The concept of social contract is contrary to natural private By Danny Ayala Hinojosa
When we are born, we do with the inalienable right to life, right in principle is defended by parents or guardians, no other rights generated by the newly born or trained or is required to ensure the needs of others.
The baby is born, as a child grows under elcuidado of their parents and accumulating property by inheritance, gift, ycada again, by the product of his mind and effort. When you buy old, the young learn to sign agreements with their parents, their teachers, friends, and then, with whom he recruited or hired him to perform a task, receiving or giving a service, or establish a relationship sentimental or of any kind. Such agreements create rights and obligations which must be observed and followed as it has been determined to speak in them and has done so by choice, exercising free will. The rules are binding on the undersigned individual are voluntarily through contracts and that each person determines to be exercised within your property.
However, because of ignorance or perversion, some claim that any person belonging to a company or by the mere fact of birth or residence in one place, it is inherently a contractual obligation to his fellows that goes beyond their nature and will and which requires any person to engage in or reject certain actions, accept or reject certain beliefs, or say or shut up some demonstrations, without their consent or have the opportunity to reject such impositions. This is Ensum the concept of "social contract", an ideological construct designed to facilitate the enforcement power of a social engineering model, whose architects know will not be acceptable for all but will be enforced with all the necessary physical force or threat. The social contract is closely linked to the concept of state in all its forms and under different political, because it arises from one model to impose (created by intellectuals) and how to implement it lies in the use of force physics, in this case the state (bureaucracy, spies, police and armed force).
So then, the social contract can be defined as a system designed by the ideology that seeks to rule or govern, to exercise political and economic management of a company under duress in order to benefit individuals or groups. The main feature of the social contract is that it evolved from the customs that shaped the institutions of a society, but is deliberately created and imposed de facto , not de jure arises according to natural law. Illustrate this concept with a comparison: in the remote past of humanity to a person happened to exchange an item with another of a similar, both consenting to the transaction, such voluntary action "more profitable for all the violent outburst of objects, became habit and continued in the habit eventually became an institution. By contrast, someone came up with a model of behavior was not acceptable to their peers or for some, but the path chosen to adopt it was to use physical force to compel them to follow all the designed behavior. Anthropologically, here should be separated very spontaneous violence of animal behavior and human instinct, of deliberately exercised and calculated behavior required to return through violence, the former is understandable as instinct, the second as deliberate harm. Legally, it must also separate the legitimate use of force in self-defense of the property and integrity of self, one that is initially exerted whatever reason or justification. Undoubtedly
in history have been tyrannical regimes (with their own conception of social order) milder regimes overthrown by bearers of a social contract (another conception of social order) more equitable, but over time these schemes also systems often become coercion and even frequent violence. Remember some history with a very clear example: the French Revolution. Specifically influenced by the author of the treatise The Social Contract, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and championing the ideals of freedom, equality and fraternity, this revolution overthrew a despotic monarch, created a National Constituent Assembly drafted a Declaration of the Rights of Man so soon after becoming a regime of terror that led to the guillotine over 40 thousand people. From the above we can determine that a regime that imposes even more benign social order which also is based on coercion, whatever their justification - is model designed to derive its slowly or quickly into tyranny, creating groups of privileged at the expense of fundamental rights of other citizens.
Full article in Science Ecuador
