The Left's Social Contract

Do We Have a Deal for You!

The NZ Labour Party appointed a new leader late last year.  The faithful are still trying to work out what's inside their new package.  Blogger Dim Post has been adding his speculations to the mix, in a piece entitled Back to Basics. 

He writes:

I thought Shearer’s interview was a bit insipid – but he did say one thing that gave me a little hope about his ‘Ides of Mars’ speech this week, which was a reference to the Social Contract. Maybe I’m being wildly optimistic here, but it could be pretty smart for Shearer to go back to the very principles of left-wing political philosophy, and simply make the argument that we’re a society of people with obligations towards each other – in contrast to the right-wing view-point in which we are a competitive market-place with no responsibility to each other outside of inter-party transactions.

We think that paragraph sums up the simplistic ideology of the left.
  The fundamental principles of left-wing philosophy--which, to be fair, dominate the airwaves, the Commentariat, and virtually all political parties in the West--are here displayed.  Well done. "We are a people who have obligations towards each other"  It is the philosopher's stone of modern secular left-wing thought. 

Equally simplistic is the characterisation of the "right" as believing that we (that is, society) have no responsibility to each other, outside of inter-party transactions.  Thus does the Left paint the Right as without soul, being mercenary and materialistic, having no regard for humanity as living beings.  Left = good guys.  Right = anti-human bad guys. 

It's not surprising that  the Left is often characterised by high moral dudgeon and a loathing of the Right.  It's not unexpected that the Left's speech is usually tinged with moral condescension and paternalistic self-righteousness towards those they believe they are defending. "We know what you want.  We know what's good for you."

 Neither is it unexpected that narrative of the Left is often quasi-religious.  They regularly speak as if they were saving the have-nots from oppression, redeeming them from human degradation, and delivering them from a state akin to slavery.  It explains why so many untaught Christians have a reflexive predilection to the Left. 

Let's focus upon the charge that the Right believes that mankind has no obligations to fellow human beings apart from those implicit in (economic) transactions.  We suspect that Dim has in mind here the views of the secularist Libertarians.  There is a philosophical provenance to his allegations if that is indeed the case.  Deriving from Locke there is a long tradition of political philosophy which declares that private property and property rights ought to be the fundamental if not, exclusive focus of society and particularly the state. 

At this point Locke was simply wrong.  Basing an entire political philosophy upon the obligations flowing from the commands, Thou shalt not steal, and Thou shalt not covet, is itself simplistic reductionism.   It does, however, lend credence to Dim's charge of the Right being mercenary, focused exclusively upon commercial transactions. 

For our purposes today, however, Locke's positions help us focus on the issues.  Simply put, the Left argues that everyone else in society has an implicit title to all our worldly goods that trumps our own.  This is what the Left would call its Social Contract.  It lays upon us "social obligations" to each another.  Like Locke, the Left sees these obligations primarily through materialistic eyes: all of us have obligations to relinquish our property and possession in favour of those who do not have them.  Its Social Contract authorises the State to enforce these obligations through the involuntary expropriation of the taxation system.

It's at this point we need decide, To which Social Contract we are going to cuddle up?  Both are focused almost exclusively upon property (a point which Dim has chosen to overlook).  The Left's Social Contract  overrides private and personal property rights, giving the State rights and powers of expropriation. It authorises the State to engage in "legalised" theft to satisfy the covetousness and envy of others.  The Right's Social Contract defends the property of all, protecting them from envy, covetousness, and theft whether direct from fellow citizens or indirectly through the mechanisms of government. 

Both Left and Right have strong commitments to social obligations, albeit diametrically opposed.  (Dim's charge that the Right does not believe in social obligations is either a gratuitous slur or ignorant, or both.)  The Right believes that we, society have a social obligation to prevent (and punish) others attacking and taking what belongs to us.  The Left believes that we, society has an obligation to ensure others are empowered through the ballot box and the mechanisms of government to take and expropriate from us what they want.  The fundamental duty of government is to ensure that this is accomplished through the appropriate application of force so that the "exchange" is peacefully done. 

Thus the secular Left and Right can be characterised as being concerned primarily with material substance and property.  The Left argues that all men are obliged to relinquish our property in favour of the others, giving them a higher property right to what we possess.  The Right argues that all men are obliged to keep their hands off what we lawfully possess. 

If we ask, Which Social Contract more closely approximates the declarations of the Ten Commandments? the answer is immediately clear. 

At this point the untaught Christian may object thus: the Ten Commandments essentially give us negative obligations (thou shalt not . . .); what about the positive commandments to love God and our neighbour?  Surely, the Left's Social Contract take these obligations far more seriously.  Yes, but no.  All Christians are positively commanded to do what we can to help our neighbour and our brother when we see them in need.  But we are forbidden to expropriate property from someone else to meet our neighbour's need.  And that is what the Left's Social Contract does.  Two wrongs never, ever make a right. 

When Nathan went in to confront David over his sin, he told a parable that involved just such an expropriation by a powerful third party, forcing someone else to meet a perceived need.  The Social Contract of the Left, utilising the power of the State to expropriate from some to redistribute to others,  implicitly endorses such evil, calling it good.