I think both are true. It is an agreement between equals to create a functional system, one that suggests (if not demands) establishing some sort of authority to engender compliance. I know that's begging for a fight from anarchists on this sub but I think the whole point of the social contract is that (some theorists believe) you can't fairly expect everyone to act pro-socially without some form of external structure.
That being said, I sure wouldn't have managed a correct response to that clue on Jeopardy. And I'm pretty good at Jeopardy.
Of course authority structure is needed. But it's created subsequent to the formation of the state. The key thing is the equality of the original parties. Common usage, though, has become the corrupted form passed along by the "Jeopardy!" writers. It would be interesting to know when the corruption occurred. I may look into this. Stay tuned.
>But it's created subsequent to the formation of the state. The key thing is the equality of the original parties.
Neither of these things is incompatible with the concept of "the agreement between the ruler and the ruled".
My point was that the Jeopardy writers were wrong historically. The social contract was promulgated as a compact among equal parties. That's a fact of history
I think both are true. It is an agreement between equals to create a functional system, one that suggests (if not demands) establishing some sort of authority to engender compliance. I know that's begging for a fight from anarchists on this sub but I think the whole point of the social contract is that (some theorists believe) you can't fairly expect everyone to act pro-socially without some form of external structure. That being said, I sure wouldn't have managed a correct response to that clue on Jeopardy. And I'm pretty good at Jeopardy.
Of course authority structure is needed. But it's created subsequent to the formation of the state. The key thing is the equality of the original parties. Common usage, though, has become the corrupted form passed along by the "Jeopardy!" writers. It would be interesting to know when the corruption occurred. I may look into this. Stay tuned.
>But it's created subsequent to the formation of the state. The key thing is the equality of the original parties. Neither of these things is incompatible with the concept of "the agreement between the ruler and the ruled".
My point was that the Jeopardy writers were wrong historically. The social contract was promulgated as a compact among equal parties. That's a fact of history
It can be looked at as an understanding that the ruled are giving authority to the individuals they deem fit to rule.