Social Contract Theory as Power Play
Advocates of social justice tend to assume good things about the State and its ability to do benefit the general welfare. It is generally assumed that there are things considered “public good” that simply would not take place if 100% of society were left to a free market of private individuals making investments. When a good or service is necessary for the community, then it is incumbent upon “the community” to provide such a good or service. Roads and highways are the first things that come to mind. “The government has to provide roads, or we’d all be paying tolls every twenty feet!” somebody said to me once. This assumption shows the glaring lack of belief in the capacity for creativity granted to us by God when we were created. People throughout history have come together without the use of taxation and force to accomplish great things at nobody’s expense. Private roads and highways were being built in the United States long before the government stepped in.
But this isn’t about privatization of social goods. It is about the inherent flaw in the thinking of those who wish to espouse a “social contract” theory to defend taxation for public goods and services. Those who support a nationalized system of health care insurance or provisions tend to let health care services drop into the category. Since we don’t have health care for all, they say, the government is simply the only mechanism that could provide it for all. And since health care does us good, it is a “public good” that must be provided for by the government. Since health care is a “moral issue,” it is even doubly important that a universal health care reform passes. Barack Obama also adds (my paraphrase), “All the cool countries are doing it, so should we!”
While on the one hand I don’t really care if the United States is a “leader,” since those who love the United States want it to be, I suggest that the United States lead the way in health care ethics instead of following “all the cool countries” who are jumping off the proverbial bridge. The specifics of the proposals really don’t matter because the philosophical underpinnings should violate the conscience of every peace-loving human being. Christians especially should be dubious of its aims, as well as its methods to attain its ends.
Valeria Elverton Dixon wrote on Sojourner’s God’s Politics blog a very demanding article regarding what she believes to be the morally superior position regarding the health care debate. She wants single-payer, a consumption tax on “bad food,” and eventually all health care bills to “go the way of the dinosaur.” I’ll be the first to admit, if this were actually possible without unethical methods, I’d be in favor of her ideals. I don’t want to pay for anything, either. I want everyone to eat great food instead of junk food (myself at the front of the line). And I want everyone to have health care. Privately I emailed Ms. Dixon, and she responded with the answer of “social contract.” In her view, the unspoken, unwritten social contract that all citizens of a community, state, or country have made with each other means that some goods and services are to be provided for all, even if not all benefit from it. With education, I pay taxes even though my children may not go to the government school, or even after they would have graduated from it.
“You are part of a society,” so the argument goes, “so you must go along with the community. You are not an isolated individual. Your rights are not more important than the collective rights of the community.” Yet one person’s rights cannot be superseded by another person’s rights because all people are created equal and deserve equal treatment. My right to my own property and liberty is not less (or more important) than another’s right to his property and liberty. There is zero legitimacy for me to go to my neighbor, take his property, and use it for my own benefits or for the benefits of others. It is theft. It is immoral. End of story. Yet when I make the argument from a “social contract” standpoint, somehow the simplicity of that argument is ignored. Going to the government to declare my right to your property is no less theft, and no less immoral, than my doing so myself.
Generally speaking, the immediate reply to my line of thinking is that while I claim others use social contract theory as a power-over tactic, I’m using my individual rights as a power play to prevent the agenda of the community. The difference is that social contract theory demands that individuals give up their rights, whereas individual rights demand nothing from anybody. Inherent in social contract theory, as intended for public goods and services, is a relinquishing of rights to meet the demands of those who have an agenda to use what is not theirs. Inherent in the individual rights perspective is the value of every individual and the respect for their decisions and actions.
In the movie Bruce Almighty, the forlorn Bruce, who thought he could simply fix the world with his divinely-appointed “God powers,” asks God, “But how do I make somebody love me without violating free will?” To which God replies, “Welcome to my world, kid!” Changing the world through loving one’s neighbor requires that we respect and honor individual free will and choice. It can be messy. It can be frustrating. But there is nothing social about a social contract if it uses the threat of violence to accomplish its goals. A truly “social” contract would mean everybody does what we all learned in Kindergarten: “Keep your hands to yourself and don’t touch other people’s things without their consent.”
Related Posts
View Comments to “Social Contract Theory as Power Play”
Leave a Reply
If we had taken the redistribution route 200 years ago , we would not be talking about redistributing now , we would be telling people to expect less then what they had last year . Thats the real sin of socialism , communism, or redistribution , all people suffer in the long run , especially the poor . It sounds very nice to tell a child to have what you want and need , but it is so much more loving to teach the child how to get what they want and need because only God has the trust people should rely on . Government is not evil , but the love of government can become a false idol .
Doctors make money from health care , teachers make money from educating , politicians make money from taking money from one person and giving it to the other . Read the other day Barny Frank has an estate over a million bucks . Not to bemoan anyone from making money , but it seems he makes money using healthcare, , good money, and has better health care , and benys then the average American . Plus the Insurance company pays taxes , Barny lives off their taxes .
Teachers and Doctors are alright , two out of three ain't bad I guess.
The “social contract” argument is not an argument. It has no internal logic, and cannot be consistently applied. That is why it is so dangerous. One can argue from “social contract” to apply any ethical code they choose.
Valerie would never argue that we have a social contract that requires us to buy me new windows, so the social contract is not all encompassing. As such, it is an intellectually lazy substitute for a principled defense of a real policy change on healthcare.
Which begs a question. Valerie, presumably, wants the best for this country, and wants to advance the best ideas therefore. So what gives?
It seems to me that the “social contract” business is simply a way to reconcile faith to partisan objectives. Am I wrong?
Kevin that is exactly what it is . Many conservatives have done the same , . Its why I sometimes feel out of touch with many of my fellow conservatives who use religion to justify less spending and smaller government . I agree its my philosophy for the most part to keep government smaller and out of our hair, and I do belive larger government has the stronger potential to limit our religious freedom and all freedoms at times. , but it is my partisan belief . The hypocrisy I find with the religious left goes beyond the right from a outside view looking at them both . Here you have the left saying to the right since when are you able to speak for God , then they do it plus demonize the right . As I said , I believe we have accomplished great things in our past in this country , because freedom and freedom from government control have allowed us to be all we can be . That advantage has greatly increasded our standard of living for all people , including if not mainly the poor . Compared to many nations , our poor have it much better and have more safety nets then many nations .
I judge our commitment to the poor by how many people do not need government help. That to be is just common sense .
That entire chapter is well-written and echoes/defends what I've said here in this post, primarily by pointing out that social contract theory on a large-scale, such as federal or even state/province, is not a truly social cooperative as is other forms of collectivizing. I've often wondered why large-scale attempts to implement what we can anachronistically read back into Acts 2 as “successful socialism” where the believers all shared equally and “no one had need” are unsuccessful. After pondering and evaluating, it has to do with the fact that it was voluntary, not compulsory. Smaller groups of collective action intended to change that within their reach is not unethical or unbiblical. In fact, it is deeply biblical and rooted in kingdom change.