Published: September 27, 2009 12:09 am      

DUVALLL: I like society, at least in theory

I like society, at least in theory.

Put better, I like something called social contract theory. It’s a segment of philosophy that came to prominence during the Enlightenment. It is the basis on which America’s founders framed the Constitution. Phrases in the Declaration of Independence are taken almost verbatim from the essays and books written by social contract thinkers.

The debate between 17th and 18th century French and English philosophers still hangs like a picture frame around debates that stoke our passions today.

In a nutshell, social contract thinkers explored the relationship between the individual and the collective. They questioned why we formed societies, wrote and enforced laws, paid taxes and determined what was in the collective interests of all the people involved.

From these societal rules, we gain things and lose things. We gain security and a sense of identification with a common set of mores. We lose the right to acquire anything through force.

Think of it this way: I buy into the collective, giving up the right to walk into my neighbor’s house, beat him up and take it, but I also don’t have to worry that he’ll do that to me because he’s bought into the collective, too.

How we accomplish this was a considerable point of debate.

Some philosophers, like Thomas Hobbes, argued the government should be like Leviathan, an all-powerful Greek god. The government should impose through force the best possible practices because humans were incapable of existing in a state other than aggression and competition. It would only be through the complete authority of the government that we could achieve a civil society.

Obviously, Americans reject this notion.

John Locke was a little more mellow. He believed laws could only be considered just if they advanced the best interests of the collective. The overbearing Leviathan was replaced with a friendlier democratic society that comes together to make decisions and sanction the rule of law.

That sounds nice, but direct democracy is no way to effectively govern. The people’s government needs some authority to act unilaterally otherwise nothing would get done. Just ask someone from California.

Then we arrive at Rousseau, who I like quite a bit.

Rousseau agreed that the people needed a direct hand in government but hedged his bets a little more than Locke.

He evaluated the Hobbes argument that people exist in a natural state of chaos, acknowledging that at certain points, the individual will does overpower the collective but that it was mostly OK.

All good stuff. If anyone is still actually reading this after 500 words taken from a Philosophy 101 textbook, congratulations! Now I’ll get to my point.

It’s a lot less artful than it used to be, but Americans even today are still philosophers, whether they realize it or not.

The debate between Hobbes, Locke and Rousseau is still being had. It’s being had between Barack Obama and Glenn Beck right now.

No subject riles the average American more than the question of what role the government should play in our lives.

The government is the thing we created to enforce and execute the social contract we have with one another. And so when we have the arguments over how much control the government should have, we’re really only arguing about the extent to which we are obligated to subject our individual will for the collective.

For what it’s worth, I think I come out a winner in the social contract and will gladly do my part to ensure it remains in tact.

Not only do I not have to worry about my neighbor invading my house, giving over some of my individual responsibilities to a collective creates the space for the relationships I have and activities I enjoy.

There is the American tendency to distrust government. I understand it. I even indulge myself in it from time to time. Europeans think we’re batty for disliking government. We constantly carp about government overreach. We are a nation of collective individuals.

We use the word socialist as an insult.

I reject that notion. If being a socialist means reaping all the benefits of society, I’ll wear that badge with pleasure.

Not that I wouldn’t mind a tax cut, of course ...

Eric DuVall is the managing editor of the Tonawanda News. His column appears Wednesdays and Sundays. Contact him at eric.duvall@tonawanda-news.com.