I don't think Locke's social contract establishing civil society would work if every person in the society would have their own contract with everyone else, and some will end up without a contract, or a contract signed only by a few other people. Not to mention the humongous bureaucracy we would get when everyone were to sign each others contracts, and to stay up to date those contracts would need renegotiation from time to time. In some areas people would become entirely unprotected. Your rape story suddenly get relevant again. Perhaps you don't want any mention in your contract that you are not allowed to rape minors. No, Locke wouldn't agree. It contradicts his philosophy in so many ways.
Go read the Shire society declaration again. That is a social contract. It is the same for all who sign it. If everyone got to write their own contract, it wouldn't be a social contract. It would just be a contract. And in that case, yes, you're right it would be impossible to keep track of. But thankfully, it's not. A social contract is one which everyone signs. Like the US constitution, but with many more signatures.Locke's is very clear that the citizens have a right to revolution to replace the government when it acts against the interests of citizens. His social contract must be generally agreed to, not something which everyone are forced into against their common interests. How is this revolution going to work when some have social contracts acting against the interests of a clear majority of the citizens?
But wait, I thought you said he would disagree with requiring that the social contract be entered into voluntarily, and explicitly agreed to? That, bolded there, seems to imply that he would agree. More than just imply, in fact. An explicit social contract is one that nobody is forced into. If they choose not to agree to that social contract, they can join a different society, or go it alone. This handily meets that "right to revolution" because they can easily, and non-violently, replace their government. Just not their neighbor's government. (Which would force them into a different social contract.)No, this isn't going to work. I prefer Locke's society to your plethora of intermingling societies.
Which law is your definition from? Courts judge according to the law, not the dictionary!
It's called a legal dictionary. You should open one some time.Nobody has yet come forth with any decent reasoning as to why government agents have the ability to steal, murder, and kidnap, by the way. I'm still waiting.
Whatever. It's all in the contract. Laws. A majority of the people around you, the civil society, think they are a good idea."explicit voluntary association is the only means by which binding obligations may be created, and claims based on association or relationships to which any party did not consent are empty and invalid"
So give me a valid reason why they should have the ability to commit immoral actions. What puts them above the law?
I used Locke's terms there, and even specified it in parenthesis to make it clear.
