Final answer:
When a king breaks the social contract, people have the right to revolt and form a new government, a principle backed by philosophers like John Locke (1). The social contract theory supports the idea that governments exist by consent of the governed and that people can withdraw that consent and seek change.
Step-by-step explanation:
When a king breaks the social contract, people have various potential responses according to the philosophy of social contract theory. One option is to revolt against the king, as suggested by John Locke, who argued that if a government fails to protect the natural rights of the people, the people are entitled to depose that government. Another possibility is for the people to accept the king's actions, though this would be contrary to the principles of social contract theory. Depending on the political structure and legal provisions of the society, the people could seek legal action against the king, but this is more applicable in systems where the rule of law exists independently of the monarch's will. Finally, people could form a new government, aligning with the idea that governments exist by the consent of the governed and that consent can be withdrawn when the government breaches its obligations.
The social contract is not equivalent to democracy and can exist in various forms of governance, including monarchies. In the context of absolute monarchs who embraced Enlightenment ideas, such as Frederick the Great and Catherine the Great, these leaders considered their power derived from a social contract to rule in their subjects' best interests, as enlightened despots. Nevertheless, social contract theory emphasizes that when a government, even a monarchy, fails to serve its core purpose of protecting natural rights and the public good, the people may exercise the right of revolution.