Fundamentals of the Social Contract: Why Rand Paul Is Wrong

According to aspiring legislator, Rand Paul, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 went too far in prohibiting racial discrimination by private businesses. All the while asserting that he would have voted yes for the Civil Rights Act, Rand nonetheless believes that private businesses should be allowed to refuse goods or services to black people, at least that's what he told Rachel Maddow in an interview. His words have thrown the GOP into something of a frenzy as they try to distance themselves from his remarks and yet reap the benefits of his popularity with the tea party contingency.

I have a very personal reaction to Paul's observations. I grew up in the era of Jim Crow when segregation was the norm. White Only and No Colored Allowed signs were as common as traffic signs. All businesses were legally allowed to discriminate, to deny goods and/or services based on the color of the consumer's skin. I don't have any desire to return to the good ole days. I also don't hold with the thinking that given time to evolve, Jim Crow would have died a natural death. Jim Crow wasn't born. The system of racial discrimination known as Jim Crow was artificially and intentionally created as a response to the post civil war efforts of black people to claim their rightful place in the social, economic, and political hierarchy of this country. There was nothing natural about it. It couldn't die; it had to be executed. I have no doubt that without government action legal segregation would still be a part of the fabric of this nation.

Rand Paul's position is seriously flawed; however, based on the comments littering the Internet on this topic, there are a lot of folks out there who have succumbed to the same flawed thinking. Much of it stems from worship of the cult of individuality. A characteristic of this cult is a belief that my individual rights supercede all other rights. Of course this is totally irrational. If my rights are more important than your rights, then aren't your rights more important than mine? What about Mary Sue next door, where do her rights fit in this hierarchy? Although said much more eloquently by such diverse thinkers as Locke, Rousseau, Jefferson, and Hobbes, it's this tension regarding individual rights balanced against the needs of the whole that necessitates the formation of governments. (My listing of only western philosophers is not intended to suggest that only white males have wrestled with these issues. It's just that as a product of a limited American public education, I am most familiar with the works of Eurocentric writers, which is an entirely separate topic to be addressed someday.)


Society is the whole, individuals are the parts. Societies were formed by the individuals to create a system in which the individuals could agree to live governed by rules to protect the common good. Locke, Rousseau, Hobbes, Jefferson and many others have defined this concept as it relates to the purposes of goverment. Those who do not wish to agree to the social contract are free to live outside of it but cannot then also benefit from it. (i.e. you don't have to own a business) This is the basic flaw of Rand Paul's argument that a private business has the right to engage in discrimination. Businesses are by definition public enterprises. Its goods and services are sold to the public and as such the business is part of our system of commerce. The regulation of commerce is constitutionally assigned to Congress. If the businessman wishes to engage in discrimination, he may do so but not via his public enterprise. It's up to him to figure out how to run a profitable business enterprise without engaging in public commerce, if he wishes to engage in discrimination as to whom may partake of his goods and/or servces.


The most extreme example of those who place individual liberties tantamount to the society as a whole are those who commit crimes. The thief believes that his/her needs are superior to the needs of all others thereby justifying their right to take what they need. Indeed, if we follow the argument of the superiority of individual rights to its logical conclusion, then those who commit criminal acts are merely choosing to place their individual needs above the needs of the whole. Under this logic, our prisons are populated by true libertarians.


However, in a society, we all agree to subvert our individual liberties to the benefit of the function of the whole. To not do so results in anarchy and a society in which no one has any security. Whatever property that I may have secured would constantly be at risk of being taken by someone who had the strength to do so in a world governed by the supreme right of the individual. Instead, we have laws, enforcers, and systems of punishment to maintain order so that property rights, mine and yours, are not subject to the arbitrary will of might makes right. Which brings me to the final element of the social contract, governments are not instituted to protect the rights of the strong but rather to ensure that even the weak have protections. Otherwise, in the words of Hobbes,we would be in a constant state of war, and man would be a solitary being living an existence that is nasty, brutish and short.


P.S. A good friend, Mark Olmsted, writes for the Huffington Post. In his most recent piece, People and Property: What Rand Really Wants, he presents an astute assessment of Rand Paul's disturbing views which suggest that civil rights should be optional. Check it out.

Hobbes, Rousseau, and the Nature of Humankind

Somehow, two weeks have passed and I haven't written a single blog entry. I think that my brain has been suffering from an overload of "WTFitis." I watch the news, read Newsweek, and scroll through newspapers and news sites on the Internet, and like Evilene in The Wiz, I just want to scream, "Don't nobody bring me no more bad news!"

Of course, not hearing or reading bad news doesn't make it go away. However, it isn't just the bad news that disturbs me, it's the mindlessness of the general populace that makes me want to slap somebody. As engaging in acts of violence could land me in a jail cell, I've been refocusing my disgust on trying to understand what it is about human nature that can move us to engage in great acts of creativity but can also move us to engage in acts of great cruelty and destruction.

I've been rereading two of my favorite political philosophers, Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract 1762) and Thomas Hobbes (The Leviathan 1651). Both works focus on an analysis of why government is necessary and the purpose of government. However, they have different takes on why it is that humans spend our time fighting and squabbling among ourselves.

They each speak of the "natural state" [aka state of nature] describing it as humankind without the conventions that we have come to call civilization. Hobbes views humankind in its natural state as focused on individualism to the exclusion of any concern for the well being of others; self-preservation and aggrandizement is the reason for existence. If we occasionally act in an altruistic manner it is motivated by self-interest and not any concern for others. In Hobbesian analysis, we are motivated by self-preservation in all of our actions. We see the possibility of our own misfortune in another's misfortune and offer assistance in anticipation that we may at some point need assistance.

In this natural state, if I want my neighbor's cow, I attempt to take it. Naturally, my neighbor resists. Whichever one of us is stronger or has more friends to help out in the fray, gets the cow. Of course, then the winner has to guard against some stronger person coming along and taking the cow away. It's an ongoing cycle and no one can be truly secure and all our energies are spent on survival. We are therefore in a perpetual state of war. Hobbes defines a state of war as the absence of peace, that is, living in a society where individualism reigns supreme and it's every man and woman for themselves.

Hobbes perceives this natural state as being the essence of human nature and that governments were implemented to save us from our baser impulses. According to Hobbes, without absolute government, life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short."

Rousseau takes a more positive view of our natural state. He proposes that humankind in its natural state is essentially good. It is the development of society that has corrupted us. The advancements of civilization, while wondrous, have also corrupted us. Often Rousseau's philosophy is defined as promoting the image of the "noble savage." Humans living relatively solitary lives, motivated only by basic needs of food, clothing and shelter. In this state, there is no competition because there is no desire for power. The individualism that Hobbes sees as innate in human nature is an acquired trait in Rousseau's philosophy. For Rousseau, it's the development of society and all its trappings that has turned humankind into greedy, selfish beings focused on self preservation.

Both Hobbes and Rousseau propose that in this natural state, we have unlimited personal freedom, sort of like Cartman, citizen of South Park, who frequently declares, "I can do what I want!" In Hobbes viewpoint, a powerful central government is needed to check that personal freedom which is motivated only by self-interests. Rousseau argues that the people create government in a desire to promote harmonious interaction. The power of the government comes from the people, who voluntarily cede their personal freedoms to the collective group, not a single authoritative power, in order to promote the common good. For Rousseau, the people are the government, while Hobbes arrives at the conclusion that the people must cede their personal liberties to the control of a strong central government, an absolute government, to protect and promote the common good.

I tend to be Hobbesian in my beliefs about the nature of humankind. I think that self-interests are the norm and concern for humankind is the exception. At the heart of the arguments against any type of social welfare program is always a stated belief by the opposition that it is not the responsibility of those who have to provide for the have-nots. People stand in town halls and shout in trembling voices that their tax dollar should not go towards supporting any program for people that they deem to be undeserving. Those of us who express a belief that we are our brothers and our sisters keepers are dismissed as stupid, naive, un-American purveyors of socialism.

We are in such a constant state of war that many of us have come to believe that war is the norm, and there is no need to call for its end. I am so tired of seeing some sad parents or a sweet young woman with an infant bravely facing the television cameras, reciting the oft repeated litany, "He died doing what he loved. He died serving his country." As long as we continue to glorify dying in war, as if it is a noble loss of life, we will do nothing to put an end to war.

Where I part company with Hobbes is that I don't believe that selfish individualism is an innate quality. I think that Rousseau was on to something; perhaps we learn to elevate self-preservation to a religion because so much in society rewards and thereby reinforces selfishness. If that's true, then like Pandora's box, there is still a flame of hope that we have to fan into a fire. We can become better than we are.

If you are intrigued by the theories of government that influenced the development of the governing philosophies of the United States, click this link for a good place to begin with summaries of the political theories of Hobbes, Rousseau, John Locke, and Charles Montesquieu.