I believe all three of the above-named (Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau) maintained in fact that we possessed natural rights (a deontological theory of rights). And, indeed, that the social contract was about what rights we voluntarily surrendered as well as what rights we gained in exchange. I am quite open to correction on this if that is not someone else’s understanding. As for the general validity of social contract theory, I am inclined to side with Hume. It is quite clearly a “just-so” story. There never was a State of Nature as imagined by Hobbes and Rousseau. Humans have lived in largish troops since before they were humans. (Am I right though that Locke understood this? It’s clear that Hobbes did not and it seems like Rousseau didn’t either.) If I were to side with any social contract theory, it would certainly be Locke’s since he saw the contract as revocable. Anything else implies that we have a duty to submit to a tyranny and I can’t accept that.

The primary way he describes this improper assertion of authority is as trying to take another person’s life (into one’s hands). This makes the person making the attempt an outlaw, lowering him to the level of animals, and making him a threat to those still living in the State of Nature. He has, through his actions, renounced Reason and the protection living as a Reasonable being afforded him under the Law of Reason.

So opting out of the social contract is opting into the State of Nature. It takes another step to opt out of the State of Nature into a state in which you only have the rights of an animal (dictated by the Law of Nature, which Locke thinks is essentially “survival of the fittest.”).

Locke may be a social contract theorist, but for him the fundamental human rights are based on what it means to be human.

Our most basic agreement, I think, isn’t with a specific government. It’s a more basic and general agreement to participate in society. Society is like my decision to buy cable TV. Government is the specific independent contractor that the cable companies pays to install the cable.
On the basis, we don’t owe special ethical consideration to US citizens or tax payers. And I don’t think we have the right to opt out, unless we choose to drop out of society and live like a hermit.

In general, I do tend to favor a deontological theory of rights, but I’m not certain it’s right and I wouldn’t care to argue too strenuously for it against a committed opponent. The utilitarians and others deny that rights exist at all (since they can be overridden by the good of the majority) and I’m not sure they’re wrong.

Those people should define what they mean by government. In the United States, the government should be “we the people.” So either we should improve the lives of the needy voluntarily or we should be forced to do so through taxation and (usually) bloated welfare programs. I prefer the former method, especially since some citizens don’t believe that any such moral imperative exists.

Micah “But since privileges – as opposed to rights — are by definition undeserved. . .”

I don’t know. That may be, according to one or more definitions of privilege, but the word can also refer to benefits granted for a reason. For example, only those who purchased (or were given) backstage passes have the privilege of going to see the performers after the show. Only documented descendants of Revolutionary War soldiers have the privilege of being members of the SAR or the DAR.

—————————————-

Anyone who feels guilty about being wealthy has a very simple solution staring them right in the face: give away their wealth to a worthwhile project that will help others.

There is of course a whole theory of negative and positive rights (though I do not necessarily endorse this theory). A positive right is a right in which other people have a moral obligation to do something for you. If, for example, you have a right to food, what you’re saying is that farmers are required to work for you without any compensation. (I’m not here arguing that this is false. I’m just pointing out what is entailed. In fact, we tend to spread out the costs. Farmers are normally compensated for their labor by taking a percentage of the labor of everybody else instead.) A negative right, on the other hand, simply means that others are obliged to refrain from doing something to you or interfering with you. Your right to life is one of those. I am morally obliged not to kill you.

I should point out again that I am not necessarily endorsing any theory of rights here. There are sophisticated moral philosophers who deny that there are any such things as rights at all.

On a somewhat unrelated note, I wonder if the meaning of underpriviliged is predicated on the idea that blessings/priviliges should be distrubuted with something close to equality. It’s true that by definition we don’t deserve priviliges. But it doesn’t follow that if we do have priviliges there isn’t some morality to how they should be distrubuted. To say some one is underpriviliged is to say that they have not recieved their share.
Some element of democratic/capitalist theory seems rooted on the idea that priviliges are more-or-less evenly spread out… That we all have an equal chance at the pie which some priviliges convey.

Sometimes, I also think “underpriviliged” is too soft and wimpy a word. When we look at what is being lacked by the under “priviliged” we see that it’s not a privilige at all… It’s basic human rights.
I prefer the term “underresourced”. I never thought about why. But I think this is part of the reasons. It’s a more accurate description of what we’re often talking about. Priviliges are things like joining a country club. Resources are things like having enough blankets to keep you warm.