The Non-Existent Social Contract

From The Third Palmetto Republic:

The non-existent social contract


On November 13, 2010, in general, by Michael ....

 

Welcome Googler! If you find this interesting, why not subscribe to the RSS feed for more interesting posts in the future? You can also check us out on Facebook! There is an implicit idea that stands in the way of liberty and independence and that is the social contract.



The notion of the social contract implies that the people give up sovereignty to a government or other authority in order to receive or maintain social order through the rule of law. It can also be thought of as an agreement by the governed on a set of rules by which they are governed.



Social contract theory formed a central pillar in the historically important notion that legitimate state authority must be derived from the consent of the governed. The starting point for most of these theories is a heuristic examination of the human condition absent from any structured social order, usually termed the “state of nature”. In this condition, an individual’s actions are bound only by his or her personal power, constrained by conscience, and outside resistance. From this common starting point, the various proponents of social contract theory attempt to explain, in different ways, why it is in an individual’s rational self-interest to voluntarily give up the freedom one has in the state of nature in order to obtain the benefits of political order.



Let me ask the obvious question. Did you ever sign any social contract form? Of course not. Neither did anyone else. A contract requires an agreement by at least two parties. Young children are not able to make binding contracts until they mature and are able to understand the nature of the agreement. If we apply this same standard to the social contract myth, it’s quite obvious that being born somewhere does not mean that one has agreed to anything – especially an agreement that would give away that person’s sovereignty and grant a government the power to tax and legislate for them.



Another argument forwarded by social contract advocates is that by continuing to live in a society a person consents to live by the rules of that society and therefore agrees to the social contract. There are some problems with this position though. Firstly, to make a choice a person needs options. All of the land on the entire planet is claimed by states. No matter where one moves to (and let’s ignore the problem of getting there and obviously having to cross regulated and taxed lands to do so) the person will find himself taxed and regulated by a state. There are no free areas left on Earth. A person has the choice to live or die but he has no real choice when it comes to the state; he can not escape taxation, regulation and legislation. So, a person never really chooses to agree to the social contract because the state is forced upon him no matter where he goes. Secondly, imagine that a person decides to ignore or resist the supposed social contract of the land where he was born. Such a person would be punished by the state and it’s likely that he would be deprived of property (fined) and possibly even his liberty (jailed). If he resists such a punishment strongly enough, the authorities ultimately reserve the privilege to kill the person (this is the threat behind all state action). The “contract” is one of compulsion, clearly. It is generally understood in the civilized world that a contract must be voluntary. Any agreement made under duress is not valid. Thirdly, if the social contract is to be understood in terms of large number of people rather than individuals, where are the lines separating one group of people from another to be drawn. And even if we determine where these lines are to be drawn? Perhaps they could be drawn along linguistic and cultural boundaries but these are far from definite borders. Normally they are drawn rather arbitrarily based on the “might makes right” principle of a state’s political and military power. Also, if an single individual can’t opt out of the social contract, what percentage of people in a (normally arbitrarily decided upon) area can force its will upon everyone else? If we think back to the Revolutionary War, it is normally taught even in government schools that only about a third of the Colonists supported independence from Great Britain. Can a third of the people legitimately force their will upon the other two-thirds? The standard “value” that US officials claim to promote is democracy, which is generally understood as the rule of one half of the population plus one person over everyone else. By democratic standards, the Founding Fathers acted illegitimately. And if we look at the adoption of current US Constitution (which replaced the Articles of Confederation), it is also commonly taught even in government schools that the majority of the people probably opposed its adoption. Any close analysis of historical events and state action brings up many such problems as these with the implementation of the social contract theory.



What then is the social contract if it’s not a voluntary agreement between people to create the rule of law and a government? It is just an excuse by those in power to exercise their power over the people below them. The authorities need the public to at least tolerate their regime in order to maintain their rule. This applies to every form of government, be it a monarchy, dictatorship, republic, theocracy or democracy. If enough people oppose the regime, no matter how much power it has at its command it will not be able to stay in power over the long run. Of course, most people are willing to “go along to get along” and this aspect of human nature makes things easier for statists. The social contract theory sounds plausible enough to most people who don’t dig further. Government school teachers and university professors knowingly or unknowingly support the regime by “socialising” students (which is stressed in education programs at universities) with the social contract excuse. Any type of resistance to this excuse is met with replies such as “But you are part of a larger society” or “You have to think about other people in society than just yourself.” “Society” as an abstract entity is invoked and practically worshiped by statists. Depending upon the particular ideology of the regime, the social contract theory and society excuse necessitates any number of sacrifices of property and liberty on the part of individuals. “Society” becomes the excuse for the continual growth of government.



Those who reject the social contract idea are likely to be called “anti-social” by defenders of the regime. But there were societies around the world long before Hobbes, Rousseau and Locke started advancing their theories on the non-existent contract. Voluntary exchange, property rights and tradition are the root of community and society. People naturally form into families and these families naturally form communities. Taken together, this is what we abstractly call society. Such a society doesn’t require a social contract, a state, taxation or legislation. Individuals, communities and nations of people all existed before the state and before the social contract theory was ever concocted. “Society” does not depend upon involuntary institutions or rule.



It’s time to meet the defenders of the regime head on in challenging the legitimacy of taxation, regulation and legislation. Their theory is flawed and we can shoot holes in it all day long. It’s time we aggressively and intelligently started to do so.