社會契約的概念可追溯至古希臘，Thomas Hobbes 於1651年將其正式化，此後數代政治哲學家不斷加以採納與詮釋。現代自由主義之父 John Rawls 認為社會契約至少包含對平等的最低承諾；而深受矽谷科技菁英青睞的自由意志主義哲學家 Robert Nozick 則持相反立場，主張最小政府應允許個人退出並組建自治社群。這一根本分歧勾勒出當代政治哲學中關於國家角色與個人權利的核心張力。
MIT教授暨諾貝爾獎得主 Daron Acemoglu 在其新著《What Happened to Liberal Democracy?》中指出，社會契約本質上是統治者強加於被統治者的抽象概念，正是這種菁英式的自負遭到選民的反彈——他們將 Donald Trump 送入白宮即為明證。Acemoglu 提出以「社會盟約」（social compact）取代社會契約：這是一種關於國家角色及公民權利與責任的協議，源自自治與公共審議，關鍵在於要求其成員中相當比例的人明確認可，而非預設默許。這一框架直指政治哲學中一項關鍵且值得質疑的假設——被治者的同意不應被視為理所當然。
Acemoglu 的方案能否奏效仍是未知數。在當今資訊碎片化的環境中，即便就「何為正確資訊」達成共識似乎都過於奢望，遑論簽署一份兼融 Rawls 社會正義理念與 Nozick 自治社群精神的盟約。儘管如此，該書仍是一篇雄辯的呼籲，敦促人們認識自由主義所帶來的諸多益處，並在拋棄這些成果之前三思再三思——這一點應是所有人都能認同的。
The concept of the social contract traces back to ancient Greece and was formalized by Thomas Hobbes in 1651, inspiring generations of political philosophers. John Rawls, the father of modern liberalism, argued it entails at least a minimal commitment to equality, while libertarian philosopher Robert Nozick—favored by Silicon Valley's tech elite—contended it does not, advocating instead for a minimalist state that permits individuals to opt out into self-governing communities. This fundamental disagreement frames the central tension in contemporary political philosophy regarding the role of the state and individual rights.
In his new book, *What Happened to Liberal Democracy?*, MIT professor and Nobel laureate Daron Acemoglu argues the social contract is an abstraction imposed on the ruled by the rulers—precisely the kind of elitist conceit voters rejected by propelling Donald Trump into the White House. His alternative is a "social compact": an agreement on the state's role and citizens' rights and responsibilities that emerges from self-government and deliberation. Crucially, it demands explicit buy-in from a significant share of its members rather than assumed acquiescence, directly challenging a key and questionable assumption in political philosophy—that the consent of the governed can simply be taken for granted.
Whether Acemoglu's solution can work remains uncertain. In today's fragmented information landscape, even agreement on what constitutes the right information seems too much to hope for, let alone signing up for a compact combining the best of Rawls' commitment to social justice and Nozick's self-governing communities. Nevertheless, the book stands as an eloquent plea to recognize the many benefits liberalism has delivered and to think more than twice before discarding them—a sentiment that should command broad agreement.