Some time back, earlier in April, I wrote a piece asking exactly what it is that Conservatives want. What we have in our country is neither pure Capitalism nor pure Socialism but a mix of some kind. Maybe we should call it a socially tempered Capitalism. LongShot, of Pennsylvania, responded with some comments and a discussion ensued.

I've had some time to reflect on that discussion and I have to confess that I am surprised by where it went. My original question assumed that Conservatives want to work within the system of government to achieve their ends, even if I do not know what those ends are. On the other hand, LongShot seems to object to government and wants to argue for some legitimate way to opt out. While I know that Conservatives are a diverse group, LongShot's position seems awfully similar to what I seem to be hearing from people in the Tea Party Movement and, for that matter, from Sarah Palin. I will try to address the issue of opting out, but I have a feeling that it will not satisfy anyone.

Much of the discussion revolved around Social Contract Theory and that was probably a mistake. This classic political theory is fine for treating the origins of government as we know it in the Modern Era, but we are all born into nation states, today, involving quite different problems and issues. The real question being discussed here is "political obligation," that is, why any citizen should feel obligated to continue obedience or participation in the nation of his/her birth. There are many interesting philosophical approaches to this issue in contemporary thinking --- John Rawls' "A Theory of Justice" being one of the most important. I want to examine a more pragmatic approach.

The contemporary situation is that almost all of us are born into a nation state --- unlike, say, Afganistan where the country is really divided up into tribal regions dominated by coercive war lords. The pragmatic issue is that, while no one asks to be born in any particular place, no newly born individual has the intelligence or power to do anything about it. Therefore, it is a pragmatic truth that each person is raised by the society in which he/she was born up to some point where the obligation/obedience issue can surface. We formalize that coming-of-age at roughly 18 or 21 years but it doesn't really matter when we say it occurs. The issue is that, when one has come-of-age, a political choice must be made; that becomes one's personal experience of the Social Contract. In a pragmatic sense, one's personal contract is either to accept the resources within which you have grown up and been nurtured or to reject them and seek political company elsewhere. (During the Vietnam fiasco many young men decided that Canada was a better place to live and they backed up their decision with their feet.) The pragmatic issue of "political choice" rests on a simple truth, it seems to me; you cannot take advantage of the benefits of a political society unless you are willing to perform the responsibilities attached to that society. What I seem to hear today is a largish number of people who don't want to pay taxes and who don't want to be controlled by government regulations but, at the same time, don't mind living in the country and enjoying its many advantages. But there are only three paths open to people of this persuasion (in my opinion).

1) Leave the country and find one that suits you better.

2) Work within the political system of the country to make it more to your liking.

3) Engage in revolution to overthrow the government, hoping to form a new sovereign nation state. [I seem to hear more and more of this sentiment, these days, and the irony attached to this is that it's closest relative seems to be the Communist revolution predicted by Marx in which "the state will wither away." But this seems precisely what these people would not like to be associated with!]

So, I guess that what I would like in the way of an explanation is why people of this sympathy feel that they can take advantage of the benefits and resources of our country and still not be responsible to obey it. In my opinion, the argument that the government is violating their rights will not work. If indeed their rights are being violated, this can be pursued through the system's legal channels where rights are protected. Meanwhile, they owe obedience to the country that has nurtured them.