We hold these truths to be
self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their
Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and
the pursuit of happiness. That to secure these rights, governments are
instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the
governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these
ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute
new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its
powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to affect their safety
and happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that governments long established
should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all
experience hath shown that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are
sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are
accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing
invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute
despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such government,
and to provide new guards for their future security.
And for the support of this
declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we
mutually pledge to each other our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor.
- Declaration of Independence
We the People of the United States,
in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic
Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and
secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and
establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
- Preamble
to the US Constitution
I want to talk briefly now, but I’m certain it will arise later as well; about
the social contract we have implicitly agreed too. Americans have always
reached for the loftiest of goals. The words above show just that. The Founders
said, “all men are created equal,” and these men are endowed with the
unalienable rights of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” In order
to secure these rights, we form government to protect us from others and from
ourselves. BUT this government “deriv[es] their just powers from the consent of the governed.” (emphasis
added) What level of dedication was required to meet this pressing demand?
Their “lives, [their] fortunes, and [their] sacred honor.” With this high
burden, the social contract was created.
So
what is the social contract? The social concept is a political theory that
arose out of the Age of Enlightenment, although it had its foundations in
classical Greek and Roman thought. It addresses the origins of society as we
know it and the legitimacy of the government’s authority. There have been
several incarnations of perspective of the theory. All the perspectives follow
the same general thesis. Without the social contract, men are in what Thomas
Hobbes called “the state of nature” and described as “solitary, poor, nasty,
brutish and short.” With an absence of law and order, everyone could embrace
their natural freedoms and have a right to all things including freedom to
plunder, rape and murder. Life would consist of a constant war of all against
all.
In
1625, Grotius postulated the modern idea of natural rights of individuals;
these rights enable self-preservation. Even absent government (and in his argument
religion), this natural order would remain. This idea was considered
blasphemous because it held that if the government organized to preserve the
individual failed, that power could return to the individuals and the order
would remain. This established the concept of personal sovereignty, and held
that in society, one must limit the means of self-preservation in order to not
conflict with another’s means of self-preservation. He also held that any
violation of these rights should be punished.
Grotius
was followed in 1651 by Thomas Hobbes. In Leviathan,
he created a detailed social contract theory. Out of the “state of nature”,
men would form a social contract where
they would come together and cede some of their individual rights in exchange
for others ceding theirs as well. This established a state which was a
sovereign entity, much like the individuals under its rule, which created laws
to regulate the social interactions of the individuals.
John
Locke followed in 1689 with theory. It differed in many ways from Locke’s. Most
notably, Locke believed that the individuals would be bound by the Law of Nature
not to harm each other, thus the “state of nature” was not so brutish; but without
a government to defend them, from harm, they would live in fear. Hobbes argued
for near absolute authority, while Locke limited the government to the rights
the citizens gave it, those of self-defense (or self-preservation). The
government became an impartial, objective agent. This established the idea that
the government derives its powers from the consent of the governed. The
American Founding Father’s looked strongly to Locke for their own ideas.
Locke
set the basis for later work on the social contract, and in many ways, later
work derived from this idea of the social contract. Rousseau’s The Social Contract in 1762 is a good
example. Rousseau based his theory on the idea that the social contract is
based on unlimited popular sovereignty and that is the foundation of political rights.
He postulated that liberty was only possible where there was direct rule by the
people as a whole: where popular sovereignty was indivisible and inalienable.
Rousseau believed that man must be forced to be free, by which he meant, because
popular sovereignty decides what is good for the whole, if the individual
lapses back into the egoism and disobeys the leadership, he will be forced into
conduct because as a member of the collective society, those laws are not a
limit of individual freedom, but its expression. By joining society, we are
implicitly consenting to punishment for breaking the law of the collective.
Finally
for this examination, we look at Proudhon’s social contract, which is the basis
for modern libertarian thought. That is, the social contract is not between
individuals and the government; but rather, individuals and each other. The
individual did not cede sovereignty, but rather merely agreeing not to coerce
or govern each other. His ideas create a limited state which only has takes the
role that cannot be held by individuals. This is the source of the libertarian’s
belief that government should be limited to the six roles outlined by the Preamble
to the US Constitution: “form
a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide
for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings
of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity;” all roles which the individual
cannot take on themselves.
Let’s fast-forward to today. Where does the social contract stand? Perhaps more
apt is the question, does it remain?
Slowly, it seems were are transforming from the United States of America which
our Founding fathers laid down their blood and treasure, to America, Inc. where
a year without economic gain is sacrifice enough. I will touch on many of these
issues in depth, but as an overview: the top 1% of Americans control 25% of the
income and 40% of the wealth. For this privileged few- the social contract is
better than ever. They have the best land, educations, healthcare, property,
etc. However, this leaves 99% of the country with 60% of the wealth. If we
expand this to the top 10%, then they control 33% of the incomes in the US and
60% of the wealth. (As a reference, the ‘Banana Republics” of Central America
typically have a wealth distribution along the lines of 20% control 80%.
Striking isn’t it.) This leaves a paltry 64% of incomes and 40% of the wealth
for the bottom 90% of Americans. This bottom 90%, especially the bottom 50% has
little to no healthcare, no property, and a lower-grade education, amongst
others. Privilege in America has its advantages. If those numbers astound you,
I think they should.
This is not a rant about wealth redistribution. I am not a communist and I do
not think that redistributing the wealth would fix anything. I believe, as the
old saying goes, that if the wealth were to be equally distributed, it would
return to the same few within a generation. BUT I do believe that no wealth is made in a vacuum, and those who
are wealthy now can base that wealth on the society which was created with
public funds. If you made your money in oil, steel, television, hotels,
anything- that wealth is based on natural resources we all have a right to, a
public transportation system, a public education system, and many other
publicly created and funded programs. As such, they should pay their share of
maintaining it, and passing the ‘blessings of liberty’ on to the next
generation. Not just their own descendants but for the entire nation.
While reading this blog in the future, I hope readers keep this in mind: This is my perspective and this is the angle
from which I form opinion and write. I am a progressive. I believe
individuals best advance when society as a whole advances. I look at the
disenfranchised, the poor, the ill, and the abused and I see a failure of
American society, a breach of the social contract, and a waste of national
potential. I believe in true equality. I believe in merit advancement, not the
hereditary advancement of a few wealthy families. I believe that we left that
system in 1776, I don’t seek its return, and I will fight against it. As I
said, I am not for redistribution of wealth, but I believe that everyone
deserves to stand on their own merit, not that of their parents, grandparents,
or others. I don’t believe that wealth at any cost is a mantra that will return
America to greatness. I believe that we together are far stronger than any of
us alone. As Benjamin Franklin is credited with saying as he signed the
Declaration of Independence, “Gentlemen, we must hang together, or assuredly we
shall all hang separately.” My neighbors’ advancement is my advancement. We’re
in this together, and we must remember that. This is the true social contract:
the one we make amongst ourselves and for which our government was created to
honor. Without this progressive view of the social contract, its demise will go
unnoticed and wasted.
© Robert Cheek, 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment