There are some who question the ethics, or even the necessity, of creating a contractual relationship between the government and the governed. The bottom line, though, is that there has always been a contractual relationship – but the terms have been determined by those at the very top. The ancient Egyptians were ruled by the pharaohs who had an extensive military establishment, but the number of battles that the Egyptians fought with external foes was fairly small (and often disastrous for the Egyptians). Instead, the military establishment existed to control the Egyptian population, protecting the ruling class rather than the whole populace. Later on, there was the idea that there was a “divine right of kings,” a nice collaboration between the Catholic Church and the ruling classes in Europe, which taught that God put the kings in place for a reason and that it was the duty for every good citizen who also wanted to get into heaven at the end of life to obey that king without question. That included marching off to war, paying whatever taxation scheme happened to be in place at the time.
It is becoming increasingly clear that there has to be a better way for a country to move forward. Obviously, nations need order and laws, but the autocratic method is not the only one. The American model is still in its infancy – in fact, as awful as those Articles of Confederation are, that country may not be long for this earth – but the fact remains that having a system in which people can vote for their own destiny and elect leaders to make decisions for them so that society can protect its most vulnerable and allow for general progress. As Rousseau puts it, “The problem is to find a form of association which will defend and protect with the whole common force the person and goods of each associate, and in which each, while uniting himself with all, may still obey himself alone, and remain as free as before” (Rousseau, web). This suggests a social contract in which people are willing to give up some of their freedoms. In exchange, they receive benefits from associating with the larger government. Some of this lost freedom will likely include the payment of taxes to support the function of that government. This makes sense, as the payment of such ostensibly neutral forces as law enforcement and military personnel should come from an objective, public treasury rather than private forces who may have an interest in outcomes that would stilt their judgment. One would not want to see, in the future, a government that is allegedly representative but in which business interests pay representatives and other leaders directly to secure the outcomes that they want in legislation, so that the interests of the people are not taken into account. That would be even worse than the most totalitarian sort of monarchy, because the people would be taught that they have the right to elect their representatives that would make their nation’s decisions, but in fact those votes would turn into a sham, because there would be periods of lip service followed by periods of action favoring those interests. A moral social contract has to involve give and take by both the leadership and the people, leaving business interests space to make money but not leave to make the process corrupt.
Works Cited
Rousseau, Jean-Jacques. “Of the Social Compact.” History Wiz. 1762. Web. 4 July
2016.
