The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Discussion of articles that appear in the magazine.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
Philosophy Now
Posts: 1205
Joined: Sun Aug 29, 2010 8:49 am

The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by Philosophy Now »

Stephen Faison cross-examines the idea of a social contract.

https://philosophynow.org/issues/116/Th ... e_to_Steal
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by d63 »

To others on this string: I apologize for the strange way this is written -as if I am not talking directly to "you". No matter where I first post a rhizome, I am always grooming it for cross-pollination among the various boards I work.

Today was a productive day. In my present immersion in the latest issue of Philosophy Now, I found my mind twirling with several ideas for future rhizomes, most of which were inspired by articles in the magazine. But the ecstasy is always mixed with regret in that my daily window is my window. And to go beyond that, in my case, would be self-destructive.

So, for today, I want to focus on Stephen Faison’s article “The Social Contract: a License to Steal.” I start here because it addresses an issue I have been pursuing for some time, social justice, but with a twist I never actually saw. His main point is that the notion of the social contract, thus far, has failed in its original intent to take us out of our natural state into the state of civilization through its focus on liberty and private property. This is because, in doing so, the social contract has completely neglected basic human needs such as food, clothes, and shelter. This presents a self-contradiction for the social contract in that by neglecting to offer people basic needs for survival as a basic right, it forces some back into the primal state of seeking their survival outside of the laws and customs created by the contract. As I have always said:

“It seems a little silly to embrace an every-man-for-themselves, dog eat dog system, and ask “why?” when someone is holding a gun to your head and jacking your car.”

As Faison points out:

“However, since the social contract recognizes the individual’s natural right to survive, and since without food, clothing, and shelter, the individual will not survive, it is clear that the terms of any binding social contract cannot be limited to protection of person and property, as they do in classical versions of the theory, but must include the provision of food, clothing, and, shelter, or the employment to obtain them. If the state should decline to furnish these necessities, the member must retain the same rights he would have were the state to decline to provide protection of person and property. “

To put it another way: a social contract is, by its very nature, a human agreement –not some natural force like the weather or something. And like all human agreements, it is always conditional on all parties involved being reasonably pleased with the results. This is because if it gets to a point where some parties are failing to see their basic needs met, it is time to renegotiate the agreement (the social contract (and any failure to do so gives those it is failing perfect license to act outside of the social contract in order to survive.

And any failure of the social contract to recognize such can only shift it from a democratic spirit to a more totalitarian function.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by d63 »

Returning, again, to Stephen Faison’s The Social Contract: a License to Steal:

“Given that the purpose of people aggregating their power was to combat forces that made survival precarious in the state of nature, a social contract might have created a commonwealth – a society for the common good – in which individuals unite, and through their collective effort procure, produce and distribute the necessities of life: food, clothing, and shelter, as well as security for person and property. But it seems that the original social contracts were instead conceived for the purpose of deterring violence and theft while leaving intact the intense competition for material goods.”

And for the purposes of the present rhizome:

“The theory that a social contract is the origin and basis of society is controversial, but the version of the theory developed by John Locke in his Second Treatise of Government (1689) influenced the Founding Fathers, and is at the heart of the Declaration of Independence.”

And I would add to this that not only was the Declaration of Independence built upon the questionable foundation of The Social Contract, but the Constitution as well. So let’s be very clear about this: the Constitution IS NOT SACRED. It is an important document haggled out by the bourgeoisie of the time (many of them slave owners (who were looking out for their personal interests as much as they were everyone else and all future generations. At the same time, this is not to say that it didn’t have a lot good ideas.

And it is this aspect of the Constitution (especially as a progressive in the conservative Midwest (that make’s Faison’s point so resonant for me. For instance, I recently had a conservative friend of mine, having seen all his arguments for the republican platform collapse, convert to a so-called “constitutionalist”, that is while still making the same arguments he would have as a republican. So what does it mean to be a “constitutionalist”? It might mean some kind of strict interpretation of it. But the problem with this is that the constitution has proven, historically, to be ambiguous. Hence the contention, for instance, of Roe v. Wade: an appeal to the right to privacy that has yet to convincingly be undermined in constitutional terms. And also interesting here is that while my friend might claim to adhere to a “strict” interpretation of the constitution, he always seems to depart from that strict interpretation when it comes to the equal rights amendment –as most right wingers do.

The other problem with claiming to be a “constitutionalist” (and the social contract it is based on (is that everyone refers to the authority of it when it is convenient while conveniently overlooking it when it is not. And that is as it should be. This is because we have to take the pragmatic approach of seeing the Constitution, or any social contract (as a human agreement), as only valid to the extent that it is useful to all reasonable individuals involved.

In other words, as I would argue (and I believe Faison is), all Social Contracts (including the constitution) must be seen as a means (not an ends( to the betterment of the human condition.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by osgart »

things are only important to people when faced with the condition. Otherwise they are pompous about it because they are strong and healthy and think nothing like that could ever happen to me. And than they act like their the kings of society and reality and develope the lets lose the weak mentality. Numb dumb citizens who have more than heart can wish for feeling impervious to a bad thing happening.
osgart
Posts: 517
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 7:38 am

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by osgart »

denying americans education food clothing and shelter is petty and inhumane. Put a value of worth on human life. No human is happy with mere subsistence they seek success and betterment. Otherwise expect lawlessness when your country tells you to rot and die. We as humans have done nothing throughout history to promote civilized behaviour. Its always been a war against the helpless and the weak. They grind the middle class and the poor and create a savage wealthy empire system. Oppression is the norm.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by d63 »

osgart wrote:denying americans education food clothing and shelter is petty and inhumane. Put a value of worth on human life. No human is happy with mere subsistence they seek success and betterment. Otherwise expect lawlessness when your country tells you to rot and die. We as humans have done nothing throughout history to promote civilized behaviour. Its always been a war against the helpless and the weak. They grind the middle class and the poor and create a savage wealthy empire system. Oppression is the norm.

Amen, Brother!!!!
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by d63 »

Dear Editor: Stephen Faison, in “The Social Contract: a License to Steal" (issue 116), points out how the social contract lies at the core of the Declaration of Independence. However, that document (more a statement of intent) has little real effect on social and political policy. Therefore, it would seem more useful to note its (the Social Contract) influence on a more consequential document: the Constitution. Most notable here, in terms of Faison's point, is the recognition of what should have been known all along: that the Constitution IS NOT SACRED. It is an important document, a framework, haggled out by the bourgeoisie (many of them slave owners) who were looking out for their personal interests as much as they were everyone else's and future generations. (Think here about the import of private property.) So while it has some good ideas, it still had some questionable origins and intents.


This aspect of the Constitution make’s Faison’s point even more resonate for me. For instance, I recently had a conservative friend of mine, having seen all his arguments for the republican platform collapse, claim to be a so-called “constitutionalist” -that is while still making right-wing arguments. So what does it mean to be a “constitutionalist”? Some kind of strict interpretation? The problem, however, is that the constitution has proven to be notoriously ambiguous -hence the contention of issues such as religion, abortion, and gun rights. And also interesting here is that while my friend might claim to adhere to a “strict” interpretation of the constitution, he always seems to depart from it when it comes to the equal rights amendment –as most right wingers do. Apparently they think it's little more than an afterthought.


Furthermore, when it comes to the constitution (and the social contract that props it up), everyone refers to its authority when it is convenient while conveniently overlooking it when it is not. And, in a sense, this is as it should be. This is because we have to take the pragmatic approach of seeing the Constitution, or any social contract, as a human agreement and only valid to the extent that it works for all reasonable individuals involved. But let's quit fooling ourselves about the possibility of any right interpretation or that it should take precedence over or block policies that might make things better. In other words, I would argue (as I believe Faison is), all Social Contracts (including the Constitution) must be seen as a means and not an ends; and the only ends that matters is the betterment of the human condition. So it makes no sense to claim to be a "constitutionalist" based on some erroneous notion of a "strict interpretation" -that is when all the Constitution is is a tool (one among many) to do the right thing: address the basic needs of our citizens.
Last edited by d63 on Thu Oct 27, 2016 7:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Londoner
Posts: 783
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 8:47 am

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by Londoner »

He concludes:
A morally-binding social contract must provide the means to food, clothing, and shelter. The state that insists that its role is not to provide these necessities, but merely to facilitate the means for individuals to secure them, could do this by providing state employment or income. Conversely, the only reason, it seems, for a wealthy state to deny maintenance or state employment is a determination to require the majority to hunt for work and keep them in a perpetual struggle for survival. In effect, the state kicks its daughter out of the house, and she must now fend for herself. But in doing so, like the parents in the analogy, the state forfeits its moral authority to pass judgment on its ex-members’ efforts to survive. Under the terms of the social contract, these ex-members retain or reclaim their right to all things, and are now justified to resort to any and all means they deem necessary and useful to get what they need to survive, and are the sole judges of what is necessary and useful, too. They have a license to steal.
I think the misses the point that theories about social contracts were formed in an age where there was an open frontier. If you want to secure food, clothing and shelter, why not go west and secure them? If you don't want to, if you want to live within society, then you have accepted the contract that binds that society.

Yes, life on the frontier may be a struggle, it may be dangerous, but the reward is that you gain property. By turning uncultivated land into productive land you have created wealth for yourself. Again, much the same is true back east. You can live safely but poorly, or you can take risks. It really isn't that different.

For those that meet with misfortune, out west or back east, the state does not promise a safety net. Some people may offer charity, out of religious conviction. The state may take measures to prevent disorder, that may have the effect of alleviating distress, but it has no duty to do so. The notion that people had a 'right' to be looked after would have seemed absurd.

So if the writer wants to make a point about how modern societies operate, where there is no open frontier and where the state taxes and regulates in a way writers like Hobbes and Locke and American revolutionaries never imagined, he should do so. But I think it serves no purpose to refer back to such writers, and his notion that their ideas about a 'social contract' implied some sort of welfare state is just not true.
d63
Posts: 755
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The Social Contract: A License to Steal

Post by d63 »

What age are you writing from, Londoner? All I saw was some fantasy about your ability to survive in the wild west.
Post Reply