Social Contract Analysis

Besides the right to self-preservation, Locke also believed that all individuals had a natural right to property, “the labour of his body, and the work of his hands, we may say, are property his,” (pg. 128, 27). This natural right carried with it two preconditions of natural law. First, since God gave the earth to all individuals, people must be sure to leave enough property for others to have, the second

John Locke’s main idea was that the government should only be there to protect and provide for the people. He thought that society would be better if the government wasn’t so persistent in the lives of citizens. He also believed that people should deserve natural rights. It was his belief that people were born with these rights and that these rights should never be violated by anyone, including the government. He stated “[men are in] a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature…” (Doc. A). In other words, this quote shows that Locke believes that humans have natural rights and that people should be free to use them however they please. Therefore, he believed that no one, especially the government, should have power over peoples’ natural

John Locke’s social construct, which is inherently based on the The Law of Nature, bestowed by God, assuring humans with the right of health, liberty and property, is undoubtedly flawed to some extent in which specific aspects of such can be exploited to justify wrongful doings. Given that Locke forms that the human state of nature is one of relative peace, in which each person is inherently moral trough universal religious affiliation, and whom follow their bidding without interference, in regard to the rights bound by the law of nature, and the constant tendency for humans to develop disputes amongst these natural rights, specifically that of property, the attraction of swaying away from a state of nature is in part to maintain one’s property safe and equal. This is an important factor in Locke’s theory as it is what disputes the choice of staying in a peaceful state of nature in the menace of possible war and danger.

In Locke’s second treatise of government, John Locke described that to understand the rights of individuals and role of government, one must starts with a consideration of men in a state of nature. In a state of nature where everyone is equal and free, everyone could do anything as long as they followed the law of nature. In the law of nature everyone had a right to self-preservation, and it is against the law of nature to impose that right. Due to the fact that there is no such thing as private property in nature or the bible, John Locke uses the right to self-preservation to justify the existence of private property. It is clear to lock that individuals came before society in the state of nature, therefore individuals are more important than any social order.

To Locke, the “State of Nature” is a state in which every human being is his own king, who answers to no higher authority than his own conscience and will. Although this “State of Nature” offers complete freedom; this freedom is accompanied by an amorphous mass of fears and insecurities that stem from devolution that Locke called the “State of War”. The “State of War” occurs when one individual tyrannizes another (either to enslave him or to take over his property) and the victim of this relationship rightfully decides to defend himself. In the “State of War” the tyrant tries to deprive the individual of the rights that he is naturally entitled to.

John Locke was an exemplary English philosopher. He argued in his book, The Second Treatise of Government, that governments need to be controlled through the interests of the citizens safety and preservation. Preservation is not just limited to life, but also the protection of liberty and property. Natural rights and the social contract allows this to be ensured. In fact, he states that, “ “.

The way a government or state has ruled over a populace has always been attributed to the socially accepted political idea prevailing at the time, but their are multiple ideal political ideas that have shaped the modern world and all of them ultimately were hinged upon each other. The following political ideas of, a socially bound contract, the divine right of a king and the laws of god and nature are the founding principles throughout history that have lead to major political revolutions including republicanism and democracy.

"The current federal system of government in the United States is failing to meet its social contract obligations to the American people." There is nothing closer to the truth than this statement. While some may argue that the government is following the guidelines of a social contract, many aspects of the government have outgrown their britches and taken over.

Lillard, Monique C., Fifty Jurisdictions in Search of a Standard: The Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing in the Employment Context, 57 Mo. L. Rev. (1992)

John Locke argues that people deserve life, liberty, and property which are all an essential part of the social contract. The government needs to guard individuals’ lives and safeguard the freedom of prosperity and impose laws that are structured to reward efforts which improve society economically. Locke’s Contractual Theory of Government says that people must willingly do things like pay taxes and serve in the military, but in return, the government had to listen to their desires and provide for their needs. John Locke’s philosophy is one that we are all familiar with because his ideas were used in our Constitution by our founding fathers. According to the United States Senate, “We the

The quality of your individual life would greatly improve in utopia. The burdens you face from corporate monopolies, the overwhelming weight of the devaluation of your currency and the lack of faith in your neighbors to achieve a civilization of peace and mutual respect has taken its toll for too long. Although this sounds as if it was taken directly from George Orwell’s book (1984) itself, the propaganda of a utopian government rule and the current everlasting war breathes as it’s on self-reliant organization today. Weary of the multiple political parties that are emerging every three seconds, we are faced with a question that has been proposed since the beginning of logical thinking. Is it

     Rousseau's principal aim in writing The Social Contract is to determine how freedom may be possible in civil society, and we might do well to pause briefly and understand what he means by "freedom." In the state of nature we enjoy the physical freedom of having no restraints on our behavior. By entering into the social contract, we place restraints on our behavior, which make it possible to live in a community. By giving up our physical freedom, however, we gain the civil freedom of being able to think rationally. We can put a check on our impulses and desires, and thus learn to think morally. The term "morality" only has significance within the confines of civil

For Locke, It becomes increasingly difficult to defend the natural right due to the possibility of the state of war. In order to preserve the right, the people would also have to come together to form a social contract. They would then establish a state, whose job would be to PRESERVE the right, and to punish those who seek to attack it. The state will then decide upon a neutral judge. John Locke argues that the government’s only job is to act as an fair mediator of self-defense. This way the power of the state comes from consent and delegation of the governed. The government is limited by its people’s natural right and cannot overstep its bounds. Since the law of nature states that a person cannot violate another’s natural right, the same mentality must be kept by the government, or sovereign. If the sovereign fails to preserve or

Contractual agreements are supposed to be consensual, and freely entered into by the parties involved. Therefore, ‘before a court enforces a relationship as a contract, the courts must have a reasonably certain basis in fact to justify binding the parties to each other.’ (St. John’s Law Scholarship Repository, no date). Resolution of whether a contract was intended to be legally binding is not determined by what the parties themselves thought or intended. Rather, a more objective stance is taken by the courts. This is known as the objective theory of contract, and essentially enables ‘the courts to look at external evidence (what the parties said and did at the time)’ (Poole, 2006, p. 34), as to objectively indicate the parties’ intentions

On the formation of the Social Contract Theory has a long history, many people have formed Social Contract Theory has made a great contribution. Thomas Hobbes as one of the representatives of Modern Social Contract Theory, his departure from the theory of human nature, to a fictional state of nature as a starting point, put forward the basic principles of natural law, natural rights, and then through the Social Contract Theory, the establishment of his country theory. Thomas Hobbes certain extent, played a significant role, for people to bring enlightenment. But his theory does not apply in all cases; we need to analyze different aspects of different problems. In this essay, I will describe the Social Contract Theory, and explain the problem of how do we get out of the State of Nature raised by Hobbes Game. I explain the idea of cooperation that Thomas Hobbes can give to this problem, and then argue that this is not a satisfactory response to the problem for three reasons.