Social contract and speed cameras
Speed cameras – everyone knows they’re just a shallow attempt to gouge money out of the poor, unsuspecting public, right? We should do away with them, as they serve no practical purpose and don’t really do anything, right? Actually, wrong. And here’s the theory of social contract, with a little grumbling of my own, to explain why.
There was this fellow called Jean-Jaques Rousseau who once said that citizens of a political state give up certain perks (like the right to own stabby things, say) in return for the maintenance of order (in which one is less likely to be punctured unnecessarily). He was the guy to who defined the social contract (given that this is what he named his book and all), but certainly not the first or the last. Hobbes and Locke are another two to check out. Anyway, by time everyone has weighed in on the topic we get to the conclusion that if either side breaks the contractarian promise then they get punished; the individual by police actions, or the state by delegitimisation and eventually being removed from power. Without this “contract” between citizens and the state, we are at risk of having lives that are, as Hobbes said, “nasty, brutish and short” which doesn’t sound like a great deal of fun.
So what does social contract theory have to do with speed cameras? Well, the state (the actual State of South Australia, in my case) has decreed that certain roads will have certain speed limits for the maintenance of good order and so that the citizens of this state are at a reduced risk of pancaking. Break the rules, pay the price. If I were writing a 19th century political treatise, it would go something like this:
“We, the citizens, who require the state to maintain and enforce such laws that are necessary so as to maintain peace, prosperity, and a supply of slurpees for all, shall abide by these rules in return for this supply of peace, prosperity, and iced drinks. If any of us is to break one of those rules, that citizen shall find themselves stripped of certain rights and liberties as both punishment and to serve as warning to others who are tempted to gainsay such rules as the state has seen fit to set forth as being necessary to peace, prosperity, iced beverages, &c” (Yeah, I just wanted to use the “&c” abbreviation).
So, if you break the law then you’re either deprived of liberties (such as the freedom to go wherever you want, given that jail isn’t exactly a contiki tour) or rights (such as the right to not give the gub’mint extra money but instead blow it on beer and Smiggle stationery). This is what separates us from shrimp, folks. Shrimp don’t have Smiggle. This applies for every law, for (as the old phrase goes) if law isn’t enforced then it’s not really a law at all.
One cannot pick and choose which bits of law to enfore (Murder! Fraud! Theft! Really Bad Mullets!) and which bits we think should be ignored (Copyright! Speed Limits! Cannabis Posession!). Either strike the law, so there really is no law, or enforce it. If you have a law but do not enforce it, then the state went wrong somewhere. Either: the law is not necessary for the maintenance of good order, and so it should be dumped as an unjustifiable impingement on personal rights and liberties, or; it’s necessary, but the state fails in its obligation to maintain order by not enforcing it. And if (as some say) the current system is ineffective, we have two choices: either enforce it in such a way that it adds to the maintenance of order, or get rid of speed limits altogether.
Social contract theory’s pretty awesome. Basically, it’s a fancy way of justifying the state getting to kick someone’s arse if they break the rules. It can also be stretched to justify civil disobedience (if a law doesn’t promote the interests of citizens, it’s an unjust action on part of the state and therefore we can ignore it and do what we bloody well please) and revolt (bye-bye, Mr Opressive Junta Leader who buys lots of shoes with money that should be spent furthering the citizenry’s interests). Contractarianism stacks up well with the libertarian ideas on the minimisation of government, too; if a law doesn’t promote citizenry’s interests, then fare-thee-well.
I’ve been deliberately flippant at times in this post. if it’s got you fired up and wanting to argue, great. If you’re fired up enough to want to read the original text (which I have read in its entirity, by the way), then read Jean-Jaques Rousseau’s finest (and most famous) work: “The Social Contract, or Principles of Political Right”. You may have heard the words “Man is born free; and everywhere he is in chains” at some point in your life. I bet you heard it and thought someone was railing at the man. I’ll also bet you don’t know what comes next, right?
“One thinks himself the master of others, and still remains a greater slave than they. How did this change come about? I do not know. What can make it legitimate? That question I think I can answer.”
Rousseau set out to remark upon how political leaders (the master who is but a slave) hold a legitimate position in society. He did it well. Read it, and be a better informed citizen. Then, come back and argue with me about how blanketing the city in speed cameras is an unjustifiable cost that isn’t in the interests of the citizenry.
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Emma Muhlack. Emma Muhlack said: Learning Leet:: Social contract and speed cameras http://www.actualresultsmayvary.com/blog/2010/05/12/social-contract-speed-camera/ [...]