The Classic Liberal Blog

You are correct. Your article is correct. I agree completely.

On the other hand, Jack Camwell is correct when he writes:

"By living in society you submit yourself to the social contract, ie. that there are accepted rules for your safety and that of others, and to be a part of society you agree to follow those rules. When you break the contract, ie. break the rules, you’re punished for it ..."

What Mr. Camwell does not understand is that the "social contract" of which he speaks IS The Constitution (in addition to our local criminal codes). Another thing Mr. Camwell does not understand is that members of a society may organize themselves anyway they want. They may write whatever rules they want and establish any punishment they want for violations of those rules. They may make any human action they want taboo. The only criteria logic and the economics of cooperative action imposes is the requirement that murder and theft (however defined) be taboo. Without such taboos cooperative action is impossible.

However, cooperative action in society is a two-edged sword. Just as individuals may agree to cooperate under whatever mutually agreed upon social compact they can come up with, individuals can also decide not to cooperate, or not to cooperate in an established society any further.

History is rife with examples of societies that have cracked up. Most crackup because intractable disputes develop over differing interpretations of the society's social contract.

What your article describes is the growing dispute over the powers vested in the federal government by our Constitution. The beauty of our Constitution, as originally written and interpreted, is that power was vested in the states and in individuals, not in the federal government where one-size-fits-all rules inevitably become embroiled in disputes and these disputes inevitably become intractable.