4 ms·

> When the law ceases to be a social contract Law has never and will likely never be a social contract. It is always enforced with violence, which encourages c

> When the law ceases to be a social contract Law has never and will likely never be a social contract. It is always enforced with violence, which encourages compliance. Give up Hobbes' misguided concept already as it will never help you make predictions about or explanations for how people behave.

Dr_tldr 10y ago
In order to be effectively condescending, you'll need at least a 9th grade level of knowledge on the topic. That you were able to mix up two very different theorists (possibly 3 if you were thinking of Rousseau) implies you're not actually very familiar with any of them. I'm assigning you this, have it done by Friday: http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us/cresskill/Schools/Cresskill%20High%20School/Teacher%20Websites/Kline,%20Stephen/World%20History/Hobbes%20and%20Locke%20Essay.pdf http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us/cresskill/Schools/Cresskil...
- x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
  I did not mix up any theorists. Hobbes wrote about the social contract ~100 years before Rousseau did and 30 years before Locke. For all intents and purposes he invented the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Thomas_Hobbes.27_Leviathan_.281651.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Thomas_Hobbes....
  - Dr_tldr 10y ago
    Hobbes whole point is that the state is created and maintained through a monopoly on the use of force primarily by means of force, aka violence, so that wouldn't make any sense in the context of what you said. Still, I'm glad you read the wikipedia page: B+ for effort.
    - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
      Hobbes wrote about contracts and tried to shoehorn the concept into the realm of political legitimacy. The framing of political legitimacy in the context of contracts is clearly misleading and is about as useful in modern political dialogue as phrenology is to neuroscience. Regardless of the differences between Locke and Hobbes, the terminology only serves to obfuscate the forces at play.

Dr_tldr 10y ago

In order to be effectively condescending, you'll need at least a 9th grade level of knowledge on the topic. That you were able to mix up two very different theorists (possibly 3 if you were thinking of Rousseau) implies you're not actually very familiar with any of them. I'm assigning you this, have it done by Friday: http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us/cresskill/Schools/Cresskill%20High%20School/Teacher%20Websites/Kline,%20Stephen/World%20History/Hobbes%20and%20Locke%20Essay.pdf http://www.cresskillboe.k12.nj.us/cresskill/Schools/Cresskil...

x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
I did not mix up any theorists. Hobbes wrote about the social contract ~100 years before Rousseau did and 30 years before Locke. For all intents and purposes he invented the concept. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Thomas_Hobbes.27_Leviathan_.281651.29 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract#Thomas_Hobbes....
- Dr_tldr 10y ago
  Hobbes whole point is that the state is created and maintained through a monopoly on the use of force primarily by means of force, aka violence, so that wouldn't make any sense in the context of what you said. Still, I'm glad you read the wikipedia page: B+ for effort.
  - x3n0ph3n3 10y ago
    Hobbes wrote about contracts and tried to shoehorn the concept into the realm of political legitimacy. The framing of political legitimacy in the context of contracts is clearly misleading and is about as useful in modern political dialogue as phrenology is to neuroscience. Regardless of the differences between Locke and Hobbes, the terminology only serves to obfuscate the forces at play.