On the Justification of State Authority through the Social Contract

Abstract

This paper seeks to determine the justification for state authority under the social contract by examining two popular appeals. First, it looks at the idea that the contract grants legitimacy to the state based on residency, and that an individual who disagrees with its terms is free to leave. By closely examining the accounts in Plato’s Crito and Robert Nozick’s Anarchy, State and Utopia, I conclude that this exit clause as a theoretical possibility is not justified. The subsequent empirical analysis affirms the idea that the state is not left because of disagreement in significant numbers. Next, I examine modern work on hypothetical consent from Cynthia Stark and David Enoch to see if this model of consent works for the social contract and would grant legitimacy of their authority. I find that the condition of living in a state is sufficiently different from other accounts where hypothetical consent would be justified that this kind of consent cannot be extended to the social contract.