Historical Aspects
The idea that society
originates from an agreement
among individuals (commonly
referred to as the social
contract) emerged in the
18th century. According to
this notion, the State was
established through a pact
at a particular point in
historical evolution,
whereby individuals
relinquished a limited
portion of their absolute
freedom, which they had
enjoyed in nature, in
exchange for significant
advantages offered by a
structured state order. This
idea gained considerable
popularity as it effectively
constrained the power of the
State (specifically the
monarchical absolutism of
that era). Thus, the State
became a contract that
everyone was bound to
respect; if the sovereign
failed to do so, the
subjects, now identified as
citizens, had the right to
depose the non-compliant
monarch. Above all, the
powers of the State were
constrained by the contract,
with the inalienable rights
of citizens—such as life and
property—taking precedence,
and later on, many
additional rights being
included. This concept was
highly influential in the
battle against the
prevailing notion of a
sovereign ruling by divine
right, wherein the monarch
was viewed as a
representative of God, to
whom obedience was due, even
for religious reasons; the
monarch would be accountable
to God for their actions.
However, the idea of the
social contract was
gradually surpassed during
the 19th century because it
did not align with reality.
Human beings have always
existed within a societal
framework; outside of
society is an abstraction.
In fact, primitive and
ancient societies were much
more cohesive and intrusive.
Historians of the 19th
century, such as Burckhardt,
believed that only with the
Renaissance did
individualism begin to
emerge. the
The premise of the social
contract is that the
individual and the community
are opposing and autonomous
entities, almost like two
separate states, as was
sometimes said, but in
reality, one exists because
the other exists: that is,
there is no individual
outside of society (of which
the State is an organ) and
there is no community
without the individual.
Therefore, we cannot
consider the individual and
the State (community) as
separate entities: they are
all closely interconnected.
The individual impacts the
community and vice versa;
the challenge is to find a
balance point that will
always be variable.
The concept of the social
contract has been recently
revisited by some schools of
thought that self-identify
as liberal and view the
democratic concept as
distinct from liberal,
meaning that there are
liberal and non-liberal
democracies, depending on
whether the power of the
State stops at the person
and also at the citizen’s
property.
At this point, it is
necessary to clarify the
meaning of certain terms
that are used in a very
varied and sometimes
confusing way.
In the 1800s, the terms
liberal and democratic
indicated a lesser or
greater radicalism in the
fight against absolutism,
while today "liberal" seems
almost vanished from
political language: I see no
major party bearing this
title, neither in Italy nor
in the West. In my opinion,
the concept is of a bygone
era.
In America, we have "liberal"
with a different meaning
from our "liberal": we could
translate it as
"progressive."
It is important not to
confuse "liberal" with "libertarian":
liberal, in the sense of
democratic, means that
political power is chosen in
pluralistic elections in an
atmosphere of broad freedom
and is opposed to the old
absolutisms, communisms,
fascisms, and other
dictatorships.
Libertarian, on the other
hand, supports free economic
enterprise, as opposed to
socialism, which advocates
State intervention in the
economy.
Thus, "liberal" in the
democratic sense is distinct
from "libertarian" in the
sense of supporting free
enterprise: in fact, all
four combinations exist.
There are non-democratic and
libertarian regimes (fascisms),
non-democratic and
non-libertarian regimes (communisms),
libertarian and democratic
regimes (USA), democratic
and socialist systems (Scandinavians).
Libertarians and socialists
are general trends: for
instance, the first welfare
state was promoted by
Bismarck, who certainly was
not a socialist. The Meloni
government has not
eliminated all State
intervention but aims to
reduce it.
Currently, what predominates
in economics is the welfare
state, which seeks to
balance State action and
free enterprise.
On the other hand,
19th-century liberals spoke
of freedom but always within
the framework of morality
(i.e., social rules); indeed,
they generally positioned
themselves as champions of
ethics in opposition to the
aristocracy, which often
ignored it (e.g., The
Day by Parini, The
Duties of Man by
Mazzini and Pellico).
The very few who argued that
everyone could do whatever
they wanted were extreme
supporters of absolute power
(beyond good and evil, like
Nietzsche, who certainly was
not a liberal).
Individual and
Collective
The theory of the natural
and original absolute
freedom of the individual,
from which the social
contract would arise, is an
abstraction contrary to
human nature, which is
essentially social.
In fact, if it is not
accepted in any society,
from primitive to postmodern,
it means that it is
impossible to apply and
contrary to nature. It is
like saying that judges and
punishments are unnecessary
in society: the fact that
they exist everywhere,
albeit in very different
forms, means that they are
necessary and consistent
with human nature.
First, we note that since
everyone has their own
opinion, common decisions
require an authority
according to mechanisms that
vary by group. For example,
in the family, parents
ultimately decide for minor
children. Obviously, the
decision can be considered
appropriate or not,
depending on the
perspectives of the children
and observers.
It can also happen that
decisions are made out of
parental selfishness (which
rarely happens in families).
Similarly, the State, which
impacts the individual’s
life far less than the
family, functions this way.
Decisions by a right-wing
government are not shared by
those on the left, and vice
versa; a measure will always
seem good to some and bad to
others: a matter of opinion.
Then the majority decides
through voting.
Unlike the family,
politicians often make
decisions with more
attention to their interests
than general ones: certainly,
the government is not
comparable to the natural
love of parents.
There are mechanisms in
place to limit these
realities: we are in a
democracy, meaning the
government is judged by the
public through voting and
thus has every interest in
satisfying it.
Our Constitution (and
democratic ones in general)
is defined as "personalistic,"
meaning society-oriented:
the rights it enunciates are
about participating in
national life, not doing
whatever one pleases.
The perspective is that the
Republic must remove all
obstacles preventing true
and full participation in
national life (for example,
mandatory schooling). Also,
every individual right
presupposes a collective
duty, that is, all of us:
the right to health implies
that we all pay for the
medical expenses of those
who fall ill.
Public and Private
All democrats believe in
freedom of thought, free
elections, and rights that
allow actions, even if these
sometimes negatively impact
society within certain
limits. However, no party
supports the idea that one's
body or home is outside
State jurisdiction. It would
make no sense: it would be
impossible, for example, to
punish criminals, enforce
compulsory military service,
or understand why healthcare
should be guaranteed.
Concerning property, public
works could not be carried
out if a single owner
refused to cede their
property, making execution
impossible.
Freedom of action can be
broader in prosperous
situations, and for this
reason, rights are
compressed in times of
difficulty (widespread
poverty, war, emergencies).
Consider a law that bans
something (e.g., drugs): the
rationale is that it harms
others. This rationale will
be accepted by some and
rejected by others; there
may even be some government
interest, but that is the
justification.
The idea that property was a
natural right (and what
would that mean?) dates back
to the 1700s and has since
been surpassed. By "natural,"
we mean what comes from
nature, such as attraction
to the opposite sex, love
for children, the desire for
well-being, and, above all,
sociality.
Property depends on societal
rules: in the Inca Empire,
our feudal Middle Ages, and
shogunate Japan, land, a
fundamental property,
belonged to the State (the
emperor), which granted it
for use.
In primitive societies, one
might assume prey belonged
to the hunter, but it
belonged to the whole group.
Even today, what I earn does
not belong solely to me but
also to my family, and
furthermore, the State takes
an average of 40%.
Modernly, I own the house
inherited from my parents
according to our society's
rules (in the past, there
was primogeniture, men
inherited more than women;
today, there are various
inheritance tax measures).
My money is just paper (now
primarily numbers on a
computer), but it holds
value according to society's
rules, earned and guaranteed
according to these rules,
and a significant portion
(40% on average) is taken by
the State.
Property is still guaranteed
by the State; otherwise,
anyone could evict me from
my home, and it can be
confiscated in cases of
public necessity.
The real issue of property
is that it involves not only
the fruit of one’s labor but
also rent, formerly
land-based, now
enterprise-based, a problem
that was the foundation of
major socialist movements (property
as theft, surplus value
theory).
Sometimes it is said that
the State's authority should
stop at the boundaries of
private property (symbolically:
the home). But laws are
valid inside and outside the
home: assaulting a woman is
no less a crime at home than
on the street, and if drug
use were a crime, it would
be inside or outside the
home, as is drug dealing.
Different is being naked:
outside the home is not
allowed, but at home, it is.
However, in this case, what
is forbidden is being seen
naked, so if I am at home
but in a garden or terrace
visible to others, it would
be a crime.
Conclusion
The central point of all
this is that one’s freedom
ends where others’ begins.
This statement is attributed
(apparently erroneously) to
18th-century thinkers. But
what does it mean? Almost
every action we take (except
for a few trivial exceptions)
always impacts others (and
vice versa), so we would
essentially have no choices
to make. In reality, this is
not true, because only a
small portion of our actions
are regulated by society,
and only a small portion of
those regulations are
enshrined in State laws. And
this occurs in every
society.
What truly distinguishes
modern democracy from the
absolutist regimes of the
present and past is that
every citizen can freely
express their ideas and,
through elections, choose
governments. These actions
are free not because they do
not impact others for better
or worse; indeed, it is
precisely this way that the
individual can clearly and
incisively influence the
community. Democracy does
not allow unjust and/or
illegal acts, but it is the
citizens (in the majority)
who determine what is just
and legal.
The political debate is
about what rules are the
best, the fairest, and the
most advantageous for the
community, not about a
supposed untouchable
autonomy of the individual
and their assets, which no
society recognizes.