Myth: There's no such thing as a "social contract."
Fact: Our constitution and laws form our social contract.
Summary
Our constitution and laws form our social contract. These
are enforced by the government, on the grounds that it is the ultimate owner of
all the nation's territory. The decision to live on its territory constitutes
the agreement to abide by its social contract, much like boarding
a train constitutes an agreement to pay the conductor when he
comes around to collect. Those who refuse to abide by the social
contract must not reside on its territory; they should avail themselves
to the market of nations, which offers nearly 200 selections.
Libertarians who object that they shouldn't have to move (for
a number of reasons) are inconsistent, because their proposed
society would recreate the market of nations on a smaller scale.
That is, they would create a market of sovereign property owners,
and would expect dissatisfied customers, renters and workers to
simply go elsewhere on the market.
[Note: some of the arguments in this essay have been copied
or borrowed, with permission, from the
Non-Libertarian FAQ and
some personal communications with its author,
Mike Huben. The
arguments in this essay are based on, and are an extension of,
the essay entitled "No one has a
right to my property."]
Argument
The nation's constitution and laws comprise our social contract.
In this contract, voters have agreed to exchange their money for
the government's goods and services, and to abide by laws passed
by their democratically elected legislators. Like any contract,
refusal by either party to live up to its end of the deal is considered
breach of contract, and justifies the appropriate law enforcement
measures.
Most of the objections to the idea of a social contract stem from
libertarians. They object that there cannot be a social contract
because the government doesn't own anything to contract about.
But, as argued in the previous section, the government is the
ultimate owner of society's territory, because it is vested with
the force (military, police) and control (legislative, judicial)
to defend and maintain our system of property. Therefore, our
social contract is an agreement between the owner of property
(society, as represented by government) and a constituent who
wants to make use of that property.
The decision to reside on U.S. territory is the fundamental agreement
to abide by its social contract. If people refuse to accept this
contract, then they must not reside. The situation is akin to
owning a condominium. The condominium is yours, but it comes with
a contract between you and the condominium association. In it,
you agree to pay fees in exchange for specified services and to
abide by the rules of the association. Of course, you have an
equal vote with the other condominium owners concerning the budget
and rules. However, if you have no intention of abiding by these
rules, then you have no right to reside. Indeed, if the rules
strike you as tyrannical, then you should move. There are many
other places to live in the housing market.
Libertarians object that they should not have to move to another
country if they wish not to abide by the social contract. Admittedly,
this is a rather drastic and unappealing option; most
people would be dismayed by a system that does not allow its members
to solve their problems in place, but simply tells them to move elsewhere.
Hold onto this dismay for a moment; we will show how libertarianism
produces the same problem, only worse.
The libertarian objection to the social contract is inconsistent
with their philosophy for two reasons.
The first is that this is not an argument they would support concerning
any other type of contract -- indeed, libertarians are spirited
defenders of contracts in all other cases. The only difference
between the contract of a condominium complex and that of a nation
is the number of residents and level of complexity. Why, then,
should one be honored, the other dishonored?
The second inconsistency is with their faith in markets. There
is a market of nearly 200 nations to choose from, which is a very
rich choice indeed, especially compared to domestic markets. (Can
you name a brand of soup other than Campbell's or Lipton's?) Most
people would have no trouble recognizing that the millions of
foreigners trying to immigrate to the U.S. are the equivalent
of customers making a selection on the market of social contracts.
The same opportunities exist for libertarians. If they object to
this market of contracts for any reason, then they must explain
why recreating the same system on a smaller scale would prove any
better.
Put another way, the objection to moving is inconsistent with
the libertarian goal of awarding individuals sovereign rights to
their property, since that would essentially recreate the market
of nations on a smaller scale in our society. That is, landlords
and business owners would become the rulers of their own pocket
principalities, and renters and workers who disliked their conditions
would simply be advised to look elsewhere on the market for jobs
and apartments. Libertarians balk at the same principle on a larger
scale, but they can't support a market of sovereign property owners
only in those cases where it suits them.
Libertarians also object that there is no libertarian country
to emigrate to. But if libertarians cannot find exactly what they
want on the market of nations, that's because no one realistically
expects a market to supply customers with exactly what they want
-- just as no market produces cars which let you travel at the
speed of sound and get 2,000 miles per gallon. And although libertarians
may not find their desired nation, they would in fact find many
nations with greater libertarian features than the U.S. Many Third
World countries, for example, have far smaller tax rates and public
sectors than ours. Most are less burdened with business regulations. Chile,
for example, underwent 17 years of radical free-market reform under the guidance
of the University of Chicago, and reduced its government as much as was
humanly possible. (The result was South America's worst income inequality and
pollution problems.)
Some, like Somalia, even practice pure anarchy and Social Darwinism.
Of course, few people would want to live in these places. The
flow of international emigration is from low-tax Third World countries
to high-tax First World countries, not vice versa. And there is
a reason, at least among democratic countries, why the richest
and most appealing nations have the highest taxes. Liberals argue
that prosperity results when the people commission their governments
to look after the common interest; this comes in the form of economic
infrastructure (like highways), public goods (like national defense)
and law and order (not just against street crime, but business
crime as well). Libertarians want a free lunch; they want the
prosperity of America combined with the low taxes and regulation
of Angola. However, this combination doesn't exist for a reason.
In fact, the "market of nations" is one that libertarians
would applaud in any other circumstance. It is an anarchic international
system with no super-government controlling emigration. And this
market has been exposed to the concept of individual freedom for
over 200 years. The complete lack of purely libertarian nations
is therefore a problem for them. One could say that the winners
in this free market are those nations which receive the most immigrants.
Why, then, does immigration generally flow from the low-tax Third
World to the high-tax First World? (To say that they are attracted
to the handouts of the welfare state is to miss the point; why
are welfare states generally richer than non-welfare states in
the first place?) And why have governments almost universally
grown larger, not smaller, over the last 200 years?
Libertarians can try in four different ways to explain why the
market of nations has not produced their desired society: