I’m surprised that social contract theory is never mentioned on this forum. It is the defining philosophy of government in the West and has been since representative government came into being. It is the social contract which Objectivism seeks to replace…
Not replace - restore. The original social contract was made among all rational men, to refrain from initiating force and to put the means of providing for individual self-defense into the care of the objective collective, by means of having men and women who would act as impartial judges according to rational rules of engagement.
That contract was broken a long time ago because it seems the vast majority of people hold themselves in such low self-esteem that they don’t believe themselves capable of providing for their own lives and happiness, so they grabbed hold of the gun to hold hostage the relative few who do consider themselves capable and get on with the business of living.
The truth is, the “good life” of a rational human being is available to everyone who makes the decision to live like a human being.
The theory says that the people, by being free to choose the form of government they want by way of voting, are endorsing the social contract.
Actually, that’s true. Given the nature of the “social contract” as written, I’m now not surprised that people were continuing to vote Republican or Democrat even though it’s long been known that there’s not really a fundamental difference between them. it has been shown that Americans have reached a new level of apathy when it comes to politics. When it makes no difference which one is chosen, the country steadily slides towards an abyss that is becoming increasingly inevitable.
This is how screwed up things are. People would rather endure another Great Depression, where they can all have permission to be victims and hard done by, rather than choose to be responsible for themselves and making their lives enjoyable and prosperous for themselves.
The contract can be violated if the government does not work towards the general interest of the people
Hmm and I think we’ve stumbled across the hole in the chain-link fence. What is “work towards the general interest of the people”? That doesn’t sound like “concerned with protecting individual rights against the initiation of force,” now, does it? This vague bit of sloppy language upon which the busybody characteristic of the nanny welfare state has been built ought to be excised entirely. What is meant by “the general interest” of the people? Hasn’t that been taken to mean just about everything a person could want in the course of his lifetime? The government isn’t supposed to be working towards our general interest, it is charged with the task of protecting our right to work towards our own specific interest, providing we do not initiate the use of force.
…or violates certain natural rights of the citizens. When failings are found in the contract, we renegotiate to change the terms, using methods such as elections and legislature.
The controversy is the whole natural rights thing. There is disagreement over what constitutes natural rights, rights that can’t be ceded to the state voluntarily or involuntarily. Objectivists believe taxation constitutes confiscation of property, property being a natural right, and thus is a violation of their natural rights. Such a liberal view of natural rights is not widely held among political philosophers.
Actually, now the thought occurs that the whole debate about what are natural rights is to distract from the true intent of smuggling in the sloppy language about “working toward the general interest of the people,” which as we can now see means setting up nanny welfare states intent upon dictating to each member of the group what his or her tasks shall be (as if we were insects in a hive.)
I would have that that the meaning of rights was perfectly plain and by consequence that the true purpose and raison d’etre for government was to be the means of self-defense, each individual foregoing taking matters into his own hands in most situations and relying instead on an impartial government to hear the facts of the alleged instance of the initiation of force and decide who is telling the truth about what happened.
(I say most instances, because if someone barges into your home, chances are there won’t be time to call for assistance and one may have to take immediate action.)
The point of government is to protect our rights to our lives and the product of our effort to earn and make our living. Property rights are part and parcel of the right to life, for they are the right to earn and keep the means to sustain our own lives, which effort each of us must expend in order to actually achieve remaining alive on a day to day basis.
Taxation IS confiscation of the means of individuals to support themselves by their own effort. It IS theft - no doubt about it. Paying for government services must be on the same basis as any other transaction between two or more individuals - exchange of value for value.
I would say it isn’t so much a matter of understanding, its a matter of opinion about what the eventual outcomes will be. Can we say definitively that an Objectivist society, although just in the sense of preserving natural rights of property, would not be more chaotic and disorderly? No, I don’t think you can know that.
An Objectivist society would be more vibrant, more alive, more full of choices and options. It might seem more chaotic and disorderly to someone who doesn’t know how to evaluate the options and consult their own preferences, desires and interests and select accordingly.
There is a lot more for each person to concern themselves with. There’s a lot more living to do. It might be too hectic for some, and they are free to do less with their lives. They just aren’t permitted to prevent others from doing more with theirs.
So, on one hand, one might say it is rational to have a system of government that doesn’t initiate force on its citizens. On the other hand, one might say it would be rational to cede some rights to the state in return for a more ordered and stable society. Proponents of the latter might say it would be decidedly irrational to advocate for a societal structure that is fundamentally unsustainable.
One doesn’t need to cede rights; it’s more of assigning them. Rather than behave as judge, jury & executioner, in a proper society that does protect rights to life & property & pursuit of happiness - it is in all our interests NOT to take the law into our own hands.
However, when government is used to abridge our rights as a matter of routine, it cannot be trusted to protect our rights when another individual decides to abridge our rights as well.
The gradual intervention by government into our lives is killing the fabric of civilized society. It’s not the disintegration or rather, the change of the nuclear family. It is the disintegration of the principles of justice and the perversion of the role of government that is sapping our so-called civilized world of its essence.
Food for thought anyway.
Helpful comments in their way. Thanks.
Another relevant concept to discuss is political pluralism. Pluralism acknowledges the diversity of interests and considers it imperative that members of society accommodate their differences by engaging in good-faith negotiation and compromise. This concept goes back to the founding of the US and is fundamental to understanding any western government. The minority opinion cannot be squelched or silenced because they have rights, both natural and civil (codified by law and the Constitution).