Pierre-Joseph Proudhon (1809-1865) favoured a conception of company contracts that did not fit into the fact that one person handed over sovereignty to others. According to him, the social contract did not exist between individuals and the state, but between individuals who did not force or govern each other, each retaining full sovereignty over himself: John Locke`s conception of the social contract differed from Hobbes in several respects, while retaining the central idea that people in a state of naturity would willingly come together to form a state. Locke believed that individuals in a state of nature would be morally bound by the law of nature, not harming each other in their lives or possessions. Without the government to defend them against those who wanted to hurt or enslave them, Locke continued to believe that people had no security in their rights and would live in fear. Individuals in Locke would only agree to form a state that would provide in part a “neutral judge” that would protect the lives, liberty and property of those who lived in it.  Rawls discovered both principles of justice after arguing that any rational person who inhabits the original position and stands behind the veil of ignorance can discover both principles of justice, and has perhaps constructed the most abstract version of a theory of social contract. It is very abstract, because instead of showing that we have signed, or even signed, a contract to found society, it shows us instead what we must accept as rational people in order to be limited by justice and thus be able to live in a well-ordered society. The principles of justice are more fundamental than the social contract, as it has traditionally been conceived. On the contrary, the principles of justice limit this treaty and set the limits of how we can build society. If, for example, we consider a Constitution as a concrete expression of the social contract, rawls determines two legal principles that can and cannot be asked of us. Rawls` theory of justice therefore represents the canteen limits of the forms of political and social organization that are allowed in a just society. Building on the work of Emmanuel Kant, with his presumption of borders for the state, John Rawls (1921-2002) proposed in A Theory of Justice (1971) a contractual approach in which rational persons in hypothetical “position of origin” would set aside their individual preferences and abilities under a “veil of ignorance” and accept certain general principles of justice and legal organization.
This idea is also used as a theoretical formalization of the concept of equity. The use of evolutionary game theory and evolutionary techniques is a nascent and exciting field of contract theory. One of the many questions is why and, if so, under what circumstances should we support the production of scalable processes? Should one balance be preferred to the other simply because it was the result of an evolutionary method? Certainly, we would like reasons beyond history to find some thoughtful balance. This problem underscores the fact that social contracts, which are the product of scalable processes, will not fulfil the advertising conditions in the right way. While the condition of advertising seems more difficult to satisfy, the scalable approach offers a powerful and dynamic opportunity to understand stability.