Doubts the adequacy of teh accounts of Humes' successful refutation of the theory of a social contract. Groups Humes' refutation into three arguments: 1) hardly any social contracts are idscernible in the hoistories of actual governments 2) contract theory must be wrong because it conflicts with ordinary people's views on the sunject 3) utilitarian Argues that it is doubtful whether any of these arguments or clusters of arguments really refutes contract theory; certainly, none achieves a refutation of the 'simple and (...) overwhelming' kind so often attributed to Hume. (shrink)

David Hume, Adam Smith, Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill are often viewed as contributors to or participants in a common tradition of thought roughly characterized as ‘the liberal tradition’ or the tradition of ‘bourgeois ideology’. This view, however useful it may be for polemical or proselytizing purposes, is in some important respects historiographically unsound. This is not to deny the importance of asking what twentieth-century liberals or conservatives might find in the works of, say, David Hume to support their (...) respective ideological persuasions. It is only to insist that attempts to use selected arguments, or parts of arguments, from great eighteenth-century thinkers to shore up twentieth-century programmatic political positions must be categorically distinguished from attempts to understand what Hume, Smith, Bentham or Mill actually meant, or could imaginably have meant, to say. (shrink)