Does a collective possess moral authority?

According to statists, it does. In fact, governments in all “free” nations operate based on the supposed moral authority of the majority. In democratic societies, the simple existence of a majority justifies the use of force to compel the entire population to submit to its will. For instance, if the majority finds a certain substance dangerous or objectionable, this somehow justifies the use of coercive violence to prevent others from possessing this substance. Government serves as the mechanism to apply the force necessary to compel obedience and enforce the “collective will.”

Recently, Andy Zou wrote an article attempting to refute the notion that taxation is theft. Zou based his argument primarily on “social contract theory.” But he touched on a deeper underlying worldview necessary to prop up the moral/ethical legitimacy of government in a democratic society – this idea that majority or collective will justifies compelling individuals.

“In recognizing that an individual cannot move society’s terms, yet a collective can, we realize intuitively that the authority of a State or government must derive from a measurement of society’s collective consent. This falls in line with ethical Subjectivism; right and wrong is largely determined by societal opinion. The authority of a Social Contract may then even be considered proportional to the consent granted by its constituents.”

Zou stumbles into a truth. The majority can only claim moral authority within a subjective ethical framework. The “collective will” shifts radically over time. If the authority of a state or government depends on this idea of “collective consent,” collective will becomes the absolute source of moral authority.

That gets ugly fast.

Consider that during the early 1800s, the collective will was that black people should be slaves.

Looking at the collective will through this lens, it becomes clear it does not possesses moral authority – unless of course you accept the moral/ethical legitimacy of antebellum slavery.  The fact a lot of people, or a majority of people, or even all but a few people, support a given action does not make it ethical or moral. Most people intuitively know this. Virtually nobody will claim slavery was morally justified – ever – despite societal acceptance of it in earlier times. We all operate out of some sort of absolute moral framework, no matter how incoherent or ill-formed it might be.

Progressive academics love to pontificate about subjectivism and this notion that societal opinion dictates right and wrong. But they only want to live in such a world if  they can bend majority will to embrace the moral framework they personally hold. They are moral absolutists who use the idea of subjectivity to break down established moral/ethical frameworks they don’t like. They want to replace them with their own.

Enter government.

You’ll notice that progressives never sit back and say, “Well, the majority clearly rejects the moral legitimacy of homosexual marriage, so we accept that. We’ll move on.” No. They try to seize control of government power so they can force society to embrace their moral principles of “inclusion”and “tolerance.”

Of course, the political right does the same thing. It deosn’t say, “Well, the majority  accepts weed. Let’s stop the drug war.” They continue to lock people in cages for possessing a plant, despite large majorities of Americans favoring legalization. The only difference lies in the fact that the right typically relies on “traditional” moral frameworks to justify their coercion instead of the more modern ethical conventions held by progressives.

In practice, statism boils down to application of force. The legitimacy of government does not derive from a “collective will,” or “majority consent,” or from some mythical social contract. Its “legitimacy” rests on its ability to exert enough force to compel obedience.

It is purely a “might makes right” system.

Of course, most people balk at such a notion. Few readily admit they embrace coercion and violence as an acceptable way to order society. Most people would emphatically reject such a system, or at least suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance, if they actually sat back and thought it through. As a result, government gets wrapped up in this false notion of legitimacy through consent, democratic processes and majority will. But strip it all away and you’re left with nothing but raw coercion, force and power.

In fact, the government enforces all kinds of laws, rules, regulations and mandates rejected by the majority. Politics is simply a wrestling match for government power with the goal of controlling society and molding it into ones own image.  Simple observation of how government works in the real world should dispose of this notion of “collective will.”

Democracy is dictatorship covered over by a fancy philosophical veneer, and the “social contract” derives whatever authority it may have at gunpoint.

Editor’s note: In a recent podcast, Tom Woods more generally addressed the “social contract” argument Zou raised. Woods’ rebuttal was effective enough that Zou apparently backtracked on some of his assertions. I chose to use a quote from his original article because I think it does represent the thinking of a great many people.

Photo by KAZ Vorpal via Flickr.