After arguing that any rational person who adopts the original position and stands behind the veil of ignorance can discover both principles of justice, Rawls constructed perhaps the most abstract version of a social contract theory. It is very abstract because instead of showing that we have signed or even signed a contract to found society, it shows us what we must accept as rational persons in order to be constrained by justice and therefore to be able to live in a well-ordered society. The principles of justice are more fundamental than the social contract as it has been traditionally conceived. On the contrary, the principles of justice limit this treaty and set the limits on how we can build society in the first place. For example, if we consider a constitution as a concrete expression of the social contract, Rawls` two principles of justice describe what such a constitution can and cannot demand of us. Rawls` theory of justice thus represents the Kantian limits to the forms of political and social organization that are permitted in a just society. Social contract theories have implications. Society must become a party to governments through treaties to which each member of society subscribes. This is very important for the survival of any society. There must be the protection of life and property, hence the need for police forces in countries to enforce the law against murder, robbery, etc. (social contract theory n.d.). However, the police should not injure or intimidate civilians on the orders of those in power. On the other hand, the individual must obey the law of the land in order to be able to put order in society, in order to be able to pursue his needs (social contract theory n.d.).

“An example of the benefits of social contact theory is when a government takes away the simple freedom to protect its citizens. Some people say that the full body scanner at airports is a personal injury and is not legal. Now I`m saying it`s legal and okay, if the government that uses body scanners protects me from being killed by someone on a plane, then I`m okay with that. But on the other hand, the downside is that you lose your own personal freedoms to the detriment of others. Now, some may say it`s wrong, but it saves lives. Thomas Hobbs was best known for his political thoughts, and rightly so. He had a surprisingly accurate worldview that is still relevant today. He was mainly interested in the problem of social and political power. He wanted all peoples to live together in peace and avoid the danger and fear of conflict. They thought we should give our undivided obedience to an irresponsible ruler. Another powerful political thinker of social contract theory is John Locke. He was a very influential political philosopher of modern times.

Locke asserted that men are born naturally free. Locke also believed in the separation of legislative and executive branches. John Locke`s version of social contract theory is remarkable when he says that the only right people give up to enter civil society and its benefits is the right to punish others for violating rights (Shaapera). No other rights are surrendered, only the right to be a vigilante. Property played a vital role in Locke`s argument for civil government and the treaty that established it. According to Locke, private property occurs when a person mixes his labor with the raw materials of nature. For example, if you cultivate a parcel of land in nature and turn it into a parcel of agricultural land that produces food, then you have a claim to own that parcel of land and the food produced in it. (This led Locke to conclude that America didn`t really belong to the Native Americans who lived there because, according to him, they didn`t use nature`s basic material. In other words, they did not cultivate it, so they had no legitimate rights to it, and others could therefore legitimately appropriate it.) Given the implications of natural law, there are limits to the amount of goods one can own: one must not take more nature than one can use, leaving others not to have enough for themselves. Because the nature of all mankind is given by God for their common sustenance, one cannot take more than one`s own righteous share.

Property is the keystone of Locke`s argument for the social contract and civil government, for it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that people seek when they decide to abandon the state of nature. The social contract begins with Rousseau`s most frequently quoted sentence: “Man is born free, and is everywhere chained” (49). This claim is the conceptual bridge between the descriptive work of the Second Discourse and the normative work that will come. Human beings are essentially free and have been free in the state of nature, but the “progress” of civilization has replaced this freedom with submission to others, dependence, economic and social inequalities, and the extent to which we judge ourselves in comparison with others. A return to the state of nature being neither feasible nor desirable, the goal of politics is to give us back freedom and thus to reconcile what we really are and essential with our coexistence. So this is the fundamental philosophical problem that the social contract tries to solve: how can we be free and live together? In other words, how can we live together without succumbing to the violence and coercion of others? We can do this, Rousseau argues, by submitting our individual and particular will to the collective or general will created by agreement with other free and equal people.