Well, my point was that the concept of government was not created...It came about. That notion is not at odds with the concept that government serves the purpose of having a monopoly on violence.
So, now your point is that the concept of government just came about yet you argued that "it is the whole reason we have a government to begin with" . An underlying reason for the existence of either government or the concept of government contradicts the assertion that it arose spontaneously.
As I previously stated, the "social contract" is really an ex post facto justification for government. The term, obviously, is predated by government itself. But, that ex post facto justification is completely based on a collective good argument.
We'll have to disagree here. Rousseau wondered what would bring an individual from the state of nature to submit to government. The well-being of the individual was his answer.
I think you are misunderstanding what the "social contract" actually is. There really wasn't ever a first "social contract", as it is not something that actually exists. It is a concept to explain the role of government in society.
The social contract explains the relationship between the individual and the government. The individual sacrifices some freedoms to the government in exchange for some benefits. While there is no documented first social contract, there was a point at which individuals first began to organize as groups. They formed the first social contract.
Where did I say society can exist without government? "you don't have a society until after the social contract is formed."
How does that prove your point? I say A precedes B, and you claim that proves that I say B exists without C.
It is up to a judge, not you, to determine if the cops are in line with case law.
No, I don't have to go to court every time something arises. Certain fundamental rights are well established. If I'm placed under arrest for robbing a bank, I don't need a judge to tell the cops I have a right to legal counsel. I don't need a judge to tell the police that they don't have the right to search random strangers. I don't need a judge to tell the police that a routine traffic stop does not give them the right to question the passengers. All of these things are well established and I can expect police to respect them.
Elected officials and courts get to decide what authority cops have.....Not you, while you are on the side of the road.
And once the decisions are made, then cops have to abide by them. They aren't allowed to replace those decisions with their own. I'm not claiming the ability to create laws all by myself.
If a cop tells you to back off while he is arresting somebody, you should listen. If you think he or she was wrong...Sue him in a court of law. Don't fight him while he is trying to arrest a violent felon.
Again? We addressed this last round; that's not an abuse of police authority. If a cop tells me I have to give him my cell phone, I have the right to refuse. If a cop tells me I have to answer his questions, I have the right to decline.
"Let us then admit that force does not create right, and that we are obliged to obey only legitimate powers"