When the Social Contract Breaks - Will Anarchy Follow?

The social contract is of, by and for the people...

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.

Unfortunately huge walls of text have been generated by philosophers in their zeal to explain what the social contract is.

It appears the idea is, an individual agrees to fit within agreed social expectations in exchange for protection from those that won't. To achieve this... the participants employ civil servants to legislate and administer the social contract laws and ensure the activity of scofflaws is prevented and curtailed.

When it works it is fair and works well.

As a theory this construct seems very good... because without it a society would be an unpredictable, chaotic and probably brutal affair with anarchists running amok and a person would need to deal with threats personally. Presumably there would be no effective right or wrong only victims and winners and losers.

It seems we instinctively develop forms of social contract anyway, since historically survival depended upon group cooperation and adherence to understood norms of coexistence else our specie would have been unlikely to succeed.

An individual's contribution to the social contract is to comply with agreed laws and to pay for the administration of the scheme. In effect give up some individual freedoms in order to benefit from a broad range of protections.

In our current state of advancement the social contract has become unbelievably complex and unwieldy. There are literally 100's of thousands of laws on the books and millions of administrators of the contract. It now takes all kinds of departments, ministries and auxiliary support groups to operate the social contract.

The theory of social contract works well in a climate of felt and experienced fairness. 

Fairness is achieved when all within the agreement are treated equally without exceptions and favoritism.

Regardless of perceived status or rank it is imperative the rewards of contribution and the penalties for transgressions are applied equally and fairly--else one could say the social contract has been broken.

Today, many feel the social contract is broken.

It appears to many... their paid civil servants have been overwhelmed, perverted or corrupted by larger more powerful entities such as corporations, powerful individuals or even "off the radar" government agencies who are able to operate to their own advantage, above the law, at the expense of all the other constituents.

There are many examples of inequity and crass favoritism or selective punitive action which supports the idea of a broken social contract. We are at a place where these instances of ignored transgression are not exceptional, they are the steady state of daily affairs. Meanwhile common citizens are treated shabbily and are regarded as enemies of the state, simply because they object to the shameful way governance is conducting itself.

The question then becomes, so what?

Once moral decay sets in and ethics go out of the window, the value of a social contract becomes worthless.

It means only one side of the bargain is being kept, the payer's keep paying and complying, while the employed civil servants are abysmally derelict in their duties, or are woefully inept or totally compromised or any combination thereof... and a great disparity is evident for all to see..

In any event when the system becomes unfair... "paid for" governance is basically ineffective or worse... counterproductive to the mandate of a social contract. 

The system becomes dysfunctional and of little use except to those who are favored and profit by it.

In a simpler rendition of employer/employee relationship the remedy for dereliction of duty on the part of the employee would be easy, the offending party would be dismissed from service. As it is the "system" has become so large and cumbersome conventional rectification is not practical. This suggests a non conventional solution is called for if restoration of the social contract is desired.

Traditionally this discontent manifests in the form of revolt.

What appears to be happening now, is the population at large is growing discontent with the obviously lopsided relationship. As the chasm of inequity grows frustration sets in as folks realize the issue is too big to grapple with. For a period most are willing to endure... hopeful their administration will respond as requested and reform their ways voluntarily.

The question becomes, can the administration remedy the problem, do they even have intention to do so?

When the administration begins to identify and treat its citizens as a threat to themselves, the answer is probably no, they have no intention of fixing the problem, it is as though the employee has become dictatorial to those who employ it to serve them. This leaves the citizen with little or no option for conventional reconciliation.

This provokes the citizen to take unconventional action.

Typically, such action is often called revolt. It occurs when all reasonable measures have been taken by the constituents of a now dictatorial governance, one who has forgotten who the master is. The weight of numbers and a just cause often contribute to a desired change of course--eventualy.

As a recent example of many...

One million march across Brazil in biggest protests yet

(Reuters) - An estimated 1 million people took to the streets in cities across Brazil on Thursday as the country's biggest protests in two decades intensified despite government concessions meant to quell the demonstrations.

"What am I protesting for?" asked Savina Santos, a 29-year-old civil servant in Sao Paulo. "You should ask what I'm not protesting for! We need political reform, tax reform, an end to corruption, better schools, better transportation.

Brazil, once revered, now rocked by protest, “Corruption in politics is affecting everybody. This is killing Brazil.

As one comment on the article notes..

I guess the real question is when protests like those in Egypt,Turkey and Brazil finally make their way to the United States. Or are there so many Americans who are comfortable that not enough care about how our leaders are stealing the well being of our country? Our corrupt Congress, Executive branch and judicial branch care little about the average American.

This illustrates and confirms the effect of a broken social contract... unfairness becomes tangible, sufficiently so the citizen is motivated to rebel against its taskmasters... a severe case of the tail wagging the dog, civil servants who have forgotten their place and who see themselves as dictatorial and have defined themselves as taskmasters.

Prior to such extremes, I have a feeling there is an interim stage of silent protest in the form of an opt-out resistance. As regulations and oppression become onerous--except for the favored few, then populations emulate their leadership and begin to formulate their own economic system and "rules."

If you are noticing this type of shift in your population... you are probably well on the way to final socioeconomic collapse. Especially if the inhabitants increasingly view their government as their greatest threat.

Black Market, Black Economy, Grey Market, Gray Market

A black market is one where the buying and selling of products and services take place in an illegal manner. A black economy is a highly organized and vast market where the regular taxation rules and norms of trade are not adhered to. A black market is known by several names, including black economy, underground market, shadow economy, underdog and parallel economy.

The stricter the government regulations are in a country, the great the impetus is for a parallel economy. Corruption, shortages and monopolies also act as catalysts for the black market.
Parallel economies are further encouraged by periods of war or any other crisis. During harsh political conditions or natural disasters, scarce goods are rationed by the government. People have the tendency to violate restrictions or rationing laws to secure the products they desire.

It could be said that (corrupt) leadership by example could encourage otherwise ethical citizens to adopt the corrupt practices of it's governance in an attempt to level the playing field. If they observe the corrupt being rewarded rather than punished then one could say the temptation to follow the example provided becomes strong.

Eventually though... the population at large finds itself in an ever tightened environment where it's employee civil servants actually monitor an individual's private communications for the express purpose of further subjugation, soon these aberrant behaviors shift into the realm of fascism and marxism where individual rights and freedoms are effectively quashed.

At this stage the governance has adopted a position of high handedness which transcends the patience of the electorate who invariably move to the ultimate solution--  

I am an advocate for peaceful resolution, as such I would appeal to offending governance to take stock of itself and review the terms of social contract in context of the role they have been employed to perform.

If nothing else, realize you are employed by the citizens to provide reasonable, fair and equitable opportunity for the constituent, you are obliged to prosecute and sequester those who pervert the system for their own ends, if you choose to ignore these fundamental tenets -- then you are indeed foolish and are tempting fate.

It is said... even the worm turns!

When the Social Contract Breaks - Will Anarchy Follow?

For now I will leave this as an open ended question.



Stay tuned...