On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 05:08:57PM -0600, Manoj Srivastava wrote: > The social contract is supposedly a contract. The Social Contract is not a contract (even though it is called that - but I believe the name is an intentional reference to a famous concept in political philosophy). A contract needs at least two parties that exchange promises. The SC has only one party (well, two if you want to stretch it), and is an unilateral promise with no expectation of a return promise. What the SC is, is a pledge. The terminology doesn't really matter, except that I will be voting against any proposal that calls the SC a contract, even if the sense of the proposal is something I support. -- Antti-Juhani Kaijanaho, Jyväskylä, Finland http://antti-juhani.kaijanaho.fi/newblog/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/antti-juhani/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature