The Discussion Continues (again)
As a preliminary to this post, I have to confess that I am going to disappear from the Blogosphere for several days while I transplant myself from 8000 feet in the Sierras to 1200 feet in Claremont (my home town) --- from winter back to spring. I'll be back some time early next week.
It seems to me that I hear a common thread of complaint among Conservatives and also in the posts authored by my friend in Pennsylvania, LongShot. Federal government has grown oppressively large and threatens (if not violates) our individual rights. Personally, I dislike many things that the government does but I do not experience them as violations of my rights. One of the geniuses of our Constitution is that it creates a government that is correctable without revolution, that is, it institutionalizes ways in which our government (including the Constitution itself) can be changed. My preference, then, is to continue to work within the system rather than destroying the system, which seems to be the advertised goal of many extreme factions today.
This brings me to the last two paragraphs in LongShot's most recent post. He reminds us that entering into the Social Contract is voluntary and asserts that individuals can opt out of the Contract if they choose to do so. This is an issue that takes up hours of discussion in the typical college classroom. The people who voluntarily created our Social Contract are long dead --- long, long dead. What's more, when I was born, no one ever asked me if I would agree to give up my sovereignty over my own body. So classical political theory must take up issues like Paternal Power to deal with the whole period of when a child is growing into maturity and then must take up various concepts of "coming of age" when a child-turned-man (or woman) accepts the burden of our Social Contract. For me, the most visible signs of this were getting a driver's license and then registering for the draft (at age 18). The latter made evident Hobbes' assertion that there is no political power without the power of death. That is, when I registered for the draft, it was true that the government could take my life if it wished. And every year, I had to inform my draft board of my current activities in school or in my profession. The truth of that political power was visited on an entire generation during the Vietnam War and we all know what came of that.
Classical Social Contract theory asserts that we all give our consent even though we may do it in subtle ways. As for withdrawing our consent, that is tough to do if you try to remain in the same place. It's easy to do if you are willing to leave and settle your lot someplace else. Of course, in the present state of the world, there are few places that do not involve government of some kind. Social Contract theory simply doesn't allow for an individual to withdraw his/her consent and remain in place among the vast majority who consent. At this point, one might recall Socrates who consents to his imprisonment and execution via hemlock because he has profited, all his life, from the benefits of the polis in which he has lived. You cannot accept the benefits unless you are willing to play the whole game.
I think it is important to recognize that we do not live in a "natural world." We live in a "social world" among the creations of our civil society as well as those of individuals in the underlying society. We owe some obligations to all of this. In order to be completely sovereign individuals, we would have to withdraw from this world and our obligations to it. Obviously, there are some small groups that try to do this, but not many can. And why would they?
I had a thoughtful comment from Tad regarding my last post, in which he discusses the social compact theory and the ability to opt out. His understanding is that the only way to opt out of the social compact is the physically leave the jurisdiction of the state. This seems to be the conventional wisdom regarding the social compact, but I don't understand how this conclusion is reached.
ReplyDeleteI want to retrace my steps here and see where we go wrong.
We start with the axiom that all political power rests with the individual. In other words, the individual is sovereign. Because of this, no person, or group, has the right to rule over another. The only legitimate relationship between individuals, the only one that respects the rights of each, is a voluntary one. The only alternative relationship would be that of attacker/defender, master/slave, or lord/serf.
However, the fact is that we do have one group of people ruling over another. So the question becomes, How do we square that observation with our prior axiom that the individual is sovereign? Is the government violating the rights of its citizens? The social compact theory's answer is, No.
The social compact theory states that individuals voluntarily surrender some portion of their political power to the community of their state in order to empower the state to do some selected things for them in common that they cannot do well or effectively as individuals. The important thing to note is that this surrender of power is voluntary. The members of the compact are willing participants, not conquered subjects. The participants in the compact give up certain of their rights in order to gain the benefits of being a member of the state.
But it must be remembered that the individuals are still sovereign. They are not "subjects" of the state, they are only subject to the restrictions of the state as long as they wish to remain members in good standing. They are not conquered subjects.
Now I'd like to explore the idea that the only way to opt out of the social compact is by moving out of the state. Consider this simple example: There are four farms in a little river valley. One day, the four farmers get together and hit upon the idea that they could organize themselves into a state. So, they go to the big city and find a warrior. They hire this warrior, and bring him back to their valley. They build a little cottage for the warrior and agree that they will all contribute certain provisions to keep him fed, clothed, and outfitted. For a while they are happy with their arrangement because the warrior defends them from robbers.
Over time however, the warrior becomes abusive. He steals from the farmers and beats their children. Three of the farmers are ok with this, because after all the warrior does protect them. One of the farmers however is totally unsatisfied. He visits the other farmers and informs them that he no longer wishes to be a member of the organization.
So does the "jurisdiction" of the organization shrink to only cover the three farms remaining in the organization? Or does the "jurisdiction" of the organization remain the same? Should the fourth farmer be forced to leave his property in order to terminate his relationship with the organization?
In my view, the only result of the farmer opting out of the organization is that the organizations "jurisdiction" shrinks to no longer include the fourth farmer's property. Any other outcome would clearly be a violation of the fourth farmer's rights.
If we begin with the axiom that all political power rests with the individual, I can see no other legitimate form of statehood unless membership is voluntary. Any other form reduces the individual to a slave of his fellow citizen.