Home / Uncategorized / The Scut Farkas Theory of the State
Print Friendly and PDF

The Scut Farkas Theory of the State

Written by Gary North on July 21, 2014

In the history of Western philosophy and social theory, no really silly idea has been more successful than the theory of the social contract.

It is in fact not a theory of the social contract. It is a theory of the political contract. It is the idea, promoted by Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau, that, at some point in history, people got together and voluntarily transferred their personal rights to the state. Their rights, in short, were alienable.

Hobbes and Locke spoke of this event as if it really happened. Rousseau was much more honest. His words in his essay, “A Dissertation on the Origin and Foundation of the Inequality of Mankind” (1754), went right to the point:

Let us begin then by laying facts aside, as they do not affect the question. The investigations we may enter into, in treating this subject, must not be considered as historical truths, but only as mere conditional and hypothetical reasonings, rather calculated to explain the nature of things, than to ascertain their actual origin; just like the hypotheses which our physicists daily form respecting the formation of the world. Religion commands us to believe that, God Himself having taken men out of a state of nature immediately after the creation, they are unequal only because it is His will they should be so: but it does not forbid us to form conjectures based solely on the nature of man, and the beings around him, concerning what might have become of the human race, if it had been left to itself. This then is the question asked me, and that which I propose to discuss in the following discourse.

This was the theoretical foundation of his 1762 book, which has had enormous influence, almost all of it pernicious: The Social Contract.

First, the whole idea the social contract assumes that there was a covenant among men at some point. These men represented all of humanity, which means they were something comparable to the society of Cain and Abel. The promoters of social contract theory don’t say this exactly, but this is what they mean when they are talking about the state of nature.

I’m a great believer in representative covenants. The doctrine of original sin is based on such a concept. There was a covenant between God and Adam, and Adam and Eve broke it. This is a familiar doctrine in history of the West.

Immediately after the expulsion of Adam and Eve from the garden (Genesis 3), we have story of Cain and Abel (Genesis 4). This is where all discussions of political contract should begin. There is a bad guy, filled with envy: Cain. There is a good guy, doing his best to serve God: Abel. The bad guy uses violence against the good guy.

In the story, Cain knows that he has committed a sin. At first, he tries to cover it up. “Am I my brother’s keeper?” He assumes that God cannot figure out where Abel is. Then, when God pronounces negative sanctions against him, he cries out in despair, because he knows that other men will bring negative sanctions against him. This line of reasoning rests on the assumption: there is an existing structure of civil government. There is some kind of a criminal justice system. There is a system for bringing negative physical sanctions against trespassers.

Here, in incipient form, we have the story of the origin of civil government. There is no discussion of exactly how it began, but it is clear that it existed by the time that Cain slew Abel.

I have a phrase for this theory of the origin of civil government. I don’t call it a social contract theory. I call it the bully theory of government. I don’t mean bully in the sense of Theodore Roosevelt’s bully pulpit, although the two are related in the person of Teddy Roosevelt. He spoke loudly and carried a big stick. My bully theory is basically the Scut Farkas theory of government.

(For the rest of my article, click the link.)

Continue Reading on www.garynorth.com

Print Friendly and PDF

Posting Policy:
We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, vulgarity, profanity, all caps, or discourteous behavior. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain a courteous and useful public environment where we can engage in reasonable discourse. Read more.

7 thoughts on “The Scut Farkas Theory of the State

  1. Let's make this more relevant for today. See Dr. North's book "Conspiracy in Philadelphia: The Broken Covenant of the U.S. Constitution" at http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/1936577070….

  2. In the case of the US today, a would-be autocrat has taken power. In more reasonable times, the leadership of both parties would have put him into a proper perspective. But today, he seems to have so enchanted the Democrat leadership that they are more than willing to cede all power to him. With his control of the Justice Department and his domestic standing army under DHS, he owns control. He has taken unto himself dictatorial powers that will be difficult to bring to an end if he chooses not to go peacefully at the end of his term. I believe this country is in deeper trouble than people realize. I pray that I am wrong. See my blog at http://cranky-conservative.blogspot.com

  3. The idea of a tyrannical govt "eventually" destroying itself my bring comfort to Gary North, but for those of us watching everything we work for and all we love being systematically brought to ruin, it is a tad too philosophical and too impractical to apply to America in 2014.

  4. Psalms 12
    1 Help, יהוה; for the righteous man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
    2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
    3 יהוה shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
    4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is master over us?
    5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith יהוה; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
    6 The words of יהוה are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
    7 Thou shalt keep them, O יהוה, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
    8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.

  5. The only social contract that makes sense is the Hobbesian version: the weak traded in their freedoms to the strong in the hope the strong would protect them.

  6. Mitchina says:

    “Let us begin then by laying facts aside, as they do not affect the question.” Well, they may not affect the question but facts have a direct effect on the answer you get. Which is why he wanted to set them aside since he was controlling the answer he wanted to get. “God Himself having taken men out of a state of nature immediately after the creation “ What the hell does that mean? What state of nature is he speaking of, light, energy, what? He’s an evolutionist, isn’t he – that the only way that would even make sense. Which is also why this “…does not forbid us to form conjectures based solely on the nature of man… what might have become of the human race, if it had been left to itself” Typical atheist liberal.

  7. Mitchina says:

    The argument coming from the Sectarianism left has always been peppered with the lie that man instinctively knows right from wrong without having to believe in God so apparently we would have the same outcome, right? How does that square with ole’ Mr. frenchie-french? No, no… let’s not look to any origin in anything, morality is just a concept derived from the inner workings conjured up by the natural state of the human mind. Liberal loons love hypothetical arguments, they thrive on them, they pass laws from them. Who needs to learn from factual events in history anyway? Whatever, this guy is a freak job and I cannot believe anyone would even take more than 5 minutes listening to his bullshit. I sure didn’t.