The Laughing Wolf

Enforcing The Social Contract: Some Additional Thoughts

In A Defense Of Dueling, I touched on several things requiring more thought and more explanation. Today, I want to expand a bit upon one aspect of enforcement and some of what lies behind it. For what is going on is not simply an assault on enforcement of the Social Contract/Compact, but an overwhelming assault on the Contract.

The message constantly being bombarded upon us all is the need for tolerance, and tolerance is indeed a good thing. It does us all good to consider new ideas, nuances, and viewpoints. Yet, like all good things, this can go to far. There is a great deal of intolerance in the tolerance movement.

Nowhere is this more apparent in the enforcement of the Social Contract. For years, manners were the lubricant of society and it regulated as well the many means of enforcing good behavior. For bad behavior could result in a graduated series of “punishments” designed to encourage change.

This could range from snubbing to outright banishment from “polite” society; the loss of social contact to the loss of business contact; or, the use of unofficial methods to criminal or civil actions. These mechanisms now, however, all tend to constitute “discrimination” and as such come under legal attack.

If you fail to invite someone to a party or social function, you may be held up for public censure. If you snub someone with whom you disagree, that is now subject to civil and criminal prosecution. If you refuse to do business with them, it is a federal offense. Systematically, all of the unofficial means of enforcement have either been denied or are in effect hijacked.

There were some good reasons for this. To be blunt, these often were used for purposes of racial/religious/other discrimination. There were some very egregious examples of this, and they deserved the condemnation received. Yet, as with many good things, it has been taken to extremes. From tolerance, it has gone to intolerance in the zeal for immediate gratification in social progress.

Change in society has always been slow in relative terms, though certain periods of history have been rather chaotic and certainly seemed anything but slow to the participants. This slow rate of change was an anathema to radical thinkers of the 1600s and 1700s, and in particular to those desiring change in the modern age. After all, this last century saw us going from days or weeks to get news to having it provided instantly world-wide. If information, travel, and trade could be done on such a rapid pace, why not change in the human condition?

The problem lies in the human condition itself. Change enforced from the outside has never worked, and most often has resulted in a backlash that has delayed the change in question. Prohibitions of any type have never worked either. It can take lifetimes to change ideas and conditions set within society, and that change has always had to come from within. This has never been acceptable to those desiring radical change, and the fact that in the march of progress there are always cases of athletes foot that defy easy treatment makes them positively froth at the mouth.

This is not atypical, and it is interesting to note that this is one lesson of history that radical thought seems incapable of accepting. Each time they claim to have a better idea, but it all comes down to prohibiting that which they regard as bad, and demanding that everyone do what “they” think is right. This time, however, the radicals are doing something that happens only rarely: they have decided that change can only come by attacking the fabric of society rather than simply the behavior of society.

Under the guise of attacking legitimate discrimination, an all-out war on societal norms is underway. This is not just attacking obvious bigotry, but by challenging all notions of right and wrong. It is not enough to claim that all behaviors and belief have equal merit, it requires attacking and destroying any institutions who profess any such belief.

Christianity comes in for a great deal of condemnation in these attacks, but they are hardly alone. Many other religions suffer as well, with those denominations that say all is relative, or that man is the evil blight upon the world, are held up as the “good” examples and those that say anything else are castigated. The youth of today see the concepts of honor, integrity, independence, and action vilified and held up to ridicule. They see anyone who exemplifies such excoriated in public and in private, and subject to media witch hunts for some dirt to tear them down. Indeed, there are members of the media who make the various forms of the Inquisition seem almost mild in their zeal to find and expose the feet of clay.

And clay is indeed what is sought. For clay can then be shaped into something new, and for the radicals that is a new society in its own image. To do this there can be little question and certainly no objection, or the proper shape cannot be thrown. That means that all must think and do as they do, and that means no vestige of the old can still exist. In this way, the radicals are all alike. The Taliban and similar extremists seek to destroy the old to build their society, and the radical idealists in the West seek the very same. In the ultimate analysis, there is little or no difference between them, for both must destroy the present culture to have any chance to achieve their goals. Perhaps this is why so many in the extremes of the West feel such sympathy for radical Islam and others who also seek to destroy the West.

Our children are systematically being denied any opportunity to explore right and wrong. Schools spend as much time on indoctrination of politically correct ideas as they do on educational fundamentals. Church organizations, Scouting, and other organizations that attempt to present such are under fire and being prevented any opportunity to act in a meaningful way. Any flaw or mistake within these organizations is ground for them to be attacked, denied use of public property, or subject to legal action. Most of this has far less to do with real or imagined wrongs, but a great deal to do with the fact that they teach morals and moral actions. They slow or reverse the attempt to reduce society to clay.

Our children need to know that there is right from wrong, and that it is up to each individual to decide such for themselves. They need a framework for doing so, and it does not come from school or even from a church. It comes from us, the adults in their lives, the parents and godparents, the aunts and uncles, the leaders in their lives. Most of the mechanisms used for this, and used to help enforce the Social Contract are being taken away. Look long and hard at it.

There have been many good changes that have come in the last 100 years, yet all good things can be taken too far. Bigotry in any form is bad, and that includes a bigotry that says that all that is good is bad, or that all that is bad is good. The social mechanisms for enforcing the Societal Contract have never truly been the problem. They exist for a reason, and can be applied for good or for ill. It is up to each of us to apply them for good, and attempts to eliminate them do all of us a strong disservice.

-30-