1. Assuming that you are a social contractarian, and agree that a society arises from a contract to which we bring our voluntary consent (and dissolves when such consents are withdrawn), is
the recent movement “Not My President” a case of ending a social contract? Are such activists now bound to obey the laws of the state, especially after January 20th? Would the state still continue
to have jurisdiction over them, especially in 2017? State your premises and your conclusion and explain your argument, if necessary by using some examples. Be sure to explain the notions of
explicit, tacit, and hypothetical consent.
2. Assuming that you do not accept Locke’s notion of private property, and do not accept that the Commons exist only so that we can produce private property out of it, construct a critical
argument that shows that Locke’s theory could easily lead to widespread exploitation of different societies and their cultures. Next try to give Locke some defense. What virtues can we still see in
Locke’s theory?
3. In the movie “Lord of the Flies,” we see a group of pre-teen schoolboys (unaccompanied by elders) gradually descend into a condition that Hobbes calls the State of Nature. Now suppose that
the boys were accompanied by their mothers/mothering persons as per Virginia Held’s theory. Would there still arise a State of Nature? Or, what would emerge instead is a primitive tribal society,
not exactly a state of nature, but every bit as murderous?
I shall be evaluating your papers primarily in terms of: a) how carefully you have read the material, b) how well you have understood it, and finally, c) your ability to think critically about the

"Are you looking for this answer? We can Help click Order Now"