Reaver

Mar 17 2009, 03:20 PM

Dragon Hellfire

Mar 17 2009, 05:52 AM

How does changing a term to another on the same specification level correct something? Since you aren't overlapping terms or changing what you said...

If I misinterpreted what you meant, then please, correct *me*.

Let me rephrase entirely:

Because the Social Contract states that the governed must agree to submit to a government, it logically follows that the governed must benefit from all of the laws instituted by the government because - otherwise - nobody would agree to surrender their free will to act as they please in return for limited action and safety. After all, one agreement made in the social contract is that the government has the obligation to protect life, liberty, and property for all persons. Although some "liberty" to act without any restraint is sacrificed, the freedom to go about daily life without the fear of injustice - such as being killed or robbed - is provided, which is why people agree to the contract. If a law is not beneficial to the members of society - perhaps barring anyone labeled as a "Democrat" from voting - then people do not need to follow the law because the government has violated their half of the Social Contract by refusing to protect liberty, in this case.