You didn't say that you disagree with Hobbes. You said that my statement revealed ignorance of the subject. You stand corrected.
True enough as I admitted in post 48 in which I wrote: “I never took a position one way or the other on the statement: For Hobbes, the contract was an agreement between society and its government.”
However, in my post 234 I responded to “Conversely, the other party to this "social contract" is presumably government.” with:
No. (I was going to go do other things but I can’t let that one go.)
Government is only a tool, an agency, an artifice, a construct, a means “to secure these rights.”
A Social Contract is an agreement among people, though it’s not necessarily formal (and may even be hypothetical, reached through a sort of consensus). In short, it’s an agreement about what rules to follow in pursuit of whatever goals the people have in mind that they wish to pursue jointly. It is the basis for legitimate government and the basis for the legitimate use of government.
And from your post 449”
I believe it was you who criticized my statement, much earlier, that "presumably, the other party is the government." If it was you, then you stand corrected: I was indeed quoting Hobbes faithfully. I was alluding to something much earlier in the conversation.
I wasn't debunking Hobbes definition at that time, because I'd already done so. Try to keep up.”
That indicates you were aware of my post at 234.
I assumed that your advice to me “Try to keep up” meant you were keeping up and that you are capable of making the connection that I was in disagreement with Hobbes on the point in question.
I was wrong.
You said that my statement revealed ignorance of the subject.
I haven’t “kept up” with where I said that. Would you please refer to the specific post?
You stand corrected.
Correct in so far as I admitted above I was wrong, but not as you seem to have meant.