What can governments justly do?
Lorcan Green
Through the ages many have tried to define the relationship between the state and its people, and the conclusion of their findings have rested, either explicitly, or implicitly, on the concept of a contract between the ruler and the ruled. Pericles articulated this with, ‘ We do not say that a man who shows no interest in politics is a man who minds his own business; we say that he has no business here at all. ’ 1 This highlights that, while the ruler is expected to provide certain guarantees, there are also obligations for those who are ruled. In Ancient Athens one of these obligations was for every man to engage in political activity . Inmodern times, direct engagement with the state in this form is not possible, because Athens was a direct democracy, rather than a modern representative democracy. However, this does not free the people of their obligations to the state, nor the state’s obligations to the people. I n tandem with these obligations, the state possesses the ‘ monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a territory ’ . 2 It is through obligations between the people and the state, and the monopoly on legitimate force, that a state has the right to collect taxes, and draft people into themilitary, and claims by a private entity to do the samemust be thought of as illegitimate. Although there are examples of private entities acting in this way, such as the British East India company, or Halliburton, it can be concluded that their actions were or are illegitimate. In this essay I will explore some of the noteworthy theories concerning the ‘social contract’ , proving that there are key differences between a state and a private entity, entitling them to the legitimate collection of taxes, and the drafting of people into the military. The modern social contract emerged during the mid-seventeenth century and was driven by a fear of the ‘state of nature’ . Its first proponent was Thomas Hobbes, and it emerged from the circumstances that led to the writing Leviathan . He had seen the danger and fear caused by the anarchy of the English Civil War, so orientated the relationship between ruler and ruled to avoid anarchy, or as he called it, the ‘state of nature’, a theme that would be picked upon by his successors. Hobbes’ state of nature was a cruel, lawless, place, which would encourage rational human beings to come together out of self- interest, to protect their property. According to Hobbes, humans were exclusively self-interested and rational, and so ‘ the pursuit of self-interest is rational, since it is a choice to maximize and make efficient the pursuit of ends ’ . 3 To accommodate the pursuit of such ends, the role of the state was two- fold: to recognize equal rights and common laws, and for a sovereign to enforce them. Due to the maintenance of peace being the most important role of a state, the people of a Hobbesian state do not have the right to rebel against the sovereign, as the removal of the state would break the fundamental rule of stability. Moreover, since each subject has passed authority to the sovereign, revolt is irrational, as they would be revolting against themselves. The monopoly on the legitimate use of force is crucial, as it ensures that only the sovereign is able to enforce the laws that it has set. Since it is in the interests of the citizens for the state to provide stability, they give both tacit consent to its existence, and compliance to its laws, which includes consent to taxation. Hobbes further assumes that everyone’s
1 Thucydides 2.40. 2 Weber (1994). 3 Hobbes (1651).
198
Made with FlippingBook Digital Publishing Software