Response To 'Animal Advocate'

Animal Advocate wrote:
Your question seems to regard the social contract. Does our social contract value protecting the majority (national security) over the minority (right to a fair trial) or vice versa? It seems throughout American history, protection of the majority has been preferred during times of war. No doubt this administration abuses the power that comes with the threat of war. But if we take your hypothetical state of four people as a representation of the current American public, one could argue that yes, indeed those two people would agree to imprison the third in the name of "national security." Or maybe the pendulum has finally drifted too far in that direction and protection of civil liberties has resurfaced. This amorphous entity called the state has been given the power to protect us from the state of nature, and rational people would disagree about whether that means protecting the many or protecting the few in anticipation of members of the many becoming members of the few in the future.

Political Philosopher responds:

The hypothetical situation described did not recognize an explicit social contract, but did imply one. However, the issue is not protection of the "majority(national security)" versus protection of the "minority." The question was more of what is the extent of the state's power to protect its members. Would a rational person agree to a social contract in which the few in power had the right to circumvent or disregard the rule of law at their discretion? That seems like a risky contract to enter into, even if one does not reasonably expect to be one of the unfortunate individuals victimized by such a decision. The nature of the example was meant to show that on some level, the state is nothing more than an individual or collection of individuals. Locke believes that civil society is necessary to prevent every man from being his own judge in matters needing redress. "And this puts Men out of a State of Nature into that of a Commonwealth, by setting up a Judge on Earth, with Authority to determine all the Controversies...that may happen to any Member of the Commonwealth (Second Treatise on Government, Ch. VII, paragraph 89). But what person would surrender this power if it were to be subject not to agreed upon laws but to the whims and the desires of the judge?