Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Ed., p. 1390 SOCIAL COMPACT. In political philosophy, a term applied to the theory of the origin of society associated chiefly with the names of Hobbes, Locke and Rosseau, though it can be traced back to the Greek Sophists. Rosseau [Constract Social] held that in the pre-social state man was unwarlike and timid. Laws resulted from the combination of men who agreed, for mutual protection, to surrender individual freedom of action. Government must therefore rest on theconsent of the governed.
Bare v. Gorton, 84 Wash. 2d 380, 526 P. 2d 399 (S.Ct. of W.) 9/12/1974, p. 5 "Two centuries ago, the American people chose a representative democracy as their constitutional form of government. Our system of democracy is not a static social compact fixed in 1789, but a continuing and dynamic experiment in representative government."
West v. National Mines Corp., 168 W.Va. 578, 285 S.E. 2d 670 (S.Ct. of W.Va.), 12/18/1981, p. 7 It is part of the great social compact to which every person is a party, and a fundamental and essential principle in every civilized community that every person yields a portion of his rights of absolute dominion and use of his own property, in recognition of, and obedience to, the rights of others, so that others may also enjoy their property without unreasonable hurt or hinderance."
State v. Brosseau, 124 N.H. 184, 470 A 2d 869 (S.Ct. of N.H.) 12/1/1983, p. 8 "Part I, Article 1 provides that our government is derived from the people and is founded on their consent. N.H. Const. pt. I, art.1, art 3 makes it clear that the government originates in a social compact running between the State and the people, whose end is the protection of man's natural rights. Id. at art.3. According to 18th century thought, such a social compact is a necessity because our natural rights are insecure while we exist ourside of a justly organized society or inside the 'state of nature'.
In joining a just society, we surrender the control over certain of our rights to its government for the greater good of the whole. That surrender is valid only so long as there is a quid quo pro, with the society providing an equivalent larger good for its exaction from the people.' 'If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of control he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrrender is void, and the supreme power of the State as it respects him is an usurper.'
