Leaders build consent, tyrants demand it.
Destroying demand (consolidating the risk so that subjects conform to your demands) creates the illusion of condign consent. A valid contract is created by construction of the argument. Instead of building consent, it is applied by force of the argument.
(See articles on “the arbitrage argument” by griffithlighton on the World Wide Web.)
While the social contract is declared deceased (having no current value with the well-established, self-determined utility of capitalism), it keeps showing up. Government bailed “us” out of the recent financial crisis, which threatened the world with unacceptable harm (without liability, mind you), because there is an implied, social contract. (Notice Hegel’s dialectic here, and notice that although it is a product of deductive reasoning it confirms.) It appears that the social contract is an absolute (indefinite) value, but also notice the lack of accountability argued as condign consent (the coercive value) of our natural existence.
When former treasury secretary, Tim Geithner tells us we can always expect “the big risk” to show up, well, so, is the social contract dead or not? Or is this just a big fraud constructed in the form of an argument that builds the condign consent of the governed (winning the argument) by default!
Since a valid contract exists between consenting parties, what naturally happens when the terms do not conform is a failure of expectation. The discrepancy forms “the risk” to be arbitraged by argument, applying the consent of the governed (condign by the rule of law, contractually obligated) by force of the argument.