Breaking the Social Contract

Sometimes certain people are too clever for their own good - and American citizens pay the price.

Let us assume two groups come together and form a country. Then they agree to a constitution to govern all citizens. That constitution will be a light on the people as possible, constructed mainly of a description of the structure of government and the roles each part of that government will play and enumerate the rights of the citizens with which it shall not interfere.

What do philosophers say about what results when one of the groups holds fast to the agreement but the other no longer abides by that agreement and leverages its guarantees to take advantage of or to harm the other? What if one group achieves power and then actively ignore the parts they don’t like?

Philosophers have extensively explored scenarios where a social contract, like a constitution, is undermined by one party exploiting or violating it while another adheres to it. Below is a concise synthesis of key philosophical perspectives on this issue, focusing on the dynamics of such a breakdown and its consequences:

• Thomas Hobbes (Leviathan): Hobbes argues that a social contract is necessary to escape the "state of nature," where life is "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short" due to mutual distrust and conflict. If one group abides by the contract while the other exploits it, the contract risks collapsing, reverting society to a state of nature-like conflict. Hobbes would likely see the exploiting group's actions as a betrayal of the mutual surrender of rights necessary for peace. The solution, in his view, requires a strong, undivided sovereign to enforce compliance, as partial adherence undermines the contract's purpose. Without enforcement, the faithful group is disadvantaged, potentially incentivizing them to also abandon the agreement, leading to chaos.

• John Locke (Second Treatise of Government): Locke views the social contract as a voluntary agreement to protect natural rights (life, liberty, property). If one group violates the contract by leveraging its guarantees to harm another, Locke would argue they forfeit their legitimacy and effectively dissolve the contract. The faithful group, in this case, has a right to resist or revolt, as the violating group’s actions negate the government’s purpose - protecting rights. Locke emphasizes that trust is central to the contract; exploitation by one group breaks this trust, justifying defensive measures by the other to restore just governance or establish a new contract. Remember how much of Locke’s work exist in Jefferson’s authorship of the Declaration of Independence: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

• Jean-Jacques Rousseau (The Social Contract): Rousseau’s concept of the "general will" requires all citizens to prioritize the common good. If one group exploits the constitution for selfish gain or to harm another, it acts against the general will, undermining the contract’s moral foundation. Rousseau would see this as a form of corruption, where particular interests override communal ones. The faithful group, by adhering to the contract, upholds the general will but is vulnerable to exploitation. Rousseau suggests that such imbalances necessitate civic education and institutional mechanisms to reinforce mutual commitment, though severe violations might require reestablishing the contract through collective action.

• Immanuel Kant (Metaphysics of Morals): Kant’s deontological ethics emphasize acting according to universalizable principles. A group exploiting a constitution to harm another violates the categorical imperative, as their actions could not be willed as a universal law (e.g., if all groups exploited agreements, no contract could function). Kant would argue that the exploiting group is morally wrong, treating the faithful group as a means rather than an end. The faithful group, by adhering to the contract, acts rationally and morally, but Kant might caution that their adherence could be exploited without institutional safeguards or a collective demand for justice to restore reciprocity.

• John Rawls (A Theory of Justice): Rawls’ "veil of ignorance" framework posits that just agreements are those rational agents would accept without knowing their position in society. A group exploiting a constitution to harm another violates the principles of justice (fairness and equality) that would be chosen behind the veil. Rawls would argue that the exploiting group’s actions undermine the "original position" agreement, creating an unjust society. The faithful group’s adherence reflects a commitment to justice, but Rawls would advocate for institutional reforms - such as fair procedures and redistribution - to correct imbalances and prevent exploitation, ensuring the contract serves all groups equitably.

• Game Theory and Rational Choice (Contemporary Philosophy): Modern philosophers like David Gauthier apply game theory to social contracts. If one group exploits the constitution while the other adheres, it resembles a "Prisoner’s Dilemma" where cooperation (adherence) is exploited by defection (violation). The faithful group faces a "sucker’s payoff," being disadvantaged for cooperating. Gauthier suggests that rational agents might initially cooperate but, upon detecting defection, shift to non-cooperation or demand enforcement mechanisms (e.g., sanctions, legal recourse). Without such mechanisms, the contract becomes unsustainable, as the faithful group may rationally abandon it to avoid harm.

• Hannah Arendt (On Revolution): Arendt emphasizes the performative nature of political agreements, where constitutions are sustained by collective action and mutual promises. If one group exploits the constitution to harm another, it breaks the mutual trust that upholds the political community. The faithful group’s adherence preserves the ideal of civic unity, but Arendt would warn that exploitation erodes the public sphere, fostering resentment or authoritarian tendencies. She might advocate for renewed political engagement - through dialogue or protest - to reaffirm or renegotiate the contract’s terms.

Across these perspectives, several outcomes emerge when one group exploits a constitution while another adheres:

• Erosion of Trust: The faithful group’s commitment is undermined, potentially leading them to distrust or abandon the contract, risking societal breakdown (Hobbes, Locke).

• Moral and Practical Imbalance: The exploiting group gains short-term advantages but acts immorally (Kant) and risks long-term instability, as the faithful group may resist or retaliate (Locke, Arendt).

• Need for Enforcement: Most philosophers (Hobbes, Rawls, Gauthier) stress the need for mechanisms - legal, institutional, or civic - to enforce compliance or correct imbalances, lest the contract collapse.

• Potential for Conflict or Reform: The faithful group may either revolt (Locke), renegotiate (Arendt), or demand justice (Rawls), depending on the severity of exploitation and available recourse.

Philosophers generally agree that a constitution’s success depends on mutual adherence and trust. When one group exploits it, the faithful group faces a dilemma: continue adhering at their peril or abandoning the contract, risking further instability. Solutions include strengthening enforcement (e.g., independent judiciary, sanctions), fostering civic dialogue to restore trust (Arendt, Rousseau), or, in extreme cases, dissolving the contract to form a new one (Locke).

The exploiting group’s actions ultimately threaten the social order unless corrected.

Our Constitution only has the force and value we give it. This is one situation where clever avoidance is destructive. You know of which I speak - judges, lawyers and the administrative state are experts at this – and when presidents decide which laws to enforce and how vigorously they intend to enforce them, in my opinion, is a violation of their oath of office. That is a personal view, not a legal one, but when I think about what President Biden did to our nation by completely ignoring the border and using “asylum” as a ruse to import more illegal aliens, reasonable people are going to see my point.