LR- Societal Obligations: Responding to the Social Contract Theory Video

     In modern times, the ideologies of Locke have been  the most heavily adopted of the three, in particular the social contract theory. The question to answer, therefore, is when is its implicated actions, be they peaceable protest or downright rebellion, are justifiable and in extension applicable to the 21st century. One way of analyzing such a massive and ambiguous question is examining its claimed uses in U.S. history. Among the first of such rebellions against the fledgling American government was Shay's Rebellion. The event gained steam, as though all farmers had been in high debt due to new farmland applications, the government of Massachusetts was the only state that did not have any pro-debtor measures. For this reason, the farmers revolted in armed protest. Though they were put down quickly by the governor's organized militia, many people disliked the harsh reaction and the event inspired similar, smaller-scale rebellions throughout the country. In contrast, the Whiskey Rebellion was a phenomenon caused by farmers revolting against a whiskey tax that would cut into their profits. The rebellion too had disgruntled farmers fighting against an apparent imposed tyranny. But in this instance George Washington responded quickly with an army numbering in the thousands to utterly crush the crusade. What differentiates the two is not just the manner in which they were crushed and their exact reasons, but also a sort of tacit line that was crossed in the second. When the first rebellion occurred, it was a mostly isolated instance due to a relatively unresponsive government which Washington likely did not feel merited a federal response. Even though he did not support the protest, he might have held some sentiment for its legitimacy. In the second instance, however, the issue was Congress's ability to levy taxes. If some ragtag farmers could challenge the government, than anyone could. Thus Washington responded so decisively and harshly. In doing so, their was a sort of implied difference formed which communicated a leniency for "justifiable" rebellion, in which the constituency did not receive treatment held to be reasonable, versus a forceful assault that meant that no action would be tolerated if the action in question clearly violated the Constitution. True, both were eventually put down violently and both failed, but nonetheless the different responses to the crisis by the federal government showed a strong division from right or wrong. Indeed if the protest was peaceful, perhaps in the form of a petition, the farmers would have no doubt received some compensation for what was deemed a crucial duty. In effect, the social contract in America can be seen as a sort of unstated web of response: if one is constitutionally justified, that is to say in accordance with Locke's suggestion of protest due to an unresponsive government not backed by a constitutional necessity, then it gains traction. Perhaps the most important ingredient is that dissent remain peaceful, especially in present times due to the increased destructive capacity, to gain true legitimacy throughout a country. For if an adamant and comprehensive chorus is raised, a government without fail will respond, likely in a reciprocated mannerism.