Questioner: I see a lot of people are taking to the streets, proclaiming they refuse to submit to the authority of their government. What gives?

Objectioner: Yes, I’m one of those people. Let me explain. We’re proclaiming we refuse to submit to the authority of Donald Trump.

Questioner: So you consented to be controlled by Barack Obama but you don’t consent to be controlled by Donald Trump? I might be confused. Are you for or against the government?

Objectioner: It’s not quite that simple. I’m for government, but Donald Trump is not going to do what governments were established to do. He’s threatening our liberties, instead of protecting them.

Questioner: I’m a fan of liberty. Tell me more.

Objectioner: Sure. Living under a constitutional government involves a duty of allegiance, which means letting the government set limits on what you can and cannot do, and agreeing to abide by those limits, called laws. In return for this allegiance, government protects our life, liberty and happiness. That’s the basis of what we call the social contract and it’s what we all agree to.

Questioner: Putting limits on what you can and cannot do doesn’t sound like liberty, to me. It sounds more like its opposite.

Objectioner: I can see how you might think that. But if everyone were just free to do whatever they wanted, some people will always try to infringe upon the rights of others, and that’s why we need the protection of government, in order to stop that from happening.

Questioner: So without government, everyone is free, but because some people might misuse that freedom to harm others, we give a certain group of people the power to limit everyone’s freedom?

Objectioner: Yes that’s right.

Questioner: Well I can see your rationale. But you said a minute ago that Donald Trump is threatening your freedoms. If that’s true, then government is guilty of the very thing it’s supposed to prevent. It doesn’t appear that this social contract is working out too well. Perhaps you’ve been hornswoggled.

Objectioner: That’s why I’m refusing to submit to Donald Trump’s authority. He’s not my president.

Questioner: So, this social contract is voluntary then? Are you saying we each have a choice about whether or not to consent to it?

Objectioner: Well, no, not exactly. We all tacitly agree to it just by existing in society. The social contract exists in perpetuity and it applies to everyone. While it can’t be abolished, it can be altered, and the best way we know to do that is through a democracy. In fact, it’s the best system in the world.

Questioner: But wasn’t Donald Trump elected through democratic means? Isn’t his presidency the product of democracy?

Objectioner: Well, yes and no. There’s some argument about that, at least, about whether democracy was functioning as it should, in this case.

Questioner: A moment ago you said it was the best system in the world. Please explain.

Objectioner: So the Russians ….

Questioner: Wait a minute. Not so fast. If a system is that vulnerable to being exploited, perhaps it would be safer not to rely on it, and find some better means of social organization. Again, it doesn’t sound like this thing called government is really capable of accomplishing what it’s intended to.

Objectioner: Well, normally it works quite well. When it does, its leaders represent the will of the people.

Questioner: They represent everyone’s will?

Objectioner: Just the majority, in fact. Or, at least, the majority of those who vote.

Questioner: It seems there are some instances where that did not turn out so well.

Objectioner: Oh?

Questioner: The National Socialist (Nazi) party in Germany first rose to power through democratic elections. Or look at the country of Venezuela today. Many people there are now living on the brink of starvation.

Objectioner: I would argue that’s because not enough people cared to get involved and work to change the system in those cases. When government isn’t benefiting the people as it should, it’s everyone’s civic duty to get involved and work to reform it from the inside. That’s what we’re doing now.

Questioner: I see. So democracy works when it represents the majority of the people, but sometimes the majority can be wrong, in which case then it doesn’t work. It sounds to me like in the end it’s not really democracy that you rely on to decide how you should or shouldn’t live, and what rules you should or shouldn’t abide by.

Objectioner: Well we still have to obey the laws, until we see that they are changed.

Questioner: What if a law is passed requiring everyone to sacrifice their first born child?

Objectioner: That’s pretty obvious isn’t it?

Questioner: Okay, so you would break it straight away. Then I think we’ve established that ‘the law’ is not sacrosanct.

Objectioner: Well everyone knows such a law would be inherently wrong.

Questioner: If everyone knows right from wrong then I think we’re back to asking what this thing called government is really for, aren’t we?

Objectioner: Not everything is so black and white. There is a lot of gray area.

Questioner: But it seems as though you personally know, or at least believe you know, your right from wrong. You wouldn’t be fighting the current administration unless you believed you were right, after all.

Objectioner: Quite true.

Questioner: Then I would infer that from your point of view, government exists not so much to protect others from you, but to protect you from others.

Objectioner: I suppose so, more or less.

Questioner: What makes you morally superior?

Objectioner: I wouldn’t say that. Watch it buddy.

Questioner: Well, as we just discussed, a majority can turn out to be wrong, and with disastrous consequence. What makes it so that when someone such as yourself is in the majority, the system is working, but when you find yourself in the minority, you must work to reform it, as you say.

Objectioner: I believe that’s what’s known as checks and balances, or that’s how the system works to correct itself. We are that system. Ultimately, government is us.

Questioner: If government is us, why doesn’t everyone just govern themselves? What’s the use of having an institutional body?

Objectioner: We have to come to some kind of consensus.

Questioner: But it doesn’t seem that people ever can come to a consensus, in a democracy. One side is always fighting to be in control of the other. The fact of the matter is, whether or not you’re in the majority, you always believe yourself to be in the right, thereby making anyone who opposes your viewpoint in the wrong. It seems as if you’re primary concern in all this is to determine how others behavior should be governed, not so much your own. How does that make you any different from say, Donald Trump?

Objectioner: Because I’m right and he’s wrong. It’s pretty much that simple.

Questioner: Okay. So to be clear, if you were to be successful in having Trump impeached, for example, and replaced by someone else, then it would be equally legitimate for people who don’t want to be controlled by whoever that someone else is, to also resist and try to oust that person from power too, right?

Objectioner: But why? If I’m right, and I know I’m right, then the president who best represents me will also be right. Anyone that would want to oppose the president of my choosing is probably ignorant, confused, or just plain stupid.

Questioner: But, isn’t that what the other side, that is, those who support Donald Trump, are probably also saying right now about you? I’m still not clear about how this democracy thing is really tenable.

Objectioner: It’s like I was saying, we as a society have to come to some kind of consensus. That’s the only way for society to operate. The aim is for that consensus to best reflect the collective intelligence of the people.

Questioner: So it’s not just the majority that ought to decide for everyone. Ultimately, you’re saying, it’s really the more intelligent?

Objectioner: Now that you put it that way, I think so, yes. I think that some people being more intelligent than others, have a special responsibility to help decide how everyone’s lives should be governed.

Questioner: Controlled.

Objectioner: What’s that?

Questioner: To govern means, literally, to control. When you say governed, you should really say what it means, which is to control.

Objectioner: Alright, fine, we’ll say control from now on.

Questioner: Is it intelligence that attempts to control others, forcing them to act against their own free will?

Objectioner: Yes, when those others would do things to harm people, then it makes sense to force them to obey a collective set of rules and regulations. Remember, that’s the reason for the social contract.

Questioner: What if they aren’t harming anyone? Can’t they just be left alone then?

Objectioner: But we don’t know that they won’t harm anyone.

Questioner: Just what do you mean by harm, anyway?

Objectioner: Well, like I said earlier, if everyone were free, there will always be some bad actors that will come along and try to take away our life, liberty, or property.

Questioner: By take it away, you mean, to try to exert control over you, right?

Objectioner: Yes, I suppose that’s right.

Questioner: So the idea is, in order to prevent others from trying to threaten your life, liberty, or property, which are all ways of controlling you against your will, you instead vest authority into some group of other people, that you claim represents your best interests, and in some sense actually ‘is’ you, to exert some type of control, not just over you, since you already know right from wrong, but over other people who don’t know right from wrong and might try to harm you. However, when that authority oversteps its bounds and somehow ends up controlling you in ways that you disagree with or that actually threaten your life, liberty and property in the way that it was supposed to prevent others from doing, then you have the right to resist it. Is this correct?

Objectioner: Precisely. Now you’re cooking.

Questioner: So, on one hand, it seems like it’s okay for you to resist being controlled by some group or president when that control is an affront to your liberty, but on the other hand, it would seem fine from your point of view, for your group, or your preferred president, to exercise control over the liberty of others? Why isn’t it okay for everyone to resist power and control in general, as a matter of principle?

Objectioner: Well, because there has to be some form of control. It just has to be the right amount of control, over the right people, in the right way. We, collectively, get to decide what that is. We — that is, the smarter among us. If others feel they are being controlled in ways that they disagree with, I guess that’s too bad. They really ought not to disagree with it, and they wouldn’t if they were as intelligent as people like me.

Questioner: So, you’re an elitist?

Objectioner: No, and I resent that. I believe in equality for all. In fact, that’s part of the reason I’m protesting Donald Trump.

Questioner: Okay, so let me get this straight. You don’t want to be controlled by Donald Trump. You say you are for equality, but, you would deny those who don’t want to be controlled by some other president the ability to exercise the same right to resist that person as you have to resist Trump? So that’s equality?

Objectioner: It’s like I was saying — we HAVE to have SOME kind of authority. And when I say ‘we’ here, I mean all of us collectively. But, then, only a certain group of us should get to decide what that authority looks like. That authority then gets to control everyone equally, in ways that we (the smart ones) agree with.

Questioner: Are you saying that the rest of us are kind of like … little children? We’re just not accepting of the necessary kind of authority? But when you are not accepting of authority, for example Donald Trump’s authority to control you, then that’s different. Your non-acceptance of control is more adult-like, somehow?

Objectioner: Look, someone has to be in control. Otherwise we couldn’t have civilization. That’s why everyone agrees to the social contract. Without it, there would be no way to ensure different groups of people aren’t always fighting to take control over one another.

Questioner: But, isn’t that what you’re actually doing right now? It seems to me as if you’re merely wanting to assert yourself as part of the ‘in’ group that gets to decide who is in control. In fact that’s exactly how this thing called democracy functions, isn’t it? It sounds like in order to prevent people from being controlled by others, we depend on a system whereby some people get to control others. It isn’t clear to me how ANY of this makes sense. Doesn’t this all just re-create the same problem it is trying to solve?

Objectioner: Well what’s your solution then if you’re so clever!? So far all you’ve offered is criticism.

Questioner: I simply made a few observations and asked you some questions.

Objectioner: Okay, so why don’t you take a positive position and say something in the affirmative about how you think society should best be organized.

Questioner: Perhaps I don’t see it as my place to do so. Perhaps I don’t know.

Objectioner: Then what, if anything, do you have to offer?

Questioner: I can tell you about the principles by which I try to live, but that would only be a guide, at best. I do know that trying to escape the fear of being hurt and controlled by others through assuming control over them instead, is a mobius strip. It offers the appearance, or rather, the illusion that one will eventually come ‘round to the other side, to a place of security, but in truth it only continues leading back into itself, perpetually.

In any event, were I to offer some system that even 999 out of 1000 people could agree with, I would never condone forcing the thousandth person to abide by it against their will, any more than I would condone one person forcing one thousand others to obey him or her. Both inevitably bring about disorder.

Objectioner: So you are against the idea of a social contract then?

Questioner: I’m not against contracting, but a contract cannot be valid unless entered into voluntarily, by freely given consent, without any form of control, coercion, or manipulation. Any lawyer can tell you that.

Objectioner: I don’t believe anyone is being coerced. I would argue that by participating in society we are all tacitly agreeing to be bound by a social contract whether we like it or not. Anyone that doesn’t like it is free to leave.

Questioner: You may say that, but then, don’t your actions demonstrate otherwise? Any time you bend or break the law as it suits you, you’re making an explicit, self-proclaimed declaration of independence from the so-called authority of the collective. For example, whenever you knowingly ‘jaywalk’, text on your phone while driving, ride a bicycle without a helmet, partake of marijuana or other illicit substances, collect rainwater, help your child operate a lemonade stand without a permit, or a thousand and one other activities deemed illegal by the State, you’re declaring by your own actions that you in fact don’t consent to being controlled.

Being such is the case, the idea that there is some unanimously agreed-upon obligation owed by individuals to a body politic appears rather fanciful, doesn’t it? If you still believe otherwise, I suggest you start walking your talk, and go turn yourself in for the countless crimes you’ve surely committed. Otherwise you’re not really holding yourself to the same standards of accountability you espouse for others.

Of course, if you resent being forced to obtain permission for your child to sell quarter-a-cup lemonade out of your own front yard, I suppose you are always free to leave. See how that works?

Objectioner: Hmmm. I’m not sure I’m quite convinced yet, but you’ve certainly got me thinking. I will continue considering what you’ve said and asking questions.