Social Contract Theory: Consent in American Politics (week 2)

4/9/2014

"Social contract theory, nearly as old as philosophy itself, is the view that persons’ moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement among them to form the society in which they live."
Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Social Contract theory explains how political authority can arise in a governing system. According to social contract theory, consent is the basis of our government's control. It is because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule.

Based on this theory of consent, name three examples of government actions from U.S. history that U.S. residents have given consent to? When describing these three historical or contemporary moments please tell why and how the people have given consent. Tell who was or was not impacted by the government action taken that we have given consent.

NOTE: These moments in history should be directly related to the U.S. governments action or lack thereof.

Requirements for BLOG POSTS

You must write 250 words each post (due Friday @ Midnight), Responses to another student 50 words each (due Monday @ midnight)
Students must post during the week the blog is assigned or it will not be graded.

66 Comments

Lars Velken

4/10/2014 03:25:20 am

One of the most recent and obvious events illustrating U.S. citizen consent to their government, and evidencing social contract theory, is The Iraq War beginning with George W. Bush’s administration. The administrations actions that ultimately led to the terrorist bombings on 9/11 created a heightened state of crisis. Combined with the governments repetitive perpetuation of fear within the public, they could warrant the necessity to gravitate from Afghanistan to Iraq, where President Bush’s true intentions lay. Ultimately the people of the U.S. bought into this fear, and solicited themselves in multiple ways to become part of the governments work, either by physically joining the military or be reaffirming the administrations values they heard through the media.
We are still being affected by the rhetoric and propaganda used throughout the past 13 years. We have only recently found out the extent to which the government spied and collected data on its own citizens. This is a second example of consent given by the people to the government in exchange for a fallacious sense of security. The government and many citizens argue that if one is not doing anything wrong they don’t have anything to hide, while some argue that the principle of solidarity of citizens is being breached by the powers sworn to reflect the citizen’s values. Only in recent years with the development of sites like Wikileaks and through the help of whistleblowing government agents have we discovered the deceitful non-disclosure of widespread government infiltration nationwide.
The third example is similarly contemporary and presents a slightly more grim undertone. As U.S. citizens we all understand our basic human rights, and many of us who have basic knowledge of the U.S. constitution know a little about our judicial rights as well. Most concerning of these is that our expectation of judicial sentencing only after due process is being undermined. In fear of our safety and freedoms as citizens, many citizens are having their freedom and safety compromised. Many citizens on U.S. soil have been detained indefinitely and citizens abroad, who have the same legal rights have been detained and even killed without a legal due process. This reflects either an apathetic opinion of the majority of the American population, or that fear still resonates nationally even eight years after Bush’s presidency.

Cynthia Kay

4/11/2014 02:30:48 am

I agree with you about heightened fear in the U.S. after 9/11 and everyone became a patriot as evident with American flags on every porch and where every able bodied individual enlisted in the military. We consented to military action but later on, we felt betrayed by our own government with the lies, treatment of prisoners, and coverups by the Bush administration. This we did not consent to and ultimately elected an individual promising to rebuild our faith in the U.S. government.

Travis Himebaugh

4/12/2014 08:35:08 am

I very much hear and agree with you, at least with regards to the Bush administration's war. It was perhaps the epitome of silent consent leading to harm. People were so afraid that they let their cherished freedoms fall by the wayside.
Way to say in plain language what had to be said.

Duc Doan

4/14/2014 04:46:42 am

After 9/11 people were so scared. Everyone fear for their safety, so the government took action, in doing do so they use the peoples freedom against them. The citizens consent to many things, all out of fear. I agree with you that we consent many things to the bush administration.

Jagandeep Dyal

4/14/2014 02:13:53 pm

I agree with you that the post-9/11 United States government and citizens did a lot of drastic things because we were afraid. It was these fears that led to the war that is going on in the Middle-East. People feared that their rights were at risk so they took what they thought was the right way out.

Jennifer Hernandez

4/10/2014 07:49:27 am

Some of the issues that have occurred that society has somewhat given consent to would be deportation, the invasion of privacy during President Bush’s time, and also gun control. With deportation, people tend to advocate for certain minorities rights to stay in the United States, but still nothing seems to change and people don’t seem to see it as a big enough issue to fully change the laws based on it. Some think that deportation is a way to keep people who don’t have papers and don’t belong to be of no use to be here, while others think that it is necessary to keep this country organized. People passed laws in places like Arizona as a form of consent to eradicate people from crossing any boarders to this country. The people of course don’t realize that the people who become affected are the people who are trying to come here to live a better life or even start new to find work and closure.
When it came to the time of Bush, he teamed up with the National Security Agency (NSA) to wire into peoples electronic devices since it was the time where “terrorism” was a big deal. He thought that anyone could be trying to target the country. People weren’t told at first, but once it leaked out it became of little importance to people. Even at this time Obama is doing the same with the NSA and everybody just leaves it alone. Every time we make phone calls, search the web, or even post pictures we are being watched. No revolts yet on this and the government just does as follows because it is their “duty” to make sure we are safe. This mostly affects us as people who have our own interest and like to keep our things private while we search the net and try to have private conversations.
Lastly, we have things regarding gun laws. We gave consent to laws that disrupted our right to bear arms. In order to give some type of closure to the people they made one of the laws where people who are mentally ill cannot purchase a gun or any kind, since people thought that they would be a danger, when in reality anyone can pull a trigger. We let the government make a law that probably wouldn’t even stop shooting or nonetheless violence. Some things just can’t be eradicated. People are affected in a way and we have been for the longest of time since we were allowed to even buy any weaponry. Anyone is in danger and no law can change that, but people still give consent to it to just put people at ease, and people still end up using guns because it is a right.

Cynthia Kay

4/11/2014 02:49:15 am

Regarding deportation, isn't it interesting to hear other people complain about illegal's in this country. Perhaps they never looked at their own grandparents on how they arrived here from Europe. An excellent play I saw recently, which is also a movie, is "A Day Without A Mexican". I recommend it.

Christian Ramirez

4/11/2014 11:33:36 am

I totally agree with you about the invasion of privacy. I seriously feel like we have no privacy. Almost everything we do or like is out on the web via our social media profiles. For those that don't use social media we too are still getting our personal info looked into. So either way it makes no difference to have a Facebook or not.

Alan Fernandez

4/14/2014 08:14:51 am

Jennifer, I do agree with you that people give consent because on the fact that they believe that it is for the overall good. We never thought never thought the government would spy on us but we have consent to this idea because the government has made us fearful of terrorism and now we feel that in order to keep us "safe" we must keep an eye on everyone just to keep down fear and protect the nation. I agree that sometimes we forget about our own rights in the process.

David Perez

4/14/2014 04:25:29 pm

The topic of deportation is so crazy. So many people are effected by it and almost all of the time, it is those who are undeserving. Also, the gun laws are mind blowing. It is crazy how anybody can just go buy a guy and in some states just walk around with it. I agree that anybody can kill a person regardless of their mental state.

Tony Zhidong Li link

4/14/2014 05:08:37 pm

Hey Jennifer, I totally agree with your blog poster. These days, surveillance cameras are everywhere. I saw the 60 mins that it mentioned Google, mobile phone corporations, and Apple Corporation share their customers’ information with the U.S. government. What I would like to pointed out is that it not only happened during President Bush’s time but also in our daily lives!

Imani Sanders

4/10/2014 09:31:50 am

Some events in U.S. history that U.S. residents have given consent to, even for a limited time, are the Hiroshima bombing, the slavery of African descendants, and racial profiling. The Hiroshima bombing of Japan occurred the final stages of World War two. The bombing was nuclear, so the effects are still apparent today within deformities of human bodies and land absorbance of the rays. The consent by the U.S. citizens was apparent do to the fact that a poll in Fortune (1945) magazine says “Americans…wishing that more
Atomic bombs could’ve been dropped on Japan.” (Wikipedia). This was the mindset of an older generation that was dedicated to their country and considered to be very patriotic.

Slavery of African was given consent through the stealing, buying, selling, and trading of these slaves. For a couple of centuries slavery was given consent without rebellion. Even the ‘forefathers’ of America had slaves. Therefore, the consent of owning slaves by government officials of that time proves to me that the consent of slavery was accepted by majority (majority being white) of the U.S. citizens.

Racial profiling is apparent in the government of the U.S. mainly through “…profiling by airlines, police, and government agencies”, as told by American Civil Liberties Union. Racial profiling is seen as consent through the police and government agencies. Stop and frisk ran rapid through the east coast by the harassment of Black and Latino communities, as well as other people of color. Consent was given for a short period of time through lack of compassion through elected officials of the east coast. The policy itself was restricted after protest and a rising of the community.

Cited Sources:
https://www.aclu.org/racial-justice/racial-profiling
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiroshima

Theodore Libby

4/14/2014 11:28:40 am

I agree with your second and third points however I don't necessarily agree that the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was a matter of consent. United States citizens did not specifically gave consent to these acts. They may have in a general sense of consenting to war but, I feel the bombing is a little to specific.

Lars Velken

4/14/2014 04:24:20 pm

I believe that to your point, we often give consent to these cultural atrocities simply through apathy. Our nuclear program in the 30's leading to the bombing of Japan was a hidden agenda even to the American public, but racial profiling and especially slavery have been allowed to continue for as long as they have because people in large don't care to do anything about it, or feel that they are too small to make significant change. Martin Luther King described this phenomenon as often being more damaging to social movements than those openly opposing them.

Cynthia Kay

4/10/2014 11:51:12 am

All social norms in any society are dictated by a set of rules or laws. Violation of these rules results in some form of punishment whether it be disdain or in extreme cases, death. Considering the ultimate punishment of being put to death, we as a free people in a democratic society have placed our faith in those officials we have elected, to set forth written laws that provide us our inalienable rights of safety, equality, security, free thinking, free speech, and to worship who or what we choose. A government by the people is necessary to uphold these rights to live in a free society.
We as a nation have provided our consent of the rules and laws our government has set forth as we have elected them of our free will to do so. These forms of consent are Unanimous, hypothetical, overt and tacit. One of the earliest examples of unanimous consent would be the right to vote where the elected is chosen by the majority. Although this process of election have had its flaws since conception. Originally, voting privileges were generally granted only to wealthy, white men. In 1867, black males were granted the right to vote, and in 1920, to women. Even today, cases are being heard in the U.S. Supreme Court where Republican lawmakers are restricting voting amongst those who are generally poor or ethnic and with no forms of acceptable identification under the voting Identification laws. Under unanimous consent, dissenters would have the right of secession. This secession was attempted by the southern states during the Civil War however; in 1865 (Texas vs. White), the Supreme Court ruled the secession was unconstitutional since when Texas became a state. An example of a hypothetical consent in this day would be politicians being allowed the use of public funds or campaign contributions to live elaborate lifestyles and travel as long as it is morally acceptable; perhaps necessary to properly perform the duties they were elected to do. An overt consent is something that must be voluntary where tacit consent is assumed. During World War I, II and the attack on the World Trade Center on 9/11, the travesties against the nation and the world led the people to believe that their liberties were at risk and being violated to the extreme. It was expected and assumed that the U.S. Government was to take immediate action to protect our liberties. These actions immediately following the attack at the World Trade Center were accepted, but later led to what many perceived to be an abuse of power by the government, inhumane treatment of prisoners, and lies to the American people. The country was in turmoil. It was at that time the economy was in recession, racism and bigotry was heightened due to the distrust of anyone resembling Islamic, and the possible election of a black president.
In 2008 a new president was elected with promise to guarantee our inalienable rights of safety, equality, security, free thinking, free speech, and to worship who or what we choose; by unanimous consent. So far, this writer is impressed and thankful for our civil liberties.

Michael Plaza

4/14/2014 05:46:07 am

Cynthia, the social contract theory does indeed take precedence within our modern society. You make a good point about how we elect people to make laws to protect us, but the second we choose to elect such people is the second we lose free thinking, because they are chosen to think for us. You make good points about how the government takes actions in the midst of chaos that seem to be in the people’s best interest at first glance, but upon reflection appear to be, in one way or another, some kind of abuse of power.

Elizabeth Avalos

4/10/2014 04:21:17 pm

Slavery, gun control, and deportation represent three excellent examples of United States citizens granting consent to their government, thus supporting the social contract theory. According to TheFreeDictionary, social contract can be defined as "an agreement, entered into by individuals, that results in the formation of the state or of organized society, the prime motive being the desire for protection, which entails the surrender of some or all personal liberties."
Slavery of African Americans is a prime, historical example of social contract because it illustrates approval on behalf the majority of the United States' citizens to own, sell, purchase, and trade slaves amongst slave masters and owners over the course of a several centuries. Slavery lasted well into the mid-nineteenth century and was abolished in 1865. However, up until that point, it was highly supported by many and allowed without much opposition. Those in favor of slavery supported it primarily because it was beneficial and vital for the economy. Many believed that since slavery had existed throughout Europe for many centuries, it was correct to implement it in the United States as well.
Gun Control represents another concrete example of social contract in the United States. A large portion of United States citizens have agreed that guns are extremely dangerous, therefore they have voted in favor of laws that control a person's right to bear arms. These gun control laws represent the social contract theory by exemplifying the agreement that many individuals submit themselves into, brought about by their desire for protection, even if they find themselves obligated to surrender personal liberties.
Deportation is my final example of social contract in the United States. For many years now, deportation has been and continues to be a controversial topic throughout the nation. In Arizona particularly, residents have turned to deportation laws as their approval and consent to keep immigrants out of the country, or to evict people who have already come into this country and are living here illegally.

Imani Sanders

4/14/2014 04:34:26 am

Isn't it funny how the events of unarmed citizens are being shot yet the gun laws aren't being radicalized and changed to protect the citizens of the U.S.? Yet I definitely understand the desire to protect oneself, which is the original goal of the right to bear arms. There’s always a twisting of the law when it comes to protecting someone’s “American rights” , the only thing about that is that everybody loses.

Leslie Werle

4/11/2014 04:56:16 am

At any given point in history, what we consider moral, or not, has seemed to depend on the social norms of the time. With the birth of the United States government and the writing of the constitution, the country seemed to be taking a big step toward equality compared to the monarchy that had ruled the colonies before. The constitution states, “all men are created equal”, which at the time meant all white, male, property owners are created equal. The women and minorities in this country had no consent to give to the ideas our country is based off of. The idea of this being what all men are created equal meant and all have the right to the pursuit of happiness, was a social norm at the time not deemed as inequality in the eyes of our government. Slowly these ideas changed with African Americans being given the right to vote in 1867 and women being given the right to vote in 1920*. Though it was still not easy for these two minorities to vote it had at least been made legally attainable to them. As much as we would like for these to be issues of the past, they are not. Many states have such strict voting policies still today that it make it difficult for the poorer contingency in this country to vote. The hours the polls are open, especially night and weekend times, have been cut and the type of identification you must have available at the polls to vote is just not fiscally obtainable to some**. Time and again Americans have give consent to things that seem morally just at the time, such as the many wars America has been a part of. These actions later can be looked back on and thought of as morally wrong, when the majority of the American people were giving active consent, at the beginning of these altercations at least.

*(http://www.iep.utm.edu/soc-cont/#H2)

**(http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/30/us/new-gop-bid-to-limit-voting-in-swing-states.html?action=click&module=Search®ion=searchResults%230&version=&url=http%3A%2F%2Fquery.nytimes.com%2Fsearch%2Fsitesearch%2F%3Faction%3Dclick%26contentCollection%3DU.S.%26region%3DTopBar%26module%3DSearchSubmit%26pgtype%3Darticle%23%2FVoter%2BRegistration%2BRestrictions%2F7days%2F&_r=0)

Karishma Khatri

4/14/2014 12:28:42 pm

I completely agree with you. Our morality on issues change with whatever we have deemed “normal” at a certain time. Unfortunately, normal is not always right. And as you pointed out, it could lead to discrimination and injustice. I think history shows us that we, as citizens and constituents, should actively participate in our legislative practices and it also shows that we need to be sure to think independently. We shouldn't just conform to the ideas of social norm.

Duc Doan

4/11/2014 05:39:17 am

Reality is that the government automatically governs all U.S citizens. They do not have to give consent to anything because as a citizen of the U.S government, you’re basically giving them consent. The theory of consent states that people have agreed to be ruled by the government. So lets take a look at three examples in history that support this.
One example of consent was the Iraq war that lasted from 2003-2011. The Iraq war was not a popular war among the people. Many citizens opposed the war because it felt that our government should let Iraq fight its own battles. But the government felt that it had to fight terrorism and so it did. It started with the invasion of Iraq beginning in 2003. There was no paper that citizen’s sign that gave the government consent to go to war. Because citizens have citizenship in the United States, it gave the government the right to do what it feel is best for the people. Because of terrorism and 9/11 happened, the people gave the government the consent to fight terrorism to protect the people and the nation.
Another example is the NSA warrantless surveillance. This law was in effect from 2001 to 2007 from the Bush administration. It allowed the government to wiretapped and use surveillance on people who they thought were to be terrorist. This law perhaps might be unlawful due to the face that it may be violating citizen’s privacy. Due to the law being in effect the government did not have to tell the people anything, they can just follow you around everyday without you even knowing. Under this law, the citizens consent to it because the government supposed to protect them from terrorism. Here the people were impacted because the government was targeting citizens who they thought were unlawful. They may or may not get the right person but everyone was being affected. The government wanted to eliminate terrorism and under this law the citizens must consent to it, and by doing so gave up their privacy.
Lastly, Gun control laws are something citizens consent to. They said, “you have the rights to bear arm”, but when people flash a gun, the police shoot them dead. The government governed people who have guns. Yes, guns are dangerous and some people are not competent enough to have gun. But as government gives out more gun laws, the citizens must abide to the law because if they do anything stupid with a gun they will either be shot or in jail. The government said they will protect the people but you see all these crazy stories of unlawful police shooting against citizens on the news. The government is a contradiction of them selves and uses their powers on the people.

Joann Truong

4/11/2014 01:45:02 pm

I totally agree with you on control. Even though our second amendment is the rights to bear arms, we actually don’t have the rights to bear arms. When someone does have a gun, they have to go through a whole process to see if they’re even eligible to have a gun. After they pass, if they’re seen with a gun, a police will pull them over and question them like crazy just cause. I seen a video about was how a guy question by a cop for doing nothing wrong and the cop was being a total jerk about it too.

Cynthia Yang

4/11/2014 07:45:05 am

Consent is definitely one of the big reasons why the world is the way it is now. We give consent and vote for whom was best and rightfully to govern our country and set laws to keep the people in this society safe. Three top examples in historical time that people have given consent for government to take action are gun control, the 9/11 aftermath, and taxes. The people give the government consent for gun control. In this case, the people hand over all the duties for government to choose and decide what’s best for the people to keep them safe. As the people voted for the right to bear arms, gun control is the complete opposite. Even though the people have the right to bear arms, there’s a chance that he/she can or may be considered dangerous. And it’s the police’s job to keep the people safe. Next topic that makes history for consent is the aftermath of 9/11. Because of the tragic event caused many deaths, it caused the people to come to one solution and that’s to find whoever was responsible for this. This meant war and more killing and that’s where the government jumped into action. Lastly, the people gave consent for the government to tax because that helps fund the government and the people. Taxes give society a well-managed government that provides beneficial programs that the people take advantage of. Taxes impact majority of the society. Not everyone enjoys getting taxed when they’re buying things at the store. And wealthy people doesn’t like to pay taxes when they make an excessively high of money yearly.

Jennifer Hernandez

4/11/2014 02:10:57 pm

Taxing is a big form of consent since we buy things from time to time and when we do we pay the price. It is true that when the government thinks it is right for us to have more war or to do something for a cause more they feel the need to just tax us more to "help" with the cause and not everything necessarily gets helped with the tax money we pay for. People tend to not question where all their money goes towards.

Duc Doan

4/14/2014 04:51:47 am

The government feels that they can do anything. When they go to war or do something that they need money in, they will tax the people. We as citizens consent to it. Tax is what brings in the money for the money. They can raised prices for public things if they want to. For example, toll bridge in san francisco use to be $2 but when they felt the need to build the new span. They tax the people upwards to $6. People have no choice but consent to the price they set.

Frank Arredondo II

4/11/2014 08:21:15 am

Throughout History the U.S. government has acted on behalf of the American people through consent. However, just because the government has the people’s consent does not mean their decisions are in the best interest of everyone.
One example of consent in U.S. history can be seen in 1942. When following the attack on Pearl Harbor president Roosevelt signed an executive order stating all those on U.S. soil of Japanese ancestry must relocate to interment camps. By this action Roosevelt had Americans consent to protect them from any further attacks on Americans. Americans let this happen without standing up for their neighbors and local law enforcement agencies were used to enforce the new executive order. Now only one group of people was affected, but it ruined their lives here in the United States. Many Japanese families lost everything they owned as well some families were split up.
Another example of the U.S. government using the power of consent is through the action of creating laws that we follow. We allow are government to create laws that we feel are in the best interests of every citizen. The most recent one that I can think of is the cell phone law in California. In 2009 the state of California passed a law making it illegal to handle a cellar device without a hands free device while driving. Many citizens saw this as a good idea and way to keep drivers safe on the road. However, with time citizens began to question if this law was fair as police officers have many devices they try to manage while driving. Yet we are still okay with the law for the citizens, but still never question if our law enforcement officers are anymore distracted.
The third example of the U.S government receiving consent from the American people is through how they get to decide what is taught in the public school system. Each state has an education system designed by specifically own education board. This board though is not an elected board by the people, but rather the acting governor appoints it. Which the American people never question and really don’t even know who is in charged. Therefore our children receive an education that is or is not bias in many ways.

Jesse Smith

4/11/2014 09:35:51 am

Your first example, the Japanese internment camps, actually brings up a concept that's tangentially related to my own example as well: the use of fear of "the other" in order to rally support for a particular decision. Before pearl harbor, such a suggestion would likely have met rightful opposition. But fear, the fear of the faces of those who attacked us, allowed something so horrible to be enacted. Even though the individuals had nothing to do with the attack and were merely trying to live their lives. It actually makes me curious as to the psychological aspect of it, whether it could have something to do with seeking a way to take back power after a perceived loss of it in the only manner they could think of?

Karishma Khatri

4/14/2014 01:07:46 pm

You make really good points. One of my examples was Japanese internment. Sadly, this happened with the consent of the public. The fear after the attack on Pearl Harbor was used by the government. The US needed someone to blame and they turned their finger onto Japanese Americans. The majority consent may not be in the best interest of everyone, as you pointed out. I liked your example about education. I had never considered this before. It really helped me think of what else the government controls.

Julia Miranda

4/11/2014 08:34:03 am

Slavery, voting rights, and segregation are three governmental actions from history that the U.S. has given consent to. These three topics all deal with discriminatory actions that targeted different races and/or groups. We gave consent to these actions because when the Founding Father’s were using Locke’s ideas to write the Constitution with the intended (powerful white males) recipients of these rights to only be those people. Due to that slavery was adopted early on, in 1787 when Congress was figuring out a compromise for the Virginia plan dealing with property and whether or not slaves’ votes should count, they resulted in the 3/5ths Compromise. The 3/5ths Compromise allowed a slave (usually African American) to count as 3/5ths of a vote but was more used for political advances. That is if they were even able to afford the poll tax, pass the literacy test, or get by the Grandfather Clause or other causes that prevented them from voting. This mentality lead to the Jim Crow Segregation Laws in 1876 to 1965 and the ruling of “separate but equal” in Plessy V. Ferguson in 1896. It wasn’t until 1954 in Brown V. Board that overruled the “separate but equal” trial. And in 1965 the Voting Act allowed African Americans to vote.
Although that wasn’t the only group of people who had troubles trying to vote, as we know women were also delayed the right to vote and weren’t allowed to until the 20’s. The major group who was impacted were African Americans, women, and other minority groups. Today, we still have voting right conflicts whether it’s felons or immigrants who live in our country that we still have more governmental actions to take place in order to solve them. Hopefully, we handle it better and sooner than later than what we have done in past.

http://americanhistory.si.edu/brown/history/1-segregated/segregated-america.html
http://www.abhmuseum.org/2012/09/voting-rights-for-blacks-and-poor-whites-in-the-jim-crow-south/

Jesse Smith

4/11/2014 08:55:46 am

When discussing actions of the US Government to the youth of this particular generation, there is one that likely stands above all else: the Iraq War. In the wake of the September 11th attacks emotions were running high, with much of the US population no longer feeling safe, and many more feeling angry. It was this volatile mixture, fueled by ceaseless discussion, analysis, and other media coverage of the attack, which ultimately led to the war in Iraq approximately two years later. A war that which dragged on for eight years, claimed thousands upon thousands of lives, and was later revealed to have been conceptualized before any evidence linking Saddam Hussein to the attacks was even found.1
As a subject, the Iraq War has been discussed countless times already, and I’d rather not belabor a point already discussed when there are other current, yet questionable, actions that the US is taking. For instance, the name Edward Snowden may sound familiar: roughly one year ago Snowden leaked a large number of classified documents to journalists which contained details on several US programs related to surveillance. What is particularly startling about the information that came to light is partially due to the sheer scale of the monitoring, the number of ways in which individuals are monitored, and the most distressing of all, exactly who is monitored. For instance, some of the documents which Snowden disclosed to the media detail an NSA database codenamed FASCIA, which stores location data gathered from “a variety of sources,” and at the time of article publishing, already contained trillions of records.2 One such source are the hubs of global cellular networks, hubs which serve both US and foreign networks. And while, under the FISA data is only being gathered on “foreign targets,” it has been reported that recent amendments to the act could allow data gathered on US citizens to be searched.3 Such large-scale monitoring brings to mind imagery from Orwell’s 1984, and begs the question: if this is what we now know of, what activities remain hidden from us?
Finally, the third event is the most recent of all, and was brought to my attention in our most recent class meeting: the death of three US citizens by drone strike. Formally confirmed on May 22, 2013, three of the individuals were in Yemen. Additionally, one Jude Kenan Mohammad was on the FBIs most wanted list, and was killed in 2011.4 Of the four, Attorney General Eric Holder claims that three of “these individuals were not specifically targeted by the united states,” also specifically stating that the Obama administration “has specifically targeted and killed…Anwar al-Aulaqi.”5 The most chilling piece of information is what happened most recently: reported on April 08, 2014, the lawsuit which was in the federal courts regarding the killing of the three individuals was dismissed, with the judge stating “the victims’ constitutional rights were never violated” and that “US officials cannot be held liable.”6 While at first glance those affected may only seem to be the individuals that lost their lives in the attacks, this ruling extends those effects to any US citizen. While not precedent, it does reveal a rather distressing attitude.
In all of the above actions, there was never any direct consent given. Because of the structure of our government, the manner in which we’ve given our consent is our continued participation in the representative system that is established. It is the individuals elected by us who are supposed to represent the interests and concerns of the people that elected them. While the above may indeed be an accurate representation of certain individuals, the real question is: whose? Additionally, in their duty to guarding the civil rights of its people and fostering prosperity, has the government gone beyond its duties and overstepped its bounds in the actions it’s taken?

1http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/building-momentum-regime-change-rumsfe
2http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/nsa-tracking-millions-of-cellphones-globally/article5424401.ece, Archived at http://www.webcitation.org/6OHYQ8Md0
3http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/aug/09/nsa-loophole-warrantless-searches-email-calls
4http://www.democracynow.org/2013/5/23/killing_americans_jeremy_scahill_on_obama
5http://www.democracynow.org/blog/2013/5/22/obama_admin_admits_for_first_time_it_killed_four_us_citizens_in_drone_strikes_outside_war_zones
6http://www.democracynow.org/2014/4/8/can_any_court_hold_us_accountable

Christopher

4/11/2014 10:45:05 am

I think it is first important to not that no action in US history has been entirely condoned or consented to by the entirety of its population. Even during moments of seeming national unity, like the invasion of Iraq following the 9/11 attacks, when flag waving nationalists came out of the woodworks, there was (and still is) strong dissent. So, the question in and of it self seems misleading. Many citizens do their best not to consent to that which the majority does. I suppose I can give examples of instance in which many, certainly not all, of us consent to government actions/inactions. During the Rwanda genocide, the United States Government fought hard to avoid acknowledging the incidence as genocide. Intelligence reports obtained using the Freedom of Information Act later confirmed this, and it was shown that not only the administration but also (then) president Bill Clinton almost certainly knew the facts but chose to ignore them. This was because it was not seen as politically advantageous for the United States to get caught up in a region where it had, “no interests.” (Meaning, no resources to exploit or having no strategic military value.) The general public in America and around the world knew what was going on, and as many remained glued to their TVs, watching events unfold as if it were the latest episode of a fictional drama; their silence became their consent.
Again we saw a similar inaction on the part of the US government during the Bahrain uprising. Here, however, the US government opted for inaction precisely because of its military interests in the region. Bahrain, a small Persian Gulf country, is host to the US Navy’s Fifth Fleet, and is considered a crucial to US military strategy in the Gulf, specifically because of our relationship with Iran. So, in this case, when the people of Bahrain took to the streets in protest of the Sunni monarchy that was oppressing the Shi’a majority, America stood idly by and watched. However, when the people of Libya raised up to overthrow their leader, president Gaddafi, America, NATO, and the rest of the world (particularly France and Great Britain) rushed in to provide support and help topple the regime. Why now and not in Bahrain or Rwanda, you might ask? Well, in this case, Gaddafi was no longer seen as playing ball with the United States in the way that other US backed dictators have in the past. Relations had been strained for decades between the US and Libya, especially considering Gaddafi’s support for militants. Don’t get me wrong, I think Gaddafi was a horrible leader and needed to go, but when viewed in relation to the other opportunities for intervention that we discussed, American involvement in the ousting of Gaddafi can’t be seen as altruistic or an appeal to the rights of a people to democratize their government. American citizens’ ignorance and apathy in the face of our countries military intervention is paramount to giving our consent. (More people) need to be out on the streets, protesting, educating, and making our voices heard! As we’ve been learning in class, simply going to the voting booth once every four years isn’t enough, it never has been.

Leslie Werle

4/12/2014 04:51:38 am

Unfortunately I agree with you about how no action in the US has been completely condoned by the people. We get our votes for our representatives but when important things come up, like all the wars and uprisings you mentioned, do we really get a say in how that is dealt with or do our already chosen representatives get a say? My step mother and I were just talking about how representation in this country is no where near equal. If the states were considered as countries, California has like the 8th or 9th highest GDP in the world. We have a lot of power as a consuming state, yet when it comes to national elections, the votes are tallied and decisions made before our votes even come into play. Doesn't seem very representative to me. I agree that the only way to make a difference and promote change is to get out in our communities and make a difference. The local government and community is just as much, if not more, important that the national level.

Christian Ramirez

4/11/2014 11:25:41 am

Three perfect examples where consent has been given to that government are stricter gun control, NSA invasion of privacy, and deportation. These issues are very sensitive to the majority of the people so I will touch each with little prejudice opinions. The people of today's generation have given consent to the NSA without knowing or really thinking about it to listen, watch, and tap into almost every inch of our lives. Edward Snowden was an NSA employee that came out to the public on the NSA and how they are tapping into our messages, emails, phone calls, mobile cameras, GPS location, etc. They have complete access to all the services we use such as Facebook and Gmail. They got consent from the providers of these services. It’s no wonder why they know what we are always saying and doing like they’re “Big Brother”. Consent for stricter gun control on the other hand was given more directly, in the need for safer more modern gun laws that prevent mass shootings from reoccurring. However, we have given them the right to disrupt our right to bear arms. The benefits of temporarily dismissing our right to bear arms will be that we will have stricter and safer gun laws. People give their consent for deportation by not saying or doing much to stop it. They want it but they need the immigrants. Immigrants from other countries such as México serve as a huge part of the American work force that in return keeps the cost of things down. However, the draw back is the lack of many minimum wage jobs.

Jose Dominguez

4/13/2014 12:10:33 pm

I agree that we have no privacy these days. Technology is such a great tool, but also a harmful one at the same time. There are also cameras everywhere we go. I believe there has to be a change in the amount of information the government can gain about our lives. There has been a stricter law for guns, but I do not think it is enough. I would like to see a ban on all guns for a week to see how it affects America. Hopefully it would decrease crime rates and murder rates.

Armando Arzate

4/14/2014 03:25:05 am

Great post, it was well thought out and straight to the point. I would agree on these three examples of modern day social contracts that have had an impact on our lives. I believe that in some sense “We the People” are allowing the government to slowly abolish every right we should have. I understand certain laws or measures are needed to keep our communities safe however, at what price will it stop? Taking away privacy, the right to bear arms, and much more will only give the government even more consent to continue to take things away from us.

Travis Himebaugh

4/11/2014 11:53:27 am

Here's social contract theory in a nutshell; it would be really great to have absolute freedom, but since we can't trust everyone to use freedom properly, we have to settle for a world with government. By extension, government only exists and acts because we let it. It must follow that the government's action is a direct result of our own consent- either because we support it or because we did not oppose it loudly enough.
Americans consented to the triple-branched self-regulatory system of governors that currently in charge of our country, and the basic human rights that we entrust to everyone. When the founders of the nation suggested that we throw "freedom of speech" into our mission statement, it was wholeheartedly supported- i.e., active consent. We're not necessary happy with our system all the time, but no major changes have been conducted to our Constitution (well, that's not true- there have been many new amendments, but nobody has seen fit to erase the old ones), so it's safe to assume that, out of apathy or approval, we still consent to our government system.
Then there's the darker flip side to this arrangement; our consent has allowed miscarriages of justice as well. When the Patriot Act allowed the government to violate those aforementioned rights, we consented to that. In our fear we allowed a sacrifice of freedom in exchange for false security. Mostly through silence, and it was not us as individuals so much as our representatives (elected by our consent, by the way), but the act passed by our consent, make no mistake.
And when, in the fifties, a certain Committee was allowed to point out which people had communist sympathies and how to punish them for those opinions, Americans consented to that as well.
You may have picked up some of the flaws of this arrangement- a system based on consent is the epitome of a free government, but is only effective when those providing consent are well informed.

farkhanda

4/13/2014 02:34:30 pm

Hi Travis, i can absolutely agree with you on how the government only exists and functions when we give them the right to. I think we can change how and who specifically can run our government if we are serious on how our society is run. I also think that Americans don't realize the constitution doesn't have the greatest laws and need to be updated and that it is possible to do so. Even the Patriot Act that has violated us can be spoken out against when we learn and inform ourselves about the realities of our political system. Indeed we should educate ourselves in order to be well informed.

Elizabeth Avalos

4/14/2014 11:17:18 am

Hi Travis! I enjoyed reading your blog entry and can't help but agree with the points you've touched. First off, I think you've described the social contract theory in as basic of a form as possible, and I agree with your definition. Many of us might agree that several of our laws are outdated, however, although we are consistently adding new amendments, we are not adjusting or eliminating preexisting ones. I don't consider myself to be a highly involved citizen in terms of politics, because I am not, but I still think we as a people could be doing more to demand the elimination of outdated laws and implementation of better fitting ones.

Alvin Luna

4/11/2014 02:17:03 pm

One of the first things that come to mind is the consent of the NSA. Obviously, we have little to no privacy in this technologically savvy world we live in. It's not explicitly stated that we will be being spied on but whatever we type or say on the Internet isn't much of a secret. We give consent by agreeing to everything without reading it such as the Terms and Conditions. The government is looking at every text, every message, and every photo we send. We agreed to that so there isn't really much to complain about. Another consent we gave out are gun control rights. Due to the high dangers of these weapons getting into the wrong hands, we agreed to hand in these lethal weapons unless we are some sort of law enforcer. Another big issue that comes up is the war in Iraq due to the September 11 attack. On that fateful day, the twin towers were hit, leaving the world in a state of panic and claiming many casualties in the process. It was due to this event that we went to war with Iraq and wanted to end everything once and for all. During this war, many more casualties were claimed in battle. The nation was hoping we would make it through and destroy our opposition for what they did. We were promoting this violence in the hope that justice would be served. The war raged on for eight years and through all of that conspiring, we have to ask ourselves as a nation, was it worth it? Yes, we were fighting for our country and what we believed in but if it could have been done without so casualties, we should have thought of an alternative route.

Kaylie Otsuka

4/11/2014 03:41:21 pm

Hi Alvin,
I completely agree with you when talking of the NSA. Like discussed in class, we are continuously monitored by the government within our knowledge. I believe that is a basic right that should be protective of the people rather than hurt and spy on them. You stated, "...we agreed to hand in these lethal weapons unless we are some sort of law enforcer." Personally, I don't recall ever agreeing upon this inequality between persons and special treatment yet it happens for "our protection." Overall, I think you presented a well put together argument, keep up the good work!
Kaylie Otsuka

Michael Plaza

4/11/2014 02:23:36 pm

The social contract theory is something that applies to our everyday lives. Every day when we wake we are aware of the norms to which we are bound by our society and comply to them for the sake that others in society do the same. An example of this in U.S history is in 1838 in Boston when New York city developed the first large police department. With the industrial revolution people needed to give consent to a police organization to impede social disruption. Another example that is more modern is the USA PATRIOT act, in which consent is given to the government to monitor any modern means of communication in an effort to prevent future acts of terrorism before they happen. Although the term terrorism is very broad and can encompass any number of reasons for surveillance to take place. Every U.S citizen was impacted by this act because we have forfeited our privacy in hopes that supposed terrorists forfeit their privacy in their conspiracies as well. There must be a balance between what makes for good public policy and what we know as personal freedoms. The recent actions taken against gun control upon U.S citizens was headlining news stations after the tragedy at the Aurora movie theaters where a lone gunman shot upon innocent people, as well as in the wake of the horrible attack on Sandy Hook elementary by another lone gunman. Efforts were made by people within the U.S government to move towards infringing on people's "right to bear arms."

Nico Passalacqua

4/14/2014 02:45:19 pm

I agree with the USA Patriot act portion of this response. It is very similar to the fairly new implementation of the NSA's privacy actions. I support the idea that the American people have forfeited their privacy for those of terrorists. I do think that this is a ploy by the government to get us to believe that their reasoning was legitimate for invading our privacy. Enemies of the United States are much smarter that to invade the networks and be susceptible to threats.

Joann Truong

4/11/2014 03:25:20 pm

Three examples of consent would be: racial profiling, slavery, and gun control.
Racial profiling: People always want to talk about equality and how it’s illegal to discriminate a person yet I see people getting racially profiled all the time. For example, when I was at work, an African man with long hair walked into the store to order himself a drink but sadly we were closed and I literally just closed the register, so I went to lock the door after he left. Two cops knocked on the door and asked if everything was okay and asked if the tall man with long hair who came in bothered us. I wanted to say something about it but I was just speechless at the moment. Because I was in such shock and didn’t say anything to the cops, I felt like I gave them consent to racially profile the man who just wanted a drink.
Slavery: Slavery is everywhere, whether it’s sex slaves or labor slaves, it’s all over the United States. Driving down East 14 where there are many sex slaves and not really doing anything or saying anything about it is saying that it’s okay to have those sex slaves around. In high school, I had an internship with Girl’s Incorporated: Advocating Change Together, there I learned about how and what I can do to make a difference. While being in the program, I watched a film called “Very Young Girls”, there was a scene where the “Johns” were in a class because that’s where they were sentenced for being a John and they were just joking around when the girls who were actually the victims were being punished. Instead of tracking down the pimp and ending it all, they go after the slaves. It just clearly doesn’t make sense.
Gun control: According to the second amendment, we as citizens have the rights to bear arms. Do we really now? Do we really have the rights to hold a gun around without being questioned and threatened? I watched a video a guy posted of himself talking to a police officer who pulled him aside and started questioning him because he was carrying a gun and knew his rights. Because he knew his rights and knew that the cop was wrong, the cop was mad because he wasn’t getting his way and became a jerk. The cop tried to abuse his power and tried to take away the man’s rights.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfdEbe7e9GE

Julia Miranda

4/14/2014 04:45:32 pm

Joann,
I completely agree with you. Those things have shamefully been given consent throughout U.S. history and are still around today. There are a lot of racial profiling in everyday life and it's so saddening to see people still getting discriminated by even though it's 2014. Human trafficking is such a sad reality, not only is there slaves but there's sex slaves as well. I did find it interesting that those who were being sentenced was the slaves not the pimp. And lastly gun control is a big issue that especially if those in power abuse it, it's our right to bear arms and in same states carrying a gun is normal. There should definitely be rules on control and limiting for our own safety. Overall great job on your post, thanks for teaching me something new!

Kaylie Otsuka

4/11/2014 03:35:11 pm

On July 4, 1776, drafted by Thomas Jefferson, the American constitution was made to establish equality upon all men. This stood as the first U.S. notion of establishing a written social agreement between the people and government creating order and tranquility. Approved by the people, law was created to manage and protect its citizens under it. The people, able to vote upon their leaders introduced equality and stability for all.

Under President McCarthy, further referred to as McCarthyism, the fear of communism spreading to the United States introduced fear of losing American democracy. The red scare, under patriotic oath of the people, acquired participation of citizens as people feared those victimized of imprisonment and personal patronization and required governmental protection. Those unaffected had feared their neighbors may possibly be Russian spies, intending to destroy Americanization and the American dream. In result, people became worried and disapproving of those black listed persons, conforming, therefore accepting the governmental decision to rid and protect their people of such threats. On the other hand, those blacklisted were persecuted by fear rather than trial. With such, those innocent prisoners were stripped of their rights and disallowed from partaking in any agreement between its people promised by John Locke.

Under Franklin D. Roosevelt, during the WW2 era, internment camps were constituted to control and manage Japanese Americans against their will. Like McCarthy, FDR announced Executive order #9066, in response to the Pearl Harbor bombings.Subjugated by the President, Japanese Americans were stripped from their homelands and positioned into labor camps in result of fear rather than reason, these American people were rid of their agreement and treated as prisoners in their own country. Like the fear of communism, fear of Japanese grew acting in a way some Americans may had both disagreed or agreed with. Personally, I believe both acts were unconstitutional and against the individual agreement established within their own society.

Farkhanda Omar

4/11/2014 03:38:27 pm

The US government has taken numerous actions that either have been given consent by the people, or they just weren't loud enough to let their disagreements be heard. A primary and contemporary example would be the invasion of privacy by the National Security Agency that so call "protect" us from terrorists or threats of future attacks. To be known as the most powerful democratic country where rights are protected, leaders are contradicting their roles in society. To also tap international leaders' phones is humiliating and makes me question the freedoms we have in this country.
Although Americans have spoken out on the unjust prosecutions and treatments of prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, there still isn't enough people that are willing to let their voices be heard. Barack Obama had promised to close the prison since 2008 but nothing is clear as innocent lives are being tortured and detained without trial.
The Jim Crow Laws is another example that both the people and government fully gave consent to. Because of the racial segregation, African Americans were treated inferior and had difficulty with work, education, transportation, and even military segregation. The prejudice and hardships African Americans faced will never be forgotten. We should never be content with what the government thinks and plans to do and question the motive behind every action.

David Perez

4/11/2014 03:55:30 pm

Well for starters, our government runs its citizens because we essentially sit back and allow them to. We have far more followers than we do leaders and these three examples show that we give the government the power that most resent. The first example would be war. The most recent dealings of war was with the middle east back when 9/11 occurred. The US citizens who absolutely love and cherish their country oh so much were signing up for the military and gave the US numbers to back the war. Many citizens have so much "American" pride that they will do anything for their country and in this case people were signing up to go to war. This gave the government more reason to keep sending more troops to the middle east because people were still enlisting. Many families were effected by this because those who had children/spouses who were once on reserve, were automatically sent to war. The second example is deportation. This is still a problem with the US because there are many people who were brought to the US as infants and never received the proper documentation. People of the US demand for "aliens" to be deported and the government acts on the issue because citizens feel like they will start losing jobs. It is very unfair and unjust for those who never knew that they weren't a US citizen to be deported out of the blue. The whole US is effected by this because the borders are heavily guarded and in that instance, requires a lot of funding. The last example refers to the civil rights movement. The civil rights movement was a big push by the citizens for equality. It wasn't until after someone like Martin Luther King Jr. and his supporters started a campaign for equality, did the government make a push for legal efforts. This movement and the laws that were created changed the world. If it weren't for the brave supporters of the movement, the government would have neglected the issue.

Karishma Khatri

4/11/2014 04:14:49 pm

The social contract theory comes into every political decision made in US history and modern day. The government had made decisions for the “good” of the people with and without their consent. One example is the war on Iraq and Afghanistan. 9/11 was a very terrifying time for the United States of America. There was a call to action by the public and the legislators. In a sense, someone had to pay for what happened and for the lives that where lost. Fueling the public fear and anger, the Bush Administration talked of weapons of mass destruction in those areas. Through such means, the public support for the War was warranted. People showed their support by joining the military or supporting legislative efforts to find answers. The soldiers and families have been affected for many years. Also, the civilians in both Iraq and Afghanistan where affected in the bombings and crossfire.
Next, there is the USA Patriot Act. This was another piece of legislation that was catalyzed the 9/11 attacks. It was supported by many across the spectrum. In short, this act allows for government agencies to surveillance, follow, and obtain record of potential terrorists, and non-terrorist criminals, Such as drug crimes and mail or passport fraud. This affects everyday people. A lot of privacy was given up in this Act. With today’s ever changing technologies, many private things have become public domain. The public doesn’t know to extent this act is being used.
Lastly, Japanese internment was a huge part of US history. Japanese internment gained much support after the attacks on Pearl Harbor. Due to this, a group of human beings, that were US citizens, where rounded up, humiliated, and put into internment camps. Neighbor turned on neighbor. There grew a public distrust of Japanese Americans, funded by the United States government. Unfortunately, internment was supported by the public. So many of the Japanese Americans were mistreated, discriminated against, and much more. Many of them died in the camps. As you can see, this distrust for a race repeats in history when the 9/11 attacks happen.

Bree Hart

4/11/2014 04:18:14 pm

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/

When I read the topic for this weeks discussion topic, I was really surprised and it really made me think about what we have given consent to. Being an African American, I never understood why we were put down and always faced racial discrimination. Growing up, I always read about slavery and feel very lucky to live in a time period where slavery isn't a thing anymore. Since really the beginning of time and when African American's were taken away from their own homeland, they were forced into slavery. They never consented to being taken away from their homeland and forced into slavery. Caucasian people felt they were superior and could do whatever they wanted, which is not right at all. Nobody should ever feel as if they can just own, beat, and work someone. Even though slavery still probably goes on today, it is illegal and was completely abolished in 1865. I found a really interesting article saying Mississippi "forgot" to abolish slavery till 2013.
Another topic that we never gave consent to was the War in Iraq. Yes, President's are allowed to deploy soldiers when they feel we are under attack and need to stop our enemies. When I did some research about President's being able to send troops out, I found out they are suppose to get approval from Congress. Congress did approve President's Bush for the war on Iraq and to fund it each year. Many people didn't want to go to war, but for solider's they had no choice. We should have stayed out of their own problems, and focused on our country. Bush felt as if we had to help them and that they also had weapons of mass destruction, and that the terrorist posed a serious threat to the United States. Unfortunately, soldiers knew what they were getting into when they signed up for the Army. Many didn't want to go, and as of today is 3,428 deaths and 19,693 wounded.
Something else we have given our consent to is the right for the government to listen to our phone calls, read our text, watch us everywhere we go, and for them to know our every move at all times. Many Americans feel uncomfortable with the government going through our stuff and knowing so much about us. I know that i feel uncomfortable with them reading my personal text and having access to my computer. We have been stripped of the right of privacy and are forced to feel uncomfortable because the government doesn't know who to personally look after anymore because they don't know who exactly is a terrorist or planning an attack on the United States. I would rather feel comfortable in my own country without the government knowing all my stuff than feeling uncomfortable with them knowing all my stuff. If they really don't know who is a terrorist is, they should conduct simple searches of peoples data using keywords, instead of going through everyone's stuff.

Michael Plaza

4/14/2014 05:39:16 am

Bree, it indeed is a cause for surprise when we think about what we give consent to as being a part of the society in which we live today. You make some interesting points about slavery, although I don’t think that being a slave was something that was consented to, it was forced upon. Although the war is something that I think we consented to, because there has not really been a push to show the people’s discontent with what our country is doing, and some people are just content with it. Your last point about being listened to by the government is indeed valid, creating privacy on a virtual level is something that is recently being considered by civilians.

A'Breeana Hart

4/14/2014 07:19:29 am

Hi Michael, thanks for replying to me! I appreciate that you agree, but for my slavery topic I feel as if my point didn't come across right. American's consented to slavery, they did force slaves to be slaves, but what could the slaves do? They had to deal with being slaves, if they tried to refuse, killed; if they tried to run away and got caught, killed. Americans saw no problem with making others slaves, when they came to North America they wanted freedom. And only one thing stayed the same, slavery! Nobody in the government stopped slavery, they let other americans do it. They gave permission for it, they consented to slavery and didn't care to stop it!

Tikerea Tate

4/11/2014 04:30:49 pm

There are many things that residents in the United States gave consent for the government to do. Some of the things residents have given consent to is slavery, World War 2 and racial profiling. Slaves fall in this category because there was in fact more slaves than slave owners. Because the slaves were afraid they were giving consent to being slaves, if they rebelled against their owners they would have been able to stand up for themselves. They had opportunities to rebel, for example Shay's rebellion. Something else that residents of the United States consisted are concentration camps during the World War 2. The consent was given when Japaneses-Americans allowed Americans to put them in concentration camps even though they were also Americans. Something else that residents of the US consent to is racial profiling. Racial profiling is something that has been going on for a while now. It is consented because instead of walking away from the person who is racial profiling, people should stand up for themselves so that stereotypes can be changed. An example of this is: If a police officer pulls over a black man because he looks like a “gangster” and then harasses him and does nothing about. In this example the black man is giving moral consent for the officer to treat him any type of way. This is something that was happening in the past and is still happening today and can be changed. It is not only happening with African Americans it happens with all races.

Alan Fernandez

4/11/2014 05:53:48 pm

The Social Contract Theory I would say is the basis of American government. It is a central part of government as showing in voting, and protest against unfair laws such preventing interracial marriage. However, we Americans have taken this for granted and have given consent to many unfair laws because we do not believe that we have the power or do not care about the unfairness of the laws or government actions. The most recent example of the racial profiling that occur after 9/11 to middle eastern, and to the passage of the USA Patriot Act where we basically give up our right to privacy, and even after we found out that our own government has been spying on it's on citizens and been reading our own emails, we have consent to it based solely on the fact that the government told us that it was necessary to protect us from terrorism. Of course, racial and gender profiling has been given consent from day one in america when colonist stole this land from the Native Americans and turned them to slaves. This has continued to American Americans that were used to replaced the soon death Native American slaves. Even today African-Americans along with Immigrants have to deal with racial profiling as we all know that if a police man were to stop a black man for looking gangster, and harassed him nothing would be done, and well police in Arizona almost were gonna be allowed to stop every brown person they saw, and question them because "they might be an illegal". We have given so much consent such as to the used of Atomic bombs on Japan, and the stealing of half of what used to be Mexico, along with complete consent to disregard of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo that came after that war clearly other examples of our consent to racism, even when we believe that "all men are created equal". I think that the worse thing that Americans have consented to is the destruction of the environment, today there are so few laws that protect the environment, and more and more being taken off the books so that corporations can waste more of our limited natural resources, and nothing is being done about it. There's been so much evidence to the existence of climate change, and the effect it has had on American can already be seen. Yet, They most we done is come up with proposals on how we can encourage corporations to limit their own pollution. We may think that voting is enough to express what we support, and give consent to, but clearly we need to do better, and form protest to injustice, because if keep on just relaying on voting we will continue to consent to unfair laws, and give up our true power.

Jose Dominguez

4/12/2014 08:29:28 am

Slavery was one of the biggest consents that most American residents just went along with. The government made slaves and people, whether they thought it was morally right or not, just went along with it because it was legal. Some black slaves, also known as house Negros, even gave consent to being slaves because they were treated a little better than field Negros. Blacks had the biggest impact from slavery, but whites that tried to help slaves also felt the impact. It took years for the majority of the people to finally stand up and say slavery was wrong. The second example of consent would be the way the government spends our money. The U.S. Army receives so much of our money from taxes while schools are lacking the proper tools to teach students. Schools are forced to do fund raisers to help support themselves. This affects kids that are said to be the future leaders of this country, which is hard to believe if they cannot get the appropriate education. Some people give consent probably because they think that giving money to the army is helping protecting us from attacks. The last example is the lack of privacy the government gives us. There are cameras everywhere now. Two reasons to why people give consent to the cameras are because they believe it helps lower crime and that they are not doing anything wrong, so they do not care that the cameras are up. Whether you are doing some illegal or not, we all have the right to walk down the street without being spied on.

Frank Arredondo II

4/13/2014 10:59:58 am

Hey Jose,

My first thought after reading your paragraph about how slavery was the biggest thing Americans gave consent to I thought that couldn’t be right. As I thought about it more though you have a good point that I never thought about. When the constitution was being written by the so called founding fathers they wanted to truly set themselves apart from Britain, but the one thing they kept was slavery. As well carried on with it way past when Britain ended slavery. However, the American people let the economy go so long on slaver labor that your right they gave consent to have slavery in the United States. Anyways, thanks for making me really think about that. Never really say slavery as something people could give consent for.
Frank.

Tikerea Tate

4/13/2014 04:38:19 pm

Hello Jose,

Your post is very interesting and it made many valid points. I agree that slavery was consented. There were many times when slaves had the chance to rebel but they did not. They gave the consent for people to treat them they way they were treated because they were scared and probably did not realize that there were more slaves then slave owners. I never realize the consent that we give to the government. Our future is definitely effected by the amount of money that is being given to them. When it comes to privacy in the government it is very hard to control to an extent. I say this because the government has secret cameras posted which is something that we can not control. However, I do agree that people believe that cameras minimize crime, but it does not. I feel that cameras do not change the amount of crime.

Christopher Pope

4/14/2014 09:14:13 am

@Jose and @Tikerea

Ok, i think some issues have been confused here. First of all, slaves did not consent to being slaves. The very definition of slavery implies the ownership of persons AGAINST THEIR WILL. If you are forced into labor at risk of death, you can't be said to, "consent," to it, tacitly or otherwise. And the idea that certain slaves who were treated a little better consented to their condition is, frankly, extremely offensive. I know Quentin Tarantino's movie, Django, would have us believe otherwise, but Tarantino's "revenge porn," styled movies are hardly historically accurate.

Surely the only consent being given surrounding the issue of slavery was by the white voting constituency in America, not by those forced into slavery. The consent that is given everyday when, say, Americans allow our military to kill innocent civilians in drone strikes in Pakistan because of their ignorance or inaction (passive consent) is very different from a situation (like slavery) in which folks were forced into labor by threat of gun, whip, rope, and shackle.

Christopher Pope

4/14/2014 09:14:33 am

Christopher

4/14/2014 09:16:21 am

@Jose and @Tikerea
Ok, i think some issues have been confused here. First of all, slaves did not consent to being slaves. The very definition of slavery implies the ownership of persons AGAINST THEIR WILL. If you are forced into labor at risk of death, you can't be said to, "consent," to it, tacitly or otherwise. And the idea that certain slaves who were treated a little better consented to their condition is, frankly, extremely offensive. I know Quentin Tarantino's movie, Django, would have us believe otherwise, but Tarantino's "revenge porn," styled movies are hardly historically accurate.
Surely the only consent being given surrounding the issue of slavery was by the white voting constituency in America, not by those forced into slavery. The consent that is given everyday when, say, Americans allow our military to kill innocent civilians in drone strikes in Pakistan because of their ignorance or inaction (passive consent) is very different from a situation (like slavery) in which folks were forced into labor by threat of gun, whip, rope, and shackle.

Tony Zhidong Li link

4/13/2014 09:59:08 pm

I have attached a link of the poster. Click the following link to see the poster.

http://postimg.org/image/dq4gyxonx/

Armando Arzate

4/14/2014 02:33:25 am

Week2- Social Contract Theory: Consent in American Politics

There have been many social contracts in which we the people have almost came to a complete agreement or gave consent to the government to take actions regarding certain issues to help control our society. The actions taken by the government can be translated to laws because ultimately laws are what give the government power to incriminate, prosecute, and punish in order to “correct” wrong doing of a member of society. Certain current laws such as Stand your ground, Immigration, and Quality Affordable Health Care for All Americans all have been passed based on this social contract theory. I believe the government has came to be as strong as it is today because they have been able to reassure people that everything will be okay; more or less provided people with answers and a sense of security. For example, take the three laws I mentioned in the previous sentences and think what do they all have in common? All three are trying to address people’s fears by provide a sense of security. The stand your ground law is the most evident of the three when talking about security. This law allows people to not only defend themselves but even shoot, stab, hit, etc. to kill in their homes if in danger. I believe many people agreed that this should be okay because your home should be your safe haven where not only adults but children should be protected. When it comes to immigration laws the people in the United States feel that the economy will stay up while immigrants are not receiving free services, they feel safer when the government has record of who people are, and ultimately the workforce does not feel threaten as cheap labor will not be around. Although this may not be the case a large majority of Americans feel better without immigrants in the United States. Lastly, affordable health care for all allows people to feel secured that they will be covered by a good plan for a cheap rate. People are not scared to receive medical attention because they know they will be covered by a plan and not have a large medical debt. So it is safe to say that the government has come to be as a result of people needing direction and a sense of security.

Eduardo Martinez

4/14/2014 12:25:17 pm

Hey Armando
Medical plan should provide a security for people with low income or with medium income. My opinion of surely establishing security is people should pay the number of time they visit the doctors. In other words it should be based on automobile insurance. Even with a good quota, medical companies are granted power to supplement extra charge due to other people being ill. This new medical law was not to be economical, but to coat Americans.
Professional jobs are always a competition. Private companies hire overseas people. It is just the concept of education. Be better than the other person. Immigrants wants to derive on the opportunities the America has to offer.

Theodore Libby

4/14/2014 11:15:28 am

Probably the biggest thing that United States residents give their consent to is the entire idea of Law and Order. The concept of law and order has been around since before written history and has stayed fairly prominent in human societies. We has United States citizens are no different. We follow rules and are punished in some way or another for breaking them. One of the biggest ways we consent to these government actions is by paying taxes. Taxes are the backbone of our government. It is the reason is can do what it does. Without it our government couldn't enforce laws or improve info structure or go to war(s). Similarly another example of law, order and our consent is the idea of Law enforcement. We give consent to our government to protect us. “From enemies overseas and on our own shores” as they say. One can argue all day about how much protecting we need but, the fact is we accept and allow these rules and laws to guide our everyday life. One historical example of a negative effect of consent is the Japanese internment camps. During World War II the U.S. Government displaced thousands of Japanese-Americans and put them into camps so they would ‘rebel against the state.’ American citizens allowed this to happen and, though their lack of action and protest, cause many people to lose their basic rights as Americans. The social contract theory is still present is society today through our consent and our actions (or inactions).

Nico Passalacqua

4/14/2014 02:24:11 pm

Social contract theory is the view that the people agree on moral and political principles in order to form the society in which they live in. It is a theory than explains how political authority can arise in a governing system. “Consent is the basis of our government’s control. It is because people have agreed to be ruled that governments are entitled to rule.” First example that comes to mind is the Iraq War during the Bush Administration. The Bush Administration took leave of reality and plunged our country into a war so poorly planned it soon turned into a disaster domestically and foreignly. It was an instance in history where high political officials used a compliant press to pass on their propaganda as news and relied on the consenting American people to cheer them on. It was a regretful event where the media bought what the white house was selling and we surrendered our independence to join our government in marching to war. Secondly, the National Security Agency’s bulk collection of metadata-phone records and numbers called without any disclosure of content-violates our fourth amendment constitutional right to privacy. The idea behind the collection was to thwart terrorist attack and it has failed to make us any safer. Finally, a self-governing people, or so it is argued, should consent to their own direct taxes. Today, Americans are paying an income tax on their wages and salaries that they never consented to. It is even directly stated in the Declaration of Independence, “No tax may be imposed on the American people without their consent.”

augustus castro

5/25/2014 12:44:02 pm

Arizona SB 1070: is a strict anti-immigration policy forcing immigrants to register with the US Government and are to have necessary documentation on personal possession at all time times. Local law enforcement is allowed to determine with probable cause if offender is a potential alien. This is ultimately up to the discretion of the officer the nature of the crime and if proper documentation is in possession. This policy was felt as violating civil rights of citizens profiled or immigrants sought out and removed. This piece of legislation was listed with a variety of consequences and caused controversy amongst many citizens giving too much trust and power into local law enforcement.

Prohibition: was the ban on transporting, producing and importation of alcoholic beverages. from 1920-1933 strict laws enforced dry stated with legal consequences if caught partaking of illicit activity. Unfortunately organizations such as the American Mafia and other criminal groups were born at this time in attempts to profit off moving and selling booze. The public cut its drinking habits in half during this time, but the law was not in the same correspondence as the rest of the country and on December 5th 1933, the 21st amendment repealed this bill entirely.

proposition 8: Was the proposal of legalizing Gay marriage in california. the bill however failed to pass and as a result the ability for same sex couples to be wed was not granted, yet as citizens of the united states their civil rights were seemed to be imposed upon by not allowing such a freedom. There are many standpoints none exactly right or wrong, but from the position of being an american the state of california banned the right for a certain group of citizens to not have the same right as others. Although the context is narrow we as a people gave consent to limit the ability of the people and allow government to place formal bans on a sacred ritual not diminished by same sex marriage.

followers today link

12/26/2016 10:43:44 am

Thanks for providing recent updates regarding the concern, I look forward to read more.

Social Contract Theory: Consent in American Politics (week 2)

Leave a Reply.

POSC 1201

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS

Social Contract Theory: Consent in American Politics (week 2)

Leave a Reply.

POSC 1201

Archives

Categories

THE BEAUTYOF BLACKCREATION

ABOUT USJOURNALS​​SUBMISSIONS

THE BEAUTY

OF BLACK

CREATION

ABOUT US

JOURNALS

SUBMISSIONS