Like physicists say, over time, things that seem impossible gain the event of probability.
People wonder why doing the same bad thing over and over is locked-in. It’s like a natural law, or something, which is exactly what conservatives want everybody to believe.
Intending the democratic form of governance naturally resists the principle of absolute elite authority. In the republican form, it is government by consent.
Consent of the governed retains the element of a social contract. America’s founders deliberately rejected consolidation of political power being an absolute principle like a natural law. Consolidation of power in the executive branch is definitely a moral hazard, but Newt Gingrich, for example, remember, in the interest of yielding to the consent of the governed, came up with the “Contract With America.”
It looks like we are locked-in to the social contract; and when things go bad, the contract gets support, on demand, having the appearance of “in-tending to” a natural law.
Contract theory relies on the rule of law. Whether it is natural or not depends on whether it is by means of legitimate consent, uncoerced by whom it governs.
Nevertheless, coercive value is still operative.
Majority rule, for example, was considered by America’s founders to be too coercive. Not only because “they” were the “property class”–mostly concerned with resisting a more equal distribution of property (which Pareto later said is not optimal)–but because a person could be forced to assume a particular lifestyle with the legitimacy of public authority.
Here, again, we have the problem in the form of the solution–naturally yielding to (in-tending) The Social Contract?
In terms of natural law, what is the event of probability, existing on demand with the force and legitimacy of public authority?
Is it a zero-risk identity? A sure thing, occupying space over time?