Hobbes and Locke: Who is really watching the government?

Ref and Ref

Social contract theory as applied incorrectly permits the state to take a position above reproach. Notwithstanding the law and public speeches celebrating public oversight, this state incorrectly acts as if private individuals have no role in overseeing the state or government officials.

More troubling, private citizen efforts to enforce the social contract on the state is used as "evidence" the private citizen is a threat. Ref.

It remains to be seen what mechanism would intervene to ensure that corrupt, incompetent, ineffectual public-officials [an oxy-moron, mostly moron] are adequately disciplined. Continued faith in a failed state that embraces a fiction is absurdity.

There are many rules governing society. Administrators deem it prudent not to enforce them on their brethren, only the population -- one enforcement standard for those they scorn, while "no standard" is the standard to celebrate mediocrity within their ranks.

Whatever standard the "government officials say is 'ok' to apply to them or not enforced" should be similarly uniformly applied or not enforced to all.

Translation: If the government has a standard for its own officials that "it's ok to invade the private homes of individuals," then so too should it be lawful for the public to invade the private records of government officials.

Yet, we as true parties to this social contract should not have to ask "permission" to view public records--they are already ours to begin with. There should be meaningful and swift sanctions on any who block our access to ensure there is no block, not use the previous block as the engage in additional blocks; conversely we should ensure all incentives to create barriers to access are removed, not celebrated or strengthened.

The state cannot claim for itself a right to privacy that it denies to the citizenry; yet, we are commanded upon penalty of imprisonment to be silent about transgressions by the state against those who dare speak of this problem.

There should be no "public standard" that says, "The government shall not X, Y, Z" only to have that standard ignored; and then allow that government to exercise the "rights of a private individual" to engage in free inquiry, yet deny that right of inquiry and use "the questions" as the basis to accuse the citizenry of crimes. Each time a government repeats a civil-abuse on society should be the basis to increase sanctions on the government.

Clearly the first warnings and consequences were insufficient. If social contract theory were a reality, individual citizens should not have to re-remind the government of the constitution in each case; rather, the chorus of free citizens should be ample notice to all can on the initial contract, and use that initial signature as the "fair notice to the state and its agents" of it's obligations.

When a state commands compliance with standards it does not meet itself; and fails to meet its obligations, it deserves no support. Nor can that state use its very failure as the excuse to silence those who call for it to be replaced with something far more responsive and consistent with the existing social contract. The state is not the social contract.

Each subsequent violation of that contract should face increased sanctions on both the government-state and the individual officers, agents, or "professionals" who clearly failed to heed their training or meet their freely chosen professional standard. When they waive professional certifications as evidence of their qualification, but fail in their duty, not just the agent but also the certification should face meaningful sanctions.

Yet, we embrace absurdity when the government-state because of its "high status" then uses its "status" as "evidence" of its suffering, and the basis to do nothing because of the "obvious social cost." Notoriety is no credible defense to reform.

Yet, this social contract as enforced and implemented does not ask, but commands us to embrace the fiction: That the new public officials "need time to learn their rules," all the while ignoring the obligation of the state to only hire fully qualified people to fill the position. We can only speculate as to the fiction and handwaving the government succumbed in order to hire buffoons over fully qualified candidates.

When government workers are not fully qualified on day one to serve the public, the state should take responsibility to ensure the public is fairly warned that the service will be wanting; and to make timely amends to ensure the deviations are righted, not hidden or explained away with folly

In America, it is far easier to "figure out what is going on," by simply looking at the law, and seeing how government officials in the public and private capacities will do the opposite; hide those transgressions; then publicly smear with penalty of imprisonment all those who dare hint at reality.

Yet, where are the equal sanctions on the state for hinting at absurdity? Oh, the double standards the state celebrates as it does far more than hint, but overt folly.

It remains to be seen how "pretenders" [aka government officials] are to be handled when they believe their own "pretentions", taking the next step to actively destroy any who disagree with their illusions, regardless reality. We have yet to consider the "intentionally criminal-lawyer/politicians" who write the laws to ensure no enforcement by prosecutors.

Pretenders have their own moral code: To do what is in their own interests first, ebbing and flowing from personal to public interests, in a time and palce of their choosing, not necessarly having any relationship to the other party's interests.

Yet, such a double standard should not be surprising. For a failed state that gets away with double standards is not challenged by an equally failed media that similarly embraces the illusion of a social contract. The media, once given unfettered right to access and public rebuke of the state, now dwaddles under the shadow of their own interests. The media was given the right to "have no challenges from the state" in order to uphold the social contract.

When the media fails to perform their obligations and protected right under that social contract, they should be deprived of those protections. Yet, like the state, the media wants it both ways: To enjoy the protection, without consequences for the failure to perform on those obligations. How fitting that we are asked to embrace a fictional social contract in its execution by the very media that benefits by spewing forth the illusion of its existence.

Where, oh where, is the consequence on a party to a failure to assert both its rights and obligations under this social contract? Again, we have none; thus, there is no true mutual agreement, merely a one sided protection for one that far outweighs the other induced to accept the illusion.

Indeed, if a private entity like a newspaper "truly stood for public right to be present at public functions," those newspaper editors should not have to have "an explanation or justification" as to why similar public concerns with other "non-access by the public" deserves the same concern, time, or attention. If a true principle and feature of a social countract, such would be self-evident.

It is in the interests of lazy editors [who refuse to uniformly assert their right of freedom of press] to "say they are acting on behalf of a principles" to justify their own action, all the while giving lip service to those principles when others dare approach for assistance; and going so far as to condemn and stifle those who dare assert the same principle or ask that previously asserted principles be once again asserted.

We should not simply "apply the rule of observation" to whether the police are watching us; but also to whether the police, themselves, are following the rules. Again, like the state and the media that commands the "great respect" proves to be wanting in its performance, then so too should the citizenry be afforded equal "lack of enforcement" of the matching obligation.

If the citizenry, despite oversight and monitoring of police, proves ineffectual in combating police corruption and misconduct because of restrictions and delays by the state-actors, then the public should be afforded the right to engaged in reciprocal restrictions and delays against the state. Matching principles were once thought to be success in contracts, but not this state!

Indeed, the public deserves other, improved mechanisms to both enforce the law, and combat police corruption, inaction, and incompetence; not> excuses to continue embracing a system that fails to ensure the social contract is executed as originally bargained.

When we speak of duty, we must not simply use it as a label to imply a standard of performance for the population, while implying both the state and its agents as parites t the social control do not also have a consequence for failure to perform that duty. Bluntly, the FBI has the duty to serve the public; but if they proffer nothing but excuses to do nothing [when the FBI agents rebuff information and actively harass those who might assist them], then that duty is simply a label to create a standard for the population to assent to intrusions, but an illusion for the government to act as cover for its failings to fulfill its duty.

A failure to perform a duty should come with it swift and meaningful sanctions for non-performance, not ever higher barriers and deeper layers of wagons. The state should be the one that is sanctioned for creating barriers to intrusions by the citizenry; indeed, the citizenry when denied these protections should not have to fight through protections once afforded, now denied, to that citizenry in the failed social contract. Once the state denies or fails to respect a clause of the social contract, that state may then not rely on that ignored clause for self-preservation against those denied that right.

Even if caught, pretenders know how to shift the attention from the misconduct to the accuser with shouts of: "You are wasting our time," or "we are doing our job" despite not actual compliance with the freely chosen professional standards or rules of the court.

It is more problematic when "the public" is bound to petit standards, while the government flaunts words of "we welcome oversight"; only to face the reality that that system refuses to submit to these standards, and uses the "public's desire to engage in oversight" as the basis to further harass, ignore, and accuse the public for exercising "that duty of oversight."

We have a problem when some in government retain the rights of individuals; while at the same time enjoying the immunity of the state to shield them from accountability. There should be no blanket grant of immunity on prosecutors who use unconstitutional laws to harass those who desire to exercise their rights; officers who deny the rights of individuals, should be denied the right of immunity.

One cannot use the shield of immunity to recklessly deny the rights of the citizens. Where is the citizen's immunity: There is none--so too should the state be denied of priviledges it does not afford to the other party.

It is not just individuals who enter into the social contract; but also firms, corporations, and public officials when they take the oath. A social contract implies both obligations and rewards. We do little to inspire confidence in our notion of society when government officials wave the flag of "social contract is our reason for being, therefore give us high pay"...then turn around and do nothing when there is substantive evidence the social contract is at risk of not only crumbling, but being destroyed and subverted by those who use the shield of an illusory contract to avoid scrutiny.

Those who destroy the social contract and are government agents, should be subject to being deprived of the benefits they derive from that social contract. There should be no guarantee of a job when that job is used to destroy the social contract. Once that agents engages in abuse, they should be deprived of the state resources to defend themselves; not then be afforded the right and power and support to have an abusive state stand by their side creating every higher barriers to accountability.

The possible loss of assistance should be well known to state-agents so that there are incentives on the state-actors not to violate the social contract; the current social contract as applied does nothing meaningful to stop abuses, merely rallies to the aid of the abusor.

There is sometimes benefit of a free citizenry to engage in absurdity, as this will ensure those who are most threatening are most surprised. For surprise puts others at a disadvantage; the goal is not to "get along" but to win and defeat those who put themselves above the law, and others.

We allow the state to embrace absurdity when a social contract is no longer the shield from government abuse, but becomes a dagger which the government places at the throat of those who are asked to defend that social contract.

We allow the state to embrace absurdity when the "state of nature" is said to be "merely hypothetical" when it is, and remains, the norm regardless the social contract-theory. Social contract theory can be simply an illusion to ensure the state can continue abusing in its state of nature, while encouraging the citizenry to believe the rules are something else. Not surprising, the state can impose a real "state of nature" on all; while the citizenry is forced to embrace the illusion of the social contract which does not exist.

The state cannot "break" a social contract that it never had any plan to honor -- "breaking the social contract" is a one-sided standard the state imposes on the population; the state does nothing to justify continued confidence as a responsible counter party when it refuses to be held accountable for transgressions or failures in duty it imposes as obligations on the citizen.

The citizenry, when it is so enticed, will give up much, in exchange for hollow promises from the state; those who dare question this imbalance are labeled enemies of the state and a "threat" to the "social order."

The greatest pretender is for a state to create the illusion that it embraces Locke, while it actually practices Hobbes. The strong do not have to sleep when they can abuse the citizenry with such ease, that the citizenry associates sleep with death or nightmares, yet is convinced they are in a lovely paradise.

The trick for the state is to perpetuate the myth that the individual gets much for "giving up rights", all the while offering nothing but more duties, obligations, and standards to be arbitrarily imposed without reasonable reciprocation.

Welcome home, to America. Hobbes won. For now.