Divine Law Sets the Boundaries Between the Social Contract and Natural Law

The limits of human interaction are bounded by the state of nature and the state of the social contract. Each of these limits, however, is further limited by Divine Law.

In the state of nature, there are no rights of man and no laws to govern him, only freedoms to take what he can by force to enable him to extend the longevity and happiness of his life. In the state of nature, man has boundless freedom to take from others what he can, but the ensuing chaos leaves all but the strongest few with less happiness, less safety, and less life.

To improve the likelihood of achieving most men’s divine and natural goals, over time they entered into social contracts with others to establish societies. Through social contracts, man gave up natural freedoms that allowed him to take whatsoever he desired by force, but in giving up his natural freedoms, he gained the structure through which he could increase safety from having his happiness and life taken from others. The essence of the social contract became law, and the process of creating law was embodied in political society.

An uneasy balance between the social contract and natural rights has been our struggle of human existence ever since. Power struggles within tribes for dominance have shifted this balance through the many political systems to which we have subjected each other. And between tribes, the social contract was neglected and wars pitted tribe against tribe, executing organized natural law to shed blood for profit.

Within tribes, the struggle between social contracts and natural rights is bounded by the limits of authoritarianism and anarchy. Kings and priests shared authoritarianism in early societies. Today, most society’s powers are divided amongst representative governments and the “new kings” of the international, powerful, financial elite. Yet whether by kings, priests or financial elite, power is still bounded by the opposite limits of totalitarianism and the threat of revolution or devolution into anarchy.

Within the realm bounded by these firm human limits are the limits required by Divine Law. Divine Law suggests that neither of the limits of authoritarian control or of the natural state provide optimum communion with God. Both extremes take away from man’s divine purpose on Earth.

The Declaration of Independence recognized that Divine Law should govern man well before he ever is subjected to the extremes of human law. The founders agreed by signature that men are:

“endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights…That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness”

Declaration of Independence, 1776

A Social Contract Exists Between Business and the Government of the People

While classical corporatism has other meanings, the context of corporatism to which I refer is really neo-corporatism, the power shifting that occurs between owners, managers and labor for economic sharing. it’s this whole shift of power from individuals to the state to the corporations that defines our modern day and controls our every pattern of life. I continue to question the flaws of corporatism in that it does not meet the goals of man’s orignal intent.

Corporations came into existence because kings wanted them for their own aggrandizement and because other aggressive men saw this as an entrance to sharing power with kings. Corporations were not intended by their original form to be the answer for full employment. Yet through the centuries this orignal intent has been replaced by an unwritten social contract of employment for the good of the community.

As society evolved, craftsmen found that work other than that on the farm could sustain them and their apprentices and thus businesses were formed, again with no social contract other than that which could be gained by the mutual benefit of seller and buyer.

But within man is the natural state of altruism. It is in our DNA. We cannot walk by others in squalor without a tinge to help. This tendency then manifests itself in government for government is merely the mirror of our sense of self. So governments evolve a structure of social safety nets to help the less fortunate among us. With such artificial constructs, how then do we provide for the needy except through various abnormal means such as taxation and such impositions on businesses as the minimum wage?

Now through advances in innovation and productivity, businesses have provided more and more for the common good and thus the level of squalor that we can conceive of allowing within our community continues to lessen. We expect that the least among us should be provided for through higher and higher standards. Such standards as these could not possibly be provided for if man were to be turned away from society to exist on his own living on only that which he could carve out of the wilderness.

And even if he could, there is no wilderness for men to exist within, for our modern capitalism has divvied all lands to provide the capital for modern business to thrive and for government to use as a means for the common safety net of its citizens. Therefore, the modern construct of corporatism that our nations have agreed will be the means to provide for the common good no longer provides an escape or alternative for the rugged individual.

We must therefore agree that a social contract exists whereby the capture of land and capital by government and business must also provide for those less fortunate and must provide for the employment of all to exist and to contribute to the community. This social contract that has haphazardly evolved is broken and must be fixed by an equally evolving paradigm of the right of all men to full employment.