Revolutionary-era Americans preferred social contract theory to British conservative concepts of patriarchal government and viewed the social contract as support for rebellion. During the pre-war and civil war periods, the theory of the social contract was used on all sides. Slaves used it to support state rights and succession, moderate members of the Whig party defended the social contract as a symbol of continuity in government, and abolitionists found support in Locke`s theories of natural rights. Rousseau`s striking sentence that man «must be forced to be free» must be understood [according to whom?] as follows: Since indivisible and inalienable popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, then when an individual falls back into his ordinary egoism and despises the law, he will be forced to listen to what has been decided, when the people acted as a collective (as citizens). Thus, the law, to the extent that it is created by persons who act as a body, is not a restriction of individual freedom, but rather its expression. Jefferson and John Adams (1735-1826), often political rivals, agreed in principle, but disagreed on whether a strong central government (Adams and the Federalists) or a weak government (Jefferson and the Republican Democrats) was the best to support the social contract. While the «low-wage» social contract may not be a good deal for many workers, there is no excuse as if we can go back to the old New Deal-era system. The combination of conditions that have enabled high wages, high profits and low prices no longer exists in a service-based economy with more unstable jobs, where the dwindling number of manufacturing jobs is more subject to global competition. And while the capitalist welfare model has benefited many members of the middle class, it has often excluded African-American workers and relied on a family model based on a single male breadwinner. The next social contract must adapt to these new economic conditions and drive the great strides we have made towards equality for women and minorities in the labour market. In our own work at the New America Foundation, we sketched out a third idea that we call the «middle-income social contract.» It predicts that many service industries will not be able to offer middle-income wages to their workers, meaning that in addition to some wage increase, the government will need to play a more active role in making essential services such as education, childcare and health care more affordable. The best way to do this is to provide these programs directly, through .B. through universal pre-K, paid health insurance, or subsidies to states for elderly care.
Policymakers can begin to build a middle-income social contract by raising the federal minimum wage closer to a real living wage and expanding public early childhood education, both of which are widely circulated proposals. Like many philosophical ideas behind political theory, the social contract has inspired various forms and interpretations and has been evoked by many different groups in American history. Hulliung`s study is innovative and provocative, and makes it clear that until we address the centrality of the social contract in American history — and the meaning of its possible demise — something essential will be missing from our accounts of the past and our understanding of the present. Rousseau also analyses the statutes in terms of risk management, proposing the origins of the State as a form of mutual insurance. That`s how we got here – but what could be in front of us? Beginning in the 1980s, however, the social contract underwent a profound change. Industry deregulation, increasing global competition, rising costs and commodity volatility have caused companies to move away from the consensus of the New Deal era. It has been replaced by what we call the «low-wage social contract,» which has dominated to this day. Hulliung solidifies his stature as a major historian of ideas with this remarkably scholarly analysis of the centrality of social contract theory to American history and political culture.
Highly recommended. Philip Pettit (born 1945) argued in Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government (1997) that the theory of the social contract, which is classically based on the consent of the governed, should be changed. Rather than arguing for explicit consent, which can always be made, Pettit argues that the absence of an effective rebellion against him is the only legitimacy of a treaty. .