Ever since I was born in the United States of America I have had to abide by the laws the nation has set forth in front of me. However, since I was born within the country and am a natural citizen, I never directly made a contract with the nation expressing that I wanted to be a part of it, and its rules. Therefore, the question of whether or not I am truly subject to the nation’s laws arises. The short answer to this question is yes, but on a deeper level it is merely expressive consent that makes me a U.S. citizen. I express my desire to live under the commonwealth of the United States by accepting any benefits it offers. Due to this one condition, I am subject to its laws and rules.
To reinforce this condition of receiving benefits, let us examine the works of Thomas Hobbes and John Locke. What can be gathered from these philosophers is that all people in a commonwealth form an unspoken social contract to benefit from something the commonwealth provides. One major benefit, in both men’s interpretations, brings humans out of the state of nature through a form of protection. Human’s join under commonwealths to gain the security the state of nature lacks. Naturally, the cost of this benefit is merely the agreement to live by the social contract or law of the commonwealth.
In Hobbes work The Leviathan, the major benefit a commonwealth provides is protection “from an untimely death.” In Hobbes’ state of nature there is utter chaos. To relieve this chaos, people join commonwealths because, “if there be no power erected, or not great enough for security; every man will, and may lawfully rely on his own strength for caution against other men” (Hobbes, 173). Therefore in Hobbes’s commonwealth, if people receive protection, they are expressively agreeing rules of the power erected mentioned in the quote. In summarization, security is benefited when one abides by the commonwealth’s laws.
Similarly, the major benefit Locke’s commonwealth provides is protection of one’s property. Locke states in his work The Second Treatise of Government, “The great and chief end of men uniting into commonwealth, and putting themselves under government, is the preservation of their property” (Locke, 320). Based on this quote, the commonwealth protects one’s property, and if the protection is accepted, one is expressively agreeing to unite under the commonwealth. Overall, both Hobbes and Locke believe that, accepting any benefits from a commonwealth, expressively binds you to the rules of that commonwealth.
In conclusion, the major condition that makes any person part of a commonwealth is through receiving benefits. As a result, one becomes subject to the rules that the commonwealth creates. Furthermore, there is a clear connection between receiving benefits and expressively agreeing to live under a commonwealth in my situation. I expressively agree to live under the law of the United States by receiving the provisions of law enforcement, paved roads, and other things of this nature.
Hobbes, Thomas. “The Leviathan.” Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. 2nd Edition. David Wootton. Indianapolis, IN. 2008.
Locke, John. “The Second Treatise of Government.” Modern Political Thought: Readings from Machiavelli to Nietzsche. 2nd Edition. David Wootton. Indianapolis, IN. 2008.
I think that the argument reflects the ideas of Socrates and can be applied to people visiting other nations. Socrates states that one is part of a commonwealth whenever one is willing living there. This would extend to when one visits other nations. For example, people on vacation should alway obey the laws of the nation that they are willingly visiting although they may permanently reside outside of the country.
Whenever one visits another country, they generally obtain the protection of the police as soon as they cross the border. Therefore, Locke and Hobbes would believe that one is a member of the new commonwealth. Similarly, Socrates believes that the visitor is also a member of the commonwealth instantly. However, Socrates believes this to be true simply because one chose to cross the border. Therefore, Locke, Hobbes, and Socrates agree that people are always members of the commonwealth that governs the land that the people are located on.
I think one thing to consider is how the state treats people under the age of 18. Until you are an adult (or you become emancipated from your parents custody), you are under the supervision of your parents and not really the state. The state may ask extra of your parents because they are supporting a child, but not directly of you. Once you turn 18, and register to vote, then you explicitly consent to being a member of the commonwealth. Until then you can go commit felony status crimes and get away with minimal punishment. As a child you are essentially in a state of nature, free to do what you want. However, I see your point. The state does recognize you as a citizen, mostly because they expect you to want to be a citizen when you are old enough to choose. I think it was Locke who said that children are under their parents supervision until they are wise enough to make informed decisions for themselves. I think that the United States holds similar ideals. Although the lines are somewhat blurred legally, that is just an issue of legality not ideology – I think our system is pretty robust in dealing with minors and affording them enough time to gain the wisdom necessary to become a citizen in their adulthood.
Though I think you make some good points in this post, you did eventually decide that you are receiving sufficient benefits from living in this country that outweigh any costs of remaining in the state of nature. But what if you didn’t? Surely with a population so large there are people that would prefer not to consent to the government. What of those people? In our modern society there is nowhere for them to turn. Back when Locke was writing the world truly seemed limitless; the new world had been discovered and many options were open, even though many people did not have the means to take those options. Now, however, every part of the planet is under the rule of some law. The only option to avoid society would be to pack up and move into the wilderness, which is the primary reason no one does it. If there were somewhere people could go with no rules and no government to live in the philosophical state of nature as opposed to the literal one, would they do it?
I believe that a person is only a true member of the commonwealth when they actively participate in the political process either through action or through voting. Unless an individual actually participates in government, they have no say in the laws that govern them and have no right to change these laws. Both Locke and Hobbes show that an individual is only part of the commonwealth when they band together, and by ignoring the political process, such an individual will be opposed to their fellows. People that have not yet obtained citizenship status are not part of the government despite receiving benefits and equal punishment simply because they are not fulfilling their responsibility to vote and strengthen a system that provides safety and protection of property.
I think that another interesting part of the Socratic argument is that by remaining in a place (assuming that you haven’t moved out of the US for an extended period of time) you give your tacit consent and even approval of the laws of that place. Socrates would argue that you definitely did “sign” a contract, even if you did not do so explicitly.