News Reader.info

“OUR WILL IS ALWAYS FOR OUR OWN GOOD, BUT WE DO NOT ALWAYS SEE WHAT THAT IS.” — JEAN-JACQUES ROUSSEAU > “The fully developed bureaucratic apparatus compares with other > organisations 

exactly as does the machine with the non-mechanical > modes of production.”  > — Max Weber It may inherently feel like it’s the worst time to be diverting discussion towards anything

other than the immediate health crisis posed by the Coronavirus. But, dutifully, it nonetheless remains a crucial time to transmute our legitimate fears and concerns towards another

discussion that ought to be (and thankfully is) being controversially stoked by those who actively study and criticize the powers of the state, of government authority. It’s not a convenient

thing to do, nor is it something that will be noted as particularly helpful until long after this crisis recedes from the forefront of our consciousness — but it’s necessary, especially

from the eye of the storm. For it remains as true as ever that WE HAVE A RANGE OF CIVIC DUTIES — a duty to obey our laws, for instance, and a duty keeping a close watch on the way our rights

are protected or, as we see in times of emergency, threatened. Throughout history, GOVERNMENTS HAVE USED SUCH MOMENTS OF CRISIS TO GRAPPLE AWAY POWER FROM THE POPULOUS, leveraging the

social need for swift and decisive action against the freedoms of the civic body. When things become more visibly concerning is once the threat is alleviated — the legislation or the

mechanisms used to defend against the threat (often in the form of restrictions on our freedom or impingement on our privacy) could remain in tact, FOREVER REVISING THE PAGES OF OUR SOCIAL

CONTRACT. And so we see a mounting need to discuss the intrinsic threat of governmental aggression, seemingly warranted to tackle this pandemic but also (and always) SERVING ITS OWN

INTERESTS— part of an endless tug of war that has raged on since the formation of the social contract itself. FOR IT’S THIS INTANGIBLE DOCUMENT THAT HAS BEEN THE PREREQUISITE FOR POLITICAL

LEGITIMACY since the time of the Greeks and the Romans, an eternally crucial rope that is pulled at by natural law and legal law, civic duty and political obligation. It’s also this document

which should prompt us to tear our eyes away from the mounting rates of infection or death tolls and ask hard questions, as difficult as those questions may be to ask in such a time. > 

“Throughout history, authoritarian leaders have used moments of > crisis to seize unchecked power... Now more than ever we must stand > up for democracy and rule of law.” >  > — 

Edward Snowden retweeting Bernie Sanders, March 30th, 2020 JOHN RAWLS AND THE VEIL OF IGNORANCE One of the leading proponents of discussions relating to the social contract had been John

Rawls, an American political philosopher who idealized the veil of ignorance, suggesting that if we were to take any group of thinkers from any social class and sit them behind a

hypothetical veil (to ensure objectivity), then ask them what they found to be the most important terms of a social contract (the veil blinds them to any circumstances they can imagine or

resources they can hypothetically have or not have), those thinkers would point to LIBERTY AND FREEDOM AS THE TOP TWO UNEQUIVOCAL REQUIREMENTS AND PRIORITIES. In other words, the social

contract should work to ensure that every citizen enjoys the maximum liberty possible, that INTRUSIONS ON FREEDOM ARE LIMITED AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE and that opportunity itself is bestowed to

the civic body. WHY IS ANY OF THIS IMPORTANT IN THE CURRENT CONTEXT OF THE COVID-19 PANDEMIC? It’s not only because this is a time of crisis which affords the government an expansion of

powers against our rights, but also because the populous currently finds itself in an EXCEPTIONALLY VULNERABLE POSITION WHERE IT IS NOT OBJECTIVELY ABLE TO CRITICALLY ANALYZE EACH NEW

MEASURE OR PIECE OF LEGISLATION. More of an answer can be found in the purpose that is stitched into the veil of ignorance itself, as contextualized by Rawls. Upon its use, we’re quick to

realize a need to balance things out. IN REALITY, THOSE THAT ARE IN POORER CIRCUMSTANCES SEEK EQUALITY AND FEEL OPPRESSED WHILST THOSE ON THE UPPER END OF THE SPECTRUM DON’T EXPERIENCE THE

SAME LEVEL OF RESTRICTION IN THE FIRST PLACE, perceiving less of a need for balance. In other words, those who are in fortunate positions of wealth, privilege, or capability have less reason

to oppose governmental initiatives that may curtail various forms of freedom; THOSE IN LESS FORTUNATE CIRCUMSTANCES CAN FIND THEMSELVES INCREASINGLY AT RISK of increased abuse by law

enforcement as they already see themselves as socially, politically, or financially disadvantaged. To draw up an example — we can see, in real time, videos of celebrities walking their dogs

or enjoying the confines of their luxurious estates. For those in an urban setting, we’re seeing fines being given to dog walkers; HARSHER LAW ENFORCEMENT MECHANISMS; LESS PRIVACY AND

INCREASED FORMS OF SURVEILLANCE; INCREASED POLICE PRESENCE AND DECREASED LIBERTY. In consequence, the imbalance itself ought to be considered and the question of whether or not we have a

moral duty to, at the least, be suspect of various lockdown or martial law procedures should be asked not only by those who do find themselves in more vulnerable positions BUT ALSO THOSE WHO

REMAIN RELATIVELY UNAFFECTED OR SECURE IN THE MIDST OF THIS CRISIS. More than ever, the time to discuss governmental responses to this pandemic is now; MORE THAN EVER, THE TIME TO READ

BEHIND THE LINES THAT DIVIDE SOCIO-ECONOMIC CLASSES IS NOW, especially given the fact that we’re in a position whereby we largely and genuinely support the various actions of the government

because they seek to defend us against a threat unlike any we’ve faced before; unseen in this support, amidst the fear and confusion, is the balancing-act which includes our rights. PAUL

STOLLER AND THE SOCIAL CONTRACT To get some added insight on this topic, I looked to get an opinion from PROFESSOR PAUL STOLLER, AN AMERICAN CULTURAL ANTHROPOLOGIST, who had recently

published an article in which he discusses the social contract as it binds fellow citizens together. I wanted to get his perspective on how he felt it would handle such a test as the one

presented by this pandemic, SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT TO OUR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE GOVERNMENT RATHER THAN WITH ONE ANOTHER. > Q. Do you see any way that this pandemic can function as a 

pressure > test on the perceptions we hold towards our governing body — > whether those perceptions consist of unwavering faith in our > governments’ effort to combat the spread of 

the virus or a > skeptical distrust in our governments’ effort to circumvent > certain rights and freedoms that we hold? >  > A. ROUSSEAU BELIEVED THAT THE SOCIAL CONTRACT IS NOT

 JUST ABOUT OUR > PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY TO OTHERS IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT ABOUT THE > RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE INDIVIDUAL AND HER OR HIS GOVERNMENT, A > RELATIONSHIP THAT DEPENDS 

UPON A FUNDAMENTAL TRUST THAT UNDERSCORES > WHAT MAX WEBER LONG AGO CALLED POLITICAL LEGITIMACY. >  > THE SOCIAL CONTRACT ERODES IF GOVERNMENT ACTS UNDERMINE TRUST. >  > IN 

AMERICA THERE HAS BEEN A LONG EROSION OF TRUST IN GOVERNMENT, A > TRUST THAT HAS COMPLETELY EVAPORATED… As Jean-Jacques Rousseau previously asserted, and Max Weber maintained, and Stoller

referenced, POLITICAL RULE IS ONLY AS LEGITIMATE AS THE PEOPLE ALLOW — that the public will and support from the civic body is what effectuates authority in the ruling body. While it’s a

reassuring idea in theory — that the government can only go as far as we allow — WE KNOW THAT THIS DOESN’T TRANSLATE NEATLY INTO THE PRACTICAL REALITY OF OUR MODERN (AND EVEN HISTORICAL)

SITUATION(S). New capabilities, new technologies and infrastructures, new modes of perception and new lows of disillusion have WARPED THE LENS THROUGH WHICH WE TRY TO IDEALIZE AND NURTURE A

SYMBIOTIC RELATIONSHIP WITH OUR ELECTED LEADERS. Nevertheless, our duty remains the same, owed equally to ourselves as it is to our elected officials — WE MUST ENSURE THAT THE GOVERNING BODY

REMAINS IN CHECK and doesn’t abuse the power that WE afford to it. > “Our will is always for our own good, but we do not always see > what that is.” >  > — Jean-Jacques Rousseau

READ ON: THE CORONAVIRUS & CONSPIRACY THEORY, WITH DR. TÜRKAY NEFES WANT MORE? Join 3000+ fellow explorers trying to expand their thinking and reach a higher existence.