Social Contract

A recent discussion on Iran brought up an interesting point.

Some might say that failure to stand in lockstep (as the US has said it is doing) with an ally is breaking a nation's word.

Like this.  How many Kurds died in Iraq due to American betrayal?  America demonstrated that it is the master at making promises, to be abandoned as soon as they are not expedient, regardless of how many lives are lost as a result.

Iraq is but one example of how the US meddled in another nation's affairs, received blowback, over-corrected, and ended up in an absolute disaster.  For the people of that nation, of course.  But, remember, they only hate us 'cuz we're "free".

This brings me to another concept though, one that arose during a conversation with a close friend.

This concept is the Social Contract.  Here is my line of thinking on social contracts and inherited responsibilities.  I will illustrate it with a few questions, and then explain.  Answer the following questions truthfully:

1.)  Are you, if you are white, responsible for the past slavery of blacks, and subject to paying reparations today?


2.)  Are you, if native American, responsible for the Fort Mims massacre, or the starvation of Jamestown, and subject to paying reparations??

3.) Are you, as an American citizen, responsible for the repeated betrayals and resulting slaughters of Iraqi Kurds?

I would say, and I think most readers here would agree, that the answer, in all three cases, is an absolute and unequivocal "no".  Why?  One might say that he or she did no such thing, and cannot be held responsible.  And that is absolutely true.

And so, in a roundabout way, by answering the above questions, you have begun to unravel the concept of a binding "social contract".  You are not liable for your ancestors' or predecessors' actions.  You are not personally morally liable for agreements they made or failed to make.

The state changes this however, through its monopoly on violence and coercive force.  Can you hear the noxious hissing of the state?  "You WILL honor that treaty or that agreement brought into force by people before you with your tax dollars and obedience, or we will send heavy infantry to arrest you.  If you resist arrest, you will be killed."  Further, the state growls,  "You will send your sons to die for another man's policies, for another man's conniving schemes and intrigues...if he does not go, we will subdue him and lock him up.  If he refuses to be locked up, we will kill him."

There is no "social contract".  There is only the coercive force of the state, the monopoly on violence, impressing upon your life the will of people who have come before you.

So, to answer the concern raised in the earlier conversation about keeping a nation's word...

I will keep my word.  I do believe that a man's word is his bond, but... I agreed to no such nonsense.  I signed no such treaty.  As a result, I have no moral obligation to honor a treaty or law that obliges me to act against my conscience.  I have every moral right to resist and defy those who would try to force the consequences of a decision I did not make upon me.

There are four words that sparked the first American Revolution.  They were spoken in defiance of the existing crown/colonist relations, in defiance of the existing English "Social Contract".

"We Will Not Comply"

"We Will Not Comply"

These four words have sparked quite a bit of violence over the course of our nation's history, and eventually led to a second revolution in America some years ago.  Hundreds of thousands of our nation's best men died to determine which course the social contract disagreement would take.  As I said before, brute force and violence determined the answer.  It always does, when the question is forced.

"I Will Not Comply"

 

"We Will Not Comply"

Uttering these four words to the wrong -or, perhaps, right- person changed my life irrevocably some years back.

I will not comply.

I will raise my children -and lead them by example- to refuse to kill and die, to refuse to be a slave for and to a "Social Contract" that violates their conscience.  I will not teach them to be subject to others' commitments, promises, or lies, nor will I teach them to be pawns of the state and victims of its intrigues.  Such a position is, in my opinion, correct in a secular sense, and, for those who are Christians, spiritually correct.  It is instructive to note, as was pointed out here recently, that the majority of the New Testament was written from prison, and that the disciples of Christ ended their life either through state violence or in state captivity.

Perhaps such a stand, and a life that demonstrates this, not just flag-waving, would ultimately prove fatal. 

Historically speaking, it almost always has, if the question is forced.

Well.

If one is going to die, one should do so on terms that are agreeable to one's conscience.

One should also endeavor to deserve such a death, should it be forced upon him by the collective.