Since the end of the Association of Men for the Common Good (paragraph 124) is the preservation of its wealth and the maintenance of one`s life, liberty and well-being in general, Locke can easily imagine the conditions under which the pact with the government is destroyed and people have the right to oppose the authority of a civilian government as a king. If the executive power of a government passes to tyranny, for example by dissolving the legislative power and thus denying the people the opportunity to legislate for its own conservation, the resulting tyrant places himself in a state of nature and, in particular, in a state of war with the people, and then they have the same right to self-defense as before the pact. to establish society in general. In other words, the justification for the authority of the executive component of government is the protection of the property and well-being of the people, so that if such protection no longer exists, or if the king becomes a tyrant and acts against the interests of the people, they have the right, if not the flagrant obligation, to oppose his authority. The social pact can be dissolved and the process of creating a political society can be revived. On the purpose of the contract, the theories of the social contract differ. Hobbes and Locke`s traditional contractual theories dealt with the conditions of political union. The problem was, among other things, the reasons and limitations of citizens` obligation to obey the state. In its early formulation, Rawls` parties discussed “common practices” (1958). In his later opinion, Rawls accepted the purpose of the agreement as principles of justice to regulate the “basic structure”: the social contract is therefore a model of rational justification that translates the problem of justification (what are the reasons of individuals) into a problem of advice (what rules they will accept). Rawls asserts that the theories of Roussau`s social contract together form a unique and coherent vision of our moral and political situation. We naturally have freedom and equality, but our nature has been ruined by our contingent social history.
However, we can overcome this corruption by invoking our free will to reconstitute ourselves politically and on strongly democratic principles, which is a good thing for us, both individually and collectively. Decisions must be made – who should be the leader, and decisions are made – how do we decide who should take the lead. This idea that free individuals come together and mislead a number of rules is the idea behind a social contract. The idea of the social contract goes back at least to Epicurus (Thrasher 2013). In its visibly modern form, however, the idea was revived by Thomas Hobbes; It was developed in different ways by John Locke, Jean-Jacques Rousseau and Emmanuel Kant.