Political Parties are another form of artificial entity, and, as such, they share in all threats posed by artificial entities.  But political Parties present a special threat to individual rights and liberty worthy of their own, separate post.  In the case of political Parties, the principle threat to liberty is that of faction:

Definition of FACTION

1: a party or group (as within a government) that is often contentious or self-seeking : clique

2: party spirit especially when marked by dissension

Under the Social Contract — as constrained by the terms of Natural law — any division over the terms of the contract among the individuals Party to them actually represents a potential violation of those terms, and thus, a violation of Natural Law.  So, if a group of individuals within a community/society ban together to increase their political strength, in essence, what they are doing is forming another contract between themselves.  While it may not seem apparent at first, this is a violation of the Social Contract.

When people form a political Party, they do so with the expressed understanding that those outside the Party are not privy to it.  Unless you are a Party member, you do not share in whatever benefit that Party is intended to provide its members.  Now, because political Parties are intended to influence a community’s/society’s government, and because the Party has expressly excluded all individuals who are not a member, the Party – actually, every member in it —  has declared itself to be an enemy of the government it means to influence.  Remember, the Social Contract forms the community/society, and sets up the system by which it will govern itself.  This is done by the willing agreement of every individual within that community/society.  But the moment that a part of that community/society sets up a separate contract to pursue their own agenda, they violate the terms of their original Social Contract under which they agreed to work toward the common good of every individual in that community/society – not just those in their Party.  In essence, individuals who form a Party do so to use their combined power to force changes to the Social Contract they first agreed to live by.  That is a attack on the Natural Rights of every individual within that community/society.

There is no way for a political Party to exist within another Social Contract without violating the terms of that contract, and thus, Natural Law.  Human nature being what it is, the moment political Parties are allowed, the individuals within a Party will start to shift their loyalty to their Party and not the community/society to which they had willingly committed themselves by accepting the terms of the Social Contract that made that community/society.  In short, by joining a political Party, an individual essentially “changes sides” and places themselves in a state of war against their original community/society.  What’s more, the leaders of a political Party will naturally seek to solidify and grow their Party’s power, as well as their personal power, which further places the Party’s interest at odds with those of the terms of the Social Contract of the greater community/society.  Should a Party become strong enough, it is possible that a Party leader could actually become the de facto leader of a community/society, even if that Party leader is not actually the elected leader of the community/society.  For example: if we elected a President, but both the House and Senate were controlled by super majorities of the same Party, then whatever that Party leader told those Party members to do could conceivably be made law over the objections of the duly elected President of the nation.  Were this to happen, it would be a clear violation of the original intent of our Constitution, of Natural Law, and thus, a clear threat to the individual rights and liberties of every individual in this country.

If we look at this with an honest understanding of human nature, it should be simple to understand: a person cannot serve two masters.  They can either be loyal to a Party or their nation, but they cannot be loyal to both because – by its nature – the Party has declared itself to have a different agenda than that of the nation.  Our founders understood this, which is why the founding father of this nation specifically warned against allowing political parties.  If you would allow me, I would like to end this post by quoting a lengthy section from President Washington’s farewell address to the nation:

I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.

This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but, in those of the popular form, it is seen in its greatest rankness, and is truly their worst enemy.

The alternate domination of one faction over another, sharpened by the spirit of revenge, natural to party dissension, which in different ages and countries has perpetrated the most horrid enormities, is itself a frightful despotism. But this leads at length to a more formal and permanent despotism. The disorders and miseries which result gradually incline the minds of men to seek security and repose in the absolute power of an individual; and sooner or later the chief of some prevailing faction, more able or more fortunate than his competitors, turns this disposition to the purposes of his own elevation, on the ruins of public liberty.

Without looking forward to an extremity of this kind (which nevertheless ought not to be entirely out of sight), the common and continual mischiefs of the spirit of party are sufficient to make it the interest and duty of a wise people to discourage and restrain it.

— George Washington, September 19, 1796

All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.

–Edmund Burke

Silence in the face of evil is itself evil.

— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

So long as we wish to be a part of the Social Contract which forms and governs our community/society, this is a simple but important point.  If we see something happening that we know is wrong, yet we do not do something to try to stop it – even if all we can do is speak out in a strong objection so others know that we know it is wrong – then we willingly become a part of that wrong and share in the guilt with those who are actually committing the action.  But this issue goes further than just staying silent.  The problem here is that of apathy:

Definition of APATHY

1: lack of feeling or emotion : impassiveness

2: lack of interest or concern : indifference

When we agree to the terms of the Social Contract that formed and governs our community/society, we agree to keep our part of that contract.  Unless our Natural Rights are being trampled, we have no claim to object to our duties because we willingly agreed to do them when we agreed to the Social Contract.  In a free and self-governing society, these duties include things such as voting, but voting is much more than casting a ballot.  If we are going to vote, we have an obligation to vote intelligently, so we can vote for those who will protect and preserve the Social Contract and Natural Law.  This means we have also agreed to stay fully informed as to the issues necessary to allow us a reasoned vote.  Now note: there is no option not to vote, so there is no option not to stay informed.  These are obligations of citizenship, and if we do not meet them, we have broken the terms of our agreement with the other individuals in our community/society.  Staying informed enough to vote in line with Natural Law is the duty of every individual subject to a Social Contract.

The Social Contract can also create additional duties.  It can create the duty to participate in jury duty, or in posses.  Just because the Social Contract may provide for a police force, that provision does not relieve us from our individual duty to help protect the Natural Rights of every individual subject to it.  We still have the duty to act on our own – especially when the police are not around.  This duty includes a duty to help a neighbor fight a fire, or to provide first aid to someone who is injured – even to help another individual protect their property from loss or damage.

The social contract creates a duty to teach our children and the rest of our community about the proper principles and ideals necessary to support a free and self-governing society.  This is the primary purpose of education in a free society: not to teach a trade or profession, but to teach the principles and ideals of liberty, to teach Natural Rights, Natural Law and the Social Contract.

 If we expect that every individual in our community/society is going to protect our rights as its part of their obligation under the Social Contract, then we are equally obligated to do the same for them.  We agreed to do so when we willingly agreed to the terms of the Social Contract that formed our community/society and bound everyone to each other.  However, should we neglect our duties, we can have no expectation that others will still keep their end of the agreement.  In fact, if we refuse to perform the duties we willingly agreed to, we have broken the Social Contract.  Breaking the Social Contract effectively makes us an enemy of society, thus creating a duty for those individuals who are still trying to keep the terms of that contract to protect others from us!  In short, if we willingly refuse to perform our duties under the Social Contract, we declare ourselves to be enemies of those who still bind themselves to it.  When this happens, we are attacking the Natural Rights of every individual in that community/society and those individuals become justified in defending themselves from us in whatever manner the Social Contract prescribes (subject to the constraints of Natural Law).

Therefore, in a free and self-governing society, apathy is not only a threat to individual rights and liberty of others, it is a threat to our own individual rights and liberty as it can cause us to lose the protections offered by the Social Contract.