Social Contract My Ass
I hear people talking about a social contract all the time.
Usually in the context of some authoritarian action by the government,
instituted many times by the “will” of the majority (this is really a misnomer
in itself, since the majority doesn’t participate in the process). I have
referred to this previously as “the common good”, but the idea is really one in
the same.
I want to point out, right off the bat, that when I refer to
a social contract in this piece, I am discussing the idea of a perpetual social
contract. There is nothing inherently wrong with a social contract provided it
passes a few simple tests. First, there must be a way (without giving up
anything you have acquired) to get out of the contract. Second, it can not be
enforced through force against the unwilling. Third, each person involved in
the contract must consent to all areas of the contract. Failure to meet at
least these three simple tests would render ANY contract null and void.
Rousseau
The actions that are being called a social contract don’t
even really qualify as such. Jean-Jacques Rousseau first published his theory
on the social contract, “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political
Right”, in 1762. The idea was that a perfect society would operate on the
“general will” of the people. He suggests that the way to achieve this is for
the people to gather together and come to a consensus on the actions the
government could take. Without this consensus from the people, any action taken
by the government would be illegitimate. The sovereignty of the individual was
still paramount, the representatives couldn’t even participate in the decision
making process.
Three main points to Rousseau’s theory were;
THE Sovereign, having no force other
than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being
solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save
when the people is assembled.
Every law the people have not ratified
in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.
The legislative power belongs to the
people, and can belong to it alone.
Rousseau, like any intelligent person, knew that it was
illogical for a person to volunteer to be a slave. So his vision of a social
contract also stated that a person could leave the contract at anytime and be
free from the confines of it. He broke the social contract down into two
groups; the sovereign (the people) and the government. Another interesting
point to Rousseau’s social contract is that the larger the sovereign, the
larger the government. The larger the government the more power it would be
able to wield. When the government begins to force compliance to this social
contract on anyone unwillingly, it has obviously become, not a social contract,
but an authoritarian power grab.
John Locke
In Locke’s second treatise on government, “An Essay
Concerning the True Original Extent and End of Civil Government”, he equates a
social contract with the laws of nature. In their natural state, man enjoys
complete freedom, but there are some confines to what they can and can’t do. He
states that people have a natural right to “life, health, liberty, or
possessions". Any person that commits aggression against those natural
rights is entering into an act of war. Locke’s belief was that a state of war
was likely to continue, because each act in a state of war was is an act of
aggression on the others natural rights. Whereas a state of nature is absolute
freedom, based on morals and not politics, Locke felt that to protect those
natural rights it was acceptable for people to enter (again, voluntarily) into
a social contract to provide that protect. They could form civil governments,
giving up their personal and individual sovereignty, to a body with the
authority to punish those who transgress against others.
The important thing to consider with both of these theories
of a social contract, the individual enters into them of their own free will
and can leave them at anytime they see fit.
Bakunin
There is a great quote by Mikhail Bakunin, in “The
Immorality of the State”…
A tacit contract! That
is to say, a wordless, and consequently a thoughtless and will-less contract: a
revolting nonsense! An absurd fiction, and what is more, a wicked fiction! An
unworthy hoax! For it assumes that while I was in a state of not being able to
will, to think, to speak, I bound myself and all my descendants-only by virtue
of having let myself be victimized without raising any protest - into perpetual
slavery.
The acceptance of a social
contract implies that the state or the originators of the social contract had a
superior set of ethics or morals and that their “consensus” was based on an
unchanging universal truth. Obviously this isn’t true or even desirable. When
we look at the changes in our society, we can see that our forefathers couldn’t
see the future. The leaps in technology, manufacturing, the evolution of the
market, the accumulation of government power, the blurring of class lines, none
of these things were or could have been foreseen. Any social contract based on
their circumstances, with their world view, would only be applicable for as
long as each of the participants involved wished to participate and nothing in
their society was subject to change.
When Bakunin wrote about being
victimized into perpetual slavery, he was referring to being bound to a set of
rules that you have no choice but to be bound too. The way the government
ensures that the “sovereign” people are bound to this contract is through the
use of force and the enforced monopoly on the land within its borders. Any
contract that you can not opt out of is not only immoral and invalid, but it is
nothing more than a form of slavery. Taxation to enforce that slavery is
nothing but theft.
The
Adulterated Social Contract
The founding fathers,
particularly Jefferson, were heavily influenced by Locke. The idea of a social
contract was attractive to a group of people that wanted to ensure the maximum
freedom for themselves. They wrote up a contract (the constitution) that stated
how it would work. When they had finished their work, someone asked Franklin
what they had done, his famous response, “A Republic, if you can keep it”, has
been widely quoted and often commented on. But the point of the comment
shouldn’t be lost. A Republic is a form of government where the supreme power
rests in the hands of the power. That part is easy to understand, but the
second part, “if you can keep it”, is something we should examine. My belief is
that Franklin knew that, minus the informed consent of the people, the Republic
was non-existent.
Between the time Franklin uttered
that phrase and the civil war, many people decided to opt out of that social
contract. Sometimes they negotiated further terms, sometimes they just moved
on, but participation was always voluntary and force was not used for the sole
purpose of holding them in subjection to that contract. Of course, the great
tyrant came along and changed that. Lincoln, contrary to the legitimate powers
granted the government, took upon himself the task of destroying the voluntary
aspect of the social contract. He set about centralizing all government power
to the federal arena and set in motion the destruction of the Republic.
The
Bastar-d Children
Today the idea of a social
contract that holds the “Union” together is one of the most widespread
misconceptions. Most people don’t understand what the concept of a social
contract entails. Above all else, it is a voluntary situation. Being able to
vote is not the same thing as being able to withdraw. If you can’t withdraw or
abstain from a situation, it is not voluntary. Sometimes you will hear people
saying, “If you don’t like it, leave it.” Great concept except that it violates
the right of the people to their possessions. And there is a balance due. Since
Lincoln violated the contract, all laws and taxes that have been forced on the
people must be repaid. But that is a topic for another blog.
A Short Note…
I could have included a brief on
Hobbes and it probably would have been appropriate to do so, but I didn’t feel
like it. I find his belief that natural law equals disorder and violence to be
unsavory.
I also could have (and probably
should have) touched on Lysander Spooner and “No Treason: The Constitution of
No Authority.” I highly recommend that work to anyone.