The term “social contract” refers to the idea that the state exists only to serve the will of the people, who are the source of all political power enjoyed by the state. The people can choose to give or withhold this power. The idea of the social contract is one of the foundations of the American political system. https://www.thoughtco.com/social-contract-in-politics-105424
Although the idea behind the social contract has evolved from Plato to Hobbes to Rousseau to our country’s founding fathers, it was John Locke who asserted various types of government can be, “…acceptable forms of government as long as that government provides and protects the basic rights of life, liberty, and property to the people. Locke further argued that if a government no longer protects each individual’s right, then revolution is not just a right but an obligation.”
With the Supreme Court draft indicating its intention to tear the throat out of the rights of half of the individuals occupying this country, I would say we have a serious breach of the social contract here. Might a revolution then be our obligation?
I believe so. One critical aspect of our contract is that we recognize and protect the integrity of a private and social realm for the individual, which includes family, personal, religious beliefs, and activities. This space of uncoerced human association is the basis of a civil society free from unfair and unreasonable intrusions by government. https://www.civiced.org/lesson-plans/constitutional-democracy
Overturning Roe would be the most glaring intrusion on all of the above but most especially because of the coercive nature of forcing a person to be the vessel for another. And based on a very small, but very vocal, extremist religious view no less. What obligation then do we have to adhere to the ensuing state trigger laws based on such an egregious breach of the social contract?
None, I say. If our government fails to fulfill its contractual obligations to its people, then we should seek legal recourse. It would seem that a resident of a state in which these trigger laws would take effect, say Texas, Oklahoma, or Louisiana, could seek recourse through the courts to impose an injunction, which would in effect stop an entity, in this situation, a state government, from implementing its draconian and punitive efforts to interfere with a woman’s reproductive health choices. Or with those who assist her in any way.
The government would certainly be in breach of contract if it attempts to deprive a pregnant person of her liberty to leave the state for instance. And how would the state enforce that one anyway? I guess we will have to ask Ted Cruz who made this suggestion. And I wonder if that will apply to his daughters as well. Hmmm.
So yes, I believe revolution is precisely what we need; not violence, like those storming the Capitol on January 6th, I’m a pacifist who never touched a gun, but a social revolution akin to women’s suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, the fight against apartheid, indigenous peoples’ rights. These were powerful and effective because you had a wide diversity of people coming together who would not be silenced. And they were not violent like those opposing these social movements attempt to characterize them.
We must make America live up to its side of the social contract. Literally make it. There can be massive strikes on a grand scale, coordinated efforts not only a march on a weekend that gets five minutes of press on the evening news, but even more impactful. There must be an economic hit because it is always about money and power.
Women and men with the financial means to be able to sit out of work can and should. Refuse to buy new clothes, new cars, whatever, it’s better for the environment anyway. Call on professional athletes to boycott games and refuse to play; celebrities could stop all production on movie sets and projects; there could be a complete boycott of businesses that support anti-choice efforts, including AT&T, Coca-Cola, Disney, Nike, Uber. Make them feel it.
More creative minds than mine could likely devise other pathways for resistance, but the point is this must be immediate and on a grand scale. A democratic republic calls on us to be informed and invested, and this can entail sacrifice. And if you need to know what real sacrifice looks like, look at the Ukrainian people suffering and dying for freedom.
Social contract theories see the relationship of power between state and citizen as a consensual exchange. It is legitimate only if given freely to the state by its citizens and explains why the state has duties to its citizens. https://ethics.org.au/ethics-explainer-social-contract
Since women are not freely giving consent to the state to usurp control over their bodies, then this is an illegitimate use of power and revolution is an inevitable and necessary course of action. A contract serves both parties; the people are not here to serve the state. Especially not to supply the state a steady stream of new little consumers.
The state is breaching women’s right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness; it is time for us to rewrite the terms of this contract.
