The Social Contract Dilemma
Posted: Monday, October 18, 2010
by Tex Norman
Many of the Founding Fathers had read the philosophic works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke, and they clearly understood and supported the concept of a social contract. My idea of the social contract goes something like this:
IF people are going to live together there are some concessions that must be made, and rules that must be followed. The concept of a Social Contract means there are things a society generally accept, and all actions by individuals and the government must fall within the parameters of this Social Contract.
I imagine most Americans today have never heard of the social contract, or if they have heard of it, they have given it little or no thought. When the contents of the social contract are generally accepted then our society functions fine because the social contract governs our behavior and our law making because we are, consciously or unconsciously, we are governed by a social contract.
The Theoretical Need for a Social Contract
Those who support a Social Contract, believe that when people live together, that they will become what Thomas Hobbes called "nasty, brutish, and short." Without a social contract people can and will do whatever they want without regard for anyone else. Without a social contract people are not equal, people have no rights, that the powerful can have whatever they are powerful enough to take, and the weak have no right to anything.
In some ways the far right, ultra conservative movement that seems to include much of the Tea Party Movement, are people who reject the concept of a social contract. The opposite of the social concept is unrestrained freedom. Unrestrained freedom means what is yours is yours, and no one else has a right to have anything that belongs to you.
Most of us think we accept this idea. If a kid mows a lawn and gets $30 he believes that $30 is his, it is all his, and no one has a right to take any of that lawnmower money. The anti-tax beliefs of the Libertarian Party would like to eliminate all taxes because every money making enterprise is like that boy's lawn mower business. If they make lint brushes, or computers, or repair roofs then they have earned money, and all of that money belongs to the person who earned it. Why should a Roofing Company be compiled to give up some of their money to anyone? Absolute freedom makes sense. What is mine is mine, and I could chose to give my money to some charity, or for some public project, but no one has a right to force me to give to that charity or public project.
Advocates of the Social Contract believe that absolute freedom only works if you are absolutely alone. The moment you choose to live around other people, absolute freedom will lead to chaos, and violence where the powerful take from the weak and the weak have no rights, no recourse, and no hope..
If I am totally alone, then I have the right to drive 200 miles per hour. If I crash it is my own fault, and I must live or die with the consequence of my actions, but the point it, I am free to do whatever I want. Absolute freedom is absolute freedom. If I see fruit I can eat it. If I see water, I can drink it, play in it, use it, or pollute it.
As soon as you add a second person the exercise of one's absolute freedom does not work. Thomas Hobbes would thought that WITHOUT a social contract we would live in a state of nature. We would be like the animals. Without a social contract anything goes, brute force would prevail, survival would belong to the fittest, and human beings would live in an endless "war of all against all."
If man has absolute freedom, and he sees a female, and want to have sex, then with absolute freedom he can have sex with this female. The male can force the female to have sex. The male is free to hit her over the head and drag her by her hair back to his cave where she will become his sexual slave. The male can rape her, and kill her. The man is free to do whatever he is strong enough to do.
Of course the female has absolute freedom too. If the female doesn't want to have sex she can tell the man no, she can fight the man, she can flee from the man, she can Lorena-Bobbit the man and she is even free to kill the man. Both parties are absolutely, totally, utterly free to do what they want, but the issue of sex belongs to the person who is strongest, swiftest, or luckiest.
Crime does not exist in a world of absolute freedom. There is no crime if the Polar Bear kills a Walrus pup, and there is no crime if the Walrus mama gores and kills the Polar Bear. Each living thing is free to do what they manage to do. Without a social contract, each totally free human being is free to do, or attempt to do whatever they want. There are no legal consequences in the world of absolute freedom, but there also are no rights, there is no path to righting wrongs, because without a social contract there are no wrongs, anything goes, and whatever happens happens.
Now, I'm guessing that most people would agree with me that a social contract must exist. Very few people would advocate for an anything goes world. Even the most radical Tea Party conservative would agree that we need some laws, and everyone would and should follow a general set of behavioral standards. It would be impossible for us to come up with a single set of beliefs that everyone would agree to, but most of us would agree that some behavioral standards must exist.
If we agree that there ought to be a social contract then we have started down a path that leads to fairness, to agreeing that there are certain rights that belong to every human being simply because they exist. The political debate centers on this. Because a person exists do they have a right to being safe in their home? Do people, because they exist, have a right to basic education? How about access to health care? How about laws and regulations that require drug companies, and car makers, and toy manufacturers to provide products that are safe?
The social contract I advocate for would say everyone has a right to food, shelter, and health care. If there are those too disabled, too sick, too old, or too poor to have food, shelter, and health care then we should all pitch in to finance the basic needs of our citizenry. These beliefs make me a progressive. These beliefs make me a liberal.
How restrictive is the social contract being advocated by ultra right conservatives? Do they really want to go back to the day where there was no social security or Medicare for the elderly? Do the Tea Party folk really believe poor people with cancer should just be allowed to die, that they have no right to chemo unless they can pay for it out of their own pocket?
When Firefighters in rural Tennessee let a home burn to the ground because the homeowner hadn't paid a $75 fee one wonders just how weak and ineffectual is the ultra conservative's social contract. What if there had been children trapped inside Gene Cranick's burning house? I have heard and read statements from Tea Party and far right supporters that felt this NO PAY NO SPRAY rule was perfectly fine, but is it fine enough to allow people to die in a fire because their forgot or couldn't afford to pay that $75 fee?
It is important to remember that the social contract is not a law, it is not even written. The social contract is a cloud of thoughts, values, and generally supported concepts. The social contract is that national sense, the consciences that guides the civilization. The social contract is not law, but it is the thing that influences how laws are crafted and implemented. The discussion that needs to be going on now is about what attitudes and treatments ought to be applied to everyone, including poor people, disabled people, and even unpleasant people. I'm concerned that too few of us are thinking about the social contract. Too many of us, have never considered the social contract.
I could be totally wrong here. Perhaps there is a clearly accepted social contract, but it is one that honors and respects selfishness, narcissism, and bigotry. Maybe the social contract is LOOKING OUT FOR NUMBER ONE, me-me-me, as long as I get what I want and I'm ok, to hell with everyone else. Perhaps the new social contract is one that leads to the destruction of community, that voids the rule of law, that worships money over humanity, that is takes and never gives.
This Article has been viewed 3,330 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
Top-level comments on this article: (4 total)The social contract is a way of hoping that it exists as broadly for your neighbor as it does for you. Thus, it is both not written and already written in much of our legislation. Thus, it is a moving target. How MUCH health care is an easy way reference, and how old, and how much for what disease when. You see that's why social contract is such a "fun phrase". We can all agree on many things, we can not all agree on others. So, its a great phrase because indeed a "social contract" has existed for millennia in the smallest tribes all over the world for tribal needs and obligations. When "Paul said If a man will not work, neither should he eat", he was referring to a social contract that existed then. And trading for fireman's services, and buying them on the spot, was how New York City was built and burnt on a daily basis. And how the NYPD arbitrated at certain times. There is a famous phrase that I love, that applies almost all the time: "The Devil is in the Details."
You've really gotten me thinking with this post, Tex. I've heard the term 'social contract' before but I've never really understood it. I think it explains why I've been so offended over the political climate these past two years.
I think there is probably an implied social contract with every group of people, not just nationally as Americans. There is an implied understanding of a social contract within every community, within every group of friends.
When someone in the group sudden says, "I've got mine, you go get your own" or otherwise implies that they think they are being taken advantage of when the facts say otherwise, it is offensive. It becomes exactly as you quote Hobbes as saying, nasty, brutish and short.
One of my sons said recently that he'd like to move to somewhere that our family was once again considered moderate in our political thinking. I think we're all wishing we could belong somewhere in which we could have a social contract with our community, without fear of being attacked for holding moderate political beliefs.
Thanks for posting this, Tex. I'm going to have to think about it some more.
A good social contract requires people to take responsibility for themselves, which I think is terribly important. Obviously Tea-Party people don't realize the extent to which they depend on it for protection, structure and all the basic things in life they take for granted. They're very childish. Maybe they should all go and live on a island together and see what the reality actually is.
Thanks for sharing these thoughts Tex
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.