A former critic of the theory of the social contract was Rrousseau`s friend, the philosopher David Hume, who published an essay „Of Civil Liberty“ in 1742. The second part of this essay, entitled „Of the Original Contract“[21], points out that the concept of the „social contract“ is a convenient fiction: property plays an essential role in Locke`s argument in favor of civil government and the contract that establishes it. According to Locke, private property is born when a person mixes his work with the raw materials of nature. For example, if you cultivate a piece of land in nature and turn it into a piece of arable land that produces food, you have the right to own that land and the food it produces. (This led Locke to conclude that America did not really belong to the natives who lived there because they did not consider that they did not use the basic materials of nature. In other words, they did not raise it, so they were not legitimately entitled to it and therefore others could legitimately seize it.) Faced with the implications of natural law, there are limits to the amount of goods you can own: you cannot take more of nature than you can use, which means that others do not have enough for themselves. Because the nature of all mankind is given by God to live together, one cannot take more than one`s own fair share. Property is the linchpin of Locke`s argument for the social contract and civil government, for it is the protection of their property, including their property in their own bodies, that people seek when they decide to abandon the state of nature. The theory of the social contract also appears in Crito, another dialogue by Plato. Over time, the theory of the social contract spread after Epikur (341-270 BC), the first philosopher to consider justice as a social contract and does not exist as in nature due to divine interventions (see below and also epicurean ethics), decided to take the theory to the top of his society. Over time, philosophers of traditional political and social thought such as Locke, Hobbes, and Rousseau shared their views on the social contract, making the subject much more common. [Citation required] Given the long-standing and widespread influence of social contract theory, it is not surprising that it is also the subject of much criticism from various philosophical angles.

Feminists and race-minded philosophers, in particular, have made important arguments about the substance and viability of social contract theory. Gauthier has an advantage over Hobbes in developing the argument that collaboration between purely selfish agents is possible. He has access to rational choice theory and its sophisticated methodology to show how such collaboration can come about. In particular, he invokes the prisoners` dilemma model to show that self-interest can be compatible with cooperative action. (There is a reasonable argument that we can find in Hobbes a primitive version of the prisoners` dilemma problem.) That`s the problem…