Let's Discuss Social Contract

[AlbqOwl]

Is that not what we have in the USA?

It used to be. That was what was intended by the Constitution. In my opinion, it isn't that way any more. We pretend we elect people to represent and speak for us. But we really don't get that. Those in government these days are part of a permanent political class that focuses on increasing its own power, prestige, influence, control, and personal wealth while throwing the people just enough bones to keep the people voting for them.

The only way to restore our liberties that made this country the greatest the world has ever known is to restore the concept of social contract. But before we can do that, we have to find some way to agree on what social contract is.

So for this thread I want to discuss social contract apart from the stuff that goes on in our government.

 

[AlbqOwl]

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..."

Yes. That is what Jefferson wanted to happen when the social contract broke down. The Constitution was to limit the central government to specific responsibilities within the social contract, i.e. what the people would allow the government to be. It was to prevent the government from becoming just another dictatorship, monarchy, papal dictate, or other totalitarian authority. It is when government was able to persuade the people to look to government for what they wanted and needed instead of themselves that the social contract ended and the power shifted from the people to the government.

 

[PirateMk1]

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

Visa vi the governed saying they consent.

 

[haymarket]

It used to be. That was what was intended by the Constitution. In my opinion, it isn't that way any more. We pretend we elect people to represent and speak for us. But we really don't get that. Those in government these days are part of a permanent political class that focuses on increasing its own power, prestige, influence, control, and personal wealth while throwing the people just enough bones to keep the people voting for them.

The only way to restore our liberties that made this country the greatest the world has ever known is to restore the concept of social contract. But before we can do that, we have to find some way to agree on what social contract is.

So for this thread I want to discuss social contract apart from the stuff that goes on in our government.

While I do NOT see it that way - in fact just the opposite since the expansion of the vote and initiative and referrendum have give the people more voice that any an time in our nation - I would love to hear

1- what your concept of the consent of the govern is, and
2 - what fundamental changes you would have to make in the USA to achieve it

 

[haymarket]

Visa vi the governed saying they consent.

Can you explain the practical day to day nuts and bolts of how that would work. So a baby is born to an American family. When does that new citizen give his consent and to exactly what is he or she consenting to?

 

[Cryptic]

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.

Thanks for the interest. I would go with this option: A logical progression by which individuals become a community.

That is progression is then expressed by acknowledging that:

-We are a community, rather than a collection of individuals
-That members of the community must respect and obey lawful authority (Saint Paul)
-That the community can, and must allocate recesources to pursue the common good. That the community has natural limits and is not all encompassing. (most recently expressed by St. John Paul II)

 

[AlbqOwl]

While I do NOT see it that way - in fact just the opposite since the expansion of the vote and initiative and referrendum have give the people more voice that any an time in our nation - I would love to hear

1- what your concept of the consent of the govern is, and
2 - what fundamental changes you would have to make in the USA to achieve it

The vote expresses the consent of the people unless it is a vote bought, bartered, coerced, or bribed which is what you have when the vote is cast to get what the government can give rather than to reward the government doing what it was designed to do. The consent of the governed is to participate in and agree to the process. Which is why the federal government was designed to secure our rights and provide enough regulation to allow the various states to operate as one nation, but then was intended to leave the people strictly alone to work out the processes by which they would govern themselves. The people cooperating to govern themselves is what social contract is. Social contract ceases to exist when those in government assume the authority to govern the people however those in government wish to do it.

 

[haymarket]

The vote expresses the consent of the people unless it is a vote bought, bartered, coerced, or bribed which is what you have when the vote is cast to get what the government can give rather than to reward the government doing what it was designed to do.

Doesn't that kind of disqualifying language open the door to anyone at any time on any issue or for any office charging that one of those things was done and in there mind thereby nullifying the entire business?

The consent of the governed is to participate in and agree to the process.

Why do you limit it to just the process and not the results of the process?

Which is why the federal government was designed to secure our rights and provide enough regulation to allow the various states to operate as one nation, but then was intended to leave the people strictly alone to work out the processes by which they would govern themselves. The people cooperating to govern themselves is what social contract is. Social contract ceases to exist when those in government assume the authority to govern the people however those in government wish to do it

And how does one make the determination that your last sentence is what has happened and not government of the people, by the people and for the people as it is suppose to be?

 

[AlbqOwl]

Thanks for the interest. I would go with this option: A logical progression by which individuals become a community.

That is progression is then expressed by acknowledging that:

-We are a community, rather than a collection of individuals
-That members of the community must respect and obey lawful authority (Saint Paul)
-That the community can, and must allocate recesources to pursue the common good. That the community has natural limits and is not all encompassing. (most recently expressed by St. John Paul II)

I would agree that within the framework of social contract the community is an entity into itself. And I would agree that social contract does include what the community will regard as lawful behavior. I draw the line with the part that the community MUST allocate resources to pursue the common good because that is in no part social contract. Allocating resources for the common good, i.e. agreeing to build a city park for the kids to play in, or to fund a homeless shelter to get the homeless off the street at night, or to vote to allocate community owned land for a hospital or a new industry that would bring in many good jobs, etc. can all be handled by social contract. But it must never be mandatory that the majority agree to or be obligated by such projects for that makes it authoritarian government and not social contract.

 

[Cryptic]

I would agree that within the framework of social contract the community is an entity into itself. And I would agree that social contract does include what the community will regard as lawful behavior. I draw the line with the part that the community MUST allocate resources to pursue the common good because that is in no part social contract. Allocating resources for the common good, i.e. agreeing to build a city park for the kids to play in, or to fund a homeless shelter to get the homeless off the street at night, or to vote to allocate community owned land for a hospital or a new industry that would bring in many good jobs, etc. can all be handled by social contract. But it must never be mandatory that the majority agree to or be obligated by such projects for that makes it authoritarian government and not social contract.

When I say "must allocate recesources to pursue the common good", I mean "must" as a concept, not as any specific action. Acommunity that fails to allocate any recesources to the public good will collapse sooner or later.

In short, the community needs to realize, as a concept, that recesources must be allocated to the public good. It then must actually make allocations. How much is allocated and in what fashion the allocations are made are open to debate.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Doesn't that kind of disqualifying language open the door to anyone at any time on any issue or for any office charging that one of those things was done and in there mind thereby nullifying the entire business?



Why do you limit it to just the process and not the results of the process?



And how does one make the determination that your last sentence is what has happened and not government of the people, by the people and for the people as it is suppose to be?

Your opening question makes no sense. You'll have to clarify it.

The answer to the second question is that we may have no idea what the results of the process will be until we try it. In social contract we certainly will have an end result in mind that we may or may not achieve to everybody's satisfaction. We may or may not meet our goal and we may or may not experience unexpected benefits and/or unexpected negative consequences. If we like the results, we keep doing it. If we don't like the results, then we regroup and decide how to fix it. The idea of self governance is actually quite simple but seems so difficult for some to grasp. We have no option to fix it however, if it is forced upon us by a separate government entity.

A government dictated to the people instead of agreed to by the people is not a government of the people, by the people, and usually isn't for the people. It is determined by asking one question: did I have opportunity to participate in the process? If I did not then it isn't social contract.

 

[PirateMk1]

Can you explain the practical day to day nuts and bolts of how that would work. So a baby is born to an American family. When does that new citizen give his consent and to exactly what is he or she consenting to?

The age of their majority and consent to the constitution or whatever document that they are agreeing to abide. The concept of universal naturalization is something that maybe we should consider as a nation. Instead of being born into a nation and being born a citizen, the concept of a person actively choosing to be a citizen and abiding a constitution by declaring by oath signing their name to a constitution or some other affirmative action declaring their support and abidance might be a way to increase participation and agreement with a particular social contract.

 

[haymarket]

Your opening question makes no sense. You'll have to clarify it.

Sure I will be happy to. Here is what you said that I was responding to:

The vote expresses the consent of the people unless it is a vote bought, bartered, coerced, or bribed which is what you have when the vote is cast to get what the government can give rather than to reward the government doing what it was designed to do.

What I am asking you is simple: are you not putting so many qualifiers on what constitutes consent of the people in a vote that it gives anyone who wants to the widest possible door int which they can strut and complain that the vote was bought..... or bartered ..... or coerced .... or bribed .... or any other disqualifying charge that a person wants to dream up to - in their mind - disqualify the election results and then state that there is not longer consent of the governed?

We may or may not meet our goal and we may or may not experience unexpected benefits and/or unexpected negative consequences. If we like the results, we keep doing it. If we don't like the results, then we regroup and decide how to fix it.

Is there really a WE? Or is there a whole lot of competing WE's who cannot see eye to eye on many things and no matter how pure the process is to some, others will reject it because it did not yield the results they wanted?

A government dictated to the people instead of agreed to by the people is not a government of the people, by the people, and usually isn't for the people. It is determined by asking one question: did I have opportunity to participate in the process? If I did not then it isn't social contract.

The franchise is today at its widest point in American history. Very few people cannot vote. They have the opportunity to participate in the process.

So what are you complaining about?

 

[Visbek]

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

The concepts are related, but quite distinct.

The "social contract" suggests that people surrender certain freedoms and rights to a government in exchange for certain protections. It assumes that humans have certain natural / intrinsic rights, and makes all sorts of outdated claims about "human nature" and its origins. It largely fell out of use in the 19th century.

"Consent of the governed" suggests that a government derives its legitimacy from the (ongoing) consent of the citizens. It does not necessitate an exchange of freedoms and rights, it does not rely on any specific metaphysical claims about rights. It basically grew out of the concept and criticisms of the "social contract" theory.

 

[haymarket]

The age of their majority and consent to the constitution or whatever document that they are agreeing to abide. The concept of universal naturalization is something that maybe we should consider as a nation. Instead of being born into a nation and being born a citizen, the concept of a person actively choosing to be a citizen and abiding a constitution by declaring by oath signing their name to a constitution or some other affirmative action declaring their support and abidance might be a way to increase participation and agreement with a particular social contract.

And what happens to the new adult who says NO?

 

[PirateMk1]

And what happens to the new adult who says NO?

They have the choice of leaving, otherwise their ability to participate would be limited or not it would depend on how the concept was implemented. If it was me and I was designing said system I would consider affirming citizenship would allow one, to vote and encumber said citizen with certain responsibilities and rights over and above noncitizens, such as jury duty, military service, and ability to run for office the idea being that those who wish to participate get the benefit of participation while those that don't participate get nothing ie no say and no responsibility and no benefit. Just an idea I am considering for a future thread. I was thinking of presenting a constitution and then having a DP constitutional convention and see what we come up with. I digress though back to the current thread and social contracts.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The concepts are related, but quite distinct.

The "social contract" suggests that people surrender certain freedoms and rights to a government in exchange for certain protections. It assumes that humans have certain natural / intrinsic rights, and makes all sorts of outdated claims about "human nature" and its origins. It largely fell out of use in the 19th century.

"Consent of the governed" suggests that a government derives its legitimacy from the (ongoing) consent of the citizens. It does not necessitate an exchange of freedoms and rights, it does not rely on any specific metaphysical claims about rights. It basically grew out of the concept and criticisms of the "social contract" theory.

So where do you get your definition of social contract and why does it carry more authority than the definition I used in the OP? Who says it fell out of favor?

 

[haymarket]

They have the choice of leaving, otherwise their ability to participate would be limited or not it would depend on how the concept was implemented. If it was me and I was designing said system I would consider affirming citizenship would allow one, to vote and encumber said citizen with certain responsibilities and rights over and above noncitizens, such as jury duty, military service, and ability to run for office the idea being that those who wish to participate get the benefit of participation while those that don't participate get nothing ie no say and no responsibility and no benefit. Just an idea I am considering for a future thread. I was thinking of presenting a constitution and then having a DP constitutional convention and see what we come up with. I digress though back to the current thread and social contracts.

If they would not want to participate in the society - why should THEY be the only ones to exercise a choice about them leaving?

 

[Visbek]

So where do you get your definition of social contract and why does it carry more authority than the definition I used in the OP? Who says it fell out of favor?

The dictionary definition you cited is incomplete and vague, as one might expect when using a dictionary to describe a complex concept of political philosophy.

Social Contract:
Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contractarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
social contract (political philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Social contract - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (scroll down to the "concise encyclopedia" section)


Consent of the governed:
Consent of the governed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democracy Web | The Consent of the Governed: Essential Principles
The Declaration of Independence
Political Legitimacy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

FWIW I don't agree with the characterization of Rawls' "veil of ignorance" as constituting any sort of "state of nature." I may be in the minority in that respect. C'est la guerre.

 

[PirateMk1]

If they would not want to participate in the society - why should THEY be the only ones to exercise a choice about them leaving?

That would depend on the terms of the social contract. Me I would just let them stay if they so choose but they get no power and are subject to whatever the citizens decide. It just depends on how it was setup.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The dictionary definition you cited is incomplete and vague, as one might expect when using a dictionary to describe a complex concept of political philosophy.

Social Contract:
Social contract - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Contractarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Social Contract Theory*[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy]
social contract (political philosophy) -- Encyclopedia Britannica
Social contract - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary (scroll down to the "concise encyclopedia" section)


Consent of the governed:
Consent of the governed - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Democracy Web | The Consent of the Governed: Essential Principles
The Declaration of Independence
Political Legitimacy (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)

FWIW I don't agree with the characterization of Rawls' "veil of ignorance" as constituting any sort of "state of nature." I may be in the minority in that respect. C'est la guerre.

I chose that definition because it was not in any way vague.

But rather than expect the members here to wade through massive amounts of material without any clue what you consider relevant and what you do not, why don't you provide us with your definition of social contract and save us some time?

 

[haymarket]

That would depend on the terms of the social contract. Me I would just let them stay if they so choose but they get no power and are subject to whatever the citizens decide. It just depends on how it was setup.

Either you join the club or get your ass out. No free riders.

 

[Visbek]

I chose that definition because it was not in any way vague.

"An agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole" is, without question, incomplete and vague. It doesn't capture even the most basic components that distinguish it from almost any other theory of government, namely a) the assumption of inherent rights and freedoms, b) an assumption about a "state of nature," and c) the idea of giving up some of those inherent freedoms and rights in exchange for benefits (e.g. protection, security) from a government. It also fails to distinguish between ethical and political forms of contractualism.

But rather than expect the members here to wade through massive amounts of material without any clue what you consider relevant and what you do not, why don't you provide us with your definition of social contract and save us some time?

I already did that. Here it is again.

The "social contract" suggests that people surrender certain freedoms and rights to a government in exchange for certain protections. It assumes that humans have certain natural / intrinsic rights, and makes all sorts of outdated claims about "human nature" and its origins. It largely fell out of use in the 19th century.

"Consent of the governed" suggests that a government derives its legitimacy from the (ongoing) consent of the citizens. It does not necessitate an exchange of freedoms and rights, it does not rely on any specific metaphysical claims about rights. It basically grew out of the concept and criticisms of the "social contract" theory.​

It's your choice to decide how to spend your time. But if you want to discuss political contractualism, I think you will benefit greatly from learning a bit about the topic first.

 

[AlbqOwl]

"An agreement for mutual benefit between an individual or group and the government or community as a whole" is, without question, incomplete and vague. It doesn't capture even the most basic components that distinguish it from almost any other theory of government, namely a) the assumption of inherent rights and freedoms, b) an assumption about a "state of nature," and c) the idea of giving up some of those inherent freedoms and rights in exchange for benefits (e.g. protection, security) from a government. It also fails to distinguish between ethical and political forms of contractualism.



I already did that. Here it is again.

The "social contract" suggests that people surrender certain freedoms and rights to a government in exchange for certain protections. It assumes that humans have certain natural / intrinsic rights, and makes all sorts of outdated claims about "human nature" and its origins. It largely fell out of use in the 19th century.

"Consent of the governed" suggests that a government derives its legitimacy from the (ongoing) consent of the citizens. It does not necessitate an exchange of freedoms and rights, it does not rely on any specific metaphysical claims about rights. It basically grew out of the concept and criticisms of the "social contract" theory.​

It's your choice to decide how to spend your time. But if you want to discuss political contractualism, I think you will benefit greatly from learning a bit about the topic first.

Okay I do remember that several hours ago. And that you weren't happy with my response to it. So there is probably no purpose in discussing it further. And since you are now opting to be personally insulting, I think I'll spend time with those who are interested in discussing the concept.

 

[Green Man]

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

I see the term as a rationalization used by those individuals who wish to violate the person and property of otherwise peaceful people.

It's not a contract in any sense of the word. There are no identifiable parties to the contract.