Framework

Proposed Framework

For any proposed new social structure or contract, we take as a starting point that the following issues should be considered.

__

 

 

 

General Tenets

 

 

 

 

First, do no harm.  The system we have is not perfect, but nothing ever is or will be.  The current system, has, however, achieved and produced a great many things (peace, prosperity, stability), all of which the preceding generations and our ancestors worked hard to provide for us.  We must be sure that any new system is an advancement and improvement over the current system, and that the cure is not worse than the disease.  

Another precondition must be morality.  Every human has a right to life, and a life of at least a modest and humble standard.  We are better as groups, and we must rely on others for the survival of humanity.  Human life must be valued and respected.  This is both a moral imperative and practical concern if we are to function and thrive in a group.   

People must be able to sustain themselves.  The first priority for any social construct must focus on this need for sustainment as the primary priority.  Accordingly, any proposed social construct must make provisions for governance, room, and fuels (a discussion of procreation and rearing is also needed, but not included yet).  By having the essentials provided, one limits their potential to be enslaved (either to nature or to those who provide these to them).

Unless we aspire to a life of subsistence living, our social constructs should probably also support advanced knowledge, products, and services.  While these advanced skills may morph over time (become less relevant, require substantial redefinition, made irrelevant by other advances, etc) and therefore have less constant predictability, without pursuing them [we become more animal and less human, unable to maximize our freedom, and risk stagnation and reversion to a primitive state.]

This effort must recognize inherent uncertainty of our knowledge and the complexity of modern life.  This recognition likely requires, at least in part, pluralism (diversity) and tolerance, and that there is likely no single answer or path, especially one that will work for everyone.  We should be overly confident in any proposed solution, nor ignore possible unforeseen interactions or outcomes they may cause.  The approach suggested may be small steps and then building off the proven successes before moving the larger mass [the amoeba analogy].  Rash or imprudent changes could have substantial negative consequences to society (some of which can not be anticipated at the outset).  It is also likely important to maintain some element of tradition (and insular traditional cultures) so that we have reset points should newer social structures fail.  

Any new system must generally be regarded as fair.  In order for people to join in and function as a group, the group must function for them.  Any system that is not generally viewed as fair [and perhaps just] will loose support of its members and eventually loose the members themselves.  For some social constructs, group cohesiveness is less important, but in all cases some level of grouping is required (as discussed in the origins section), and so at least some baseline level of non-animosity must be established in order to do so.  

The system must provide outputs to its members based on their inputs, which at some level must balance between inputs and outputs.  What individuals and sub groups can generally provide (or input) might be thought of as their contributions and merits.  Contributions are the more tangible services, products and skills they provide.  Merits might be considered the long term qualities and character (such as dedication or loyalty).  Outputs from the system could considered more tangible items such as products and services, or less tangible outputs such as support and encouragement.  The system only has to give what it produces, the value it creates, and the society (and company) it has to offer.  Seemingly at a basic and primordial level, the distribution of this collective value (good) must take some account of who did the most to provide it.  While in some idealistic beliefs each person should receive equally from the common pool [or stored value], to do so is likely untenable [a system that treats all equally fairly regardless of their merit is inherently unfair].  

There should be multiple viable parties so that no one party can solely decide or pass judgement on all the rest.  This applies not only to those who decide what the outputs of the system to each individual should be, but also to producers and holders of knowledge.  Perhaps the saying that absolute power corrupts absolutely is true, but even if not, it at least seems to have a corrosive tendency towards that way.  In a system, it should not be just one person or small group who determines the value of each person or individual within the group.  The value that any person provides is complex and a matter of perspective.  By reducing the power to one or small number to make the determination of value, we elevate that person or people to the status of gods.  The wisdom and skills of independent peers is perhaps the best way to determine and support value within society [“the multitude of the wise is the wealth of the world”].  this must be balanced against the natural outcome of those who have more capability to have more say.  Societies should likely be more “polytheistic” and support pluralism and tolerance, such that there isn’t one source with the society.  Along these lines, freedom of association should not (within reason) be restricted; people should be able to vote with their feet to go where they are more valued and provide more value.  In all this, there also needs to be a balance of decentralization and diversity with the benefits of centralization and coordinated efforts.  

 

__

 

• Any new system must be an improvement over the current one, and build upon its strengths.

 

 

 

• Morality and the value of human life must be a precondition.

 

 

 

• The primary concern of any new social construct must be the ability of people to sustain themselves.

 

 

 

• Beyond that, proposed social constructs must also support advanced skills.

 

 

 

 

 

• Recognize the inherent uncertainty of our knowledge and complexity of our social systems; be mindful of the difficulty of trying to improve upon it and the substantial risks it entails.

 

 

 

 

 

• The system must generally be regarded as fair in order for it to effectively function.

 

 

 

 

 

• The outputs provided by the system must be balanced against the inputs provided, and the allocation of the collective value must be in part based on what each has provided. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

• The senior members [holders of power] within the system must be diverse, independent, and relatively numerous.