Deer hunting, Skyrms says, “should be a priority for the theory of social contract” (2004, 4). The question of deer hunting is not whether we fight or not, but whether we work together and win, or each one follows our own paths. There are two Nash balances in this game: both deer hunting and the two rabbit hunters. Alf and Betty, if they are in one of these balances, will comply if everyone consults only their own ranking of options. In a Nash balance, no individual has any reason to be defective. Of course, the contract in which the two deer hunt is a better contract: it is superior to Pareto than the one in which they hunt the two rabbits. However, the balance of rabbits is more risky because it is a safer bet. Skyrms argues that the theory of iterated games cannot simply show that our parties are entering into a social contract, but how they can arrive at the cooperative contract advantageous to both parties. If we are lucky enough to play repetitive games, Skyrms stops, we can learn from Hume about “the shadow of the future”: “I learn to serve someone else without being very kind to him; Because I prefer that he will do my service while waiting for another of the same kind, and to maintain the same correspondence of good services with me and with others” (Skyrms 2004, 5).
Sugden, in different directions, also suggests that repeated interactions, what he calls “experience,” are essential in determining which standards of social interaction actually apply over time (1986). Since the end of the Association of Men for the Common Good (paragraph 124) is the preservation of its wealth and the maintenance of one`s life, liberty and well-being in general, Locke can easily imagine the conditions under which the pact with the government is destroyed and people have the right to oppose the authority of a civilian government as a king. If the executive power of a government passes to tyranny, for example by dissolving the legislative power and thus denying the people the opportunity to legislate for its own conservation, the resulting tyrant places himself in a state of nature and, in particular, in a state of war with the people, and then they have the same right to self-defense as before the pact. to establish society in general. In other words, the justification for the authority of the executive component of government is the protection of the property and well-being of the people, so that if such protection no longer exists, or if the king becomes a tyrant and acts against the interests of the people, they have the right, if not the flagrant obligation, to oppose his authority. The social pact can be dissolved and the process of creating a political society can be revived. While Roussau`s social contract is based on popular sovereignty and not on individual sovereignty, there are other theories supported by individualists, libertarians and anarchists, which involve only negative rights and create only a limited state, if any. According to this argument, morality, politics, society and everything that goes with it, everything Hobbes calls “commodious living” are purely conventional.
Before establishing the fundamental social contract, under which men agree to live together and embody the treaty of a sovereign with absolute authority, nothing is immoral or unjust – everything is fine.