Limits are imposed on the government to protect men from arbitrary power as the government protects us from outside aggressors. Contemporary Critiques of Social Contract Theory Given the longstanding and widespread influence that social contract theory has had, it comes as no surprise that it is also the objects of many critiques from a variety of philosophical perspectives.
Locke was reluctant to allow the propertyless masses of people to participate in government because he believed that they were unfit. Rousseau was rather vague on the mechanics of how his democracy would work. Locke favored a representative government such as the English Parliament, which had a hereditary House of Lords and an elected House of Commons.
Since in the State of Nature there is no civil power to whom men can appeal, and since the Law of Nature allows them to defend their own lives, they may then kill those who would bring force against them. The other party [the Whigs, or believers in constitutional monarchy], by founding government altogether on the consent of the PEOPLE suppose that there is a kind of original contract by which the subjects have tacitly reserved the power of resisting their sovereign, whenever they find themselves aggrieved by that authority with which they have for certain purposes voluntarily entrusted him.
One joins such a body, either from its beginnings, or after it has already been established by others, only by explicit consent. It is surely the best and most sacred of any. According to Locke, the State of Nature is not a condition of individuals, as it is for Hobbes.
The principles that persons in the Original Position, behind the Veil of Ignorance, would choose to regulate a society at the most basic level that is, prior even to a Constitution are called by Rawls, aptly enough, the Two Principles of Justice.