The social contract should be as explicit as possible about the degree of transparency expected from government, business and civil society. The theory of the social contract is a cynical but perhaps realistic view of humanity without rules and without people applying the rules. An example of a society in a state of nature can sometimes be observed when a society is plunged into chaos due to a catastrophic event. It can happen because of a war, as happened in Rwanda, or because of a natural disaster, as happened in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. In both examples, a part of society has gone from a country where the rule of law was practiced to a community in a state of nature. Rules and laws were forgotten and brute force dictated who would survive. Unfortunately, without laws and without rules and without people who enforce these laws and rules, society is transformed into a state of nature. Given his rather strict view of human nature, Hobbes nevertheless succeeds in creating an argument that makes civil society possible with all its advantages. In the context of political events in his England, he also managed to argue for the maintenance of the traditional form of authority that his society had long enjoyed, while placing it on what he saw as a much more acceptable basis. It is not a question here of advocating for a particular balance, but of encouraging the authors of a social contract to do so, explicitly. Ultimately, there may be no prospect of a meaningful and lasting social contract for a society, but it would indicate that it is not a real society at all.

Artificial intelligence (AI) and robots will have more and more social characteristics in the form of interactions between systems and between robots. Here too, statutes are needed. And also of the people. Privacy has its merits, but a certain amount of public documents and freedom of expression also have merits. The statutes should also be as explicit as possible in this area. John Locke`s conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes` in several fundamental ways, retaining only the central notion that people in a state of nature would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be morally obligated not to injure each other in their lives or possessions by natural law. Without a government to defend them against those who want to hurt or enslave them, Locke continued to believe that people have no security in their rights and would live in fear. Individuals, according to Locke, would only agree to form a state that, in part, would provide a "neutral judge" who would protect the life, liberty, and property of those who lived there. [14] What is the social contract? An agreement between the citizen and the government? No, it would only mean the continuation of [Rousseau`s] idea. The social contract is an agreement between man and man; an agreement from which what we call society must result.

In this is the concept of commutative justice, first put forward by the primitive fact of exchange. is replaced by that of distributive justice. If you translate these words, contract, commutative justice, which are the language of the law, into the language of business, and you have commerce, that is, in its highest sense, the act by which man and man declare themselves essentially producers and renounce any claim to govern each other. Details, policies and regulations must be enshrined in law, but it would be more useful to highlight aspects of the social contract separately, as in the United Nations Bill of Rights and Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The social contract begins with the idea of a state of nature – the way people would exist in the world if they were not part of a society. The philosopher Thomas Hobbes believed that because people are fundamentally selfish, life in the state of nature would be "bad, brutal and short." The powerful would impose their will on the weak and no one could be sure that their natural rights to life and liberty would be respected. Not all social contract theorists agree on this point. Philosophers have different ideas about whether the social contract is real or whether it is a fictitious way of describing the relationship between citizens and their government.

For Rousseau, this means an extremely strong and direct form of democracy. You cannot transfer your will to someone else to do what you think is right, as you do in representative democracies. On the contrary, the general will depends on the fact that the whole democratic body, each individual citizen, meets regularly to decide together and at least almost unanimously how to live together, that is, which laws should be promulgated. Since it is composed only of individual wills, these private and individual wills must be composed regularly for the general will to continue. One implication of this is that the strong form of democracy, compatible with the general will, is only possible in relatively small states. People need to be able to identify with each other and at least know who they are. They cannot live in a vast area too dispersed to meet regularly, and they cannot live in such diverse geographical circumstances that they cannot be united under common laws. (Could today`s United States satisfy Rousseau`s concept of democracy? That was not possible. Although the conditions for true democracy are strict, they are also the only way in which we can save ourselves after Rousseau and regain the freedom to which we are naturally entitled. Questions to be answered when drafting a social contract include: Statutes aim to ensure the availability, access, and low cost of all essential goods and services. Before drafting a country-specific social contract, authors should review and adopt or revise the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), which includes, for example, most of the rights granted in the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S.

Constitution, as well as additional rights. The principles according to which individuals in the original position, behind the veil of ignorance, would choose to regulate a society at the most elementary level (that is, even before a constitution) are quite rightly referred to by Rawls as the two principles of justice. These two principles determine the distribution of civil liberties as well as social and economic goods. The first principle states that every person in a society should have as much fundamental freedom as possible, as long as everyone is granted the same freedoms. That is, there must be as much civil liberty as possible, as long as these assets are evenly distributed. (This would exclude, for example, a scenario in which there is a larger aggregate of civil liberties than in an alternative scenario, but where these freedoms are not evenly distributed among citizens.) The second principle states that while social and economic inequalities can be equitable, they must be equally accessible to all (i.e. no one should be denied access to a greater economic benefit in principle), and that these inequalities must be for the benefit of all. This means that economic inequality is only justified if the most disadvantaged member of society is nevertheless better off than would be the case with other arrangements. Only if a rising tide really lifts all boats up can economic inequality be allowed in a just society.

The method of the original position supports this second principle, which is called the principle of difference, because if we stand behind the veil of ignorance and therefore do not know what our situation will be in society once the veil of ignorance is lifted, we will only accept principles that will be to our advantage, even if we find ourselves in the least favored position of society. However, the situation is not hopeless. Because people are reasonable, they can see their way out of such a state by recognizing the laws of nature that show them the means by which they can escape the state of nature and create a civil society. The first and most important law of nature requires that every human being be ready to seek peace when others are willing to do the same, while retaining the right to continue waging war when others are not seeking peace. Since they are reasonable and recognize the rationality of this fundamental commandment of reason, people can be expected to build a social contract that allows them to live a different life than they have in the state of nature. .