Social Contract - 1st topic of discussion

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Fairbanks

As far as I know the term 'social contract' first appeared in Rousseau's work, which was in French. 'Social Contract' is a translation of 'Du Contrat Social' which was not about contracts at all but about the principles of political right. But, the work was more utopian than philosophical and the philosophy of the state has yet to be written.

Actually, contractual theories of government were discussed in England long before Rousseau wrote The Social Contract.

And once again, the social contract is a theory about just government, not about contracts. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all used the social contract as a model for just government, one that, in the vein of contracts, requires the consent of the governed.

[Arjen]

Mr. Fight the Power,

I beg to differ with your view on things. Although I appreciate the view and know there are people who view things in the same way you do I know things do not add up that way. Here are a few comments on your opinion.

1) Your opinion is similar to Hobbes' in many ways. It does not seperate the actual state of affairs from the social contract. This is quite peculiar because the entire idea is that the social contract facilitates or 'legalises' the state of affairs; that is what Hobbes was paid for, anyway.

2) A contract is an agreement with a formal tone. In the case of the social contract people do not sign anything, but 'agree' by accepting; not revolting against a certain 'state of affairs'. In that sense, in the social contract, the soverein will is formulated and decides either to accept or to revolt.

3) The reason Hobbes was paid to 'legalise' the monarchy is to ensure that the monarchy could survive. Locke's philosophies concerning the social contract suggested that humanity could easily (better?) do without the leadership of the monarchy. That was a revolution in the making. By leaving out the part where the social contract, the souverein will and the state of affairs are three seperate things there would be no more way to warrant a revolution (if people would believe it). This 'flat' world model only allowed, in a special section of the work Leviathan, for a change in leadership. Thus the monarchy itself was saved, while the possibility remained to lift the king from his throne by another of the royal family (in line for rulership) if the common consent was that the other would be better suited to lead the populace. It just so happens that this was the case at that time in England. The revolution took place, and the monarchy survived. Frances monarchy was far less lucky. The revolution being, in part, inspired by Rousseau.

4) By leaving out the differences between the social contract, the soverein will and the state of affairs a 'flat' world view comes into play. This 'flat' world view prohibits people from revolting against the state in itself, only being able to revolt against the current state form (the state of affairs) because the believe is raised that there in fact is no state of affairs without a state form, nor has been one. That way a solid grip on the populace can continue to exist; the state only having to replace the faces in the government. This reminds me frightningly much of democracy.

5) By creating a 'flat' world view a paradox is created. When the social will influences the souverein enough for a revolt to take place the government is rendered obsolete and the people rebel. The social contract is about to take a new form. In the 'flat' world view there is no social contract which differs from the state of affairs though, so it cannot change. The state of affairs is, in that philosophy, always the soverein will. There would be no need for a revolution if that were true. It is at this point where the difference between the three show themselves.

6) The paradox contained in the 'flat' world view consists of two parts. The first part is the fact that the souverein will is the same as the state of affairs; effectively placing the set (social contract) itself on the same level as the elements in the set (states of affairs). The way this is done is by defining the resultant of the set (souverein will) as equal to the state of affairs. The second part of the paradox is the fact that, once the souverein will has come to the state of revolt it would only revolt against the persons executing the state of affair instead of against the state of affairs itself, not asking for a change of affairs, but only a reckoning of sorts. The paradox is that the revolt is in effect a confirmation of the state of affairs, instead of an overthrowal in that case....which again reminds me frightningly much of democracy.



I suppose it will be superfluous to state that the elections in democracy are a 'peacefull' replacement of the revolutions (which only holds in said 'flat' world view). That way the government (and therefore the positions of power) remain intact and after the 'revolution' all that is done is place new faces in certain public offices, which are 'elected' from a list which is populated by the people in said positions of power, and then go about its business. If ever something is amiss a person might be removed from a public office, only to be replaced by another puppet on strings. If, in the end someone might object against the state of affairs all that needs be done is remind people of the fact that the government is the resultant of the souverein will (as expressed in elections) and for a change one has to await the next revolt (elections), but a change in the state form is not provided for; even if the souverein will would choose it. The paradox consists in the farce of a revolution every four years, while absolutely nothing chances, except for the puppets on strings....just as in the pit of hell Hobbes had envisioned for us.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

You are conflating the creation of rights, duties, and obligations between people under a civil government with the social contract. The social contract is but one manner in which these rights, duties, and obligations have been created. Yes, legal rights, duties, and obligations within society are dynamic, and the social contract can be dynamic.

As I said before, the central characteristic of the social contract is free agreement. While we can certainly document where society has progressed and rights have changed by popular demand, but there has never been a situation where government was created and maintained through free agreement.

Before their was civil government their was social and consguineous government, the basis of nations, and they had rights and obligations. It is not civil government that gives rights, but if the civil government is legitimate, it defends rights. And there is always a dynamic in all forms of relationship. It is not in the form, which is to the relationship as a skeleton is to the body; but some people can make their skeletons dance, and some can only make theirs scare.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Mr. Fight the Power

Actually, contractual theories of government were discussed in England long before Rousseau wrote The Social Contract.

And once again, the social contract is a theory about just government, not about contracts. Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau all used the social contract as a model for just government, one that, in the vein of contracts, requires the consent of the governed.

Political rights depend upon a vigorous defense, but also upon recognition. It is a necessary step to building a larger society based upon the Natural Equality of all peoples, Nations if you will, and this goes back to the Roman Law of Nations which became the basis of Natural Law. A lot of things played into the social contract, but basically, it had to do with giving up the right that all free people have to instant vengeance upon any who take ones honor, for the promise of peace and justice through law. We give peace and get justice. It is the main price each pays to live in society. And it is true primarily of Western Law, where it is thought all people have a right to peace. In other societies, such a under Islam, those people are considered to have an absolute right to justice. Do you think our fathers, being so much like the Native Americans were different from the Muslims in this regard? They were not.

It may seem a small thing, but people in Europe discovering the vitality of primitive peoples and of native society began to wonder after their own lost vitality, and they were right to see that much of it was sapped by feudal orgaizations like the Catholic Church, and by Monarchy. And it was from small beginnings, when the church first sold itself to the German tribes, they had to sell it to the chiefs who were only first among equals; but when they valued the king's peace more dearly than the peace of all others in the laws they compiled for the kings, they formed an unequal relationship that in time reduced whole populations to serfs. It is the honest to god end of all natural societies to have inequality enforced by law. I know a good book that covers a lot of this in brief: Called Law and Revolution, The Formation of the Western Legal Tradition, (by Berman), with this last opinion mine alone. What the social contract asserts is the fact, first denied by kings and Nobles; that all have an equal need for, and right to, justice. The fact is that there would be no kings and there would be no wealthy if justice everywhere reigned. And the flip side of the contract, is: no justice, no law. When law does not result in justice, but only in more injustice, everyone is released from the need to keep by the peace. Then the law is no longer the law; but the people are their own law, and their will is justice.

[Holiday20310401]

natural equality?

How is this possible as long as we have a state? And the state seems pretty natural to me in order for society to function.

[VideCorSpoon]

Certainly, Jean Jacques Rousseau was a contractarian. But Thomas Hobbes as well as several others own to contractarianism well before Rousseau. Rousseau’s treatise of political rights focused primarily on popular sovereignty, or the right and will of the people to govern.

But I do agree with you, like Hobbes Leviathan, Rousseau’s work was more a picture of an ideal society than the way things actually are. But to tell the truth, I think we live in a somewhat state of contractarianism every day if you squint hard enough.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by VideCorSpoon

Certainly, Jean Jacques Rousseau was a contractarian. But Thomas Hobbes as well as several others own to contractarianism well before Rousseau. Rousseau’s treatise of political rights focused primarily on popular sovereignty, or the right and will of the people to govern.

But I do agree with you, like Hobbes Leviathan, Rousseau’s work was more a picture of an ideal society than the way things actually are. But to tell the truth, I think we live in a somewhat state of contractarianism every day if you squint hard enough.

People clearly understand that if they obey the law and keep the peace they deserve the protection of law, and their own peace.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

natural equality?

How is this possible as long as we have a state? And the state seems pretty natural to me in order for society to function.

The state is always a result of conquest of some sort. It represents class division and represses class struggle. So, true social equality awaits the dest ruction of the state. We must remeber that people were people and will be people with or without the state. The cupidice of people and their vanity will always divide the ambitious from the slugs; but the end result of all that should follow people into the grave. By that I mean, people distinguish themselves one from another during life. Fine. That difference does not serve society when it is made hereditary. Government should work to equalize rather than to bless and support the differences people have by nature which are rather superficial. The differences always weaken and eventually destroy societies. The rich should be dragged down, and the poor should be encouraged and educated. No one has to be mean about it. Every one should understand that a good purpose is served when people kept as equal as possible because then people have only their virtues, or their hard work, or honor to raise them above average, and if no wealth can be handed on there is no great reason to injure society to accumulate more than is necessary. I wish I could find the line by Mark Twain, I think about the Natches, who had their great lords and commoners, but the system of marriage required that a king marry a stinkard occasionally just to keep the blood healthy. Consider how intermarried the ruling classes of Europe became in time trying to keep all their wealth corraled for nothing, and you can get the point. These people where not acting for their societies, or even, ultimately, in their own best interest. Thanks

[VideCorSpoon]

In regards to post #37...too true in an ideal setting.

[Mr. Fight the Power]

Originally Posted by Holiday20310401

natural equality?

How is this possible as long as we have a state? And the state seems pretty natural to me in order for society to function.

There is no such thing as "natural equality", and that is probably the central problem with the social contract theory.

There can be a moral equality that may or may not be feasible under the state and is, in the western liberal ideal, the justification for the state.