"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
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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!
Reply
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
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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."
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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?
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Kaylie Otsuka
4/11/2014 03:41:21 pm
Hi Alvin,
Reply
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."
Reply
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.
Reply
Joann Truong
4/11/2014 03:25:20 pm
Three examples of consent would be: racial profiling, slavery, and gun control.
Reply
Julia Miranda
4/14/2014 04:45:32 pm
Joann,
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Bree Hart
4/11/2014 04:18:14 pm
http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/war.casualties/
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
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.
Reply
Frank Arredondo II
4/13/2014 10:59:58 am
Hey Jose,
Reply
Tikerea Tate
4/13/2014 04:38:19 pm
Hello Jose,
Christopher Pope
4/14/2014 09:14:13 am
@Jose and @Tikerea
Reply
Christopher Pope
4/14/2014 09:14:33 am
@Jose and @Tikerea
Reply
Christopher
4/14/2014 09:16:21 am
@Jose and @Tikerea
Reply
4/13/2014 09:59:08 pm
I have attached a link of the poster. Click the following link to see the poster.
Reply
Armando Arzate
4/14/2014 02:33:25 am
Week2- Social Contract Theory: Consent in American Politics
Reply
Eduardo Martinez
4/14/2014 12:25:17 pm
Hey Armando
Reply
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).
Reply
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.”
Reply
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.
Reply
12/26/2016 10:43:44 am
Thanks for providing recent updates regarding the concern, I look forward to read more.
Reply
Leave a Reply. |
POSC 1201
This blog is meant for POSCI 1201 students at California State University - East Bay. ArchivesCategories |
THE BEAUTY
|
ABOUT US
|