Think of it this way--Everyday, we, as citizens of the United States, consent to the government. We pay taxes, we drive the speed limit (under certain circumstances), most of us know it is not only morally wrong, but illegal to kill someone else, so we refrain from doing so no matter how much hate we have for someone. With the exception of some, we don't steal, we don't do illegal things in fear that, essentially, the government will send us to jail. Hobbes views social contract as us basically giving up our rights to authority, as long as, in return, they promise to protect us. We are the sources of the sovereign's power, so why should we be upset with anything that is done by them? We give in to authority and let them have power over us by doing things (like I said) such as paying taxes, obeying laws, etc. For instance, say you go to the airport to take a flight to Ft. Myers Beach for spring break. In order to get on that flight, you have to go through a standard procedure of getting your bags checked and ran through machines, but you also have to step through one too. With new technology, they can see pretty much right through your clothes when you step through that metal detector. But after 9/11, the "Underwear Bomber" and all kinds of crazy attempted airplane attacks or hijacks, that is a chance you're willing to take because you want to be guaranteed a sense of security and safety. The airport security is taking away our privacy, not only of what is in our bags but also our personal privacy as well. They're pretty much seeing you naked!
Doesn't it make sense to say that we pretty much set ourselves up for this? If we ran around like wild banshees and didn't obey laws or have a sense of protection, the world would be chaos. We decide to partake in social contracts, and contracts of other sorts, because we fear what will happen if we don't. If I make an agreement to not kill you, steal your property, or take over your home with force, and you don't promise that you won't do the same in return, what am I agreeing to? Nothing. We agree to things because we are promised safety of our own lives, belongings, and property in return. If we didn't see this as a fair trade, we wouldn't do it. Americans don't realize how much they consent to everyday. But although the sovereign has power over us, we can overthrow that at any time. We give them the power to protect our rights. If they aren't protected properly, we can change who protects them. That is the good thing about being a democracy: by the people, for the people.
I think you have a lot of great ideas in this post. It prompted me to ask, though, do we abide by these contracts because we are afraid of the consequences, as Hobbes would suggest, or because we are inherently good people, as Locke would put forth. The benefits of abiding by these contracts definitely make it appealing, but there are definitely instances where we feel justified breaking them. Take for example the show Dexter. Dexter is a blood spatter analyst who works for Miami Metro Homicide by day, but murders guilty killers who escaped the law by night. This is definitely a violation of our social contract. Throughout the show, there are many close calls where he's almost exposed. Is Dexter more afraid of the legal consequences (life in prison) or confronting the fact that he has abandoned all morals, and may have to admit to himself that he is not inherently good? I think in instances like these, where we strongly believe a violation of the social contract is justified, the severity of the consequences revolve around social reprecussions and internal strife. However, I think the idea of losing a the right to a social contract is more threatening, meaning that Hobbes' theory is more applicable to the relationship between the government and its people.
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure it’s fair to say that we set ourselves up for some of the things you mentioned. The more invasive security measures are largely in response to forces beyond our control. We tacitly give consent to these things not because we agree with them or even necessarily actively accept them, but because we don’t have a choice. It’s all well and good to say if you don’t want to deal with enhanced security at airports, don’t fly, but if that’s not an option is that really fair? Locke felt that if your leaders were not acceptable, then you should be able to replace them, by revolution if need be or in a democratic system simply by vote. But if that’s not feasible is that fair? You say that the good thing about democracy is that we can change our leaders, but is it that simple? The powers that be and/or want to be have so many ways to control the opinions people have, the way they see the world in modern American and/or society in general, that getting everyone or even enough people to see the same way about things might not be feasible. Under those circumstances, real change would be difficult or impossible. The result is that we give up more than we realize, but if we do realize, and decide it’s not to our liking, it’s largely too bad.
ReplyDeleteWhile I think we both agree on the fundamental significance of contracts in human society, I largely disagree with many of the areas you attempt to apply these ideas to. Firstly, I believe much of what is ignored in this discussion, and overlooked by the Enlightenment philosophers, is scalability. The most basic and universal characteristic of a contract is it must create accountability; Hobbes suggests doing this by yielding certain rights and powers to a Leviathan, Rousseau promotes a governance of equal individuals in which each member holds each other in check for the rules of society, while Locke states that individuals should yield certain powers to a somewhat representative government that must always be held in check to remain true to the interests of the masses. Now, considering that our nation so much resembles the visions of John Locke, we must ask - do we really have the means of maintaining a check on our society? Certainly this could have been possible when the American Constitution was first ratified in 1789; many argue that the Second Amendment's provisions for organized state militias provided just this - a means of fighting the system from the outside. However, what means do we have of doing so today? If we disagree with the level of TSA security, there is little we may do but exercise our right to vote. The guns and militias that might have been potent in 1789 are but futile in 2012 against a superpower such as the United States government - or most governments of our age. It is, I argue, that we have provided our governments with so much power and force - fueled by the very fear of anarchy you mention - that has dwindled our ability to maintain a society of our own interests in the way Locke would have intended. Thus we remain stuck in a system which money, greed, corruption, and self-interest undeniably continue to decay, and warp our very definition of "democracy".
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the things that you have brought forth on this insightful blog post. We as Americans take many freedoms for granted even if we know it or not. Even though we may not agree with laws like the Patriot Act or going through the airport detectors used by TSA, we as American citizens subject to these as American citizens because we want to be protected under the law. Even though a lot of us were born under the law and we could not choose which government we wanted to live under like Locke says, we still are under the social contract between us and the United States. Immigrants and others who choose to live in the United States and then choose to become citizens of the United States have to abide by the social contract as well. While we can choose to leave the social contract when we want, we are never in fear of losing our social contract as citizens and run the risk of getting deported. While I agree there is fear from the conssequences of breaking the social contract that forces us not to, why do people still break laws, even if they are little ones that still run the risk of tickets and possible jail time? Why do people drink underage, smoke pot, jaywalk, gamble illegally, vandalize, break driving laws, and many other small laws if they know they are breaking a social contract of laws set forth by our government? Are they not afraid of breaking the contract or is it something else that drives them to break these laws anyway?
ReplyDeleteHaving trouble finding the argument asserted. However, is response to the question posed in the title, no I do not think we are giving up too much by agreeing to the contract with our government, and for many of the reasons you stated above; we get the protection of the government, and a better society in return for virtually nothing besides taxes. Especially in this society in the United States with a democratic republic, we give up very little for the lot that we get in return. In a dictatorship or other, more harsh for of government, one may give up a lot in return for protection, protection that may turn out to be even worse than without, depending on how harsh the leader is or the way he runs his economy (may lead to starvation or death.) In this case, I think that one may be giving up too much in the social contract with the government.
ReplyDeleteI enjoyed reading your blog post because it left me questioning freedom, something we as a nation prize ourselves for, “the land of the free.” After reading your post, I realized that you have to give and take in terms of freedom. The whole security process is not based off of a trust system, nor can it be. Like you said, from history, we can see that it takes one person to cause so much destruction. Therefore, I don’t think that we are giving up too many rights to live in a free world. Although this airplane security process may be invasive, it provides much more good than bad. Why take a chance of letting history repeat itself? It’s our mission to make sure that certain moments in history do not happen again. So why not take away some personal freedoms in order to ensure the safety of the world as a whole? If we think about a world without social contracts and laws, we would live in a world with a lot more fear. Its only human for us to want to trust everyone and believe that every person would do the “right,” humane thing; however, we need laws to enforce the importance of peace and harmony within a nation. Social contracts ensure safety and security among all. Although we may need to submit ourselves to the government and laws, it’s in our own best interest to do so. Laws in the United States are meant to protect the people and like you said “the good thing about democracy [is] by the people, for the people.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that what you think the people are "losing" is really what we are getting. I may be wrong, but let me explain using your example of the airplane security. Sure at first it seems that we are losing out because we are giving up our privacy to the government, but there are many other factors we have to consider. Before 9/11, we had many privileges that allowed so much more freedom and the government had trusted the people. No doubt, we wanted the government to protect us no matter what because thats what we expect the government to do. Even if 9/11 had not happened, we had to expect that there would eventually be a breach of the privilege, so we would want the government to protect us, and the only way that could happen is if some people sacrificed their rights because it is impossible to tell who will commit an infraction next. Simply put, "evils" are inevitable and the government attempts to protect us from those problems; we are not really losing out at all because we should expect complications, and the government is doing its best to solve issues. It is just unfortunate that the cost to help protect the people ironically pulls a bit of rights away from people.
ReplyDelete