The Bastardisation of the ‘Social Contract’ (Part 1)
APRIL 20 — In “The Social Contract — correcting the misconceptions”, I have sought to explain what the social contract is all about.I do not want to repeat what I had written before. However, I wish to revisit several salient points about the social contract.
A social contract is a legal theory or concept. It does not exist in reality. It is a branch of legal, social or even political philosophy. This theory seeks to explain or rationalise why we, human beings, would band together and form a State.
It also seeks to rationalise why we would then agree to surrender our liberty, freedom and the ability to do whatever we like to the State when we, the human beings, were all born free and by our nature do not like to be restricted and constrained.
The philosophers surmised that we do so because we by nature are social creatures. We do so because we want to live together as a society. Furthermore, we do so because the State promises us some benefits. In fact we expect the State to give us the benefits that we want. That is why we surrender or agree to surrender some of our freedom, liberty and free will to the State.
That is why, in theory, we do what we do.
However, it is not a one way or unilateral agreement. There is supposed to be an exchange of promises between us, the people, and the State. For example, we promise not to steal and if we steal we promise to abide by the law which would send us to prison. In return, the State promises to protect our property from being stolen by other people.
That is the social contract as a legal theory.
read more here
SOCIAL CONTRACTS is very ambiguous while for application for certain issue. For e.g.during the time from 1946-1957 , the time with an elected representative without an nation, to form a nation ,the SOCIAL CONTRACTS is apply as CONDITIONS OR LIMITATION for certain ethnics or as an EXCHANGE in favor certain ethnics to stay in the new nation or RESPONSIBILITY FOR EVERYONE INVOLVED FOR GOOD EXPLORATION ?
ReplyDeleteSocial contract is an agreement between the State and society. The main point is honour the State and obey its law and State protects the citizens. This is the legal theory. For those who say that they were given citizenship but have to forgo certain rights/privileges. Wgat about those born here as a matter of rights? Do the contract has to be rewritten? What about inalienable rights such freedom to live peacefully, lack and religious freedom and rights to protect oneslf from dicrmination. Obviously whatever social contract that is written has to seen in the light of present condition. Was the contract enshrined in the constitution? Was such agreement really intended to last forever or for a time until certain condition is being fulfilled for example Malay special privileges. Can social contract bind those who made it and those of the future generation?
ReplyDeleteCan we contract out our rights and continuoulsly get discriminated? Is there fair play at social contract?
Normally social contract is a right that goes both way and is not discriminatory - compare with what Perkasa is demanding and the NEP/NEM? What is really wrong with these people, this nation. At best SC is misapplied and sed as a bully against citizens who knows nothing about the Past dealings of ancestors.
Need new wave of social contract Does the Fed. constitution enshrine such such an agreement and intend to last forever?