4. Locke is one of the main ‘social contract’ theorists, a main support for thinking about limits on government power. Is the contract a real, negotiated agreement? If not, why should a fictive ‘contract’ be thought of as a central idea of human and civil rights?
Locke evaluates the concept of a ‘social contract’ that unites a group of citizens within a particular nation state that marks a mutually agreed upon set of regulations. The contact itself is not physical, or even something that is explicitly negotiated and agreed upon; instead, it underscores a common understanding where all parties involved sacrifice certain liberties in order to ensure more relative safety and protection from fellow peers who also participate in the contract. One ‘agrees’ with the contract by participating in the society and culture of a particular state and adhering to its guidelines, inadvertently showing support even without vocal acknowledgement.
This contract can be seen as central to developments in human and civil rights as the tacit covenant as it gives a certain power to the individual instead of just the sovereign or government. Locke writes that the government is limited by the fact that “no government can have a right to obedience from a people who have not freely consented to it” (102). Because a government is structured around having the “consent” illustrated by the image of this social contract, it is therefore likely to administer individual rights and protections for its subjects or it would not be consented to in the first place.
I agree with everything Thomas says, but I think you can view the social contract in a different way as a central idea to human and civil rights. When people give up certain rights in order to join the social contract, or governing force, they have consented to its power and are willing to obey its laws. However, if certain individual rights are lacking, then citizens have a right and a duty to resist the social contract and push for change. If the government does not respect such citizens, then they are not obligated to remain within the government, and they can either overthrow the current regime or fight to change the current one. Because the government only exists to serve the people, when certain people are not benefitting from the government, they have a right to cause change.
ReplyDelete