GOPideas... ideas done right

The notion of a social contract is a simple one: the implicit and explicit obligations made between a group of people and their government. Modern political thought in this area normally centers around Hobbes and Locke, with Locke being the intellectual forefather of the Founders and the Framers. The most concise explanation of Locke is that people are naturally free, but they seek to form governments to create a set of laws for the mutual benefit of all involved, as members of that society would have assurances as to what rights were guaranteed to them by the mutual consent of their fellow citizens.

Other than the Next Social Contract Initiative of the New America Foundation, precious little debate over the expectations citizens can have of their government. More importantly, I have seen no discussion of what we, as citizens, have a right to demand of our fellow citizens as part of that contract. From an intellectual standpoint, the debate ranges from a pure libertarian perspective to a communitarian perspective, but in reality, Americans are in the middle: attempting to reconcile the desire for liberty with a desire for security.

The issue then becomes: where (and how) should the line between the free market and  government intervention be drawn? Who should be taxed? How much? What benefits should the government provide? To whom should they be provided? What should the government provide to individuals --- and what should individuals provide for themselves?

The fact that few Republicans have attempted to address this in a forthright manner (DeMint notwithstanding), should be an embarrassment to the party. Republicans at all levels should openly be discussion the role of government in society --- not at the reactionary level of many hack Republicans (any government = bad government), but rather in terms of what government should provide for people --- and what we, as the governed, have a right to expect of our fellow citizens in exchange for contributing our tax dollars.

This question can be debated on legal, moral, philosophical --- and many other --- dimensions; and these debates should be encouraged. More importantly, merely engaging in this fundamental debate will facilitate policy proposals to be rooted in intellectual strength and philosophical consistency, as opposed to what can be fit into a three talking points or a cute slogan.

One of the goals of this site is to provoke, encourage and facilitate this discussion --- and we hope that you will engage by sharing your comments on the site or contacting us directly.

Comments are welcome, but for the comment to post to the public, you must supply an email address (this is to avoid spam comments). The email address will not be posted publicly and your email address will not be shared, sold or disclosed.