That was not my point. :)

I know what this is used for. It's still ill-named (you don't sign it, it would be a "de facto" instead), and still debatable a theory (which states that in an ideal, invented state of nature, without such a contract enforced by an authority, violence would be the natural relation between individuals).

There's more (especially since the times of Hobbes) to describe how societies have functioned/could/should function.

Social contract theory is not much more solid than the homo economicus one: it has its points, and its flaws.

great, now read his counterpart, Rousseau. these are both just stories, and in as much as their conclusions rely upon their assumptions about the "state of nature" they're both flawed: with every decade anthropologists unearth more of human history and find more evidence that neither portrayal comes close to representing the actual ways in which humans interacted at any point before or distant from the English society we and they knew.

Uh, no. The social contract is not a "story" any more than supply/demand is a "story". It's an attempt to explain how something works, with a great deal of rigor and reasoning supporting its ideas.

Oh yes it is. Everything is a story. Some work somehow, some not. Sometimes it mostly depends on the context and the delivery rather than the truth of it.

Supply/demand is also a story/theory trying to model, imperfectly, a reality. Or several ones.

They are both largely contextual, open to critique, and have been. Just take the time to enlarge your horizon, it makes it much more enjoyable and satisfying.

The word "story" has a meaning that does not apply here. You are using the word incorrectly.

Would it blow your mind to know that this is the equivalent of linking a podcast?

Are podcasts peer reviewed?

How do you peer review an opinion

You don't, social contract theory isn't an opinion.

This is literally just a description of someone's world view, you do not make it factual by slapping "theory" on the end

Sorry but you're completely wrong. Social contract theory is many hundreds of years older than I am, and is extremely well argued by people many times smarter than I.

None of this is my idea; your problem is with the strength of the argument, not with my "opinion".

> Social contract theory is many hundreds of years older than I am ...

So, you're going with the old "appeal to authority" approach then?

You might want to pick a different direction, as that doesn't really work around here. :)

This is where you’re mislead.

It IS a recent theory in the face of human history (and even more prehistory).

Those people were NOT smarter than you are, or can be. You’re terribly limiting yourself and your capacity for understanding and growth thinking they were (it’s not about humility, but submission, there’s a nuance).

It's not meaningful to compare its invention to all of human history, so the fact that its hundreds of years old is what matters. As for why that matters addresses your other argument; it's not that the Hobbes is "smarter" than me, it's that people have had hundreds of years to refine/refute/improve social contract theory, and it is currently one of the two widely accepted modern moral frameworks, alongside utilitarianism.

It's insanely hubristic to think I (or you) are going to casually outthink many many thousands of scholars over the course of hundreds of years in a series of HN comments. To even think you may know better, without even fully understanding what it is social contract theory is, puts you firmly on the wrong side of Dunning-Krueger.