The "social contract"

These are the elements of a contract:
http://www.lawhandbook.org.au/handbook/ch12s01s02.php#

Intention to create legal relations

• A contract does not exist simply because there is an agreement between people. The parties to the agreement must intend to enter into a legally binding agreement.

Offer and acceptance

• A contract is formed when an offer by one party is accepted by the other party.

Consideration

• Consideration is the price paid for the promise of the other party. The price must be something of value, although it need not be money. Consideration may be some right, interest or benefit going to one party or some forbearance, detriment, loss or responsibility given, suffered or undertaken by the other party.

Legal capacity

• Not all people are completely free to enter into a valid contract. The contracts of the groups of people listed below involve problematic consent, and are dealt with separately, as follows:
  • people who have a mental impairment;
  • young people (minors);
  • bankrupts;
  • corporations (people acting on behalf of a company); and
  • prisoners.

Consent

• Entering into a contract must involve the elements of free will and proper understanding of what each of the parties is doing. In other words, the consent of each of the parties to a contract must be genuine. Only where the essential element of proper consent has been given is there a contract which is binding upon the parties.

Someone arguing on behalf of the "social contract", please demonstrate how the "social contract" meets all of these five elements.

 

[goku usa]

Sorry if I'm stupid. What is "social contract" that you speak of?

 

[Noire.]

Sorry if I'm stupid. What is "social contract" that you speak of?

From what I've learned from school and my understanding of this concept, I think he's speaking of the general concept of an exchange in which people essentially give up their "liberties" to an authority, such as the government, to ensure order and mutual benefit.

What seems to be missing when people use this idea as an argument is that it requires the "consent of the governed", which can be interpreted in multiple ways.

 

I think that the groups of people that are allowed to enter a contract is absolutely foolish! What if everyone was mentally impaired or everyone was bankrupt? I'm a bit tired of seeing people play the "insanity" or "he didn't know what he was doing" card in the court system for a lesser sentence.

Sorry, but that has nothing to do with the challenge at hand.

Which, to clarify, is for supporters of the "social contract" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract) to prove that such a thing is a valid contract.