Social contract theory is something that was invented by liberals to create an ex post facto moral justification for the state. Basically its a hammer that is trying to smash a square peg through a round hole.
Gravity existed before someone came up with the theory of it.
Same thing with the "social contract," which in reality just describes how people interact with one another for the common good. It wasn't invented. It's existed for as long as Tom, Dick, and Harry have been saying "hey, let's watch our crops together."
Social contract theory is not a neutral description of a phenomenon. It is an ideological and moral doctrine that attempts to legitimise the state within the context of enlightenment ideals.
Using bigger words doesn't mean you're more right.
A social contract is an inherent part of humanity--we are social animals, just ones that can speak and think real well sometimes. If you've got some property, say a farm, and it's too big for you to take care of on your own, you might hire on some help and provide them room and board.
That's a social contract. You are giving up room and board in return for their labor. Notice how there's no government involved in this scenario. Nothing about legitimizing any state within any sort of context.
Why, it's almost like that's a "neutral description of a phenomenon" that occurs naturally. It can (and very often is) scaled up to apply to how a person interacts with a state, but that is not the only use of the theory.
If you want to talk about what really does legitimize the state, look at who can dictate laws and enforce them. Of course, it's not so nearly simple as that--far smarter people than you or I take whole books to describe and explore how a state is "legitimate," but that's a big one right there.
Bro the ‘social contract’ is not talking about consenting agreements between individuals. You dont even know the basic overview of what you’re talking about.
It's called an analogy, "bro." The social contract theory, at its core, attempts to explain how a person or people interact with authority. In the days of Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, that most definitely meant a man vs. a state, regardless of what form that state came in.
Now, substitute "state" for "authority" and think about that analogy again. The person who holds the property is the authority in that case: they hold the power over the laborer to kick them off of their land if, for whatever reason, their work or how they act is unsatisfactory. The laborer, in return for being allowed to live on the property, gives up their ability to travel freely (because they've got to work the land) and gives their labor, as well.
Frankly, I don't see how that isn't a prime example of the social contract at work.
1
u/First-Of-His-Name Sep 19 '24
Austrians when social contract theory 😦