While the call for a negotiated solution may determine a social contract, this is done at the cost of a controversial admission mechanism in the event of axiomatic negotiations or a transition to procedural approaches that must ultimately be based on the empirical result of social and biological evolution. Although the importance of negotiations in the social contract has been atrophied for some time, the latest work is changing (see Alexander 2007, Thrasher 2014a, Thoma 2015, Muldoon 2017, Moehler comes, Vanderschraaf comes). Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) favoured a conception of company contracts that did not fit into the fact that one person handed over sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract was not between individuals and the state, but rather between people who did not force themselves or govern each other, those who maintain full sovereignty over themselves: relying on the work of Emmanuel Kant with his presumption of the borders of the state, John Rawls (1921-2002) proposed a contractual approach in A Theory of Justice (1971) in which rational people , in a hypothetical “original position,” accept their individual preferences and under a “veil of ignorance” and some general principles of justice and legal organization. This idea is also used as a theoretical formalization of the concept of equity. There is a long tradition of thinking of the social contract as a kind of balance. In this tradition, however, there is a tendency to regard the social contract as a kind of balance solution for a prisoner`s dilemma situation (see Gauthier, 1986 and Buchanan, 2000 ). Brian Skyrms (1996, 2004) offers a different approach. Suppose we have a contractual negotiation in which there are two parties who order four possible “social contracts”: most proponents of a social contract approach take a deep breath and say that the treaty is a hypothetical way of showing what we would have agreed if we were in a particular position. This racist treaty is, to some extent, a meta-treaty that determines the limits of personality and the parameters of inclusion and exclusion in all other treaties that come after. It manifests itself both formally and informally.
It is an agreement, originally among European men at the beginning of modern times, to identify themselves as “white” and therefore completely human and to identify all others, especially the natives with whom they began to come into contact, as “others”: non-white and therefore not entirely human. Race is therefore not only a social construct, as others have argued, but above all a political construct created to serve a specific political purpose and the political objectives of a particular group. The contract allows some people to treat other people as well as the areas they occupy as resources to be exploited. The enslavement of millions of Africans and the appropriation of America by the people are examples of this racial treaty in history (such as Locke`s assertion that the Indians did not have the land they lived on because they did not exploit them and therefore did not own them). This contract is not hypothetical, as Hobbes describes the argument in his Leviathan. It is a real treaty, or a number of contracts that are made by real men of history. It is found in documents such as the papal bulls and Locke`s writings on the Indians and has had its effect in historical events such as european discovery trips and the colonization of Africa, Asia and America. The Treaty on Race allows and justifies certain people because of their alleged superiority in exploiting the peoples, countries and resources of other races. 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.