Piercing the Illusion of Social Contract Theory

In Transcending the Myths of Marxism, I denied the bridge that Marxism attempts to intervene in the world. Marxism, referred to as "science," is merely an ideology, and thus must be transcended. The social contract theory, infused with humanism, evokes the brilliance of humanity, but also contains excessive elements of fantasy. Therefore, when faced with a socially rich social contract theory, we do not fall into delusions but rather become intoxicated by it, fantasizing about the re-emergence of the general will. However, while the social contract is appealing, we must not indulge excessively!

The U.S. Declaration of Independence was signed in 1776. As the first experimental field of modern natural law thought, the Declaration highly summarizes and reshapes the ideas of Enlightenment thinkers.

In the Declaration, it begins with a Lockean notion of inherent human rights.

"All men are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness;"

Are people equal at birth? There is more than one answer. However, the American founders acknowledged that people are equal. They affirmed the existence of individual natural rights. Because individual natural rights are unalienable, those regimes that infringe upon the rights of the people through force are unjust. It is evident that no secular authority is higher than God.

This denies the legitimacy of British rule over America and finds a basis for American independence in "higher law." From then on, the justice and law represented by God are always primary, while secular laws and authorities are always secondary. Thus, later on, the judiciary could review the legislation of legislative bodies, because even Congress does not hold supreme power; supreme power belongs only to the people. No one has the authority or qualification to represent the people, just as no one can deprive individuals of the natural rights endowed by God.
American Declaration of Independence, Philadelphia, 1776

Then comes the social contract theory. People possess natural rights endowed by God and could freely exercise their rights in the world. However, due to the limitations of resources and the emergence of private property, the originally peaceful natural state was disrupted. People had no choice but to unite, promising to relinquish part or all of their rights, voluntarily residing under the rationality and laws of the community. They sought a freedom under the law.

Governments are instituted to secure these rights, and deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

That is, the people do not crawl beneath power but rather submit to the general will of the community. The manifestation of the general will is the good laws enacted by democratically elected institutions following due process.

Because the rights of the people give rise to state power, when state power is not under the control of the people, the people have the right and obligation to overthrow the government. The right to resist in the U.S. Constitution is precisely this.

"When a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."

Social contract theory is the program for the founding of the United States and the criterion for its institutional perfection. It offers a new hope for those who do not wish to be slaves under tyranny, thus gaining great reputation and recognition. Because of this, it has also faced various criticisms.

Western social contract theory, based on the fictitious doctrine of the state of nature and abstract theories of human nature, views popular sovereignty as the expression of the common will of all members of society beyond class, and is therefore idealistic and unscientific.

Maine argues that the individuals in Rousseau's social contract theory are all people in a hypothetical state of nature, stripped of historical characteristics. "We need not waste time analyzing the philosophy of politics, art, education, ethics, and social relations built on a foundation of a natural state."

Dike points out that the error of social contract theory lies in: first, starting from isolated individuals, which does not conform to human social nature. Secondly, since humans are social beings, there cannot be inherent rights that exist outside of society; in terms of social rights and obligations, the latter precedes the former.

The contradictions of social contract theory become evident: the lives of citizens and the political community are used by those dedicated to political liberation to maintain selfish rights. Members of civil society, selfish individuals, become the ends, the "real people," while citizens are reduced to means and servants.

The first three viewpoints seek the reasons for the errors in social contract theory. In short, they believe that social contract theory is not objective and does not conform to the realities claimed by their respective theories. The last viewpoint does not seek the reasons for the errors but points out its contradictions based on the results caused by social contract theory.

The reason social contract theory has gained such high recognition is that it articulates the voices of the persecuted. Its proposal of establishing a social contract is merely an intuitive understanding of the relationship between rights and power. The natural law school is more like proposing a new morality, an ideal situation.

The later new natural law school also turned to procedural justice due to the subjectivity of the moral concepts of the natural law school, gaining a basis for justice in procedure.

Those who accuse social contract theory of idealism are actually standing on the so-called Marxist position. Marxism is known for its objective materialism. Its so-called materialism, along with the newly developed concepts of surplus value and historical materialism, is merely an attempt to conduct an objective analysis of the world.

Conducting objective analysis from an objective perspective is not necessarily objective, and conducting subjective analysis from a subjective perspective is not necessarily subjective.

Among so many objective dimensions, economic factors may be very important, but evaluating their importance relative to other political and cultural factors is entirely an objective judgment. The value of Marxism lies not in the so-called objective conclusions derived from its so-called objective analysis, but in the importance of the objective perspective. As for whether material determines consciousness, that is an objective question. We can certainly consider the correctness of one answer, but our understanding may not be objective.

Returning to the first viewpoint, it claims that social contract theory and the natural law thought it relies on are fictitious and beyond class, and therefore idealistic. However, when analyzing a theory, Marxists should stand outside the matter and analyze the role of social contract theory in human society from a materialist perspective. Instead of standing within the matter and denying it because their internal structure and methods are inconsistent. Social contract theory is subjective for the Enlighteners, but it is not necessarily so for Marxists, nor does it need to be.

In other words, if any viewpoint is condemned as idealistic, that itself is not materialistic. As for whether Marxists believe that social contract theory is merely an effect of social consciousness, that is an internal analysis of Marxism. True materialism holds that everything is objective and does not need to consider issues through the lens of economic foundations. The truth of things is right there; even my materialistic understanding may be an illusion.

The second viewpoint emphasizes the historical reasons for the generation of law. That is, the historical reasons for the formation of state systems and institutions, including government. The third viewpoint emphasizes the influence of human sociality on law.

What they deny is not the spirit of natural law, but the method of discussing law. Historical jurisprudence believes that the role of history should be considered, while social jurisprudence believes that the role of society should be considered.

In summary, whether from historical jurisprudence or legal schools, or later economic analysis... all attempt to analyze the origins of law and the state using a more objective method and perspective. This is largely inspired and urged by natural sciences. Moreover, previous scholars have already elaborated; if we do not explain from a new angle, even dung beetles rolling dung would lack novelty.
St. Cyril and St. Methodius Monument on Mt. Radhošť

The natural law school unfolds natural rights from a moral perspective and forms a social contract based on this. Only then do the state and law come into being. Its argument for natural rights is almost a belief or faith. As seen in the Declaration of Independence, "rights endowed by their Creator" reveals this.

It is not merely relying on the thoughts of the natural law school that the discourse on natural rights convinces people of inherent human rights. The long-standing medieval period in Europe laid the foundation for theocratic thought. Whether in the church or monarchy, they are merely people under God. The idea of inherent human rights does not need proof; it is a natural matter. On the contrary, natural law thought is another interpretation of faith in God. The development of commerce and industry needs to avoid the interference of royal and theocratic powers, and the people's faith in God also needs to be reattached. Thus, social contract theory emerged.

Therefore, the phrase "in God we trust" is printed on American currency; witnesses must swear on the Bible. The medieval theocratic thought, which once plunged Europe into darkness, played a significant role in the rise of democratic systems.

IN GOD WE TRUST

Throughout history, thinkers have been numerous, but those who have had a significant impact on humanity must possess a characteristic—simplicity. Profound thoughts can be daunting, while simple thoughts can be praised. For thoughts to have a substantial impact on society, they must be understood by the mainstream of the era.

The social contract, in simple terms, is a contract with the state. It places the state and the people on an equal footing. The state has demands of the people, and the people have demands of the state. It is merely a transaction.

Whether Marxists or various legal schools, all criticize the unreliability of social contract theory. Using almost imaginary reasoning, without conducting experiments or social surveys, it has instead become the basis for the American and French revolutions, ushering the entire world into an era of democratization. What a great achievement! Unfortunately, it was resolved by a few declarative thoughts from the proponents of natural law.

In fact, Rousseau's words encapsulate this well:

"The most important law of all laws is neither inscribed on marble nor on bronze tablets, but is engraved in the hearts of citizens."

We the people
As long as the people uphold this belief, it becomes the greatest objective fact. No amount of criticism is merely impotent jealousy. Because "we hold these truths to be self-evident."

"We hold" is the truth; if the people believe in social contract theory, it will lead everyone to consciously accept the adjustments of natural law. When people resolve political issues through law, it will enhance the authority of the law. In other words, believing in social contract theory itself will foster a society of social contracts. This is something Marxists cannot evaluate.

The fourth viewpoint points out the alienation of society following the social contract. The purpose of establishing a social contract is to create a society where everyone is equal, secure, and free, but the general will of the community is always usurped. Even social contract theory has become an accomplice. The laws of the community have become tools for capital to control the people.

We do not wish to deny the ideals of social contract theory, but it is merely a roadmap, capable only of pointing us in the right direction. From a series of failures, we gradually realize that beyond the goals of the social contract, we must have a means to maintain the boundaries of individual freedom even after signing the contract.

Due to certain unknowable factors, we are born on this land, using ancient hieroglyphs, with yellow faces and black pupils. From the moment we are born, we possess various identities: son, grandson, citizen. We either live in narrow buildings in cities or in desolate fields in the countryside; none of this is a choice we have the right to make, only the fate we are assigned.

Even as an American, should one simply obey a social contract that the Founding Fathers and the people of that time transferred their rights to, even though one never signed it?

Many people benefit from obeying the law and thus believe they should obey it. I cannot help but ask, if rape brings pleasure, does that count as benefiting, and thus should one also obey?

Thus, as a governed individual, the ruler governs me without my consent.

The Ability to Withdraw from the Contract#

Even if signing a social contract is an implicit choice, a contract that cannot be withdrawn is essentially bullying of the weaker by the stronger, a violation of the individual by the group.

If an individual lacks the ability to withdraw from the social contract, then this contract is absolutely unequal. Equality implies mutual respect between the contracting parties; fundamentally, it is about the balance of power between the state and the individual. If the powers of the two are unequal, the individual will always be bullied. The ability to withdraw from the contract is the most basic ability in the power comparison between the state and the individual. If one lacks even the ability to withdraw, the individual has completely become a slave.

The fourth viewpoint, which points out the distortion of individuals after signing the social contract, can be said to be influenced by capital, but on the other hand, it is also that individuals have lost the right to resist capital.

The Declaration of Independence adopts a Lockean social contract theory, where citizens only relinquish a portion of their rights, retaining the rest. Rousseau's social contract theory, however, advocates for the relinquishment of all rights. He believes that only by doing so can true equality be maintained after the transfer of power. If, as Rousseau claims, relinquishing all rights is also a choice, then total relinquishment is like a sharp curved sword without a hilt; no social system can wield it. Lockean democracy retains the tradition of British conservatism.

Thus, retaining individual rights is a relatively feasible approach. Of course, according to Rousseau's social contract, everyone must relinquish all rights, which lacks legitimacy without the consent of the governed.

I once was forced to listen to a lecture by someone who said, "The legitimacy of our regime does not come from the social contract; that is a Western concept. Our legitimacy comes from rescuing the people from the crisis of national extinction, thus establishing the legitimacy of rule."

I have never seen such a shameless person. Even if one once heroically saved a beauty, one should not only demand obedience from the beauty but also from her descendants; such ulterior motives can be seen as finding legitimacy for his rule—"shamelessness."

Rescuing the people from the brink of national extinction neither gained the consent of the governed nor allowed the people to withdraw from the social contract, and even weakened the people's ability to withdraw from the social contract, which is the same flaw as social contract theory.

In this sense, whether democratic or authoritarian, both will be trampled as the people's ability to withdraw from the social contract diminishes. Those who advocate for shedding blood once so that future generations can enjoy democracy do not realize what they are truly rebelling against.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure." — Jefferson

Although Jefferson's viewpoint is somewhat bloody, he points out the infinity of seeking freedom.

In essence, the people are not rebelling against a particular person or party; they are not actually rebelling. Instead, they are constantly maintaining the balance between the individual and the group, continuously defending the boundaries of individual freedom.

To this end, as an individualist, my proposed solution is to withdraw from the community or to maintain the ability to withdraw. The so-called ability to withdraw actually includes the ability to live independently. When a person can choose to live independently or enter a group, they cast a vote of negation. Of course, maintaining the individual's ability to resist the group is a significant issue, and it is not urgent.

A world that can live independently

Conclusion#

Marxists have their ideal society, and the natural law school, Rousseau, and others also have their ideal society. We too have our ideal society. However, our ideal society is from a perspective that emphasizes the individual more. While social contract theory is appealing, its means are not effective. We need to find a more effective way to achieve a balance between the individual and the group.

[[2023-09-04]]