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