社会契约的概念可追溯至古希腊，Thomas Hobbes 于1651年将其正式化，此后数代政治哲学家不断加以采纳与诠释。现代自由主义之父 John Rawls 认为社会契约至少包含对平等的最低承诺；而深受矽谷科技菁英青睐的自由意志主义哲学家 Robert Nozick 则持相反立场，主张最小政府应允许个人退出并组建自治社群。这一根本分歧勾勒出当代政治哲学中关于国家角色与个人权利的核心张力。
MIT教授暨诺贝尔奖得主 Daron Acemoglu 在其新著《What Happened to Liberal Democracy?》中指出，社会契约本质上是统治者强加于被统治者的抽象概念，正是这种菁英式的自负遭到选民的反弹——他们将 Donald Trump 送入白宫即为明证。Acemoglu 提出以「社会盟约」（social compact）取代社会契约：这是一种关于国家角色及公民权利与责任的协议，源自自治与公共审议，关键在于要求其成员中相当比例的人明确认可，而非预设默许。这一框架直指政治哲学中一项关键且值得质疑的假设——被治者的同意不应被视为理所当然。
Acemoglu 的方案能否奏效仍是未知数。在当今资讯碎片化的环境中，即便就「何为正确资讯」达成共识似乎都过于奢望，遑论签署一份兼融 Rawls 社会正义理念与 Nozick 自治社群精神的盟约。尽管如此，该书仍是一篇雄辩的呼吁，敦促人们认识自由主义所带来的诸多益处，并在抛弃这些成果之前三思再三思——这一点应是所有人都能认同的。
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.