The Social Contract

My topic for presentation (and also for my final paper for the course) is going to be on the idea of a social contract. I've thought about this concept in depth for years and feel it's extraordinarily important for people to be aware of and understand. For that reason, I wanted to put up a post explaining my thoughts and perhaps get other people's thoughts. I apologize in advance for the length of this post.

Also, it should be noted that I haven't done research into this as of yet. I have a line of research set up, but I wanted to do a post on here before hand with just my thoughts on it. I learned about it only briefly, but built on the basic concept myself to determine how I think it should work and what I think is right, and what its role is, etc. So, the following (as I already said) is a composition of my own thoughts exclusively.

It should be understood that the social contract is an implicit contract signed by two parties: the people of a society (society being defined as a group of people living under one government) and the government. Using the terms "ruler" and "ruled" would work, but I don't prefer them; they carry a connotation of one (ruler) being much more powerful than the other (ruled), and the social contract necessarily requires that this is not the case. This contract is expansive and means a lot, but I will try to compact it into a few central ideas and leave the rest to potential discussion/to be brought up later.

It needs to also be noted that just because this contract is implicit does not mean it is optional. Anyone part of either role is obligated to oblige by the contract.

So what is the contract exactly? The goal of the contract is to create a well-functioning, healthy society. Each role has very specific responsibilities to perform in order to make this happen. Each side has responsibilities to the society itself and to the other role. Without getting into too much detail, citizens stay involved in political processes and work to help the economy flourish and stay obedient to the laws set fourth by the government. The government listens to the people and responds to their demands/requests and works on building a better country in whatever ways they can; they are also responsible for creating just laws.

The contract gets more complicated as other real life situations are applied, and the responsibilities of each side are far more lengthy than what might be immediately evident above, but the general idea is as described. 

A lot of questions are raised from this, and I think the obvious one is what happens when someone breaks the contract? Well there are a few things that happen depending on how the contract is broken. The contract doesn't dissolve, it just sort of loses its equilibrium. Again, the contract always exists and is always obligatory. When a member of society breaks the contract by law, they face jail time. (This gets tricky when other transgressions are made, but I'll get into that later.) The other major consequence for members of the society is to have to be part of a society that isn't what it's supposed to be. For example many people complain about the state of the U.S., but political efficacy has been declining and is lower than its ever been. Our lack of involvement is a major reason why the state of affairs is as it is, and this is our consequence for not doing out duty or completing our responsibilities.

The consequence for a government is a little more radical, but a government that creates unjust laws and refuses to change or listen to its people can only be re-aligned through radical ways. The solution, of course, is revolution (this can happen at any degree of extremism, either simple political revolution or one that resembles the American one more).

This is the other transgression that makes everything tricky. There has to be an understanding laid out here that is taken without biases: We must understand perspective, and we must understand motive. The government will seek to have its rule obeyed; the people will seek to have their freedoms and rights honored. Both must be understood and accepted, and actions must not only be expected, but it is important that each side play their part and contribute to their role, even in the face of the consequences.

Now referring back to the jailing situation, let me expand. One might find a law unjust and choose to ignore it, whether in public to make a statement or just in their own life hoping to not get caught. There are PLENTY of laws in the U.S. that are unreasonable and upon closer examination should be gotten rid of. Some people move to get rid of them, others live as if they don't exist. The important thing to acknowledge its this: if you break the law, you are breaking the contract and must understand that the government will react as they are supposed and allowed to. That does not, however, mean you should not act out against wrongful laws, as the contract also entails a government that makes just laws. In this case, it's our job to make sure that when these unjust laws are made and not repealed, we stand against them until they are.

This will (and has in history) lead to jail and other consequences, but to fix an unjust society, acting justly is seen as wrong by the government, and thus we must work to set the society back to equilibrium.

The Social Contract is forever present and forever relevant in a society, and it seems as if a lot of things people are upset with today stem from a result of them breaking the contract in some way, and this is why I think it's so important. If more people understood the contract and held themselves and the government to it, then more political action would be taken and it seems we would be led (through a massive amount of changes, as this idea has implications that would force change across many, many aspects of society) to a better society, one more like what a modern day leading nation in the world should be.