The Social Contract... What is it? As I have been teaching my students the last few days about philosophers and their thoughts on man, nature, and government,... I have been incredibly intrigued by the idea of the social contract.
The Social Contract can go a few ways, the people choose everything that happens in the government as a true direct Democracy, and the government does it's part to give back to the people.... OR people can elect good people to be a representative government, and that government can do its part to give back to the people.
Either way, there is room for abuse. Jean-Jacques Rousseau wrote that "as soon as any man says of the affairs of the State, 'What does it matter to me?' the State may be given up for lost." In other words, for a democracy to work, all must be involved. Is that really possible? Even though Rousseau thought a direct democracy to be the best, he admitted that it also had its short comings.
John Locke is famous for speaking of Life, Liberty, Property, and health as being natural rights. Rights that are inalienable, or that should never be taken away. In fact, he spoke about man's most basic state, a state of nature, and discussed how inherently good people are and how man would naturally respect each others 'natural rights.' Locke, however, did not believe that people were always equal, nor did he believe that all people should have the right to vote. He believed that only adult male property owners should have the right to vote.
Thomas Hobbes was a little more old school, and his way of thinking revolved around the success of having an absolute power. Hobbes believed that man was inclined to fight and contend for everything he desired. He believed that this would lead to a state of war, while in a state of nature. The only answer to this problem was to have a supreme leader. He believed that religion should be controlled by the state, and only one religion should be believed. After all, religion would lead to conflict.
There are many different views, but the most evident truth of all is this: If someone has power, they will abuse it. Montesquieu believed that everything has laws, so there is a need to govern people, but laws can never be the same across the board to be effective. He stressed moderate government, but at the same time warned that not all moderate government ensures political freedom. To prevent abuse, those in government should be checked, so Montesquieu's answer is to spread power around. Does this mean that in a true democracy the people will have too much power? ...and does it mean that in a representative government the congressmen will abuse their power? According to Montesquieu, yes to all. How do we spread power around and keep everyone happy?
The social contract is part of the solution as implemented by our United States founding fathers. They knew that they did not like the power that the King exercised over them, or how they received no representation in Parliament. In order to curb those abuses of power they agreed at first to allow the states to govern themselves, and then unite loosely as the United States. That government failed. Why? Because the states took (and in some cases abused) the power that they had. There was no way to check the power being used in the states. States were taking advantage of other states, people were not enjoying their basic rights, and this because there was no check on the states power.
The discussions during the Constitutional Convention centered around Federalism, and checks and balances in government. It was established that there are rights that need to be defended. The Declaration of Independence had the words "Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness," but a declaration of war is not a constitution. The constitution had to be written to protect those rights, thus serving the governments obligations to serve the people.
In a social contract, the government exists to protect the people's rights. This can be protecting life, liberty, property, and health. The government, through the social contract, only gets it's power from the people. The people give up some rights in order to enjoy more the rights that government promises to protect. When I have asked in the past what rights some people would give up to enjoy more life and protection, some people respond with "I should never have to give up any rights to the government." This answer is troublesome because I fear that no one truly understands the social contract that our founding fathers put together.
Look at it this way, in a true state of nature as outlined by John Locke, people have perfect freedom. That includes freedom to walk where you want, look at what you want to look at, say what you want to say, and do anything you want... including murder. In a state of perfect freedom you can harm someone, even though Locke doesn't think you will naturally, but you can. That also means that someone can harm you, without breaking a law... there are no laws. This is the view of Hobbes now, where he describes people in a state of nature as living in fear and nothing else.
Would you give up your right to kill in order to have a government protect you from being killed?
Would you pay taxes to support a military to protect our land if it meant that we were safe from Chinese invasion?
We give up things, taxes and rights, in order to be safe and to enjoy our natural rights of life, liberty, property, and health.
I could go on and on with example, but when you think about everything you want from the government, are you willing to meet them halfway with satisfying some government expectations.
In the healthcare debate, (even though Locke did identify health as a natural right) would citizens be willing to eat better, exercise more, and do the things they are asked to if the government were to provide them with free health care?
The truth is, America is larger, heavier, and more unhealthy than ever... with almost no end in sight, but some demand that the government do something about providing healthcare. While wanting healthcare, some Americans are forced to eat 'healthy' school lunches, to which much of it goes to waste. The days of understanding the social contract are gone. People expect more from a government than they are willing to give, mostly because they lack the education. Oh yeah, the government gives free education, but Americans find themselves in a debate about whether homework should even exists, arguing that kids get overloaded. What we really have is a society that does not value education, but expects the government to fix all. If America fails, it is because of a simple misunderstanding of government and the social contract that was put in place by people who relentlessly studied the words of philosophers, and discovered what works best for us.
Good Luck America, open a book sometime.
