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.