being frank

The phrase “giving up” has many connotations. We give up certain things for religious reasons; for the sake of an argument, losing weight, or getting ourselves in or out of trouble. By and large, these are fairly common and done out in the open, perhaps with the exception of a few that we may surreptitiously hide out of a fear of reprisal or dinging our ego. But the one thing most people would agree on is that we would never willingly give up our freedom. Regardless of the circumstance, giving things up is normal. I’m not implying that giving up your freedom is normal, but rather that it’s one of those things we may feel strongly about.

There are as many theories or schools of thought regarding the philosophy of freedom as there are McDonald’s in the world, or liars in politics (it’s a toss-up.) But for the sake of brevity, I’m only going to take a few moments to look at one those theories. The one that, in this writer’s humble opinion, has been taking quite a beating lately: Social Contract Theory.

Despite this theory having been around for millennia and pondered by many learned scholars from India to Greece and from Europe to the United States, I’m only going to touch upon John Locke’s Social Contract Theory. The reason for this being that it was a formative influence on the writing of both the U.S. Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution.

What You Get

In a very tiny nutshell, Locke’s theory follows the underlying belief that all people are assumed to have natural rights – a birthright, if you will. As such, people should be mindful of their respective rights and not abuse or try to take advantage of what is not theirs. But given our human nature’s propensity for instability, Locke saw the need for a limited government as a means to protect the rights of the citizenry. The initial idea was fairly straightforward: a limited government is established where it gathers the permission to govern from the very people it will be governing.¹ From this viewpoint, people place some of their individual freedoms in the hands of their government and in exchange, the government promises to safeguard the people’s natural rights to life, liberty, and the acquisition of property (interestingly enough, this arrangement is a variation on the very basic theme of quid pro quo.) The Rule of Law is a principle that outlines the various directives that everyone covered under that governance (i.e., individuals, entities, and the government itself) accepts as binding components of the social contract.

The big ticket items worth remembering include:

• The government maintains its legitimacy through the consent of its people, known as the Consent of the Governed. If the government disobeys or oversteps its boundaries, the people have the right to alter or change the government.
• The natural rights of each individual are sacrosanct for the purpose of government. That means that they are sacred, unchallengeable, and unimpeachable. The U.S. Declaration notes them as inalienable, but you get the idea.
• A government’s power is not absolute; it’s limited. And it’s limited by that social contract it entered into with its people; the very same people whose rights are to be protected by the government.

That is it; that’s the intrinsic and very simplified kernel upon which the United States was established.

What It Means

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention in September 18, 1787, a woman by the name of Elizabeth Willing Powel asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin, “Well doctor, what have we got – a republic or a monarchy?” To which Dr. Franklin famously replied, “A republic, if you can keep it.”²

There are several opinions as to why he replied in that fashion. The reigning interpretation revolves around the subject of this article (or the lack thereof.) Dr. Franklin was noting that the efforts made during that Constitutional Convention and the ensuing results were indeed the establishment of a republic. But that was only the beginning. From that moment forward, the republic would need to rely on its people to agree upon, establish and maintain this momentum of governance. It was up to the people to ensure that the new republic wouldn’t fall prey to a sense of complacency or greed; that the people would choose a type of behavior that would demonstrate the strength, conviction, and resiliency required to carry on such a “glorious purpose.”³ That would have meant being involved –  speaking their mind to ensure that the appointed representatives would honor their pledge to redress the people’s grievances in order to protect two words I believe most people have grown very fond of: Domestic Tranquility.

It was a time of great change in response to a tumultuous time. Not everyone was keen on the idea of a republic or its final results. And as impressive as those efforts may have been, they would still be mired in discontent and division. It wasn’t an attempt to force our colors to run; just merely to fade away. But that’s what made that final outcome so amazing. Those who believed, persevered. Those who advocated for the right to establish a new nation founded on liberty, persevered. Those who stood steadfast for the sake of the whole, persevered. When you come to think of it, we live in a country that was founded by people who simply refused to give up.

Final Thoughts

That was 238 years ago – we’re a very long ways away from that historic time in our nation’s history. No doubt there have been many courageous moments since then. Instances of selflessness, bravery, sacrifice, and passionate resolve that helped turn the tide during some of our darkest moments. Yet, I feel it necessary to clarify to whom I’m referring. Because I’m sure that when you read my scribbles about those instances of courage, you envisioned people in the armed forces or those dedicated to civil service like law enforcement, emergency services, nurses, or even those employed in public service such as politicians (whom we love to know.)

But I wasn’t.

I was thinking of our parents or grandparents who spearheaded drives for tin, scrap metal, and rubber during WWII. I was thinking about the people who volunteered as neighborhood Air Raid Wardens, or as military volunteers at the local USO (United Services Organization.) I was thinking of the kids, who for years did paper drives and collected cans of food, or wrote letters to pen pals around the world to help bridge the fear gaps that would invariably rise during and after wars. In other words, I was thinking about people like you.

So much has transpired in the last ten years or so that has left our allies concerned, our citizenry puzzled, and our adversaries smiling. For after all the wars, all the costly battles and the unfathomable loss of life, the United States was finally shaken to its constitutional core by a purposefully undefined, yet surgically implanted sense of apathy. There was no enemy combatant to fight; no direct attacks on our way of life, no financial debacles. Just a well-choreographed litany of half-truths, innuendoes, and outrageous statements; capitulation by a thousand moral shocks. Yet, instead of turning to the truths in our heart or the logic in our head that was screaming at us for attention, we began to tune out and give up.

As of this posting, we still have the majority of our rights. So you’re free to give up coffee; you’re free to give up sweets. You can give up biting your nails, give up the extra foam on your latte, or give up smoking. But you should never give up, relinquish, lose interest, abandon, or ignore your rights as an individual. Everyone has their individual rights; it’s a sacred principle to which all people are entitled, and a trust established between yourself, those whom you love, and the deity of your choosing. No government can take them away or make you relinquish your rights through force or subterfuge.

But can someone – anyone – convince you to relinquish your freedom or your rights? Sure; it happens every day and all around us. You see it on the news, in video clips; it’s heard in speeches or podcasts, and when in the company of friends or in the comfort of your own home. It’s when people change; when their voices become conciliatory or they begin to shift their gaze. It’s when the fire in someone’s resolve is reduced to a burning ember out of fear or regret. And in each instance, the tell-tale sign is always the same:

It’s when people quit.

1. https://iep.utm.edu/locke/#SH4a ↩︎
2. https://blogs.loc.gov/manuscripts/2022/01/a-republic-if-you-can-keep-it-elizabeth-willing-powel-benjamin-franklin-and-the-james-mchenry-journal/ ↩︎
3. https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-07-02-0012 ↩︎