What Does Social Contract Theory Require of the Government
According to the theory of the will of the contract, a contract is not considered valid unless all parties voluntarily, tacitly or expressly accept it without coercion. Lysander Spooner, a 19th-century lawyer and fervent defender of contract law between individuals, argued in his essay No Treason that a so-called social contract cannot be used to justify state measures such as taxation because the government will incite violence against anyone who does not want to enter into such a contract. Consequently, it submits that such an agreement is not voluntary and therefore cannot be regarded as a legitimate contract at all. In Rawls` version of the social contract, employees adopt an “original position” in which they imagine themselves arguing behind a “veil of ignorance,” meaning they don`t know what their relative social status will look like in the society they hypothetically constitute. The concept of the veil of ignorance gives Rawls an instrument to theorize the principles of justice in the context of equality. Rawls, who came to the principles of justice in the domestic political context, envisions an original second-stage position whose parties are “representatives of different nations who must collectively choose the basic principles for deciding on conflicting claims between states.” They know that they represent nations “all of which live in the normal circumstances of human life,” but they know nothing about the special circumstances of their own nation, their “power and strength in relation to other nations.” In this second phase, as in the first, the parties have no knowledge of their relative status to cling to what Rawls calls “the contingencies and prejudices of historical fate.”  In addition to clarifying what representatives consider to be fair in terms of the world and the results of their agreement, there must also be a standard by which representative parties can evaluate various contractual possibilities. They must be able to evaluate options based on their values, whatever they may be. Rawls models the parties to the contractual situation in such a way that, at least initially, they have only one measure of value: primary goods. They choose the idea of justice they do to the extent that they believe it is likely to produce the most important goods for them and their descendants. This specification of the evaluation parameter is consistent between the choices and, therefore, the choice in the original position can be modeled as the choice of an individual. To the extent that there is evaluative diversity between representatives, more complex models of the agreement will be needed (see §3).
The quality of government depends on the level of public citizenship. Rawl`s veil of ignorance does not depend on quality.it it is up to a proactively informed population to get the government it deserves. Greek parliamentary democracy became impractical when the number of participants was large, so we now delegate a lot to the government. But influence it a little through petitions and public reactions, and ultimately through elections. Solon said that even the street beggar in ancient Athens must be an active citizen, otherwise he does not deserve to live under this government, so I say to those who claim their freedom that you are free to leave. Freedom comes with obligations. Freedom They cry when they mean freedom. Although social contract theory does not tell people how to behave, it does provide a basis for understanding why society introduced rules, regulations, and laws. Without the theory of the social contract, our understanding of the necessity of these rules would be limited. Social contract theory is another descriptive theory of society and the relationship between rules and laws and why society needs them. Thomas Hobbes (1588-1689) suggested that a society without rules and laws governing our actions would be a terrible place to live.
Hobbes described a society without rules as living in a “state of nature.” In such a state, people would act on their own, without accountability to their community. To live in a state of nature would be Darwinian in which the strongest survive and the weakest perish. A society in Hobbes` state of nature would be without the conveniences and necessities we take for granted in modern Western society. .