The concept of the social contract is the basis of western political philosophy. The finer details about the exact origin of rights, the state of nature, and whether the social contract is liberating or tyrannical is still hotly debated. However, virtually every nation founded on contemporary western ideals is based on the idea that people engage in an implicit, or explicit contract between each other not to violate each other, or their rights, and the expense of some rights. This is a profoundly individualistic view, which places the individual as the determining factor of the terms in which they approach and live within society. It has allowed for our law systems, specifically common law, to exist, and for most western nations to exist for long periods of time with relative peace, political and social stability, and relative individual sovereignty. However, a counter theory has seemingly arisen, and gained traction within the last few decades. Where Hobbes, Locke, and even Rousseau argued that the sum of individuals created the sovereign, and thus owned the sovereign, a growing belief of the sovereign owning the sum of the individuals that make it up, is now more popular than ever. The idea that the whole is the greater than the sum of its parts is a serious ideology, a seriously dangerous ideology.
The picture at the beginning of this musing from the original cover for Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan. The sovereign is made up of everyone who lives within the community. This simple idea, the idea that sovereignty only exists in those that believe it so, was a revolutionary idea for the 16th century. The prevailing political philosophy, the divine right of kings, had existed for literal millennia, and had further cemented after the fall of Rome, during the European medieval period. The English, a people Hobbes was born into, were strangers to the rest of Europe, as their king had to ask permission from a Parliament, a group of elected officials either elected by the nobility, or later, commoners, to spend money, engage in warfare, or other projects. It is surprising and unsurprising, especially considering Hobbes’ experience with the English Civil War, that the idea of sovereignty not being a certain thing, came about due to the historical circumstances. Hobbes unintentionally set in motion a revolution in political thinking, wherein kings not only existed by the grace of god, but also at the pleasure and respect of his subjects. Kings were not all powerful, and if enough people wanted the king overthrown, the king could be overthrown.
Hobbes was not a revolutionary. He was a pragmatist, who wanted to uphold the traditions and legitimacy of the monarchy. However, his understanding of social contract theory would evolve through thinkers such as John Locke, Thomas Paine, and even Jean-Jacques Rousseau, into an idea that individuals set the terms in which they approach governance, and work with others in order to best fit everyone’s needs and expectations into a workable form of governance. Arguably, the US Constitution, and the original Articles of Confederation, or even as far back as the Magna Carta, were all realistic attempts at implementing a physical social contract into existence. Of course this is oversimplifying all of the history and philosophy, I’m assuming you have read some amount of all that was mentioned above.
It cannot be understated how important this change in thinking was for society going forward. Thinkers such as Thomas Aquinas believed that God was the ultimate authority, the prime mover unmoved, and that all reason and logic was created by him, and exists within human beings with god’s will. Aquinas attributed human agency to god, but Hobbes’ thinking explained and allowed human agency to exist without the background of explaining the prime mover unmoved. No longer were people reliant on god determining who was or was not the sovereign, people could do it themselves, at the lowest level. Hobbes’ would argue that it is because the light of god exists within all humans, and all humans are valued as such. However, the discussion of god becomes irrelevant to human affairs. God now determines the spiritual, and humans determine the human domain.
This inception of social contract theory hinges on that idea of self ownership; The idea that at the very least, each person owns themselves. Regardless of whether or not god exists or not, each person, by their very existence, manifests their rights. This has come into conflict, especially as of late, I have noticed, that more and more people are no longer arguing that they own themselves. Rather, the whole of society owns the individuals that make it up. The entity of society creates the rights, and it gifts it to its constituent members on the condition that they follow the rules of set by society. This is a troubling conclusion. Where before, people owned themselves, and thus were responsible for themselves, this new line of thinking destroys personal agency. People are no longer agents for themselves, but rather a single strand within the robe of society. The value of your life is determined by an unknown quantity of people who have likely never met you, or know of your existence. Rights become privileges, taken away for arbitrary reasons, and the agency ceases to exist.
There’s a practical reason for this conclusion: Modern States have become so large, so bureaucratic, and so violent, that it is just a practical conclusion that, even if the original Hobbesian social contract theory was true, the modern State would never allow it to be as such. There’s too many people with a going concern to continue the current system, to change the current system, and allow for greater personal agency. It is within the interest of the majority of people, to abuse the minority of the individual, even at the expense of their own agency, rights, and liberty, because it overall benefits them. It’s a simple Nash Equilibrium. What’s even more terrifying, is that it seems to be growing, and even pointing out the obvious conclusions of this thinking, the idea that the greater whole could literally just abuse individuals on a whim, doesn’t seem to scare those who hold this ideology. In a perverted way, they like it.
This twisted variation of the social contract is yet another bastardization of western liberalism. It is so clearly evident that this anti social contract stands against everything we in the west have built over centuries. I fear that is lies at the core, or is one of the core factors, for the degradation of western liberalism, and the rise of tyrannical ideologies. Recent contemporary history has taught me personally that my neighbors do not hold the protection of my rights as an interest of theirs, and I see no reason to believe that it is going to turn around any time soon.