So if it is dependent upon a contract or agreement being made, and yet, there is no contract or agreement made, what does that mean to the argument being laid out?Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live.
Also failing back on Thomas Hobbes, well, that is pretty laughable considering what his theory actually was.
According to Hobbes the laws of nature requires that human beings seek peace, and establishment of contracts is the best means of doing so. However he also concludes the hunger for power threatens the contract.
This leads Hobbes to conclude that there must be a common power, a sovereign authority that forces the people to uphold the contract. The sovereign is to be endowed with all the individual powers and wills of all, with the authority to punish anyone who breaks its tenets. The sovereign operates through fear and the threat of punishment reinforcing the laws of nature, thus ensuring the social contract. This sovereign is an artificial person of sorts called Leviathan with the sovereignty being the soul, and the sovereign itself, being the head. Leviathan is a metaphor Hobbes uses for the state.
Hobbes concludes that the only way to establish such a common force is for people to put all their power upon one man, or upon a group of men that makes all the wills of men one. The sovereign has the power to do whatever he deems necessary in order to protect the commonwealth. This means the rights of the people must be transferred to the sovereign in order for the duties of the sovereign to be carried out.
There is two ways to establish this system, either through force or through agreement. According to Hobbes the later is how people rise above the harsh conditions of nature. While the former means that the sovereign assumes control through force of a group of people and if the people fail to resist they must consent. Both serve the same function and both go towards the same ends.
Notice anything oppressive about his idea?