BY THIS STANDARD-Greg L. Bahnsen

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Recently I have been looking more deeply into the entire "social compact theory". And I have concluded it is pure humanistic hogwash. What's interesting is it seems to be the basis for BOTH socialism and "libertarianism".

The social compact theory, also called the social contract theory, is the basis for the concept of "natural rights". the theory runs essentially thus:

Man is by nature in his original state an independent unit, sui juris, completely equal to every other man, and entitled by nature to exercise his entire will. Natural liberty is defined as the freedom to do whatever (the man) wished. John Locke refined this definition by stipulating that natural liberty was the freedom and priviledge to do whatever one wished "within the bounds of natural law", but this boiled down to the same thing, because man, as the highest known animal and endowed with reason, was the final arbiter of what constituted natural law. So man gets to define for himself what the boundaries of his liberty are, which is nothing other than saying man has "the right" to do whatever he wishes.

Natural rights were identified with this "natural liberty", and were claimed to be basically the right to secure one's own existence and to secure whatever makes oneself happy. "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" are the philosophical assertion of the Lockean theory of natural rights, natural liberty, and the social contract.

The theory proceeds to explain that because there are so many of these naturally independent and free individuals, whose wills often clash, that therefore men banded together by a "social compact" or agreement. This social compact or contract consisted of an agreement to bind themselves to one another, relinquishing certain of their individual natural rights or liberties specified in certain rules that restrained those certain natural rights, and agreeing to submit to the authority of certain men whom they all chose to appoint to government. The authority granted to these governing persons was to be used to secure the remaining rights to the rest of the population. The "certain rules" or terms of this compact make up the "organic law" or constitution of the society. Later person entering the society by birth or immigration are assumed to have consented to this compact or contract, and thus are assumed to owe their allegience to the organic law, the rules thus stipulated, the chosen government, and the relinquishing of those certain specified rights for the proffered protection of the remaining rights.

This is the Hobbes-Locke theory of the origin of human governments. It is also the foundation for the Declaration of Independence and the US Constitution, and is the philosophy upon which much of British and practically all of American jurisprudence rests. Blackstone, the famous commentator of English Law, recognised that the theory was in fact false, in regards to the actual facts of history. There never was a time in which a bunch of free, wholly independent humans "banded together and ceded certain of their unlimited rights, to form a social compact or covenant" etc. However, Blackstone, and most other jurists and political "scientists", maintain that the fiction must be assumed, in order to justify and even imply a source of political authority and civic obligation.

This theory is the basis for libertarianism, which asserts that "that government is best which governs least" on the basis that it is better to enjoy the maximum amount possible of one's natural rights, ceding the least amount possible to government. Socialism, on the other extreme, maintains essentially the opposite view, that the rights of the society far outweigh the individual's natural rights. Yet, it too is based in this same theory of a social compact whereby "free men surrender certain natural rights to form a society to which they and all future members of that society are bound by implied consent". This is also the basis for "liberal democracy", or classical liberalism (not at all to be confused the modern so-called "liberalism") which formed the basis for the American theory of law, rights, and government.

Of course, there are immediate objections to this theory which spring up to the mind of the critical thinker: "If government has certain rights which individuals do not have, how did the individuals cede those rights to begin with to government?" For example, government has the right to execute criminals and traitors, but individuals do not. Have individuals ever had the right to execute whom they determined to their own satisfaction to be criminal or otherwise dangerous? If not, then how did government ever come by such a right? Did individual men ever have the natural right to forcefully take the property of their neighbour? If not, how ever did they "give" that right to government?

Also, if the theory's historical claim is not in fact true (most admit it is not), then the system founded on a lie is necessarily false. If the theory incorrectly explains the origin of government, society, rights and obligations, then the theory must be incorrect, and must therefore have no authority in jurisprudence. The adherents of this theory admit that it has no facts upon which it rests. It is purely a hypothetical, a speculation, an opinion founded on nothing but a desire to provide an explanation for society, government, civic obligation, and "rights". Locke himself admitted as much.

Again, if this theory is correct, and a man were to reclaim his "natural state", and announce he had no allegience to ANY society, government, or social compact, and retained ALL his inherent natural rights, EVERY society on earth (especially those founded on the very theory in question, and upon which such a hypothetical person relied), every society would brand such a person as an outlaw and a brigand, or at best mentally ill and a crank. So even the holders of the theory do not truly believe it.

Moreover, the theory is utterly at odds with Revelation. The Scriptures show that man, created by God, is under Divinely imposed obligations, which inhere to man's nature just as surely as his physical instincts do. In other words, man's moral obligations to God are as much a part of man's state as his instincts, physical constitution, etc. As soon as a human comes into existence, there is a Divine claim upon him. A child is born into a family, and has familial obligations which arise - not from any supposed "assent to form a compact", explicit or implied - but from the fact of the familial relation. Thus so it is with society. A person born into a society is born with certain obligations to that society, because those obligations stem from the individual's moral obligations to God, which in turn derive immediately from the person's creation and formation by God.

The theory is atheistical. A Christian believes the Bible. One who believes the "social compact" theory of human society must assert man is an independent unit without any derivation from God. The theory itself supposes man is born an independent unit with unlimited "natural rights" and no actual obligations, until man "consents" to form society and creates upon himself his civic duties. Which in turn makes man to be the source of all rights and obligations. Which in turn makes man the final authority in morals. There simply is no room for a Divine Creator in such a scheme.

There are a number of absurdities which necessarily follow from the adoption of this godless humanistic theory, including the absurdity that government is a necessary evil adopted in order to restrain natural rights for a supposed common good, which in turn means that all government in inherently immoral. But if all government is inherently immoral, then the supposed civic obligation man binds himself to is likewise immoral, and the supposed "compact" itself becomes immoral and thus inherently and naturally non-binding! The theory is literally self-refuting!

Hobbes is rather consistent, then, in maintaining that originally there was no such thing as "right" other than the ability to enforce one's will. "Might makes right" is the actual, natural, necessary, and logical outcome of such a theory. Morals, under this theory, become literally nothing other than fictions invented in society for the sake of expediency. That is where this theory leads.

And, against all this absurd monstrosity of human "wisdom" stands the Bible, the revealed Word of God. Christians cannot be consistently Christian while supporting and adhering to this humanistic theory of the "social contract".