Thomas Hobbes (1588-1679) was the first modern philosopher to articulate a detailed contractual theory. According to Hobbes, the lives of individuals in the state of nature were “lonely, poor, wicked, brutal and short”, a state where self-interest and the absence of rights and contracts prevented society or society. Life was “anarchic” (without leadership or concept of sovereignty). Individuals in the state of nature were apolitical and antisocial. This situation is followed by the social contract. The main proponents of this view of the U.S. Constitution came mainly from Virginia and other southern countries. [Citation required] The proponents of the theory are Thomas Jefferson. [2] After this theory and in response to the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, Jefferson asserted that the federal government had overstepped its authority and had voted in favour of the repeal of the laws by the states. The first resolution of the Kentucky resolutions began by saying: I choose R in M and this gives me a reason to support and match R in the real world, since the reasons I have for choosing R in M are (or may be) shared by I. [6] The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected the idea that the Constitution is a pact between states. On the contrary, the Court stated that the Constitution was established directly by the people of the United States and not by the states.

33. There has never been some kind of absolute justice, but only agreements that have been made in the context of a mutual relationship between men in different places, at different times, who oppose the addition or suffering of evil. [10] Epicurus in the fourth century BC seemed to have had a strong sense of social contract, with justice and law rooted in mutual agreement and benefit, as evidenced, among other things, by these lines in its main teachings (see also epicurean ethics): with regard to the Constitution of the United States, the compact theory says that the country was formed by a pact agreed upon by all states. and that the federal government is thus a creation of the federal states. [1] Therefore, states should be the last arbiters on whether the federal government has exceeded the limits of its authority, as defined in the Covenant. David Gauthier “neo-hobbesian” The theory holds that collaboration between two independent and selfish parties is indeed possible, especially when it comes to understanding morality and politics. [19] Gauthier stresses in particular the benefits of cooperation between two parties with regard to the challenge of the prisoner dilemma. It proposes that if two parties comply with the original agreement and the morals set out in the treaty, they should both achieve an optimal result. [19] [20] In its social contract model, factors such as trust, rationality and self-interest act honestly and prevent it from breaking the rules. [19] [20] Jean-Jacques Rousseau (1712-1778) described in his influential treatise The Social Contract of 1762 another version of the theory of social contract as the basis for political rights based on unlimited popular sovereignty. Although Rousseau wrote that the British were perhaps the freest people in the world at the time, he did not accept their representative government. Rousseau believed that freedom was only possible if the people as a whole governed directly through legislation, where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable.

However, he also stated that people often did not know their “true will” and that a true society would only occur when a great leader (“the legislator”) was born to change people`s values and customs, probably through the strategic use of religion.