Posted on

What about This Social Contract?

Recently, an acquaintance made the case to me that we are responsible for paying taxes and any other requirements that government places upon us because of the social contract, regardless of our opinions of their actions.  If we disagree with paying taxes, as an example, we can simply move; and as long as we choose to stay, we have consented to the social contract.  Now, this is not intended to be an exposition, more an interrogation; I merely want to put forward some questions related to social contract theory, which I feel must be resolved.

To make my position clear from the outset, I think social contract theory is merely a justification for government oppression.  With a government limited to the protection of life, liberty and property, would such justification be necessary?  Aren’t you then just submitting to the rule of law?  A theory suggesting tacit or implied consent to an obligatory set of rules reliant on an accident of birth is… problematic, particularly when one side both creates and enforces the rules.

At what point has an individual given consent to the social contract?  Conception?  Birth?  Somewhere in between?  If, as was suggested, I can leave if I disagree or do not wish to engage in the social contract, have I any obligation to the social contract before I am able to leave?  If an individual would like to escape the social contract but cannot because they are too young or old, too poor, physically incapable or whatever the case may be, is that individual still obligated to the social contract?  I see a problem with a contract – like online subscriptions – that can be engaged without active consent and cannot be ended without active dissent.

Is there some kind of universal social contract, or is the nature of the social contract dependent on location?  Is there a different social contract for a person born in the US compared with a person born in Saudi Arabia?  Does the social contract obligate an individual to cultural mores or the rule of the state or both?  Take the case of a woman born in Saudi Arabia.  She chose neither her sex nor her place of birth.  She is unlikely to be able to leave on her own.  Is she obligated to submit to the traditional and state-sanctioned treatment of women because of the social contract?

Hobbes saw government as a necessity because he believed people without government would exist in a constant state of warfare (all against all, I believe he said), and government would prevent that.  (Clearly, he did not envision a world of fiat currency, evidenced by 17 years and more than $6 trillion wasted.)  In his view the social contract was part and parcel to the exchange of liberty for security.  Locke and Rousseau argued that people have the right to withdraw from the social contract if their government is not acting in their best interests, and Locke (whose social contract probably had the greatest influence on the formation of the United States) believed the role of government was to secure the natural rights of its citizens.

With this in mind, let’s use taxation to test some limits.  I believe that taxation is theft by definition – the taking of a person’s property without their consent.  If the purpose of government is to protect my natural rights, of which an aspect is my property, may I stop paying taxes with the justification that my government has breached the social contract by not protecting my property?  I certainly cannot do that legally; my property will be stolen, and I may be thrown in a cage (another breach of my natural rights, by the way, as I lose my liberty in addition to my property).

What if I believe that my government is not using my taxes in my best interests?  I believe that using my taxes to fund war in the Middle East does not make me safer and, in fact, creates a greater danger to my life, liberty and property.  Is that enough of a reason to not pay taxes or to make a claim that the state has breached the social contract?  What if I choose to just not pay the 20% of my taxes that fund the departments that conduct those wars?

If I refuse the benefits, can I refuse the costs?  Can I even refuse the benefits, or am I contractually obligated to accept them?  Again, have I given my tacit consent by accepting benefits of the social contract while I’m too young to refuse or to understand the obligation I’m creating for myself?  Is it too late to change, if I realize my error?  If my consent to the contract is implied by my acceptance of benefits, and I’m obligated to accept the benefits, does that not create a strange loop that obligates me to obligate myself?

It has been a long time since I read the relevant writings of Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau; so I’m relying mostly on my memory of their work and its entanglement with topics with which I’ve engaged more recently.  Perhaps my questions have already been answered, and I welcome any commentary on or criticism of the issues I’ve raised here.  However, I don’t see a way around the view of the social contract as dependent on tacit consent before consent can be obtained, based on location or non-negotiable benefits.  Additionally, it leaves the individual beholden to governmental systems or cultural practices at the threat of force – a questionably voluntary loss of liberty.

-M

Posted on

Congress Shirks Responsibility, Refuses to Stand in the Way of War

While the UK Parliament argued PM Theresa May should not be able to enter war without their approval, the US Congress argued why President Trump should be allowed to enter war in Syria without awaiting the Congress’ constitutional responsibility to declare war (or at least approve the action).  The US Constitution places sole authority to declare war on Congress (US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 8).  The President is Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces only when they have been called to service by the Legislature (US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2).

Our Founders were concerned with the power of the Executive and took measures to prevent PotUS from becoming a de facto king.  The separation of war powers with the President waging war but the Congress declaring war is an important distinction.  A king, of course, has the power to both undertake and execute war, while the President has only the power to execute war.  James Madison wrote, “The constitution supposes, what the History of all Govts. demonstrates, that the Ex. is the branch of power most interested in war, & most prone to it.”

I read, yesterday, about the US’ “retaliatory” strike on Syria after the alleged chemical weapons attack.  I wonder if this would have happened if we enforced The Constitution and the 1973 War Powers Resolution.  I suspect not.  At least the last three Presidents have been elected on anti-war platforms.  G.W. Bush said he would not use the military for nation building.  Obama promised to end the wars. Trump also promised to only wage war when “absolutely necessary.”  While this is clearly ample evidence of Tom Woods’ Law (‘No matter who you vote for, you always wind up with John McCain’), I believe it is also ample evidence that the American people are not interested in expanding military action.

Herein lies the reason our Representatives and Senators are seeking to abdicate responsibility.  All of the Representatives and one-third of the Senators have elections looming.  They want your vote and the best way to get it is to not be on record with any opinion, whatsoever.  Without a vote providing unequivocal proof of their position on the conflict, they are shielded from culpability.  They can tell you whatever they think you want to hear.  Then, they have at least two more years of ignoring you.

What’s more, they can continue to collect contributions from the big defense contractors.  The defense industries spend less on both lobbying and political contributions than several other industries, such as health, education, oil, gas and utilities; but if you think that the lobbying expenditures of $16.7 million for Boeing, $14.5 million for Lockheed Martin, $12 million for Northrop Grumman and $11.5 million for General Dynamics don’t yield a return, then you just don’t understand economics.  A lot of people would like to blame these ‘evil companies,’ but they are not to blame.  They are only doing what they can to generate advantage for themselves in the market.  The Congress is to blame.

My opinion: Fire them all.  Do not vote for an incumbent.  Polls show most people approve of the job their Representatives and Senators are doing.  However, the public approval rating for Congress, as a whole, hovers around 15%.  If it seems a mathematical impossibility that so many should be satisfied with the jobs their officials are doing, it’s because it is.  The problem is that your elected federal officials are not doing as good a job as you think.  War is not the only responsibility that Congress has abdicated to the Executive.  Last year, I attended a town hall held by my current Representative, Bradley Byrne.  A question arose concerning the budget, and he responded by saying that President Trump had not delivered the budget to Congress.  That’s not PotUS’ job!  All budget bills are supposed to originate in the House of Representatives(US Constitution, Art. 1, Sec. 7).  Did you know the Senate is supposed to vote on treaties negotiated by The President, before the compact is in force (US Constitution, Art. 2, Sec. 2)?  Monetary policy is the purview of Congress, but they have abdicated that responsibility to the Federal Reserve, which is technically a private entity.

Leaving aside the legal issue of whether any branch of the federal government has the authority to transfer its responsibilities to another branch (they don’t), what is Congress doing?  Well, they spend half their time fundraising.  While they aren’t doing their constitutionally-prescribed duties, they do spend a lot of time on pointless legislation. Search congress.gov for the word ‘condemn.’ Here’s an example of what you’ll find.  Their salaries are taxpayer funded; they say they work for us.  If I spent half my work day squandering my boss’ money and performing unproductive busywork and the other half of my day asking for more money, I’m pretty sure I would not keep my job very long.  Let’s hold Congress to at least that standard.

We have elections in a few months.  It is time to make a change, as Congress seeks excuses to evade their duties.  Our Representatives have, once again, sidestepped the responsibility to represent the people and protect our investment.  The current Congress has demonstrated at best incompetence and at worst embezzlement.  Fire them all!  Personally, I don’t think the situation will improve as long as Republicans and Democrats still control our federal government; but make your own choices.  I know if we elect the same people, we’ll get the same result.

-M

Posted on

War on Terror Over?

This seems like big news, after nearly two decades and t-t-t-trillions of dollars!  Did anyone tell you?  According to the Summary of the National Defense Strategy for 2018, terrorism is no longer the primary concern for the Department of Defense.  Quoting from the introduction:  “Inter-state strategic competition, not terrorism, is now the primary concern in U.S. national security.”

What does this mean?  To quote, once again, from the introduction:  “Reinforcing America’s traditional tools of diplomacy, the Department [of Defense] provides military options to ensure the President and our diplomats negotiate from a position of strength.”  This marks a significant and unsettling divergence in official policy.  Military force is not a tool of diplomacy; it is a failure of diplomacy.

The US military has bases in approximately 70 countries and is engaged in operations in who knows how many countries.  Now, I’m not oblivious to the certainty that nearly all compacts between states are secured by force or the threat of force.  However, there is a tremendous difference between the implicit threat of militarism to enforce an existing agreement and the explicit threat of military force to influence diplomatic negotiations.  The latter is akin to suggesting that the schoolyard bully ‘negotiated’ for your lunch money.

It is the real-world implementation of ‘aggressive negotiations.’  Where does this lead in trade disputes?  It should make you re-think the escalation of a trade war with China.  If China refuses to capitulate, will the US military get involved?  How would this policy apply to less powerful countries with resources desired by the US?  If Peru disagrees with the US government about a reasonable price for the export of copper, do we continue negotiations with cruise missiles?

The suggestion should be unthinkable to a people who identify with their country as a symbol of liberty, a people who claim to believe in a free market, a people who reject the initiation of force or coercion to achieve their political and economic aims.  What has happened to Our Republic?  George Washington said in his farewell address, “Over-grown military establishments are, under any form of government, inauspicious to liberty, and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to republican liberty.”

This is the newest link in a chain of policy changes which continue to expand the role of the US military beyond physical defense of our country and further beyond the control of the people.  We have been warned of what happens to those who live by the sword.  China and Russia are not enemies; they are rivals.  If our government intends to use the military to dissuade or challenge expanding economic interests of Russia and China (in their own regions, no less), violent conflict is inevitable — they will become enemies — an outcome we should like to avoid.

President Theodore Roosevelt made the now-famous comment about US foreign policy to, “Speak softly, and carry a big stick.”  His meaning has been misconstrued over time, but Roosevelt’s emphasis was on diplomacy.  He meant that the US should be gracious in negotiations with foreign powers while maintaining the ability to defend ourselves decisively, if necessary.  Roosevelt explains further, “Whenever on any point we come in contact with a foreign power, I hope that we shall always strive to speak courteously and respectfully of that foreign power.”   Frankly, even the “speak softly” part has been forgotten.  Instead, US foreign policy has shifted to screaming at full volume, ‘My stick is bigger than yours!  Now, let’s negotiate.‘

There is a Lakota proverb:  Force, no matter how concealed, begets resistance.  The US government is providing a case study for this across North Africa and throughout the Middle East, where our military has been engaged for several decades.  The War on Terror and the Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), which was passed by Congress three days after 09/11, has been used to justify US military actions in those regions ever since, even though it only authorized military actions against those involved in the 09/11 terrorist attacks.  (As a side note, in January 2016, a more permissive AUMF was introduced by Senator Mitch McConnell with even greater latitude for justifying military action abroad.  Luckily, there has never been a vote.)  We have already been in a near-constant state of war since entering World War II.

Imagine if the US government began using competition for influence, resources or any other factor as and excuse to enter into military conflict with foreign powers.  It seems the bar is set pretty low already.  Remember when they said that the Iraq War would be paid for in oil?  How many more of those lies would we hear?  ‘Don’t worry, the war with China will be paid for in rare earth metals.‘  To make matters worse, in order to continue support for the growing military, our government would need to consume more resources, encouraging them to enter more conflicts for those resources and resulting in a faster growing military — a deadly feedback loop of destruction.

If the War on Terror is drawing to a close, the appropriate action would be to curtail militarism.  The US government should reduce military spending, pare back the domestic surveillance apparatus, bring troops home.  Rather, they are looking for another way — an openly imperialistic way — to employ the military.  Alexander Solzhenitsyn wrote, “A persistent state of war only serves as an excuse for domestic tyranny.” The American people are weary of war and becoming wary of a government which seeks to maintain a persistent state of war.

-M

Posted on

Welcome!

Welcome to the future home of The Liberty Mic podcast.

While you are waiting, you can follow us on Facebook.

We will be announcing our first podcast soon!