Your rebuttal would be greatly enhanced if you had a clear knowledge of what you were rebutting: specifically, that so far only two definitions have been put on the table--both by me, and none by tpaine--and you've posted multiple versions of those same two definitions.
So your rebuttal efforts can be streamlined by focusing on exactly two points. If you accept the contractarians idea of the origin of society, you face the uphill battle of proving that apes can make contracts. Second, if you accept that "members of society" are "implicitly" part of a contract, you must prove that they intentionally entered into an agreement.
To rebut your “smash” I don’t have to prove that what you tried to smash was correct. All I have to do is demonstrate your “smash” was incorrect.
As a poor example because you didn’t really smash, in response to: For Hobbes, the contract was an agreement between society and its government.
You said: “Thank you; you stand corrected.”
My rebuttal to your statement is: I merely offered the definitions up for you to smash. I did not say I agreed or disagreed with each, any or all of them therefore such agreement or disagreement is not in evidence and can not be corrected.
See? I didn’t have to do anything but address your smash on its own merits. And you are free to treat my rebuttal the same way.
Remember that to rebut your “smash” I don’t have to prove that what you tried to smash was correct. All I have to do is demonstrate your “smash” was incorrect.
KrisKrinkle wrote as one definition of Social contract: an actual or hypothetical contract providing the legitimate basis of sovereignty and civil society and of the rights and duties constituting the role of citizen. The contract can be agreed between people and a proposed sovereign or among the people themselves.
Shalom Israel wrote that KrisKrinkle wrote:
Smash these: an actual or hypothetical contract providing the legitimate basis of sovereignty and civil society and of the rights and duties constituting the role of citizen... Shalom Israel then wrote: OK, this definition explicitly says a social contract is a contract. A contract, in turn, is "An agreement formed by an exchange of promises in which the promise of one party is consideration supporting the promise of the other party." This is contradictory, because the citizen does not in fact exchange any promises. The definition is also faulty on the grounds that there's no such thing as a "hypothetical" agreement. How do two people "hypothetically" agree? Kriskrinkle responds:
"OK, this definition explicitly says a social contract is a contract. "
True but not a “smash.”
"A contract, in turn, is 'An agreement formed by an exchange of promises in which the promise of one party is consideration supporting the promise of the other party.'"
That’s one definition of a contract, in particular a bilateral contract , but I'd venture it is a definition you chose because you thought it would be easy to “smash” (see Notes below).
"This is contradictory, because the citizen does not in fact exchange any promises."
That's part of your “smash” based on your pick of a definition of a contract you could easily “smash”.
Note also that your reference to what I wrote is significantly incomplete (as references sometimes are).
What I wrote states the contract can be agreed between people and a proposed sovereign or among the people themselves, not using the term "citizen" in the in that regard. That it is possible for people to exchange promises with a sovereign or among themselves should be obvious (although you will probably deny it). That leaves the question of whether or not they actually do so. In answer:
Feudalism
A series of contractual relationships between the upper classes, designed to maintain control over land.
Feudalism flourished between the tenth and thirteenth centuries in western Europe. At its core, it was an agreement between a lord and a vassal. A person became a vassal by pledging political allegiance and providing military, political, and financial service to a lord. A lord possessed complete sovereignty over land, or acted in the service of another sovereign, usually a king. If a lord acted in the service of a king, the lord was considered a vassal of the king.
As part of the feudal agreement, the lord promised to protect the vassal and provided the vassal with a plot of land. This land could be passed on to the vassal's heirs, giving the vassal tenure over the land. The vassal was also vested with the power to lease the land to others for profit, a practice known as subinfeudation. The entire agreement was called a fief, and a lord's collection of fiefs was called a fiefdom.
The feudal bond was thus a combination of two key elements: fealty, or an oath of allegiance and pledge of service to the lord, and homage, or an acknowledgment by the lord of the vassal's tenure. The arrangement was not forced on the vassal; it was profitable for the vassal and made on mutual consent, and it fostered the allegiance necessary for royal control of distant lands.
The bond between a lord and a vassal was made in a ceremony that served to solemnize the fief.
(Excerpted From: Legal Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale)
So, people actually have exchanged such promises. Your “smash” so far is rebutted.
You further your “smash” with: "The definition is also faulty on the grounds that there's no such thing as a "hypothetical" agreement."
Kriskrinkle actually wrote "an actual or hypothetical contract" nevertheless:
Hypothetical means of, relating to, or based on a hypothesis: a hypothetical situation. A hypothesis is:
1. A tentative explanation for an observation, phenomenon, or scientific problem that can be tested by further investigation.
2. Something .
3. The antecedent of a conditional statement.
So the words "an actual or hypothetical contract" are a shortened version of "an actual contract or a contract that is a tentative explanation for an observation that can be tested by further investigation or a contract taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation; an assumption.
In other words there can be a hypothetical contract or agreement. Your “smash” so far is still rebutted..
"How do two people "hypothetically" agree?"
A misconstruction on your part given the explanation preceding your question.
Notes:
Bilateral Contract
An agreement formed by an exchange of promises in which the promise of one party is consideration supporting the promise of the other party. (Excerpted From: Legal Encyclopedia, Thomson Gale)
Excerpted from the same source:
Contracts
Agreements between two or more persons that create an obligation to do, or refrain from doing, a particular thing.
The binding force of a contract is based on the fact that it evinces a meeting of minds of two parties in good faith. A contract, once formed, does not contemplate a right of a party to reject it.
(Remember these are excerpts. There is a lot of other stuff there, but most of it is legal stuff that probably wouldn't exist under Shalom Israel rules.)
A more appropriate definition of contract than the one Shalom Israel used would be:
A contract is an agreement between two or more persons that creates an obligation to do, or refrain from doing a particular thing.
Now, Shalom Israel, I don't know for certain, but I could likely rebut all your "smashes" the same as I've done here. However, I have no intention of making the effort. (It's not that it's hard but it's tedious.) I'm pretty well done and I'm outta here.
May you live long enough to learn.