Month: May 2018

While examining each social contract theorist, Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau, my analysis offered valuable insight not only into the issue of gun control but our current system and society as a whole. My research on Locke’s theory revealed the faults that may have been involved in the creation of his theory and natural man. Locke’s ignorance of certain members of the human race could lead to several faults within his theory regarding more than gun control. My analysis of Hobbes support of self-preservation along with the current use of firearms for self-defense reveals changes in circumstances since his own theory that may affect its usefulness in addressing our issues today. Finally, looking into Rousseau’s theory and support of the general will, I uncovered that being as large as it is, the United States may not fairly and adequately represent the majority of the people as well as it would as a smaller state.

My findings throughout the analysis of each of these pieces stretch far from what I expected. Instead of revealing helpful ways of handling our current issue on gun control, each of the three theories offered faults within their own findings as well as our government today. When I began this blog, I expected to uncover an answer to my question – as I end it, I leave with more questions. Maybe the answer to gun control is not about a law that will fix the problem but involves the people and the government in general. Maybe a larger change needs to be made surrounding the way we come up with legislation and how we follow certain theories.

For myself, there is no right or wrong answer to gun control answered by the social contract theorists. While I believe a change needs to be made and we need to be protected, I lack the support of any of these three theorists in why that should be done. I advise you, my readers, to take a chance and look at these pieces yourself. Did you find something different?

Jean Jacques Rousseau’s social contract relied heavily on the people’s position and power within the government. Rousseau insisted that the people remain the sovereign and their ideas and choices are represented. He found that the best way to see the sovereign’s ideas represented is through a majority decision. Rousseau believed this majority decision would always represent the general will of the people, even those who at first did not realize it was the correct decision and voted otherwise. This general will represents the people as a whole.

When it comes to the topic of gun control and stricter policies, Rousseau would continue to leave this decision to the majority. While in his time, methods of determining the majority may have been more difficult and harder to achieve, it has become easier today with increases in technological advances to understand citizens’ stances. One view of Rousseau that would not support this majority vote on gun legislation is his emphasis on the importance of a moderate state. While he mentions that the state should not be too small, he also recognizes the importance of making sure it is not too big. Rousseau supports this idea by pointing out the difficulties of regulating too large of a state. He believes that once a state becomes too large, administration becomes both burdensome and costly as more levels of government must be created. He also recognizes with such a large, broad group of citizens, it would become too difficult to maintain legislation that is fair and represents all individuals.

This difficulty of finding the correct law fair to all individuals is a question constantly faced in the country today – especially gun laws. With so many different cultures throughout the country, individuals have very different opinions on which is the best way to regulate gun control. While it is true to set on one opinion for all individuals, Rousseau earlier supported the idea of the majority representing the people. It is clear that today, even with such a large state, it is not very difficult to uncover the majority and their preferences through elections. A recent PEW research study found that over half of adult Americans support stricter gun policies.

While this majority represents the country as a whole, it is interesting to look at the nation as smaller, moderate states as Rousseau suggests. Another PEW study found that when dividing the country into four smaller regions, Northeast, Midwest, South, and West, the majority seems to change. Both the Midwest and South regions held majorities that did not prefer stricter gun control policies while the Northeast and West regions found majorities who did support stricter gun laws. This divide in the country’s majority brings into question if Rousseau was right all along. In order to be fair to the members of the country, it might be more reasonable to break into moderate states.

Consequently, Rousseau does not seem to have a particular stance on whether gun policies should be more or less strict, rather he is dependent on the people to use their knowledge of the current state of the country to make a judgment on what should be done. Using Rousseau to analyze the current political climate in America tells us less about what should be done about specific policy and more about what could be done about managing the size of the state to be sure the majority continues to represent the general will of the people.

Sources:

Thomas Hobbes acknowledges the faults of mankind and their inability to be trusted to self-govern through his own political theory in Leviathan. Hobbes understands that in order for individuals to protect themselves from the state of war and nature, they must voluntarily submit their rights to join under a sovereign power. (ch. 17) While Hobbes supports the process of the succession of these rights, he acknowledges a single right that cannot be given up – the right to self-preservation. (ch. 21)

The idea of self-preservation is viewed as the sole liberty left to the individual in order to preserve his life. Going as far to say “a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them, that assault him by force, to take away his life,” Hobbes recognizes the importance of individuals’ capability to preserve themselves. (Ch. 14) Therefore, by not allowing individuals to protect and preserve themselves, the government would be depriving them of their lives.

Taking Hobbes’ theory into account, it seems to support the ownership of firearms throughout the country as a form of self-preservation and self-defense. While this would seem to make sense to a thinker like Hobbes, especially in his time, statistics today reveal the opposite. A study from the Violence Policy Center shows that only about 3% of criminal gun homicides in 2014 were justified as self-defense. While the idea that these firearms could be used for self-defense is understandable, it is clear that their use in this approach is rare. Rather, these firearms are being used for the opposite – something Hobbes aimed to stop.
In recent years, mass shootings around the country have become more common and even more deadly. The reoccurring horror stories continue to reveal individuals who Hobbes had warned us about, ourselves. As he had recognized, in a state of war individuals are inherently bad. (Ch. 12) In order to protect them from themselves, they must be regulated and maintained by a government to protect their lives.

While Hobbes insists that surrendering our rights to the government is what is necessary in order to maintain our lives and order, what should happen if that no longer is true. Further examination reveals that the current government’s failure to enact laws that protect the citizen from these inherent evils have resulted in the failure of the Commonwealth and possibly a shift back into the state of nature. The government must take steps in legislation to regain the trust of the people and offer the protection they were promised when entering the contract.

Some may see these steps as stricter gun laws while others see it as the prohibition of guns altogether. It is important to consider what other forms of self-preservation are left to the people because Hobbes understands that without this availability of self-preservation, the government takes away the lives of citizens. Recent years have shown that law enforcement is not enough to provide this preservation to the people. Therefore, it is up to society to work together and reach towards the correct legislation that will offer the preservation while still protecting the people from themselves.

While technological advances and shifts in society have revealed that firearms may no longer the be the safe, direct method to self-preservation, legal organizations, such as law enforcement, have also proven to not be as reliable as they once were after recent cases of discrimination and mistreatment. This leaves Hobbesian thinkers to once again reexamine the tools available to us in society today to best understand what can be used as self-preservation. Therefore, Hobbes’ work does not give an answer to whether stricter gun control needs to be enforced, but that society together must work to find the best, safest means of self-preservation.

Sources:

Hobbes, Thomas. “Hobbes’s Leviathan. : Reprinted from the Ed. of 1651 / With an Essay by the Late W. G. Pogson Smith.” Handle Proxy, Universitat De Barcelona.