Scientific Proof of God, A New and Modern Bible, and Coexisting Relations of God and the Universe

Monday, April 28, 2008

The Origin of Locke’s Social Contract

Locke’s social contract was installed in the USA in 1776. This social contract developed in England as a result of the Glorious Revolution in 1688. The Revolution resulted in the deposition of James II and the accession of his daughter Mary II and her husband, William III.

The Revolution was caused by the accession of James II in 1685. His Roman Catholicism upset the people of England in 1687 when he issued a Declaration of Indulgence. In April 1688, James ordered that the Declaration be read every Sunday indefinitely. When bishops petitioned him against this, they were prosecuted. Then, William of Orange was invited to come over with an army to solve the people’s grievances. He accepted their invitation, landed at Brixham on Tor Bay, and advanced to London. When the support for James fell, he fled to France.

William and Mary were offered the Crown. Then, a convention turned itself into Parliament. The convention created a Bill of Rights. It also barred Roman Catholics from the throne and abolished the Crown's power on laws. This settlement was a triumph for Whig views. Since no kingship could be unconditional, this exclusionist solution gave support to John Locke's contention that a social contract exists between the King and people, who can be represented in Parliament.

As seen in Locke's writings, Locke’s social contract consists of a ‘Society’ and a ‘Government.’ In the USA, Locke’s contract is thus between Society and the group of people who function as Government. Unless Society is active, the US social contract will not work as conceived by Locke.

I believe that Government has become dysfunctional and no longer serves the people of the USA. This dysfunction is amplified by the two-party political system. For instance, Republican party members usually express conservative views. On the other hand, Democratic party members usually express liberal views. Since these two views cannot express the common views of the people, the two-party political system destroys the social contract that the US founders installed. Instead of representing the common interests of people, the two-party system represents only conservative or liberal interests. This problem can be corrected if the terms of the representatives in all parties are limited to single terms.

Another suggestion was made by Edmund B. Spaeth, Jr. for the Supreme Court. See his paper in The Judges Journal, Summer 1985, on the subject, Where Is the High Court Heading? At the end of the paper Spaeth says, "The role of the courts, I believe, is to conduct a dialogue with Society --- a Socratic dialogue, if you will, in which by examining the foundations of our beliefs, our traditions, and our dreams, we arrive at a deeper understanding of ourselves and others." Why can’t all agencies of Government have such dialogues with the people. Isn’t this better that dialoguing silently only with lobbyists?


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home