Topic 1 - consent and social contract - The problem of political legitimacy

The State of Nature 

• Hobbes - Conservatism - ‘Solitary, poor, brutish, short’ - pessimistic regarding human nature

• Locke - Liberal - ‘Life, liberty and estate’ - need to regulate property rights however more optimistic - more optimistic of human nature - justification of state intervention through individual choice - discusses a social contract 

• Rousseau - Liberal - People are naturally compassionate however groups would eventually form and this leads to war - state is needed to control this 

• Anarchism - The state is the root of corruption and humans are cooperative 

Differing views on the state of nature results in differing views regarding social contract theory i.e. Hobbes advocates for state intervention due to conservative views of human nature whereas anarchists view the state inherently corrupts 

The Social Contract

Locke - The only way one can be apart of a political society and be controlled by the state is via the consent or contract chosen by the individual 

‘…till by their own Consents they make themselves Members of some Politick Society’

However very many few states in society today have little legitimacy to govern is this was the case ?

What does this consent look like ? What about those who abstain from voting? 

Theories of Consent 

1. Express consent: citizens actually explicitly consent to the state’s power
2. Tacit consent: you consent by voluntarily living in a territory and accepting the benefits provided by the state that governs that territory. Problem - Usually works well when there is an obvious option to dissent however this is not always the case in a political society I.e. we cannot robustly deny to pay taxes or use public roads. -  “Can we seriously say, that a poor peasant or artisan has a free choice to leave his country, when he knows no foreign language or manners, and lives from day to day by the small wages he acquires?…” - Hume 
3. Hypothetical Consent: rational persons would or should consent under the right kinds of conditions - John Rawls Veil of Ignorance. Problem - Hypothetical consent does not involve any active choice on the part of individuals - Based on the assumption that the state provides benefits to the individual - this is what consent theory tries to avoid - Defence - Makes us realise we’ve been consenting and thinking this way all along?- E.g.Wolff draws a comparison to the belief that
giraffes do not have nine legs. A belief he has
held all his life, but not previously consciously
thought about. - We’ve held these beliefs all along we just haven’t overly thought about it

Which of the 3 justify state power ? Or do all 3 justify state power? Is not objecting the equivalent of consenting ? Engaging in day to day contracts with state enforcement as a consequence of not obeying ?

Alternatives to consent 

Utilitarianism - The state maximises overall wellbeing
Challenge - Back to the nanny state?
Challenge - allows for sacrifice of the innocent for the greater good?

Principle of Fairness - If you accept the benefits of the state then you are required to carry the burden of creating those benefits i.e tax

Challenge - Neo-liberal Nozick - taxation is theft - unsolicited benefits generate no obligation to reciprocate

Anarchism - There is no general explanation of what justifies state control however belief in moral law less so state law i.e. murder