answer to Long's argument does not mention any references and appears to be original research. Claims such as "This is actually the theory of law for real property in every country." are very general and not verifiable unless supported by references.
Also, the answer does not appear to be logically sound. The passage "The true owner is the sovereign, or supreme lawmaking authority, because it can make and enforce laws that restrict what one can do on one's estate." uses an element of legislation created by one such authority. The problem here is that Long is questioning the legitimacy of exactly that authority, and therefore questioning the legitimacy of any legislation created by the said authority. In other words, the answer is making the very same assumption Long is talking about in the first sentence: "I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory."
For the moment I will be adding the "No references" category to this section. If the answer is not better supported by the end of the month I will be deleting it.
Zack
69.242.122.45 (talk) 07:14, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Tacit Consent Section

message: Consent is broken into explicit, tacit and hypothetical consent.  Hypothetical consent is difficult to get your head round and so would be welcome.  Even though explicit consent is impractical it is still a type of consent and can be used as a criticism of SCT all together.  Is anybody opposed to expanding the tacit consent to consent generally then breaking it down into the three different types? 
El.numbre (talk) 12:24, 26 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A dedicated section for Consent

message: Yes, there should be a Locke section, and then this could be incorporated as a point of interest into it, and also more uses of the social contract in daily lives can be added. However as long as there is no John Locke section, it should remain it's own point.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.149.40.177 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  John Locke; More than a man 

message: I chopped out a few sections of the page that weren't helping things.  But, in overall terms, this page is a mess anyway, badly written and full of fairly profound confusions about the central issues.  I'd do more, but it's too exhausting to think about, mostly...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.32.35.78 (talk) 08:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chopped some stuff out 

message: I like this article. 
There is another form of philosophy of the polis that does not make explicit mention of any contract. Instead, it uses the "myth" of a god that takes the interests of the citizenry as his own interests, or, in other words, a god who is a kind of corporate expression of the general will and welfare of the people.  
Like social contract theories described in this article, it views the sovereign as an agent of the will or generalized desire for the welfare of the people. It sees the general citizenry of the country as enthusiastically buying into an arrangement in which the general welfare of all is protected. 
It takes a less "rational" view than some of the European theories when accounting for willingness to give up on selfish interests, since it claims that humans are by nature gregarious and find intrinsic rewards in acts that in general support the unity and the continuity of the community.
This philosophy, Confucian (and more specifically Mencian) philosophy, found its way to Europe at the same time that social contract philosophies were being developed in Europe.
Where would an article on this group best fit in? P0M (talk) 00:42, 14 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Nice article

message: Virtually every ancient culture has writings to this effect, I'm wondering why India gets singled out here.  Further, some preliterate cultures have oral traditions with the same kinds of maxims.  Surely we don't want to go into all that on this page.  I think this section should go (although it could go into a separate article on philosophy in the Rig Veda), or else, more anthropological and classical citations should be added, for balance.--Levalley (talk) 19:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section on India 

message: Social Contract was something different, an agreement among a whole society that it would be governed by the general will.  Individuals who wanted their own self-interests must be forced to abide by the general will.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.137.224.39 (talk) 05:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social Contract 

message: The last line of the introduction begins "The Social Contract was used in the Declaration of Independence as a sign of enforcing Democracy", but which declaration does it refer to? There have been many (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_independence) and while I would think it refers to the American declaration without a reference one can't be sure. If this is the case then regrettably it seems as if some editors are under the impression that only Americans read the English-language version of Wikipedia! Hasfg (talk) 23:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Which declaration of independence?

message: I've recently made some revisions to this still-awful page to reverse some misunderstandings in regard to Rousseau.  It's clear that whoever the author of those sections was did not like Rousseau, but also that the author didn't really understand Rousseau very well.  The section stated that the Legislator enforced his will on the citizens, which is multiply mistaken.  Rather, the Legislator used *deception* to "remake" the citizens into new kinds of people.  Still nasty, but not any sort of force, unless we want to change the meaning of that word.  The previous author also seemed to believe that Legislator was a permanent position in Rousseau's state, when in fact the Legislator is intended as a founder and nothing else.  Roughly, this is based on Rousseau's understanding of the role of Calvin in his own native Geneva.  (I know, that's a contentious claim if you're a professional, but I hope it's clear enough for non-professionals.)  The Legislator is a bizarre idea, a sort of superman with almost impossible powers, but nonetheless someone who establishes the fundamental laws and customs for the society and then leaves, dies, or remains as a non-citizen and non-participant afterward.  
I understand the instinct of the previous author, who I assume was probably an undergraduate newly exposed to Rousseau, or someone who remembered reading Rousseau some years back.  In any case, the previous version of this section wouldn't pass basic muster in any college course in America or anywhere else.  The previous author seemed concerned to defend the honor of John Locke, which is a task I can respect.  However, Locke is best defended through accuracy, rather than through confusion.72.95.55.7 (talk) 05:04, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Me again.  I actually ended up making a bunch of changes to the introductory material, and to a few other spots throughout.  I hope this doesn't turn into an ideological hack job again.  Much as I like Locke, it pains me to see him defended by shoddy means...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.95.55.7 (talk) 06:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Although the above comment is a year old, I just want to clarify for future that Rousseau did not invent the figure of the Legislator -- "Lawgiver" would be a better translation. This was a stock way of talking about what we would call a "founding father" for over 2,000 years. The figure of the Legislator appears in Cicero, which is probably where Rousseau got it,  but was old when Cicero wrote. Solon was understood to be the Lawgiver of Athens,  Numa of Rome, and Moses of the Hebrews. Needless to say, it is not that the Lawgiver uses "deception" to shape the behavior of the citizens, i.e., to "force" them to be virtuous, it is the Law (or legal system) that guides them better behavior. It is strange that people today have become so unfamiliar with concepts that are the basic foundation of our civilization and until recently were widely known to all educated people. Mballen (talk) 13:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Re the above, since it was in response to what I'd written earlier and (more importantly) it's relevant for any future edits.  It is in fact the case that that the Legislator uses deception in Rousseau's account, even if other lawgivers used force, wisdom, or something else.  Consult paragraphs 10-12 of Book 2, Chapter 7, for evidence on that score.  "It is this sublime reason, which transcends the grasp of ordinary men, whose decisions the legislator put in the mouth of the immortals in order to compel by divine authority those whom human prudence could not move."  Then see his footnote to Machiavelli in the same context.  So, yes, it is strange that people don't know much about the character of Lawgivers, but also inappropriate to hold court on this when lacking familiarity with the specific text.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.223.223.68 (talk) 21:46, 10 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent revisions in regard to Rousseau 

message: I see by its article that Rousseau The Social Contract was published both with the archaic spelling contract and with the modern French spelling contrat.  Has the MOS anything relevant to say about choosing between them?  Do new French editions use the old spelling? —Tamfang (talk) 19:08, 4 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Du contra(c)t 

message: What do the various historical religions say about Taxation?
*Judeo-Christianity appears to support it: Render unto Caesar....
What of Islam, and the rest? CaribDigita (talk) 00:43, 1 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taxation and religion 

message: POV. don't think sociobiology needs to be mentioned here. This is article about a concept in political science. Claiming that sociobiology confirms the insights of Hobbes is a gross error and is doubly absurd given that E. O. Wilson, founder of Socio-biology, who is cited in the opening paragraph as having confirmed the theories of Hobbes, has recently completely recanted and now disowns his former views precisely because ideologues used them to make claims like these.Mballen (talk) 14:46, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Correct. Anyway Sociobiology doesn't confirm Hobbes view it just asssumes it.·ʍaunus·snunɐw· 17:21, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Contracts require assent, either overt or implicit. Obviously genes and lower animals do not consent, they just act out of instinct. I am going to remove it. Also, I advise anyone wanting to work on this page to do some homework and at least listen to the BBC In Our Time podcast on the Social Contract.  The vocabulary of the contract goes back to the Greeks and Romans, and through them to Cicero, St. Augustine and Roman Law, in the form of words like "pactum" and "societas" (a group of individuals) and universitas (an artificial person or corporation) , and also the Bible: covenant.  But the full- fledged social contract theories begin to flourish in the sixteenth and especially the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries. They arise in opposition to (or support of) the rise of absolutist government. Social Contract theory goes into abeyance in the nineteenth century and is revived in diluted form as a hypothetical construct by Rawls, or so I gather from miscellaneous readings. Hobbes writes with the express purpose of contesting Aristotle's dictum that man is a political animal. Aristotle had been the moral authority all through the middle ages. Mballen (talk) 18:20, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: E. O. Wilson

message: As someone said above, Epicurus does not belong here. Rather, Aristotle, the Stoics, Cicero, and St. Augustine are missing and ought to be mentioned. As for the section on Plato (which concerns an implicit or tacit social contract), it is very vague and unclear and needs to be sharpened. For the Middle Ages, St. Thomas Aquinas should be noted, as his views influenced Locke (via Hooker). Then then there should be a little section mentioning pre-seventeenth century, Renaissance and Reformation developments: Suarez and the Monarchomarchs (Hotman, Beza, and Mornay) would go here;  and finally the anglican thinker Hooker, who influenced Locke (who through him went back to Aristotle and Aquinas, according to some). Questions the social contract attempt to address, such as what makes a government legitimate, have never been answered, IMO, but that is just my opinion. Mballen (talk) 10:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Epicurus

message: Within the introduction, second paragraph, I removed the statement "as well as in the Biblical idea of the covenant" because: (1)  it contradicts an earlier statement in the introduction - "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 magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights." which excludes any association or reference to God; and (2) the link to Biblical idea of the covenant, as well as the  other links within the article on biblical covenant, say nothing about a social contract and instead discuss a contract between humans and God. PeterEdits (talk) 16:23, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biblical idea of the covenant 

message: Please point this out so it can be addressed. Lycurgus (talk) 05:07, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  OR tagging 

message: Keep in mind I merged the "Overview" section into the lede. That is because a lede IS the overview. This however, led to some redundancies in the lede. 
first edit
second edit
Harizotoh9 (talk) 03:18, 21 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede: 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Social contract. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070304114414/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/locke/locke2/locke2nd-a.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120413015649/http://arcade.stanford.edu/journals/rofl/files/article_pdfs/roflv02i01_Foisneau_121510.pdf to http://arcade.stanford.edu/journals/rofl/files/article_pdfs/roflv02i01_Foisneau_121510.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:49, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Shouldn't there be a mention of Burke, for his critique of the social contract in Reflections on the Revolution in France, in the form of the 'social contract for the ages'? It seems crucial in understanding how the implicatiins fir governments in practice developed No essential nature (talk) 01:43, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Burke 

message: No Such concern 2405:201:AC06:1D86:80C5:2C75:1D3E:F93A (talk) 17:05, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Social theory by Thomas hobbes 

message: — Assignment last updated by WCSUEconProf (talk) 20:13, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: The Economics of Social Justice and Injustice