The problem with this article is that it’s just a collected series of false and confused statements.

“The social contract, that theoretical relationship that we rely upon to legitimise authority…”

Speak for yourself.

“… is an ethereal concept in itself.”

Fictional is the word you’re looking for.

“The social contract theory contends that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms in a symbiotic relationship with authority in exchange for a stable, functioning governance system. It recognises the interchange of rights and responsibilities between the individual and government that creates the imposition upon society of a self-regulating system of rule, in which idealistically, the government will do its best to act in accordance with the wishes of the people.”

Complete and utter fiction; propaganda.

Social contract theory is simply a made-up, ex post facto, completely unhistorical, rationalisation of the existence of the State.

“Firstly, governments are elected to govern.”

No they’re not, and the electoral system and the Constitution provide no reason or evidence for this assertion.

No-one ever elects a “government”. We each only cast one vote for our local member.

Government then arises from the machinations of the Parliament, by whose convention, the party with the confidence of the lower house, forms the “government”, meaning the executive, Cabinet.

“As a democracy we place faith in those elected to represent us for better or for worse”

Speak for yourself. I prefer truth to naive false beliefs.

“but preferably for the better.”

Under the “democratic system” politicians’ promises are completely non-binding. It’s like saying there’s a “contract” in which the promisee has no legal remedy for fraud, misrepresentation, or misleading deceptive conduct. Total nonsense.

“unequal distribution of wealth”

Just actually *think* for a second, instead of thoughtlessly emoting slogans. If wealth were evenly distributed, then no-one could take any action without causing inequality. It would spell the end of human society. Equal distribution of wealth as a political desideratum is just a stupid immoral concept.

The author’s theories, or rather assumptions, on representative government and social contract are completely demolished here:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/unrepresentative-government/
and here:
http://economics.org.au/2010/08/no-social-contract/

Is moral hazard destroying the social contract?
YES!
Rhrosty.

Jardine,
Correct, the author has obviously never lived in a housing commission estate or a predominantly welfare dependant community where everyone has about the same disposable income and material assets.
In the housing estate or working class suburb you see a community where everyone is materially about equal yet the society is far from egalitarian and often completely dysfunctional.
In a society where people are technically "equal" the silliest little things, like someone buying a new car or new clothes can spark jealousy and begin long and bitter feuds, bullying and even violence against anyone who is seen as "stuck up".
I've not had much experience living in wealthier or middle class communities but it would seem that vanity and jealousy are constants across all classes and castes in society and are the real biological or essential human characteristics impeding "progress".

What social contract?
There was never any such thing as many writers have always pointed out, including this one:
http://www.rushkoff.com/life-inc

Mr Robinson has grappled with the difficult concept of the social contract. I strongly disagree with Mr Jardine that it is fictional. It isa in many senses the foundation of a civilised society where the expectations of the many reside in the few, which for lack of a better term are those who govern. For example, one tries to be a productive citizen, paying taxes, obeying the law etc etc. In return that citizen expects certain things of those that govern: that if he/she gets sick there will be a functioning hospital system; they will get a living wage pension on retirement, their kids will go to school and be educated, not sexually abused and so on.

Where Mr Robinson's argument is weak however, is when he focuses on the relatively trivial issue of politicians rorting their entitlements. That is merely a manifestation of a greater malaise. We have as a society largely lost the notion of holding wrongdoers accountable. And I am not talking about the run of the mill thief, assaulter or con artist.

The Nuremberg trials set an important benchmark, but that is now seen as a high point in holding politicians accountable for serious wrongdoing. The Nuremberg Tribunal called waging a war of aggression the "supreme international crime". Yet now we live in a world where countries are invaded on a lie; innocent people are murdered by drones; others are tortured and held in indefinite detention without hope of a fair trial and so on. There are umpteen examples.

Australian politicians have been involved in this up to their eyeballs. But exchanging Howard for Rudd/Gillard and Rudd again did not result in any significant policy change. Nor have war criminals such as Bush, Blair, Obama, et al been held accountable for their crimes.

I am far more upset by that deterioration in our moral standards than I am by our current politicians heading off to weddings etc on the public purse.

James O'neill, so societies moral standards have deteriated, then the current mob of politicians in your eyes on the robbing of my taxes to attend weddings etc is moral, if your happy with that then you would be the only one in the country, except all politicans with their snouts in the trough of taxes paid by the deteriating morals of society in general, but not them. C'mon