>I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. I don't think th

>I think about this question a lot. So much of our philosophy of government is about some nebulous "contract", as if we agreed to be governed. I don't think this is actually true? Social contract theory is one of many, and has some pretty fundamental flaws. The theory isn't really a philosophy of government, either. It's a theory to explain the legitimacy of the state, and essentially answer the question: why do people follow the law? The idea is that people have consented to be governed. It probably made more sense back in the day that we were much less governed than we are now. You had the opportunity to go and live in the woods, essentially ungovernable. And people chose to stay part of society, tacitly agreeing to be governed in exchange for the benefits that come along with it. But there are obvious flaws in that idea. For one thing, minors follow the law and are expected to do so, but can't contract. I think 'social contract' theory is weak. >Government sometimes likes to claim a "monopoly" on violence as well. One generally cannot trade or purchase violence per se, so to act like it's a market, or that a government has any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence, is silly to me. Police are typically late to the scene of a crime, after all, and even with their monopoly are terrible at de-escalation or deterring. This is again not true. Governments don't "claim a monopoly on violence". States have been described by theorists as being characterised by their (implicit) claim to a monopoly on the legitimate use of force. There are obvious flaws in that idea, like the legitimacy of self-defence. But it certainly has nothing to do with whether the government has "any truly effective means of preventing the choice to commit violence", because it's about legitimate use of force. The government can certainly pass laws that determine what is and isn't legitimate use of force.