Hacker News Reader

Comment by brudgers | Hacker News Reader

The social contract is between the individuals (collectively) and the sovereign. Invoking the social contract is contrary to any complaint about non-enforcement because signing on means the sovereign can do whatever is necessary to keep the peace. In exchange, the individual agrees to go along with everything except the loss of their own life.

View on HN

Sorry, maybe "social contract" isn't the right term. I just meant the work any person is expected to do in order to be a good citizen and a good neighbor.

Good or bad citizenship seems orthogonal to the situation described...though political rhetoric over the last forty years has encouraged people to identify as tax payers and consumers rather than citizens and to conflate shopping with civic participation. On the other hand, survival is rarely genteel.

> the sovereign can do whatever is necessary to keep the peace. In exchange, the individual agrees to go along with everything except the loss of their own life.

wow, how widely is this belief held? is there a name for it?

The Social Contract is an idea originating in the political philosophy of Thomas Hobbs. Leviathan in particular. Leviathan is in the public domain: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leviathan_(Hobbes_book)#Extern...

I took a quick glance, many of Hobbes' principle values do not seem to be widely held today.

It's the Hobbesian view of the social contract, which is often contrasted with the Lockean view of the same subject which underpins both the US system in particular and arguably Western liberal democracy more generally.

It's not a particularly popular model, even though it was influential in developing views that remain popular today.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com