Social Contract Mini Essays

Social Contract Mini Essays

Editor's Note: These mini essays define 5 terms. They are quite informational for those that do not get what is a natural right, or a natural law. I also explain what is the role of government, the structure of the state, religion, property and the modern perils to liberty. I hope these little essays helps you finish your homework. I backed up the information with a lot of texts. So, you know its legit. In any case, my homework is 5 stars worthy because I got an A on it.

                Social Contract

I. Natural Rights and Natural Laws

                A natural right is something that cannot be taken away. It is something that you are born with. For John Locke, Natural rights consist in your right to pursuit life, liberty and property without harming others (Locke Part 1: Natural Rights and Natural laws).  Also, the pursuit of natural rights is kept in check by the god given reason that exists within all men. Thus, from this reason compassion is born. This compassion compels men to follow natural law (Locke Part 1: Natural Rights and Natural laws) . This natural law dictates that you should use your acquired property to preserve the rest of humanity. Thus, you are not allowed to commit suicide. Locke is perfect for defining Natural Rights and Natural Laws but he is naïve in his descriptions on the motives for natural rights and laws.

                At first it might appear that Locke's natural law one suicide was part of some religious zeal. However, one has to consider that if a person dies that person is no longer able to produce any property. Thus, this property that might have been used to preserve humanity is lost when his owner seizes to labor upon it. For that reason, Locke’s prohibition of suicide has its origin on natural law and not on religion per say. It seems foolish to prevent others from committing suicide due to some religious taboo. Thus, by observing this natural law in an economic perspective it makes perfect sense the prohibition of suicide. 

                For some reason, it seems a bit exaggerated to assume that one day men where unreasonable and the next day men seized to be brutes. Even, to this day there are many unreasonable personages. Indeed, for the most part reason aids humans to follow natural law’s mandate to help one another. First of all, what does Locke means by being reasonable? For Locke, reason signifies the following of natural rights (Locke Part 1: Natural Rights and Natural laws). However, the motives of his natural rights are in the wrongs when it assumes that it is compelled by reason but by human selfishness. Most of the time, people do not accumulate property to help others but only to help themselves. The only other persons that humanity desires to maintain, for the most part, are its immediate relationships. Also, it is foolish to assume that once reason is obtained it cannot be lost. 

                Overall, it seems natural that one would not prevent others from pursuing Locke’s natural rights. For there is hardly, any gain in preventing others from following natural rights. Rousseau, states in nature there is no way of preserving inventions without language or society (Rousseau: The Discourses on the Origin of Inequality Part 1). Thus, in nature the creation of property is quite limited. Thus it would be a waste of time and resources the stealing of someone’s property in nature. Thus, it seems that nature rights own much to humans needs to human greediness. For what is harder, to take the property of another rational or create new property from the bounty of nature? 

                Locke is in the rights, concerning Natural rights and Natural laws. He lies in the wrong regarding that reasons for their occurrences. It is not god that makes human compassionate but the appearance of compassion has its roots in men’s desire to preserve oneself. For, in the act of taking the life of another there is always the chance that you might become incapacitated to such an extent that you will not be able to create property in the near future. Thus, Locke is incorrect when he assumes that natural laws and rights are not born from reason. As Niccolo Machiavelli would put it, men are “ungrateful, fickle, simulators and deceivers, avoids of danger, and greedy for gain” (Machiavelli, The Prince Pg 58). 

II. The Role of Government

                The Role of Government is to define how much liberty a person has. The limitations on a ruler’s powers “over the community” are what John Stuart Mill “meant by liberty” (John Stuart Mills, On Liberty Pg 6).  This also applies to the rule of the masses. In addition, those who need the care of others like children, barbarians and mad men, government must make certain that they are “protected against their own actions as well as against external injury.” (Mills, Pg 14) to others. In addition, “if any one does act hurtful to another…, by law,” it is the duty of the government to punish that person (Mills, pg 15). Other than that, Government must leave alone civilized adults (On Liberty Part 1: The First Principles of Liberty).

                Stuart Miller describes the role of government in an efficacious fashion. In his format, the government body only exercises power within certain limitations. This allows for people to exercises their autonomy without fear that some power either society or the government might enforce their own beliefs upon them. In addition, it is important for the government to safeguard its community from those that are uncivilized like mad men, crazy teenagers and barbarians. These forces in a way constitute a large portion of the community for without government they would inflict injury to the weaker minority. This safeguard is meant to protect widows, orphans, homeless ect. Anyone without power needs the government to protect them from the majority. Thus, without government there would not be liberty. For after all, liberty can only exist as long as there is a restrain upon authority of either the king or the majority ( On Liberty Part 1: Liberty from Democracy) .  

                In addition, it is the role of the government should handle war in a more economic fashion. Money that is usually wasted on war is taken away from government funded programs that alleviate the eventualities like famine, or bad economy.  For example, if a war becomes too costly then the government should switch to cheaper more brutal alternatives, like the A-Bomb that was dropped in Japan. After, just two strikes the Japanese became meek and submissive. “The ferocity of such a spectacle” satisfied the blood lust of the US citizens and kept the Japanese “population stupefied” (Machiavelli, the Prince pg 27). After, that incident Japan never dared mess with the American power. At most wars should not last more than four years. Should they start to drag on, it is the government’s duty to take extreme measures to end it quickly. In doing so, it can ease the economic strain over homeland and avoid the hatred of the people they have invaded. 

                Overall, the government must keep the rich and the poor from fighting one another. Plus, it must protect the population from outside invaders. In addition, the government must protect the population from the economic strain that wars usually cause.

III. Structure of the State

                The government system that would best suit the above purpose is a democracy in the American idealized form. However, Mills type of government that suits the above requirements is practically nonexistent. Nay, in this world the weak still get trampled over both socially and economically speaking. The US democracy has not prevented the ever increasing gap between the rich and the poor. It only has served to further highlight the differences. In all facets of the modern democracy, it is usually the rich that fill the empty slots of the Congress, Presidency and the Supreme Court. After all, the rich earn make it to congress who then hand picks the presidents who then nominates the supreme Court Justices. In the end, money is the driving force of the government not protection from majority or elites (Mills Liberty from Democracy).

                A monarchic system has within it its own embedded problems. In that past, following the mills perspective monarchic rule has been limited and some sort of liberty has come to fruition. Yet as pointed out by Machiavelli, monarchy has been recognize as inefficient for with the death of an honorable ruler , it soon follows that the “heirs began to degenerate from their ancestors” (Machiavelli,  Livy Pg 12). Thus, monarchy cannot be kept forever restrained. As for communism, its infinite failures lie in human nature. It is impossible to divide property equally because property can only be created by whoever labors upon it, (Locke). One cannot create a system that forces people to share because to create meritocracy because Machiavelli puts it, men are “ungrateful” (Machiavelli, Prince Pg 58). Thus, they would think that they are entitled to something just because they are communist. Humans are “avoiders of danger” (Machiavelli, Prince Pg 58). Thus, they would rather let some poor fool produce property for them instead of getting risking their necks out for the community. 

                Frankly, the alternatives to democracy are far too terrible. It is better to work with the corrupted democracy. Slowly, little by little the government of the US must limit the influences that the rich have over law making. The same goes for limiting the influences that the protestant religion has over laws regarding Stem Cells and other such nuisances. They persecute these things but regard it “as gross injustice” that application of such prohibitions upon themselves (Mills, On Liberty Pg 96). Thus, a Mills like democracy must be created in order to prevent the creation of laws that oppress the minority.  

IV. Religion

                According to Burke, religion validates the states claim to rule. In addition, Burke believed that religion also mandated what the state should consider as truly good and truly evil. Since religion had held equal status with the rule of the monarch for centuries, Burke believed that religion’s involvement in the state should not be diminished (Burke Part 2: Deep Respect for Things and Stuffs). For Burke, religion and politics complement one another and both reflect nature. Burke claimed that to go against religion, is to go against what is natural. Thus, religion’s influence over politics is a reflection of nature (Burke Part 2: Deep Respect for Things and Stuffs).

                In this social contract, the church should be kept separate from the state. It so happens that even within one dominant trend of religion not two people can agree in all matters. Thus, due to such fragmentation the ruler in order to “maintain the state he must act against his faith” Pg 61 Prince. The reason behind this lies in the fact that “the art of ruling” does not carry within it the “knowledge… of the true religion” (Locke, Pg 29) . Thus, religion cannot assure the prosperity of the state. If it where up to religion science would hardly have advanced. This does not mean that religion should be discarded. The threat of eternal damnation is key tool for keeping human greediness in check (Machiavelli, Livy Part 2: Shrew use of Religion); with the eyes of the almighty god watching, men would be less prone to behave in a dysfunctional fashion. Religion is needed for maintaining the stability of the state. Thus, any and all religions should be encouraged and atheism should be held in ill repute. For without god, one cannot trust man to keep true to any oath. 

                It is not practical to advocate for one solid religion. In this modern pluralized world, “no private person has any right, in any …to prejudice another…because he is of another…religion” (Locke, Pg 20). In the past, religions like Judaism, Catholicism, or Islam had the military means in order enforce by brute force their claims to absolute truth.  However, today “churches” do not have the “fire of sword, any, proper instruments wherewith to convince men’s minds of error,” (Locke, Pg 22). However, it would be more cost efficient, for the ruler allows does not create restrictions for “any sect of people for their religious uses” Pg 51. It defeats the purpose of religion if men must “be forced to be saved” (Locke, pg 33). It would be a waste of time and resources to compel people to believe in one way or another. In the end, religion only serves to keep men’s greediness in check.  

V. Property

                In this social contract private property is created by implementing labor upon a raw material (Locke labor Theory of values). It is partially hereditary. When the owner of a private property dies half goes to its heirs and the other half belongs to the state. This newly acquired property is then used fund public programs. This can be avoided by a yearly donation of 15% of income to the poor, education and other community centered programs (in addition to the 10 % that all must pay). This will create an incentive for the rich to take interest in the good of the poor.

                Ideally, private property is supposed to mimic nature (Burke, a deep respect for stuff and things). However, it does not make any sense that the heirs of property should have any claim to it for they never helped to create that given property. If they wish to lay full claim upon any given item they better help pay for it, not with the money that they receive from their parents but with the money that they should produce by their own labor. The heir must somehow put an equal effort physically or economically upon the property of his fore fathers or else he must split that property’s monetary worth with that of the state.   

                Those that come are not able to obtain any property by their own means must ask for it. This donation given by the rich to the poor will lower the yearly donations of 10%. The rich must take interest in providing for the welfare of the poor. However, if the poor does not start producing any property his newly acquired home or shelter will be taken. In order for that poor to keep the freebie property he must try to labor half the monetary sum worth of that property. In doing so, one can avoid laziness of humans. Since after all humans are “ungrateful” and “avoiders of danger” (Machiavelli, the Prince Pg 58). It would be easy for them to let the donations rain from the more industrious, reasonable citizens (Locke, the Labor Theory of Value). Thus, this measure will create the incentive for the poor to get a job or risk losing their newly acquired property. 

                The political consequences of regarding property will keep money flowing into the state. This will prevent higher deficits to a bare minimum. In addition, the new incentive for the poor to work will keep the economy always revitalized. The rich will be forced to help the poor and the poor will be forced not to rely in the rich. Both will mutually rely on the labor and production of each other. Thus, little by little the standard of living 

VI. Modern Perils to Liberty

                The greatest peril facing the modern era is conformity. John Stuart Mills, describes how in the past people had to obey without question the orders of a tyrant. However, in modern days, society or the majority demands that people conform to a certain rule. The commons are not required to understand “the misstatements … of an ingenious opponent” (Mills, Pg 43). He realizes that simple minds will put full trust on the power of “authority” and will not question whether the actions are beneficial to the state (Mill, pg 43).  Thus, Mills worries that about people’s conformity breeds hypocrisy. He goes on to further state that though “social intolerance kills no one” it still” induces men to disguise” their opinions (Mill, pg 37) .  Mill complains that mankind then to “leave thinking about a thing when it is no longer doubtful”. The conciliation of opinions is “dangerous when the opinions are erroneous” (Mill,  Pg 50). For men are more “zealous… for error” ( Mill, pg 34)  Thus, for Mills conformity is dangerous because there is a change that society might conform to an error.  

                 In addition, Mill’s limits on liberty are defined by the limitation on government’s authority over its citizens. For Mill, people should not be punished for having difference of opinion or belief. He complains about the 28 month imprisonment that certain man faced for writing “offensive words concerning Christianity”( Mill, Pg 34). He also worries about the religion still is influential in the legal systems. For Mills, people should have the liberty to believe or not to believe in something. Mill complains that in England’s jury considers “all atheists to be liars” (Mill, pg 35). In addition, Mill think that people they not have the right to do harmful things to others. Over all, the government has no authority over religion, expression and free will normal functioning citizens.

                This measure of liberty seems proper for this social contract. After all, this social contract has religious freedom, like Mill’s. In addition, the government in this social contract is meant to protect the citizens from each other and from invaders. Thus, it fits well with Mills liberty of regarding speech and religion. Overall, his liberties seem to fit well with the already stated structure of government identical to the three branch party system of the United States and the odd additions offered by this social contract.  

Work cited

Class notes on Burke Reflections on the Revolution of France Burke Part 2: Deep Respect for Things and Stuffs

Class Notes Locke’s Social Contract Part 1: Natural Rights and Natural laws

Class Notes Mills On Liberty Part 1: Liberty from Democracy

Class Notes Mills’s On Liberty Part 1: The First Principles of Liberty

Class Notes Rousseau The Discourses on the Origin of Inequality Part 1:The Invention of Language

Locke, John A letter Concerning Toleration. Huddersfield J.Brook. 1796

http://books.google.com

Machiavelli, Niccolo The Discourse on Livy The University of Chicago Press 1998.

Machiavelli, Niccolo The Prince Oxford University Press. 2005

Mill, John Stuart. On Liberty and Other Essays. Oxford University Press. 2008