Let's Discuss Social Contract

[AlbqOwl]

Let's discuss Social Contract

In recent weeks, I have observed what I believe to be wrong or fuzzy or incomplete notions about what social contract is and how it applies to self governance as the Founders intended that to be. Even some dictionary definitions are too limiting when they try to define it in simplistic terms.

Some are indignant that it is presented as a concept different from a legally enforceable contract. Some see it as handing liberties over to government in return for security or other benefits. Some see it as our obligation to authoritarian government. And there are other points of view.

Perhaps we could have a reasoned civil discussion about it here without bringing a lot of bias, prejudice, personalities, and partisanship into it? Learn together as it were?

For starters, and I am open to other interpretations and points of view, I think Dictionary.com has probably the best abridged definition for what social contract is. At least it best expresses my personal point of view regarding social contract.

social contract

noun
1. the voluntary agreement among individuals by which, according to any of various theories, as of Hobbes, Locke, or Rousseau, organized society is brought into being and invested with the right to secure mutual protection and welfare or to regulate the relations among its members.

2. an agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole.
Social contract | Define Social contract at Dictionary.com

So how do you see social contract if that is a term in your personal repertoire of terms?

 

[TeleKat]

Contracts must be mutually agreed upon between the contractor(s) and the contracted. Hence a social "contract" is not really a contract in the legitimate use of the term. You don't agree to a set of guidelines simply for being born in a certain area. That's not how it works. Abused children don't consent to be beaten because they were born in a certain home. Children don't consent to being bullied because they were playing on a certain playground. Citizens don't consent to having their rights infringed upon because they were born in a certain country. Simple stuff, really.

 

[Thom Paine]

Before responding, I have additional wondering.... How many respondents have read "THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT by Jean Jacques Rousseau 1762 " ??

I don't intend any derailment Owl ; only additional grist for your mill.

I bow aside for now.

Have an exceptionally grand day AO

Thom Paine

 

[AlbqOwl]

Contracts must be mutually agreed upon between the contractor(s) and the contracted. Hence a social "contract" is not really a contract in the legitimate use of the term. You don't agree to a set of guidelines simply for being born in a certain area. That's not how it works. Abused children don't consent to be beaten because they were born in a certain home. Children don't consent to being bullied because they were playing on a certain playground. Citizens don't consent to having their rights infringed upon because they were born in a certain country. Simple stuff, really.

Political has a definition Telekat.
Correctness has a definition TeleKat.
Political Correctness is its own term with its own definition that is totally different from the definition of 'political' or 'correctness'.

Social has a definition TeleKat.
Contract has a definition Telekat.
Social Contract is its own term with its own definition that is totally different from the definition of 'social' or 'contract'.

Now if you don't like my definition, please furnish your own. That's what this thread is intended to do--get people to thinking about what social contract is, its origins, what is was intended to be. I am not claiming that my definition must be considered gospel but offer it as the starting point. Do you have a better definition for social contract and can you defend it?

 

[Thom Paine]

Political has a definition Telekat.
Correctness has a definition TeleKat.
Political Correctness is its own term with its own definition that is totally different from the definition of 'political' or 'correctness'.

Social has a definition TeleKat.
Contract has a definition Telekat.
Social Contract is its own term with its own definition that is totally different from the definition of 'social' or 'contract'.

Now if you don't like my definition, please furnish your own. That's what this thread is intended to do--get people to thinking about what social contract is, its origins, what is was intended to be. I am not claiming that my definition must be considered gospel but offer it as the starting point. Do you have a better definition for social contract and can you defend it?

Well stated; this is the embryo of a GREAT thread !



Thom Paine

 

[TeleKat]

Political has a definition Telekat.
Correctness has a definition TeleKat.
Political Correctness is its own term with its own definition that is totally different from the definition of 'political' or 'correctness'.

Social has a definition TeleKat.
Contract has a definition Telekat.
Social Contract is its own term with its own definition that is totally different from the definition of 'social' or 'contract'.

Now if you don't like my definition, please furnish your own. That's what this thread is intended to do--get people to thinking about what social contract is, its origins, what is was intended to be. I am not claiming that my definition must be considered gospel but offer it as the starting point. Do you have a better definition for social contract and can you defend it?

Hey AO :2wave:

That wasn't really the point of my post. I know what a "social contract" is, I was merely questioning it's legitimacy. I think "social contract" is a made-up term that paves the way for governments and majorities in society to push whatever they deem fit onto the minority of the population because they "consented" to it by living. It's a fabricated term with no real basis in reality. The social contract assumes the consent of society, without actually getting it.

 

[joG]

Contracts must be mutually agreed upon between the contractor(s) and the contracted. Hence a social "contract" is not really a contract in the legitimate use of the term. You don't agree to a set of guidelines simply for being born in a certain area. That's not how it works. Abused children don't consent to be beaten because they were born in a certain home. Children don't consent to being bullied because they were playing on a certain playground. Citizens don't consent to having their rights infringed upon because they were born in a certain country. Simple stuff, really.

You don't agree to the laws of the land "simply for being born in a certain area" either.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Hey AO :2wave:

That wasn't really the point of my post. I know what a "social contract" is, I was merely questioning it's legitimacy. I think "social contract" is a made-up term that paves the way for governments and majorities in society to push whatever they deem fit onto the minority of the population because they "consented" to it by living. It's a fabricated term with no real basis in reality. The social contract assumes the consent of society, without actually getting it.

Okay here's how I see it happening:

For sake of discussion and explanation, here is one way I see social contract occurring:

A few widely spaced land owners move into an otherwise unpopulated area. Each has his own well, heat source, septic system, etc. and looks to his own security and governs his own property as he chooses. Everybody is responsible for their own road. Pretty much complete anarchy.

In time other folks move in so that there are more people in the area. So the folks work out a way they can cooperate to clear and maintain roads they will share to get from their various properties to the main highway and access civilization.

Then somebody sees a need and market and opens a small grocery store so the folks don't have to drive many miles to the nearest town for milk and bread. Then somebody opens a hardware and farm implement store. And then somebody opens up a little cafe where the farmers and ranchers can congregate and socialize. And as more folks move in, more specialty shops are added.

Of course the increased population also attracts a few lawless types and at some point the people get together and agree to hire a law enforcement person who will check their property from time to time and take care of the lawless ones. And then to reduce their fire insurance premiums plus provide some fire protection, they organize a rural volunteer fire department.

As a small village and then small town emerges, concern for pollution of the shared aquifers because of a more dense population makes a shared water and sewer system attractive. And as more folks take the opportunity to benefit from a growing infrastructure and market, the people see a need for a city clerk to handle necessary paperwork, maybe a part time paid fire chief to oversee the fire department, and a mayor to oversee all the developing shared services going in. In time they will agree to zoning restrictions and some planning of new streets and roads and residential neighborhoods and a city park to improve the aesthetics and so that property values can be better secured and protected. And perhaps some provisions for the needy who invariably show up when there are concentrations of population.

Every step of the way it is people governing themselves and agreeing on how to organize their growing society in a way that mutually benefits all. There is no central planning or outside authority governing or dictating the process, economically or socially, in any way.

That is my concept of what social contract is and how it works.

 

[longview]

This gets backs to the rights of nature.
We give up some of our absolute rights of nature,
to be able to live in a society of laws.
Where a person who follows the rules/laws, has a reasonable expectation of
of retaining their own rights within the limits established by the group.

 

[Ockham]

As a definition - Locke and Hobbes pretty much nail it. However, I want nothing to do with a social contract personally.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Before responding, I have additional wondering.... How many respondents have read "THE SOCIAL CONTRACT OR PRINCIPLES OF POLITICAL RIGHT by Jean Jacques Rousseau 1762 " ??

I don't intend any derailment Owl ; only additional grist for your mill.

I bow aside for now.

Have an exceptionally grand day AO

Thom Paine

Yes, Rousseau was required reading in one of my poli-sci classes and I wrote a college paper on his treatise. Plus some independent study later. Pretty tedious reading but some interesting concepts. He was almost Marxist--the mythical end result of Marxism--in his view that social contract happens apart from government and I think I reflected that in my illustration posted to Telekat a few minutes ago. He was different from Locke in that regard as Locke mostly took the view that social contract occurred between the government and the governed. And there is a component of that too as there is need for more and more organization as society expands. You kind of have to take all those great minds and theories and mush them together to come up with the concept of social contract--they probably did not use the term themselves--that the Founders based the Constitution on.

 

[Cryptic]

So how do you see social contract if that is a term in your personal repertoire of terms?[/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]

My notion of social contract stems from the teachings of the Catholic church as expressed by Saint John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II repreatedly emphasized that Christian theology rejects both forced collectivism / wealth re-distribution (socialism) and the darwinian based society advocated by many libertarians.

http://catholiceducation.org/articles/religion/re0286.html

 

[Visbek]

The "social contract" is an outdated theory of government.

"Consent of the governed" is a much more capable concept.

 

[Thom Paine]

Yes, Rousseau was required reading in one of my poli-sci classes and I wrote a college paper on his treatise. Plus some independent study later. Pretty tedious reading but some interesting concepts. He was almost Marxist--the mythical end result of Marxism--in his view that social contract happens apart from government and I think I reflected that in my illustration posted to Telekat a few minutes ago. He was different from Locke in that regard as Locke mostly took the view that social contract occurred between the government and the governed. And there is a component of that too as there is need for more and more organization as society expands. You kind of have to take all those great minds and theories and mush them together to come up with the concept of social contract--they probably did not use the term themselves--that the Founders based the Constitution on.

In my years on web forums, I recall no one other than you who had even a remote awareness of Rousseau and Locke. I'll follow this thread though, with your background, my commentary might sound amateurish. Looking forward to your commentary and discussion.

This is the type of thread that makes my entire week interesting.

Impressive

Thom Paine

 

[Henrin]

The "social contract" is an outdated theory of government.

"Consent of the governed" is a much more capable concept.

Except that ignores the consent to be governed in the first place, which calls into question your entire concept.

 

[haymarket]

Except that ignores the consent to be governed in the first place, which calls into question your entire concept.

And how does one determine if government has the consent of the governed?

 

[AlbqOwl]

My notion of social contract stems from the teachings of the Catholic church as expressed by Saint John Paul II.

Pope John Paul II repreatedly emphasized that Christian theology rejects both forced collectivism / wealth re-distribution (socialism) and the darwinian based society advocated by many libertarians.

So how would you define social contract as you understand it? You would need to be a bit more specific than 'forced collectivism' that covers a very broad spectrum and you would need to explain what you (or John Paul II) meant by Darwinian based society advocated by many libertarians. I am not arguing with your point of view, at least not yet , but need a better explanation of where you are coming from.

 

[AlbqOwl]

In my years on web forums, I recall no one other than you who had even a remote awareness of Rousseau and Locke. I'll follow this thread though, with your background, my commentary might sound amateurish. Looking forward to your commentary and discussion.

This is the type of thread that makes my entire week interesting.

Impressive

Thom Paine

Please do participate. I may have more education in this particular field than some, but I definitely consider myself an amateur. And you definitely have more education in this particular field in that you were even aware of Rousseau's work. I don't want this to become a pedantic educational exercise though but try to keep it in terms that the average bear can relate to.

 

[Henrin]

And how does one determine if government has the consent of the governed?

How about not starting from the premise that all people that live in your territorial area are under your command and must follow your will?

 

[AlbqOwl]

And how does one determine if government has the consent of the governed?

In the concept of social contract as expressed in the OP, the government has the consent of the governed when it is the governed who tell the government what the people will allow the government to do and instruct the government to do.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The "social contract" is an outdated theory of government.

"Consent of the governed" is a much more capable concept.

How is 'social contract' different from 'consent of the governed'? How is it outdated?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Except that ignores the consent to be governed in the first place, which calls into question your entire concept.

While I am waiting for Visbek to extend his remarks, I don't necessarily object to 'consent of the governed' as a definition for social contract. Where I may have an argument with him--that remains to be seen via the extended remarks --is that 'consent of the governed' is different from social contract.

 

[haymarket]

How about not starting from the premise that all people that live in your territorial area are under your command and must follow your will?

So how do you have a nation where people can still live there but exempt themselves from the laws of the land?

 

[vesper]

Hi A. Owl.

I see social contract to be where people set up a form of government specifically designed to protect their freedom, liberty, and rights. If that government fails in accomplishing this the people have the right to form a new government. Our written social contract is our Constitution. There's a quote from Jefferson's Declaration of Independence from John Locke that sums it up nicely.
"Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government..."

 

[haymarket]

In the concept of social contract as expressed in the OP, the government has the consent of the governed when it is the governed who tell the government what the people will allow the government to do and instruct the government to do.

Is that not what we have in the USA?