Well, but what happens when the social contract agreed upon by the majority in a given place at a given time causes the oppression of an Other?
For example, when slavery was still a part of everyday American life... treating other human beings like property was the agreed upon social contract of the time. If we are to uphold the social contract as the source of human rights, how do we justify declaring that an oppressive social contract is wrong and take a stand against that oppression?
Moreover, if our social contract allows rights that the social contract of another nation does not, how do we declare their social contract oppressive and wrong if it is what that particular society has agreed upon?
Nevermind, I got where I was going with that by taking a step back from the Rousseau popular sovereignty social contract and going back to Epicurus' basic "agree to neither harm nor be harmed." This seems to take care of the problem of privileged groups enforcing abridgments of the rights of others through popular sovereignty, as said abridgments would do harm unto others.
yes that's why theocracies like saudi arabia and iran are beacons of human freedom and liberty