From a popular tutorial on contract management, we may learn the following:
“A contract is…a formal written agreement between two individuals or organizations for the procurement of commodities and services.
Every contract consists of the following five elements:
- Mutual agreement – a meeting of the minds where both sides agree to an offer and an acceptance of that offer.
- Consideration – each party to a contract receives something of value that it wants, and, in turn, gives something of value in exchange for it.
- Capacity – both parties must be legally competent, at least 18 years of age and acting within the law. They not only need to be legally of age but they must have the mental capacity to contract. They must be authorized to commit their organization.
- Legal Purpose – for a contract to be enforceable by law, it must be concerned with a legal purpose or objective. A purpose or objective must be considered a lawful, rather than an unlawful, pursuit.
- Certainty of Terms – the terms of the contract must be sufficiently clear to permit the court to conclude that a contractual agreement was intended and to determine from the document what the terms of the agreement were. It must be written very clearly and specifically. In a court of law, a contract is construed against the preparer.”
We must insist that our United States Constitution be viewed in the same manner. It is nothing more and nothing less than a simple contract between the People and their government. Our mutual agreement is such that we promise to give our allegiance and support to the government and they agree to protect our rights and safety and conduct the government in accordance with the specifics of the contract, the Constitution. In consideration, the government receives delegated powers and authority from the people, and money in the form of taxes, and the people are supposed to receive a good measure of safety, security, liberty, and the ability to pursue happiness as they otherwise conceive it. Mature, sovereign, powerful, intelligent, honorable beings that have the capacity and the will to enter into and dissolve such contracts make them for the legal purpose of living in freedom and peace.
When considering the certainty of terms we do so to ensure that the provider, (in the case of our Constitution this means the government) is properly bound by the terms of the contract. When we say that the contract is construed against the preparer, we understand this to mean that the preparer has the responsibility to ensure that the terms are specific and well defined. When this is not the case, the benefit of the doubt goes to the other party involved, (in the case of our Constitution this means the People). The founders of our government and our Constitution added the tenth amendment, which is provided as a further protection against misinterpretation saying, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Finally, when one party to a contractual agreement fails to provide the goods and services promised, the other party has no obligation to fulfill their part of the agreement.
When one party to a contractual agreement fails to provide the goods and services promised, the other party has no obligation to fulfill their part of the agreement.
That is right. It is for this reason governments take punitive action against criminals, because they have failed to fulfill their duties as citizens.
It is for this reason that we originally separated ourselves from the government of King George, who had in onerous and numerous ways failed to meet his contractual responsibilities to his people by “taking away our charters, abolishing our most valuable laws, and altering fundamentally the forms of our governments.”
As we consider and celebrate our United States Constitution this week, I exhort you by saying that when considering contracts it is not necessary to read between the lines, but to read the lines themselves and understand what they say. Our Constitution is not a living document, it is a legal document and should always held and enforced as such, and whatever is necessary to be done to uphold it must be done and sooner, much sooner, rather than later.
Louis William Rose
Lou,
How can you determine (at the hypothetical pre-contractual level) whether or not the Constitution is entered into for a “legal purpose” when the Constitution is a necessary prerequisite (in our society) for determining whether or not something is legal or not?
Tenth amendment is ok, but the Ninth amendment really kicks ass (regardless of how the courts have ignored or denigrated it).
Mark
Mark,
You make a valid point. It seems as if Lou would have to amend his argument to avoid some circularity.
Lou, you state: “It [the Constitution] is nothing more and nothing less than a simple contract between the People and their government. Our mutual agreement is such that we promise to give our allegiance and support to the government and they agree to protect our rights and safety and conduct the government in accordance with the specifics of the contract, the Constitution.”
Need I mention, Lou, that as a citizen I have never signed a “contract” consenting to be “governed” by the state?
I don’t think it is, but if you insist that the Constitution was a binding compact, then how has it retained any binding validity beyond those who have signed it?
Oh excuse me, when I say we, I am talking about the Americans, those who have at one time or another pledged allegiance to the flag or promised to protect and defend the constitution. It is not enough merely to be born in a country. That confers citizenship by right of birth, but this is easily cast aside by disloyalty and treason. All that remains then is to finish up the paperwork. I am not of course talking about loyalty to this party or that, but loyalty to the democratic republic within which they operate, and the Constitution that establishes it, for which there is a clear amendment process for those who wish to effect change. All the rest are interlopers, pseudo-citizens, fellow travelers, sojourners and the like.
I have signed documents attesting to my part in the contract (part of the enlistment process, the state employment process, you actually have to do it to be a member of the party these days (imagine!). Most other Americans have entered into the contract orally, at first perhaps by rote, but then at one point in truth and in full recognition of what they are doing. Do they still say the pledge at baseball games? How about NASCAR? When we pledge, we are pledging to the Republic and without the founding documents there is no republic. We do not swear allegiance to a government of men, but to a legal entity embodied in a document.
As for the legality of political contract, or any contract for that matter, it precedes established government, being part of the common law. Two men strike hands on a bargain, knowing full well what the penalties for default may be, as little as loss of fellowship, as dire as loss of life. So the constitution, in this society or any other does not determine the legality (ultimately the morality) of all agreements. It is merely one contract among many and impacts what it is written to impact. It is clear to me that in our present political climate other contracts made by other parties for other purposes in other venues are inferring that theirs take greater precedence than the U.S. Constitution. I hope we will prove them tragically mistaken.
I love the ninth amendment too Mark, for it again puts this Constitution in its place. It is nothing more than a contract, and does not give to government absolute power. I retain the right to every power that an human may employ, I delegate these powers by participation in a politcal process, and may any time take them back to myself. How politically successful I will be is determined by how many of my fellow citizens agree with me. Right now I think there is still a committed faction of people in these states, who will support and defend (with deadly force if necessary) the Constitution of the United States. I wish I could say that they were a majority but I must admit that I am unsure. Of this I am sure, that when an American refers to the “Nation” it is only those individuals that she is referring to.
Sorry Lou. You lost me a bit.
What again about the children (those under 18) and the incapacitated, incarcerated, and the slightly retarded? Does the government have an obligation to them? Do they have an obligation to the government?
If a commitment between person and state rests on active participation, then what of those in comas, or even the dead? By your understanding, the government has no obligation to take care of dead citizens (including those, perhaps, killed in war, or hurricanes, soldiers, etc)? Certainly death of one party ends a contractual obligation of the other?
Also, I believe that only naturalized citizens SIGN an ACTUAL contract with the government in the US, yet none of them (myself included) are afforded (though they are promised so) the same exact rights as the birth citizens (who may very well have been brain washed and coerced to pledge for the flag their entire life).
Oh, and certainly, you cannot mean that a pledge to the flag constitutes a verbal contractual commitment? The whole process stinks of forced nationalism. Kids pledge allegiance to the flag in school. Even our migrant children or those of foreign nationalities are forced to pledge. And pledge they do, or else they get punished i.e. sent to the principal’s. And at the ball game, well you have to. Anything less would make people think you are a traitor.
I would not want my kids to say a pledge to the flag, by the way. The only thing I want them to pledge is a commitment to education. Part of that education is learning that in the US (which is the country of their birth) it is custom for many people to say the pledge and for that reason, and for that reason only, they need to learn the words. Commitments…those they ought not to make until they are adults and relatively certain that they are in a position to keep them.
My final two cents… I would not mind at all seeing some revision of this ‘sacred’ Constitution of ‘ours’.
Come to think of it..Can the pledge be used, as it is not a ’standard’ contract? What I means is that the words of the pledge, I believe, were changed somewhere along the way (1957 – 60s…something like that?) Therefore, not all citizens say, or started out saying, the same pledge. Does this change things?
Pardon the typo.
In addition to the above points, it should be noted that some people do not pledge to the flag or make any commitments to a polity for religious reasons. I know people who have never pledged to the flag. If someone forced them to or if they were punished for not doing so (ex. sent to the principle’s office), I’d call the ACLU.
I’d also note that in typical contractual cases, parties enter into the contract with free, prior and informed consent. If pledging actually were a case of entering into a contract (and I’m not saying it is) it would, by typical standards, invalidate the contractual agreement if someone were forced to enter the contract.
Further, there are many issues in the original post and follow up comment that are not without problems. For example, it is not obvious what one means by mental competence. Another example, it’s not clear what idea of ‘citizen’ is being used here.
Relevant Links:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/citizenship/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/decision-capacity/
http://whatsortsofpeople.wordpress.com/
Lou,
I don’t think there is any way to coherently establish the “legality” of the existence of the U.S. Constitution….only that it does exist and determines the validity of our derived “legal” rules.
But, of course, one could (if they were so inclined) construct some sort of theoretical apparatus that buttresses the Constitution with a justification derived from certain foundational (i.e. beyond question) moral principles that (ultimately) descend (literally!) from a rather profligate metaphysical superstructure….
But we wouldn’t want to go and do that!
In response to my own comment of yester-night ["that I would not mind seeing some revision to our Constitution"], I must, in leu of the fact that the State posted the proposed constitutional amendments for the Nov 4 election today, make it clear that I DO NOT want to see many of these proposed amendments. It is beyond me that we would even accept the proposal to amendment No. 2, as a proposal at all. It is bitterly coercive. I will be voting NO to the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment!!
Regarding the marriage issue, whatever happened to the “public policy” exception to the “full faith and credit” clause?
Clearly, a same-sex marriage entered into in California and Massachusetts likely will “offend a deeply held public policy” in a state like Mississippi or Alabama, and it seems reasonable for courts in those respective states to hold as such.
I suppose Florida, with its peculiar history and schizophrenic cultural identity, is an exceptional case.
And, in any case, the amendment is in and of itself irrelevant. It’s function is purely instrumental in driving out the rural, culturally immature vote in order to deliver yet another victory for the GOP in the presidential election.
I’m thinking we should have the candidates compete in a version of “The Running Man” to determine the next president.
Mark,
Your idea would certainly make for an entertaining election night. Imagine, the winner becomes President of the United States, while the loser, well, dies.
If implemented, your idea lessen the incentive to run for president. Which, I think, would be a wonderful step towards doing away with the office in its entirety.
To think, a world without the presidency. For that matter, a world without any form of legalized marriage. Though, why stop there? To think, a world without a U.S. Constitution…
Hi Linda,
Children under 18 cannot enter into contract; they are minors under the supervision of their parents or wards of the court.
As for the incapacitated, incarcerated, and the slightly retarded, these are all special cases. Why do you want to talk about them for the purpose of this very broad claim I have made? Anyway…
Does the government have an obligation to the incapacitated? To the extent that we all have a Samaritan obligation to help those in dire straits I think so. This is an issue I frequently take the far right to task on. If we are going to call ourselves a nation, corporately it would seem that we have an obligation to aid legitimately distressed in our midst just as we have an individual obligation. Now of course that is a moral claim in itself. If I in the course of my life encounter a truly needy person and I conclude that it has fallen to me to aid them, do I have an obligation to do so? To whom do I have that obligation? To the distressed person? To the nation acting perhaps as their agent? To God? Perhaps to some moral code that I have attained to, and purposed in my heart to follow. The federal and state constitutions are mute on this point, although there is some precedent and law relating to the matter. But I think it is a subject for another post.
Does government have an obligation to the incarcerated? Well it seems to me that a few of the amendments deal with that, and since the amendments in question are there to bind the hands of government. I think that such rights as habeas corpus and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment apply to all prisoners’ citizens or not.
Does the government have an obligation to the slightly retarded? What do mean by that? How about to the profoundly retarded or handicapped? This falls under our first argument. Are we talking about those individuals who are able to live in group homes, and hold down jobs, those who can register to vote? Some segment of the student body at UNF? It is too broad a question as are some of the others like the rights of the dead. Stop busting my chops.
Of course I think that the pledge should be considered a real verbal commitment. This is why some of our citizens do not say it for religious reasons. By doing this they pointedly infer that their loyalty is to some other entity that does not allow “dual citizenship”. A few Christian sects are like this and the conclusion is obvious, they do not consider themselves part of the nation in that way.
You make an interesting comment about forced nationalism. I don’t feel that anyone should be forced to swear allegiance to the flag, but I do believe that the full panoply of privileges that come with being a member of our nation should not be afforded those who will not.
But what is more important I think is what would happen if our Constitution were jettisoned. So many possibilities arise. For one, I and many of my compatriots would no longer consider themselves citizens of the United States. We would be free agents and would considering all sorts of direct action to secure our liberty. With the Constitution and the Ten Amendments gone, the thirteenth, fifteenth and nineteenth amendments would be gone as well. What problems that would cause! I agree with you the pledge is perhaps said too often, and it should be a solemn act made by a adult who fully understands all that it implies.
We have a very clear amendment procedure for those who wish to do so. It is a very difficult hurdle to clear however, and for good reason. In this way when an amendment does pass, we can be sure that a supermajority of both houses and the several states have agreed and because of this, the minority may more easily join with the majority to accept the change.
I always appreciate Jen’s comments, I agree with her that the idea of “Citizenship” could stand a bit of fleshing out. It would make a nice essay.
Lou,
You state, “Of course I think that the pledge should be considered a real verbal commitment.”
I find your infatuation with the idea that the pledge is somehow indicative of a binding political contract between a ruler and ruled to be an amazing feat of improvised reasoning.
To be brutally honest, the pledge strikes me as a depressing, but obvious, attempt by the government to inculcate children at a young age with the appearance of validity.
The literature on this topic is immense, I know. Yet, I advise all social contract theorists who attempt to argue for the existence of an actual, historical social contract to be very careful. For an actual contract means precisely that: an actual contract. I have never signed a contract consenting to be ruled by the government as a citizen.
You further state, “Certainty of Terms – the terms of the contract must be sufficiently clear to permit the court to conclude that a contractual agreement was intended and to determine from the document what the terms of the agreement were. It must be written very clearly and specifically. In a court of law, a contract is construed against the preparer.”
Where in the Constitution are the terms that delimit the stipulations of its dissolution? Where in the Constitution does it say, “If A, B, and C are not met, this contract is null and void”?
In the Declaration of Independence we find the words, “But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security.”
This, needless to say, is vague and open-ended. Of course, the Declaration of Independence is not under American law a legally binding document. Do you wish to make it the preamble to your new found contract?
The Constitution is a document that delineates the proper role of the federal government, i.e. what they are permitted to do, with the aside, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
Not a contract binding subjects to a sovereign.
The herculean task of justifying the coercive political power of the state faces you, Lou.
Keep us posted on your success,
Aaron
A simple task Aaron. A person either loves their country and their neighbors or they do not. The coercive political power of the state begins with my neighbor and I deciding what conditions prevail on the political spectrum . Tyranny? Well, maybe we decide to call in sick, and take up a different type of work that day.
If this is not the case, most likely we will go to work and pay no attention to the political turnings of our nation. Ill advised perhaps, because you wind up with what we have now, a political yard overgrown with weeds and junk cars in the front lawn.
I have a desire to secure my neighborhood, so that I and my family can live there in peace, so that my grandchildren can play in the yard, or so I can take a walk in the evening with Mrs. Rose. It is relatively simple to affect this type of situation once you and your neighbors decide that there will be little or no crime in your neighborhood, no matter what that takes.
The man who wants to paint his house purple, the lady who has too many cats, these are of little or no concern to us. Live and let live. But in our neighborhood, we pity the person who thinks they will break in and steal, or worse invade and rob. We will send flowers to their families for we are committed to using “coercive political power”. During the fall, I frequently have dinner with the doors wide open.
We inculcate our children with the idea that folks should more or less be left alone to live their lives in peace, and the consequences of that profound philosophical statement.
In the same manner a majority of citizens including myself, who really should be paying closer attention, I grant you that, secure the county, and the state. We use different mechanisms, occasionally resulting in my getting a speeding ticket, or a property tax bill. Nevertheless the primary goal is the same, peace, prosperity, happiness. We do this, I and my friends in this state. The mayor, the state attorney, my representatives in the state house, all of whom I have taken the time to meet and speak with, do this for me. We, by our corporate action, accomplished by democratic elections and parliamentary rules of order, justify the coercive political power of the State of Florida. We runs dis. Don’t like it? Take yourself down to the political headquarters of your choice and start talking to people and proving to them that you are willing to work for the common good.
After a while, you might become Governor of the State of Florida. Remember as you do, that there are always men and women of good will, who have ceded their power and authority to the legislature, but who are not afraid of taking it back should some basic right of liberty be called into question, freedom of speech, personal defense, etc. We are well equipped to do this and shall continue to be, no matter what that takes.
Of course we will teach this to our children. That we are the guarantors of peace and freedom. That we uphold government with our many hands, and have only to remove those many hands and it will come crashing down, to be rebuilt again. That each individual political actor must ultimately do what he or she thinks is right, even if it means being a member of a small minority, maybe even a minority of one as Dr. Paul has occasionally been in the House. But that it is better to act as group agreeing in writing if at all possible as to how peace and freedom are to be accomplished.
We are very successful Aaron.
Lou,
I certainly share your desire to live in general peace with my fellow man. Only, I view the state as being an inherently coercive, morally unjustified entity that is the genesis of more ill than good.
I think it is an Hobbesian error to presume that without a coercive state in place, then a peaceful existence would be unattainable.
It is also an error to presume that since the state provides a modicum of domestic security, that only the state can provide domestic security. Acting peaceably in a social group does not entail the creation of a state or quasi-state apparatus.
The question, I think, is, “Is there a better way to do things?”
Aaron
As Hannibal Lecter said, “We should be willing to try new things.”
It seems to me that if there is a better way to do things, the way to find out would be to conduct a controlled experiment. A large community could be established and operated for a time as a closed system, in some isolated, out the way place like Montana, or Yulee.
What would its parameters be Aaron? I would enjoy watching such a community unfold and interact. If the world is spending billions on a supercollider in France, surely we could break loose several million for a social experiment somewhere west of Lubbock, TX. If you have the time, perhaps you could outline in a new post how you would envision this libertarian utopia.
Lou, you say: “A person either loves their country and their neighbors or they do not”
I remain true to form, I suppose. haha
I suppose that makes me an agnostic citizen?
As always, I commend your ability to leap so strongly into faith and commit so fiercely to a love of country without limits. It is admirable! Nonetheless, I believe that my obligations as a citizen of America is better served if I question, and question often. I am not sure I would say or ought to be obligated to say ‘I love America’, as much as I would be willing to say or ought to say “I like living in America”. I don’t have love affairs with countries, though, admittedly, there is something extraordinarily attractive about Italy. Still, I wonder if loving a country is like asking to have your heart broken. Sooner or later, she lets you down.
I don’t think I would ever feel compelled to say ‘God Bless America’, though, in so far as God exist, I would like the big guy to bless our land. I would like that because, I live here, as do my children, and if our land is blessed, I hope that so are we. Still, I recognize that America isn’t all-good, nor all-mighty and that the God that rules this land, is not the God that rules others. As you can imagine, I do not like the contention “Love your country, Love God, or you are a traitor”, which I see so often displayed on bumper stickers here in the south.
All that being said…in response to your comment to me, I don’t believe that we can ignore certain sections of our community. A broad statement such as your require the consideration. What is more, we have to consider migrants, dual citizens, and American children with foreign national parents, etc.
I wonder if the section of the US who would be willing to make the broad commitment you suggest is actually a minority?
Captain Spock (Leonard Nimoy) in “Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan” on the perils of Khan’s dichotomous tendencies:
“He’s intelligent, but not experienced. His pattern indicates two-dimensional thinking”
Dear Linda,
Love of country does not equate with love of government nor love of the present administration, so I think Mark’s comment is unfair. My thinking is far from two dimensional. Country, is the land, culture and history of those who live around me. La cosa nostra, this thing of ours. Nor do I ascribe to the all good, all mighty description although I wish that my all countrymen would aspire to be good, and for our country to be strong. I expect Italians and Japanese to love their country, just as my Albanian friends do, passionately, fiercely. I expect all men to love liberty. I have no use for those who do not. I think it reasonable to expect that those who have adopted a country would commit to love her, and equally reasonable to assume that those who do not are unwelcome, those who take their oaths of citizenship frivilously equally unwelcome.
I see that you have brought God into the discussion, and I remind you that I have not. Of course the pledge includes the words “Under God”, but all nations may lay claim to that if they wish. I do not want this post to become theological in nature so I will not comment further on the issue. America has a variety of individuals in her border, and her borders are unsecured. I must say that the possiblity that those who understand what the Constitution means and why it must be upheld are in minority, is very likely. The question is to what lengths are we willing to go to see that this idea of government by the people shall not perish from the earth. Of all the nations America has been willing to accept, embrace, and include immigrants from all other nations along with their cultural practices and religious beliefs. But we will not budge on our political system, no for that you must have the votes.
Lou,
My comment wasn’t directed as a description of anything more than Linda’s comments (so in that sense it wasn’t “unfair”, I don’t think).
Dear Mark,
I apologize then, for being unfair to you.
Lou
The pledge of allegiance strikes us here in the UK as just plain weird. No offence, but it seems a peculiar behaviour – an enforced political piece of posturing – enforced on children…
Is not the contract between citizen and state implied by our remaining here, enjoying the liberty bought by the state’s acts and by taking part in free education (and healthcare for us!), and the like?
THe need to sign up is part of the negotiated democratic mandate – but the pledge seems more tokenistic – but maybe I misconstrue it.
Dave
Dave,
No, I think you are correct in pointing out the patent absurdity of the pledge of allegiance.
As for your comment on the existence of an tacitly implied political contract, I must say that that is perhaps as equally (if not more) absurd. Consider Plato’s dialogue “Crito”.
“If we leave this place without having persuaded the city,” asks Socrates, “are we standing by agreements that are just or not” [emphasis added] (Crito, 50a)?
Socrates’ justification for not escaping his execution is predicated upon the belief that there exists a tacit agreement- i.e. agreed to by “deeds not words”- between the individual and the state. That is, by receiving “benefits”- education, protection, or otherwise- from the State, and by refusing to emigrate from the polis, individuals have contractually obligated themselves to be ruled by the State.
This agreement, or tacit political contract, is purported to justify the existence of the state as the only entity with the legal right to initiate the use of force or the threat of force to further its ambitions.
As such, the individual must legally abide by whatever declaration or decree the state may promulgate. This reasoning, however, is somewhat problematic.
We must remember that the central question at hand is whether or not a state’s authority over a particular geographical location is justified. If it is not, then it follows that the state is simply another collection of individuals making ownership claims to the life and property of other individuals- no different, but perhaps worse, than, say, a gang of thugs. Consider the following analysis.
One who asserts that another tacitly submits to the pretensions of an entity when one maintains residence in, or refuses to emigrate from, that entity’s sphere of influence, first presumes that that entity has a legitimate right to claim such influence over the location.
In asserting his tacit political contract argument to justify state authority, Socrates presupposed the precise thing he was trying to prove: namely, that the state’s political authority over the territory in question, in this instance Athens, is justified.
It is a fallacy to assume the validity of a proposition as a means to establishing it.
Aaron
I get to say the pledge all the time as an adult, and of course as a baritone, I get to sing the Anthem quite a bit.
Well actually, the central question is whether my personal authority over a particular geographical location is justified.
Here’s how it goes, I am standing in a generic spot on the earth, and some uncaring sot, bumps into me. I don’t know him, and he doesn’t know me. It is just the two of us. I say excuse me but he does not. I move out of his way (this is the turning the cheek part that you hear so much about, but pay attention, it is not an open-ended grace). He continues to bump into me, pushing me and hard, obviously with a total disregard for my personal space, and my physical discomfort, and the next few times, as I continue to move, I protest mildly, gently chiding him about the necessity to respect other people’s boundaries. I am beginning to be concerned that he means to do serious harm to my person. He makes to run up on me again. Bop! I hit him smartly on the mastoid process with my little leather sap and he goes down like a rock. I know he will have a splitting headache when he wakes up in an hour, but a little aspirin and a good nights sleep and he will forget the whole thing in a week. Realizing this, I purposely kick him in the side, breaking a floating rib. Now, that injury will take months to heal. Every time he breathes in, he will remember that perhaps it is important to respect the personal space of others. You are mistaken, Aaron, when you say that the state is the only entity with the legal right to initiate the use of force. This is the reason why we have a Second Amendment, so that we remember that each citizen retains the power of self-defense and thugs and against tyranny.
Now my friends and I own little houses on little plots of land in Jacksonville. Our wives live in the houses with us, and the children play in our yards. We are poor men who work hard and want only to live at peace. There are hundreds upon hundreds of us, and we try to get along and cooperate with each other. We agree on various procedures and customs to facilitate this.
Others come from we know not where. We welcome them, saying come, live among us, share our happiness and teach us what you may. We will be brothers. Some of the men do this and we are happy to have them. Others do not. They are anarchists, and thieves. They do not respect our peace, our property, our way of life, our social conventions, or our laws. We bring to bear our constabulary and justice system upon them, but it merely slows them down. They have their own gang and mean to take over everything. The police seem helpless.
Hmmmmm. What to do? What to do?
You look at the state as a monolith and it certainly can be viewed that way. It is arrayed against you, especially those of you who despise the pledge and the anthem. Not us. We are the state, and we have agreed to control this geographical location, and are justified in doing so because we have invested our life and our sweat equity in it. We have joined our personal authority over a particular geographical location into a corporate authority, a social contract using the Constitution of the United States as its boilerplate. We will not be moved. We would rather die than allow our legitimate claim to be usurped. We are willing to do more than die.
Lou,
(1) You describe the following event: “He continues to bump into me, pushing me and hard, obviously with a total disregard for my personal space, and my physical discomfort… I am beginning to be concerned that he means to do serious harm to my person. He makes to run up on me again.” [I took the liberty of abridging you.]
Then you conclude with: “You are mistaken, Aaron, when you say that the state is the only entity with the legal right to initiate the use of force. This is the reason why we have a Second Amendment, so that we remember that each citizen retains the power of self-defense and thugs and against tyranny.”
I must say, I do not follow your conclusion.
I said the state is the only entity with the legal right to initiate force or the threat of force. The “uncaring sot”, as you call him, initiated force, and, what is more, provided you with good reason to fear for your personal safety.
In your anecdote you accurately described the use of force in self-defense. In noway have you afforded an individual the legal right to initiate force or the threat of force.
(2) “They are anarchists, and thieves.”
An anarchist is simply one who, for whatever reason, does not believe in the legitimacy of the state. There is nothing immoral about that.
Rather, anarchy is the radical idea that other people aren’t your property. To align anarchists with thieves is, well, a bit disingenuous on your part.
(3) “We are the state, and we have agreed to control this geographical location, and are justified in doing so because we have invested our life and our sweat equity in it.”
Who is “we”? Control what property exactly? Your own, I hope. For I have never given you or any state the right to control my property. You justify a coercive state by the fact you have, “invested [your] life and sweat equity in it”? Well, now, your attempt at justifying the state gets ever more vague and problematic, Lou.
(4) “We have joined our personal authority over a particular geographical location into a corporate authority, a social contract using the Constitution of the United States as its boilerplate. We will not be moved. We would rather die than allow our legitimate claim to be usurped. We are willing to do more than die.”
When have you “joined” your “personal authority” over any geographical region? What “social contract”? Show me the contract that you, me, and every other “citizen” has signed.
I cannot disagree with the three sentences. I am certain the state will not simply abdicate power willfully, but rather, will die to maintain their monopoly over the life, liberty, and private property of their subjects. I am also certain that you will do much, much more than die, Lou. If history is any indication, the state is prepared to enslave, kill, and imprison competitors and dissenters alike.
In short, you spend an awful lot of time waxing eloquent about the joys of the state, and far too little in justifying it on either moral or practical grounds.
I say, if you are so apt to find a social contract binding you to the state, and since you are encountering extreme difficulties in finding one, why not fashion one yourself, sign and have it notarized, and sent it off to the federal government so they can have it on file.
Have a good evening,
Aaron
Aaron – hi.
Mmmmm…
You may be right. I did half have the Crito in mind – and I am not sure I agree with myself – but still think the tacit Social Contract a better contractual assent that the pledge…
That said – the whole social contract thing worries me too – if you’re not careful you end up with either totalitarianism or Nozick’s neo-liberal nightmare…
As I have mentioned earlier, Aaron, there are multiple documents which I have signed expressing my acknowledgement of the contractual obligation. I am not aware that I am having any difficulty at all in proving the existence of that contract.
Your difficulty it seems is that you do not want to be a part of such an agreement and wish you had some alternative other than an intellectual hermitage. I agree that it would be nice to have some place to go. I view the anarchist is one who denies the right of others to establish a political order. The establishment of political order is an act of labor constructed via the right of individuals to assemble. It is akin to building a house, or anything of added value due to the labors of man. The anarchist desires to make null and void the fruit of such labor. As such he is a destroyer and a thief.
The state, is nothing more than a group of people who act in concert, primarily for their own benefit. No king ever ruled alone.
Once I decided to secure my person or property against interlopers, I have initiated force. When my neighbors and I agree together to do so, and hire a sheriff we have done so. When I slip that nine millimeter into my pocket in the morning I have done so. When we build a wall around the city, or across the border. They are all defensive acts, or precautionary if you will, but they are acts of force just the same.
I think it is much easier to make the claim that groups of people do not have the right to encroach upon the property of others, to invade and conquer. That represents the unacceptable use of power by a state, it is something that states have regularly done, and may rightly be condemned. When rogue states do this it is just cause for war, when individuals do it, they are labeled criminals.
But to be secure in one’s borders is not to be condemned. If I and my friends cultivate land and reap the harvest, we may invite strangers to the Thanksgiving dinner. It is right that we should do so, but how does one make the claim that they can come into our midst and sit down to eat, uninvited?
Lou, just for reference, and in response to your comment, I enclose the words for the ‘Oath of Allegiance for Naturalized Citizens’. No pledge to ‘love’, as you can see. What is more, I must say that it would be my contention that a person can defend and uphold the Constitution, while acknowledging that it has some flaws and work towards getting it changed. One can accept, in essence, the general concept of the Constitution, without supporting the idea that it is permanent and rigid. I would consider a ‘domestic ememy’ of the Constitution a person who blindly follws its directive and never questions the contemporary validity or the ethical implications of its directives. Perhaps others see it differently.
Finally, on God, yes, I had to bring it up. Surely, it would be preferable to have a political discussion about our land without the concept of religion, but the country keeps bringing it up, eventhough the country promissed me when I arrived that they would seperate church and state. As you can see from the oath, their promise-keeping is not going well…
“Oath of Allegiance”
The oath of allegiance is:
“I hereby declare, on oath, that I absolutely and entirely renounce and abjure all allegiance and fidelity to any foreign prince, potentate, state, or sovereignty of whom or which I have heretofore been a subject or citizen; that I will support and defend the Constitution and laws of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by the law; that I will perform work of national importance under civilian direction when required by the law; and that I take this obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; so help me God.”
In some cases, USCIS allows the oath to be taken without the clauses:
“. . .that I will bear arms on behalf of the United States when required by law; that I will perform noncombatant service in the Armed Forces of the United States when required by law. . .”
http://www.uscis.gov/portal/site/uscis/menuitem.5af9bb95919f35e66f614176543f6d1a/?vgnextoid=931696981298d010VgnVCM10000048f3d6a1RCRD
See you soon!
“What is more, I must say that it would be my contention that a person can defend and uphold the Constitution, while acknowledging that it has some flaws and work towards getting it changed”
I agree. That is absolutely the idea, and an amendment process is included, as it is with most contracts.
The idea of loving one’s country and one’s neighbors was a bit of rabbit trail I must admit, as desireable as it may be. It was one sentence at the begining of a long paragraph that might be changed to say that one either agrees, tacitly or otherwise, to be bound by the contract or one does not. From there, I proceed to explain how I think that comes about.
In that case, and at least in regards to how one honors a contract, we are in agreement. Once a person has agreed to a contract, the commitment ought to be complete.
Linda,
For the purpose of this reply, I will grant Lou his “contract”. (Even though I believe emphatically that no such contract exists.)
When you say, “the commitment ought to be complete,” do you merely mean that the stipulations of the contract should be met?
If I contract with you, say, to pay you a sum of money in exchange for one of your watercolors (let us pretend you are a superb artist), then, yes, I agree that the “commitment ought to be complete.” That is, I ought to pay you the agreed upon sum, while you provide me with painting.
However, does not a “political contract” strike you as being somewhat different in nature? Perhaps I did sign the contract, but perhaps I myself now find the stipulations to be unpalatable and wish to extract myself from its confines. How might I go about doing that? Would I be permitted to? History seems to indicate: No.
What say you?
Dear Aaron,
As I noted in the original post…
“Finally, when one party to a contractual agreement fails to provide the goods and services promised, the other party has no obligation to fulfill their part of the agreement.”
I think history is replete with revolutionary incidents demonstrating the ablity of the people to declare their contract with the established government (another group of people) null and void and move to procure a different vendor. This happens both individually, and at the same time en masse. When en masse, it is accorded historical significance. However, an individual choice can be very effective, and I think there are a variety of options available, from becoming an active insurgent, a political activist, an expatriot, a criminal, a litigant, or just by simply dropping off the grid. The motivator is the set of conditions that result in an individual making a reasoned decision that the political status quo is no longer bearable, and then the ability to convince a sizable faction (not necessarily a majority) that they agree.
Lou,
It appears that you are unwilling to address the difficulties from which your position suffers. But I will not give up on you just yet.
You say a valid contract must possess the following elements:
1. Mutual agreement – a meeting of the minds where both sides agree to an offer and an acceptance of that offer.
Difficulty:
A valid political contract requires explicit consent, thus, you say, “both sides agree to an offer and an acceptance of that offer.”
(1) The Constitution was signed and ratified by an aristocratic minority; not by all men and women in the geographical area to be subjugated;
(2) I and hundreds of millions of others have never given explicit consent to be ruled by the United States Government;
Thus:
(3) If you reject (2), then you must provide me with an actual document that stipulates the terms of my submission to the government, and it must be signed by myself and a legitimate government official. You must also provide every citizen with a similar document.
In short, the U.S. Constitution must be continuously ratified by each individual.
If you have time over the weekend, please do read Lysander Spooner’s “No Treason”. It is a poignant and serious piece concerning this very same issue. http://www.lysanderspooner.org/notreason.htm
5. Certainty of Terms – the terms of the contract must be sufficiently clear to permit the court to conclude that a contractual agreement was intended and to determine from the document what the terms of the agreement were. It must be written very clearly and specifically. In a court of law, a contract is construed against the preparer.
Difficulty:
No such terms of dissolution are present in the U.S. Constitution.
(1) Where in the Constitution are the terms that delimit the terms of its dissolution? Where in the Constitution does it say, “If A, B, and C are not met, this contract is null and void”?
(2) Who is to determine when the terms of the contract have been violated? You seem to indicate the courts, or a particular court. What court in America possesses the authority to dissolve the Constitution? Do you expect a court, which itself is a government entity, to willfully dissolve the government and thus divest itself of all relevance? Would not the court be a biased adjudicator in this event?
(3) If individuals themselves are the sole determiners of when the terms of the contract have been violated, then there must exist some recourse for that individual to take by which he may remove himself from the coercive control of the state. Such as:
A. THE IMMIGRATION & NATIONALITY ACT
Section 349(a)(5) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) (8 U.S.C. 1481(a)(5)) is the section of law that governs the ability of a United States citizen to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship. That section of law provides for the loss of nationality by voluntarily performing the following act with the intent to relinquish his or her U.S. nationality:
“(5) making a formal renunciation of nationality before a diplomatic or consular officer of the United States in a foreign state , in such form as may be prescribed by the Secretary of State” (emphasis added).
B. ELEMENTS OF RENUNCIATION
A person wishing to renounce his or her U.S. citizenship must voluntarily and with intent to relinquish U.S. citizenship:
1. appear in person before a U.S. consular or diplomatic officer,
2. in a foreign country (normally at a U.S. Embassy or Consulate); and
3. sign an oath of renunciation
Renunciations that do not meet the conditions described above have no legal effect. Because of the provisions of section 349(a)(5), Americans cannot effectively renounce their citizenship by mail, through an agent, or while in the United States. In fact, U.S. courts have held certain attempts to renounce U.S. citizenship to be ineffective on a variety of grounds, as discussed below.
Interesting, is it not? One may not renounce one’s citizenship while maintaining residence in the United States of America.
Of course, if you believe in the right to life, liberty, and private property (as you say you do), as the Declaration of Independence clearly asserts is inalienable, then you must find this problematic. I, as an individual or as a member of a family unit, either live on or in my private property, rent the right to inhabit some other person’s private property, or receive such right via gift, and live by exchanging either portions of my property or selling my labor, productive time, and marketable knoweledge with other individuals for desired commodities, whether they be goods or services. What moral right does the government possess that will permit them to deny me of my private property?
You might say that the government is providing a service that greatly facilitates, or makes possible, the aforementioned transactions. Though, if the government is an unjustified (and it is until it is justified) entity, and I have separated myself from their coercive control, then they are no different than a criminal organization with a lot of muscle and resources making specious claims on my property and person. Besides, if they insist on providing an environment that is relatively conducive to economic transactions, then I am in no way indebted, either legally or morally, to them for such actions.
(3) The Constitution is a document that delineates the proper role of the federal government, i.e. what they are permitted to do, with the caveat, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.” Clearly not a contract binding subjects to a sovereign.
You cannot in good faith maintain that the Constitution is a legally binding political contract, Lou. But I await your impassioned reply nonetheless.
Aaron
Dear Aaron,
Presently you know I am engaged in the process of pouring existentialism down my throat as if though a large funnel. Hopefully, it will pass right though and there will be no harm done.
I had asked you earlier to wax eloquent on a proposed microcosmic experiment in anarchy. Linda has mentioned to me in passing that such social experimentation has actually occured. I still would be interested in hearing how you think such a thing might be established and studied.
I am convinced of the need for a social contract. I prefer it to be enacted at the county level and I think it needs to be a very stringent one. There needs to be a clearly defined one at the state and at the national level, each successive level more loosely constructed. I feel the need of this so that basic human rights are respected and preserved. But even as I say this I know that the creation of such contracts restrict human freedom, and worse yet cause it to suffer abuses at the hands of the idiotic, the apathetic, and evil, who pervert such systems, each in their own painful way.
I am a citizen of the United States, a former member of her military, who yet believes that the form of government we ascribe to in theory may yet be achievable in fact. My alliegiance to the Republic is still intact, and I believe that there are enough of my neighbors left who agree so that we may preserve the Union and hold our land and our heritage for our decendents, and for those who come to this country willing to be a part of it and all that it entails.
At the same time I recognize the right of rebellion, and do not deny that I myself might one day awake convinced that this contract I have entered into is no longer in my best interests or more to the point, that it is no longer being adhered to in any significant way. Nothing is forever. But on that day, I should cease to be a citizen and become a combatant, at war with my fellow men, those that still corporately comprise the state. As such I deserve respect, but not mercy, for I should offer none.
In this country, I am both sovereign and citizen. I am the state. My loyalty is not to a King or an administration, but to small booklet that I carry around in my pocket. My solidarity is with the men and women who agree that this contract is a good thing and voluntarily agree to adhere to it. Those who would ignore it, abuse it, usurp it, they are the enemy and it becomes a matter of political expediency and necessity to see that they are thwarted at every turn and destroyed if possible.
Lou,
Are you loving your “precious” America now? When will you realize that the American experiment was destined to fail (good riddance!)?
http://www.newsweek.com/id/183663
I’d rather now swear allegiance (as you seem to want so much to do) to a socialist nation.
I look forward to the day when I will leave… but all in good time.
Lou,
Not to re-stir the waters, but in re-reading your final paragraph in your last comment, I could not help but observe that it is closer in style (and appeal) to a political speech than a philosophical argument. In fact, everyone of your responses to my comments more closely resembled political rhetoric than sound reasoning.
I mean, just note the force and verve in the following paragraph:
“In this country, I am both sovereign and citizen. I am the state. My loyalty is not to a King or an administration, but to small booklet that I carry around in my pocket. My solidarity is with the men and women who agree that this contract is a good thing and voluntarily agree to adhere to it. Those who would ignore it, abuse it, usurp it, they are the enemy and it becomes a matter of political expediency and necessity to see that they are thwarted at every turn and destroyed if possible.”
You romanticize your beloved America and its antiquated (both in intellectual vigor and relevance) Constitution.
I really do find it entertaining and I would laugh, but such patriotic sentiments as yours are largely responsible for the current state of the Union.
The “now” in the penultimate paragraph in the post preceding the one directly above should be a “not”.
Oh, and Lou, I am harsh, but I need to be. You, a self-proclaimed lover of freedom and economic liberty, above all people should share my sentiments.
I see Aaron has replaced the generic design next to his name with the flag of “anarcho-capitalism”, hehe.
It is time to start flying my colors!
Dear Aaron,
Your comments might have merit, if it were not for the hundreds of men and women I have met, partly because of this article. We are legion and on the move. Since September 08, I have been elected to the Republican Executive Committee of Duval County. I am the chairman of their rules committee and parliamentarian. A completely conservative slate has been elected.
I am also the parliamentarian for the NE FL Republican Liberty Caucus and will serve as parliamentarian at both the state and national conventions this year. I will also have the privilege of addressing the delegates. In addition there are many groups I have come in contact with whose individuals understand what lies ahead and are making the necessary preparations in order to be ready to meet those financial and political challenges.
I think you may have paid too much attention to the naysayers and the intellectuals who tell you that an enlightened society is just over the horizon. Wherever I turn my eyes, I see patriotic constitutionalists presenting themselves for service, ready again to committ their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor.
In the The Report of the Committee of Correspondence to the Boston Town Meeting in 1772, John Adams writes that all men have:
We maintain, and will maintain as adamantly as can be imagined, that these statements will continue to accurately describe the conditions that prevail in our country.