(January 18th,
2023)
This is the third in a set of (on current plans) five
essays, in which I aim to analyze and to diagnose the woes to which we human
beings are subjected by today’s political system, and to put forward some ideas
for how we might fix them. You can find the first two at [[i]]
and [[ii]].
Today, my subject matter is Philosophy. Or, as I like to
call it, Fillosophy, with a capital F. But this will be no highfalutin, indigestible,
Germanic professorial tome! What I plan to do is explain, in as simple a way as
I can, the basics of my philosophical thinking. This essay will, however, be
(unavoidably) long: over 20,000 words! And very wide-ranging, too.
To some extent, I am re-working old ground here. For I
published an earlier draft of my system, in six essays, in June and July 2021. (These
essays are linked from the second paper I referenced above.) But today, I will focus
on those of my ideas, which I see as essential to the ways in which we human
beings will need to behave in order to move forward.
The antecedents
of my thinking
Jason Alexander
In constructing my philosophy, I have been considerably influenced
by an American thinker who calls himself Jason Alexander. (Not the actor of the
same name!) However, being what I am, I’m not shy about interpreting, extending,
or even subtly re-working other people’s ideas in order to incorporate them
into, and align them with, my own world-view.
Jason Alexander himself was in his early days a follower of the
Russian-born American philosopher, Ayn Rand. Though he was, by his own account,
expelled from the Objectivist “church” in the 1960s. As a result, I have taken
on some of Rand’s ideas, though I am certainly not a fully-fledged Randian. One
of those is her view of philosophy as a stack of five layers, branches or
dimensions.
In the terms of classical philosophy, the first four layers are
Metaphysics (what’s out there), Epistemology (how we know what we know), Ethics
(what is right and wrong for each of us to do) and Politics (how we should
organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all). The fifth is, in my view, a compote of various philosophical
ingredients, including Economics and Aesthetics. Because I like to keep my
terms simple, I have given these five branches or dimensions my own names: Be,
Think, Behave, Organize and Do.
Alexander has influenced my thinking in other ways too.
First, he makes a key distinction between Understanding (moving upwards through
the dimensions, with the ideas in each being rooted in those beneath it) and
Overstanding or Superstition (moving downwards, with each dimension being
driven by the ones above it). I have adopted his distinction, although I prefer
to use the words “bottom-up” and “top-down.”
Second, his view of history, which he calls Ages and
Stages, posits a series of revolutions, in which we human beings move forward
into a new era, opening up increased capabilities. But each revolution is
followed by a counter-revolution from our enemies: those that want to halt our
progress, or even to haul us down back towards where we came from. I gave my
version of the ages and stages, revolutions and counter-revolutions, in the
second essay in this set.
Third, I very much appreciate the distinction which he makes
between Civilization and Politics. The way I look at it, Civilization is
bottom-up social organization, fuelled by Understanding. Whereas Politics is top-down
social organization, fuelled by Overstanding.
Ayn Rand
From Alexander, I move to his teacher Rand, who is something
of a cult figure among many US liberty lovers.
One idea of Rand’s I consider a breakthrough comes in the
area of ethics. She wrote, rather obscurely: “The fact that a living entity is,
determines what it ought to do. So much for the issue of the relation
between is and ought.” Side-swipe at David Hume notwithstanding, I
interpret her first sentence to mean “What a living entity is,
determines what it ought to do.” In other words, right and wrong behaviours for
a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of that species. I
paraphrase this as “Identity determines morality.”
Right and wrong for a giraffe, for example, are different
from right and wrong for a lion. A giraffe naturally picks fruit and leaves off
the tops of tall trees; whereas a lion naturally chases, kills and eats animals
like zebra. If they tried to swap behaviours, both would go hungry, and many lions
would die through falling out of trees.
Right and wrong for a human being are different again from
right and wrong for a lion or a giraffe. But what is right and wrong for any two
individual human beings to do must be the same for both. For they are
determined by the nature of humanity; what John Locke called the “law of
Nature,” and many others have called “natural law.”
John Locke
Another thinker of the past, who has greatly helped me in
developing my system, is John Locke. His Second Treatise of Government (with a
few assists from the First) taught me most of what I know about political
philosophy. Indeed, when I come to the third and fourth dimensions of my
system, I shall make extensive use of quotations from Locke.
Frank van Dun
Another thinker who has helped me a lot is the Belgian
philosopher of law, Frank van Dun. First, he has given me a key word:
“convivial.” Literally meaning “living together,” in English this word has a
secondary meaning of feasting in good company. Or, otherwise put, of living
together well. I also use this word “convivial” in the sense of “fit to
be lived with.”
Second, he provides support for my view about the relation
between a species’ nature and its morality, at least for human beings. For he
writes: “What natural persons can or cannot do is not defined by any set of
legal rules. It is defined by their
nature, which we have to accept as ‘a given’ and to study accordingly.”
Third, I found most useful his distinction between what he
calls “the laws of conviviality” – the ethical code individuals should follow in
order to behave as convivial human beings – and “the convivial order,” the (perhaps
somewhat anarchic) order which results when everyone keeps to the laws of
conviviality. This enabled me to split the ethical and political areas of my
system, which in earlier drafts I had seen as one great big glob I called
Relate, into two distinct parts. The ethical part I now call Behave, and the
political part Organize.
Aristotle
I also include Aristotle among those who have influenced
me, even though – as I came to him late – I have directly used his ideas only
as a cross-check. I also confess that I was not much impressed by his Politics;
it is too top-down for me. Too much Plato.
However, I was positively impressed by his Ethics. And this
despite Aristotle (like Ayn Rand, whom he hugely influenced) being a virtue
ethicist, that is, one who sees ethics in terms of laundry-lists of virtues.
Whereas I think of myself as a rights ethicist, one who sees ethical behaviour
in terms of respecting the rights of others.
Franz Oppenheimer
The sixth and final thinker who has helped me is the
German Jewish philosopher, Franz Oppenheimer. His distinction between the
economic means of getting needs satisfied, “one's own labor and the equivalent
exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others,” and the political means,
“the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others,” is – rightly – famous.
And he was the first thinker to identify, and to call out for what it is, the
most egregious of all the users of this political means: the state.
To sum up
Jason Alexander, with the help of Ayn Rand, has provided
the framework for my philosophical system. Rand herself has helped me find a
key insight into where ethical standards come from. John Locke has provided the
basics of my political philosophy. Frank van Dun has provided me with the key
word “convivial,” has given some support for my thinking on the relation
between species and morality, and has enabled me to separate ethics clearly
from politics. Aristotle has provided a most useful cross-check. And Franz Oppenheimer
has, more clearly than any of the others, identified the primary enemies of
humanity: the state, and the politics it spawns.
Overview of my system
I will repeat here the overview diagram of my philosophical system. It was originally published in 2021 in the third of my set of six essays.
Figure 1 –
Overview of my philosophical system (Honest Common Sense 2.0)
As indicated at the left, my system follows the progression
which Jason Alexander calls Understanding, with each dimension being driven by
the ones below it, rather than the ones above it.
In each dimension, there are one or more Processes, which take
place in that dimension. At the right are the Product or Products of the
dimension. All these dimensions are shown from the point of view of a human
being: a member of the species Humanity.
In the Be dimension, Identity is what things are. Each
and every existent has an Identity. This includes sentient beings, such as
humans. For me, and presumably for you, the product of this dimension is
Humanity; reflecting that we are human beings. And, as we discovered at the
Neolithic revolution, it is natural for us to take control of our surroundings,
and to make them into a better place for us to live.
In the Think dimension, I have followed Jason Alexander’s
definition of knowledge: “Knowledge is the Identification of Identity.”
Knowledge is obtained by identifying what is. Our nature in this
dimension is to examine the facts in any matter, and to use our ability to
reason to arrive at deductions and conclusions, which we can then add to our
store of Knowledge. It was in ancient Greek times that we discovered how to do
this.
In the Behave dimension, there are three processes, all of
which will be important in what follows. I shall go into more detail about
these later. Overall, our nature in this dimension is to behave as human
beings; to follow the ethical principles which are natural to us. And the
product of the dimension is Conviviality. That is, the quality of being
convivial, or otherwise put, fit to be lived with. It was at the Renaissance
that we enjoyed a revolution of the human spirit, instituted a long overdue
revival of moral philosophy, and began a journey of discovery towards
understanding our nature.
In the Organize dimension, there are four processes. Again,
I will discuss them in more detail later. In the round, our nature in this
dimension is to build civilizations, which provide the maximum benefit to every
individual in them. It was at the Enlightenment that we began to understand this
aspect of our nature. And the product of the dimension is bottom-up Civilization;
as opposed to the top-down Politics under which we suffer today.
In the highest dimension, Do, the processes reflect that
our natures as human beings lead us to create, to work and to trade with each
other in order to get satisfaction of our needs. Franz Oppenheimer’s “economic
means” is built into our natures as human beings. I summarize this in the
phrase: “What Creativity creates, Economics exchanges, and Aesthetics
appreciates.” And the Industrial Revolution enabled us to set this aspect of
our nature into action.
The twin products of this dimension are Realization, Jason
Alexander’s name for the products of Civilization, and Fulfilment, the best
translation I could find of Aristotle’s eudaimonia.
In the bottom-up progression of dimensions, our Identity
is as human beings. In turn, Identification of what is, and the Knowledge it
generates, lead us towards understanding the world around us, and towards
understanding ourselves. So, our Knowledge drives the processes of our Behave
dimension. Next, these processes of ethical equality, honesty and respect for
human rights, and the Conviviality they engender, drive social Organization.
And the Civilization, generated by the processes of our fourth dimension,
generates the environment in which we can Do what is natural for us to do.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is bottom-up philosophy; with both a capital B and
a capital F.
Next, I shall look at the individual dimensions. My
treatments of the first, second and fifth dimensions will be fairly brief. In
the third and fourth, which are the operative areas for diagnosing and fixing
the problems we suffer today, I shall go into a little more detail.
The Be dimension
In the Be dimension, equivalent to classical Metaphysics,
there are two questions to be answered. One, what’s out there? To which, my
answer is: Reality. Two, what am I? To which I answer, I am a human being. The
first of these questions I think of as the general question of the first
dimension, applying to the Universe as a whole. The second, the specific
question, applies to each individual.
What do I mean by “Reality” as my answer to “what’s out
there?” I mean that the Universe exists as real stuff, independently of any
models of it I may make inside my mind. And that the only Universe (or, at
least, the only Universe relevant to me) is the one I live in. Thus far, I
broadly agree with Ayn Rand. But I do not go so far as to assign to Existence a
separate and superior status to that which she allows to Consciousness. I take,
instead, a “dual-aspect monist” view, in which existence and consciousness,
body and mind, are each two aspects of one whole. Just as space and time are
two aspects of Albert Einstein’s space-time, or the real numbers and the
imaginary numbers two aspects or projections of the complex numbers.
What do I mean when I say I am a human being? I mean that I
possess the nature of a human being in each of my dimensions. It is natural for
me, as for all other human beings, to take control of my surroundings. And to
work to make them as human-friendly as I can, and towards making our planet
into a home and garden fit for our species, Humanity. It is natural for me to seek
the full facts in any matter, and to think logically and rationally. It is
natural for me to behave according to the standards of conviviality and honesty
which are appropriate to human beings worth the name. It is natural for me to
respect the rights of those who themselves respect my equal rights. It is
natural for me to associate with others for purposes which are mutually
beneficial. It is natural for me to co-operate with others in order to build
Civilization. It is natural for me to create ideas, products or services which
are valuable to others; to trade with others for the satisfaction of my needs;
and to enjoy the fruits of my labours as I see fit.
As to Metaphysics, I regard my personal metaphysics as the
ultimate source of my world-view. Since metaphysics lives at the very lowest
level of the psyche, below rational thought, I don’t consider it very useful to
try to pick arguments about it. Metaphysical ideas can be disproved, if they
lead to contradictions; but they cannot be proved.
With regard to animals, I take the view that humans are
currently the most developed sentient beings on this planet. And it is in our
nature to make use of animals (or, as some would say, other animals) for
purposes which benefit us. Though we should, of course, always treat them as
the sentient beings they are.
A point regarding the status of humans in comparison to
animals. Like any other sentient being, we humans have within our nature an instinct
for species preservation. This naturally leads us to regard human lives and
well-being as more important than the lives and well-being of other species.
This behaviour is no different from (other) animals. A lion, for example,
always puts the interests of itself and its cubs ahead of the interests of its
prey.
I do not now go so far as to say that humans are innately superior
to other animals; though I have put forward this view in the past. But I regard
the attitude professed by many environmentalists, that the interests of
wildlife should be regarded as more important than the interests of
human beings, as not only unnatural, but also anti-human.
With regard to resources such as minerals, I take the view
that they are there for us to use wisely in order to improve our lot. And with
regard to the planet as a whole, it is in our nature to make it into a home and
garden fit for a civilized species.
As to religion, for decades now, I have expressed my
viewpoint in what I call “Neil’s Three Precepts of Religion.” My first precept
says: If you let me have my religion (or lack of it), I’ll let you have yours. My
second: Each of us has the responsibility to form our own relationship to the
source of our creativity. My third precept is a religious equivalent of Pauli’s
Exclusion Principle: If two individuals have exactly the same religion, one of
them is surplus to requirements. Otherwise put, if you’re going to have a
religion, you must make sure it’s your religion, not someone else’s.
Thus, my religious views are agnostic, and based on
tolerance of personal religion, but mistrust of institutional religion.
The Think dimension
In the Think dimension, classically Epistemology, there is
one question to be answered: How do I know what I know? To which, I answer: I
seek Knowledge by Identification. In this, I follow Jason Alexander’s
definition of Knowledge: that is, the Identification of Identity.
As to how this process of Identification (which is also
often called Reason) is supposed to work, I am again in broad agreement with
Ayn Rand. Many of her views, in turn, were inherited from ancient Greek
thinkers, particularly from the Stoics. I gave a diagram and an account of my
views in the fourth of the set of six essays. So here, I will only summarize.
“Sensation” is the sub-process of our second dimension which
receives, through our senses, the results of external stimuli. The sub-process
of “perception” then assembles the sensations into percepts; that is, specific
thoughts about things. From perception, thoughts pass upwards to “conception,”
the sub-process which forms concepts. A concept is an abstraction or
generalization, formed from a percept or from many percepts. The difference
between percept and concept is rather like the difference between arithmetic
and algebra!
Logic, the fourth sub-process, combines concepts, according
to certain rules, to form other concepts. For the fifth sub-process, I now prefer
to use Ayn Rand’s term, “Objectivity,” though I sometimes still call it “the
bullshit meter.” It is the point in your thinking at which you ask: Do my
conclusions hold up in the real world? And you look for evidence for and
against your thesis. When your conclusions have successfully been through the
validation process, you regard them as provisionally true, and add them to your
store of Knowledge.
Myself, I add to the top of the stack a sixth sub-process,
Science. I see science as a, more or less formalized, means of seeking knowledge.
Its methodology is known as the scientific method. But it’s important to note
that science, if it is to be Science, must be utterly honest. It must focus on the
facts and on hard evidence. It must make falsifiable predictions. It must aim
to be replicable by others. And it must make its theories fit observations,
rather than to try to modify, adjust or cherry-pick the data to fit the theory.
Anything – like much of today’s climate science – that purports to be science,
but isn’t entirely honest, isn’t Science. It is what I call nonscience
(rhymes with conscience).
Ideas which constitute Knowledge can themselves be pumped
back into the Think stack, to fuel further thinking. These usually arrive at
the level of Perception or Conception. They can be pumped from the inside – for
example, from your creativity, or from your memory of past situations, or from
knowledge which you have gleaned from personal experience. Or they can be
pumped from the outside – by receiving them from others, for example by reading
or hearing. They all require a pass through the bullshit meter, before you
start building other ideas on top of them. If not, you may waste your time, or
be led to wrong conclusions.
The Behave dimension
To the third dimension, Behave; classically, Ethics. As in
the first, there are two questions to be answered, one general and one
specific. The general question is: How should a conscious being behave? To
that, I answer: According to its nature. That is, according to the nature of the
species to which it belongs. This is the idea, which I earlier paraphrased as “Identity
determines morality.” The specific question is: How should I, as an individual,
behave? My answer is: According to human nature. That is, according to my
nature as a human being.
The Renaissance, our third revolution of progress, helped
us towards the goal of understanding ourselves, and so learning how to make
ourselves convivial. And it loosened the shackles of religious orthodoxy, and
gave us the chance to think for ourselves. But unfortunately, progress over the
centuries since that time has been, to say the least, slow.
Ethical equality
The ethical equality principle, the first of the three processes
within this dimension, I state as follows: What is right for one to do, is
right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa. The
principle arises from the premise that all individuals of a species have the
same nature. And therefore, that what is right and wrong for each individual to
do is the same for all individuals of the species. And this applies, in
particular, to human beings.
This principle is radical. For once accepted, it instantly blows
away the claims of moral superiority, that state functionaries and their
hangers-on arrogate to themselves. If they have a right to make laws to bind me
à la Bodin,
says the ethical equality principle, I must have an equal and opposite right to
make laws to bind them. If they are not bound by the laws they make (in
essence, the argument Boris Johnson tried to use over the Partygate scandal),
then I am not bound even by laws that I make, and certainly not
by any of the bad “laws” they have made. If they have a right to grant
privileges to their cronies, I must have an equal and opposite right to grant
privileges to whomever I choose to. If they have a right to tax me, I
must have an equal and opposite right to tax them. If the king can do no
wrong, and state functionaries are not responsible for the effects of their
actions on others, then I can do no wrong, and I have no responsibility
for the effects on others of what I do to them. And so on.
Conviviality
A second consequence of the ethical equality principle is
that for each species there must exist an ethical code of conduct, which
encapsulates the behaviours which are right (and, implicitly or explicitly, the
behaviours which are wrong) for members of that species. In particular, such a
code must exist for human beings.
Since the product of the third dimension, for humans, is
Conviviality (a word I have borrowed from Frank van Dun), I call this code the
Convivial Code. And someone who keeps to this code, or at the very least
strives always to keep to it, is a convivial human being. Otherwise put, they
are fit to be lived with. But someone that fails to keep to this code,
particularly if their failures are gross or persistent, I call a disconvivial
individual. That is the equivalent, in the realm of conviviality, to a criminal
today.
The Convivial Code encapsulates a minimum set of standards
of behaviour for all human beings worth the name. It is, in essence, a
touchstone for humanity. I do not underestimate the scale and difficulty of the
tasks of constructing in detail, and getting agreement on, the initial version
of the Code. But these are tasks which should only need to be done once. For since
the source of the Code is human nature, it will need to change only so often as
human nature itself changes, or new knowledge is gained about what it is. And
both of these are infrequent. For that reason, within a timespan such as an
individual’s lifetime, the Code will be applicable retrospectively, when and
where that is appropriate.
The ethical equality principle does not tell us anything
about what the Code actually consists of. That, we must approach by more
conventional means of ethical study. Which I shall outline later in this essay.
But I will give you, at this point, John Locke’s simple and
straightforward rendition of the Code. “Being all equal and independent, no one
ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions.” So, no
killing of human beings, no physical assaults, no infringing on others’
freedoms, and no stealing or destruction of property. There’s a lot more to the
Code than that, of course. But I’ll take Locke’s version as a crude first
approximation.
Honesty
I’ll park the Code for now, and move to the second of the
three processes in our third dimension: Honesty. Honesty is the centre-piece of
our central dimension. It is the part of us which, more than any other, makes
us convivial.
In the dictionary, “honest” can mean truthful, sincere and
free of deceit; morally correct or virtuous; honourable in principles,
intentions and actions; or trustworthy and not likely to steal, cheat or lie.
It can also mean frank and straightforward in all your dealings. It can mean
direct, open and forthright. It can mean objective, impartial and unbiased. It
can mean, as Ayn Rand defined it, never attempting to fake reality. It is a
word of many talents!
And then, there’s my own definition, which is all of the
above and more. “Honesty is being true to your nature.” Honesty is behaving as is
natural for a human being. Honesty is always striving to obey the Convivial
Code, to the very best of your abilities.
Respect for rights
The third and final process in this dimension is respect for
rights. Almost everyone would agree that all human beings have a set of rights,
often called “human rights.” The US Declaration of Independence, for example,
speaks of all men being endowed with “certain unalienable Rights,” among which are
“Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”
There are, of course, many more human rights than just
these. And there will be disagreements on precisely which “rights” are the
valid ones. But behind the exact contents of the list of rights, there is a
more fundamental question. This is: How are rights acquired?
There is a school of thought, which included the US founding
fathers, who say that rights are granted by some deity or “creator.” I can’t accept
this, because as an agnostic I require my philosophy to be independent of any
particular religious belief system. Still less can I agree with the idea,
sometimes touted by those on the political left, that rights are granted by
government. The implication of this is that whatever government can grant, it
can renege on. So, rendering the entire idea of human rights toothless and of
no practical value at all.
My solution to this problem is a simple but radical one.
For me, human rights are earned. An individual human being earns his or
her human rights, by respecting the equal human rights of others. To the extent
that an individual violates others’ rights, it is reasonable for those others,
even if they are not themselves victims as individuals, to withdraw in
reasonable proportion their respect for the rights of the violator. But those,
who respect the human rights of all those who respect their own equal rights in
return, show themselves to be human beings worth the name. And thereby, they
have earned their own human rights in full. No-one – least of all government –
should be allowed to take away even one jot or one tittle of these rights.
To sum up all this, I like to say: Human rights are for
human beings.
Judgement by behaviour
Judgement by behaviour is an important adjunct to the three
principles of ethical equality, honesty and respect for rights. It represents a
practice of judging individuals by examining how they behave. It means that you
should not take too much account of things outside an individual’s control,
such as race, birthplace, social class, received religion or disability. You
should simply ask: Is this individual’s conduct appropriate for a convivial
human being? Thus, you should judge people by their actions. And, of course, their
motivations for doing what they do, as far as you can work them out.
When properly applied, judgement by behaviour can release
both judger and judged from many of the ills under which we suffer today.
Racism, sexism and class divisions become very hard indeed to justify. Cultural,
religious and even, in extremis, political barriers can also be broken
down, provided neither party tries to impose on the other their particular view
of the world, by browbeating, force or threat of force.
To sum up: It isn’t who someone is that matters, but only what
they do. Otherwise put, human is as human does.
The convivial community
In any social system in which ethics drives social
organization in a bottom-up way, there will arise, I think, a sense of fellow
feeling among all those who strive to keep up to the ethical base. In my view,
that fellow feeling will bring together all those who strive to behave
convivially, that is, according to the nature of human beings. Good people will
feel fellowship towards those who, like them, respect the ethical equality
principle, are scrupulously honest in all their dealings with others, and
respect the human rights of all those who respect their equal rights in return.
Thus Civilization, when properly implemented, supports a
community – I call it the convivial community – of those who choose to
behave up to the standards which are natural for human beings. What binds this
community together is a shared willingness to behave convivially. And the walls
of the community are the rules of behaviour, which I call the Convivial Code.
To show that I’m not merely talking through my proverbial
hat, I will end this section with some words of John Locke, from §128 of his Second
Treatise of Government. Of the individual under the law of Nature, he says: “By
which law, common to them all, he and all the rest of mankind are one
community, make up one society distinct from all other creatures. And were it
not for the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men, there would be no
need of any other, no necessity that men should separate from this great and
natural community, and associate into lesser combinations.”
So, my “convivial community” and John Locke’s “great and
natural community” are identical. And if it wasn’t for the corrupt, vicious, degenerate
men (and women) that exist among us, we wouldn’t have any need to divide ourselves
into separate groups, or to confine different groups inside their own arbitrary
geographical borders. We wouldn’t need nation-states or politics, we wouldn’t
need governments as they exist today, and we sure as hell wouldn’t need
politicians or any of their hangers-on.
The Organize dimension
In our fourth dimension, there is one question to answer.
This is: How should we organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all? Notice,
if you will, the difference between the “I” in “How should I behave?” and the
“we” in this question. The boundary between the third dimension and the fourth
is the line at which the “I” of Conviviality shades into the “we” of
Civilization.
The Enlightenment, our fourth revolution of progress, taught
us that the human individual is paramount, and human societies can only
flourish when the rights of all individuals are honoured. In particular,
government must be organized for the benefit of, and with the consent of, the
governed. And it must be for the benefit of all the governed, “as far as
by common rules it can be provided for.”
In this fourth dimension, there are four processes. I list
these as: voluntary society, common-sense justice, upholding human rights, and maximizing
freedom.
The voluntary society principle
The first process of our fourth dimension, the voluntary
society principle, I state as: All societies must be voluntary.
In order to explain the consequences of this idea, I must
first make clear the distinction between a community and a society. A community
is a group of people, who are bound together by some shared characteristic; but
not necessarily by anything more. A society, on the other hand, is a group of
people who have agreed to join together in a common cause. Examples of
communities are the people who live or work (or both) in a particular town, and
the convivial community which I described above. Examples of societies are a
football club, a musical ensemble, or a political party.
A society has some form of, usually written, constitution.
Among much else, this will state the goals of the members as a group. The
society is likely to have a president or chairman, and a committee of
officials. Under its constitution, the society makes decisions based on its
principles and interests, and acts on them. Even though some of its members may
disagree on an issue, the society as a whole takes only one view. Thus, a
society may be considered to have what Jean-Jacques Rousseau called a “general
will.”
A community, in contrast, is simply a group of people bound
together by some common characteristic. A community has no constitution. It has
no president or chairman, no officials and no goals as a group. It may spawn
societies, which act in certain respects for all those in the community; such
as an association acting on behalf of the flat owners in a block of flats. But the
members of a community have no “general will,” beyond a shared desire to make
the community as good a place as possible for all those in it.
To return to the voluntary society principle. I found
explicit support for it in a place I didn’t fully expect: the UN Declaration of
Human Rights. Article 20(2) states: “No one may be compelled to belong to an
association.” I think that those who wrote this probably had in mind
“societies” like the Hitler Youth. But their words have force against any
society, that tries to compel people to be or to become members of it, and to
behave according to the tenets and ideology of those who run that society.
Rejecting the “social contract” fiction
This distinction between society and community is not often
made by political philosophers. Even John Locke did not make it. Indeed, he frequently
used the words “society” and “community” (as well as “commonwealth”) in a way
that made them all but interchangeable.
Nevertheless, I consider the distinction to be extremely
important. I take the view that the people who inhabit a specific geographical
area, for example a village, a town, a city or the territory claimed by a
state, are not a society, but only a community. For not all of them have chosen
to sign up to the goals and principles of any one particular society. And
therefore, they cannot rightly be compelled to obey the rules of any particular
society. In religion, in politics, in diet or in anything else. In particular,
they cannot rightly be compelled to be members of a political society, or
to obey rules set by any such society.
Enter the “social contract” fiction. This was, so it seems,
invented in the 17th century by Thomas Hobbes. According to this
fiction, at some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority
of them) consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign. They
committed to each other, that they would authorize and approve whatever the
sovereign chose to do. Moreover, once the system has been set up, there is no
possibility of changing it, or of escape from it. This extremely dangerous
fiction was, unfortunately, taken on board even by later revolutionary thinkers
of the Enlightenment, including John Locke. And it still persists today.
This fiction has led to an idea accepted by far too many,
that there is something called “society” in the singular, to which everyone in
a particular area – such as the territory claimed by a nation state – belongs,
whether they want to or not. According to the narrative, all of us have agreed
to an implied contract, that makes us part of this “society,” and thus subjects
of a Hobbesian sovereign. This, in turn, makes us subject to a political
government, and to the decrees of its leaders and officials for the time being.
But wait a moment… This social contract narrative is simply
absurd. Even if my ancestors might have subscribed to such a thing (and, as far
as I know, they didn’t), I as an individual have never agreed to any social
contract! Where is my signature on any such damn thing? Moreover, where are the
statements of the benefits I am supposed to get from it, and the procedures for
me to get justice and redress if the government party fails to deliver?
Besides, what honest, truthful, productive human being would
ever want to join a society run by the present breed of lying, scamming
politicians? Come to think of it, why should any human being worth the name want
to join any society that would even accept any of those scumbag politicians, or
their thieving, destructive cronies, as members?
And it gets worse. If there is no “society” in the singular,
then how can there be any meaning at all to glib phrases like “social justice”
and “social security,” so beloved of those on the political left? Are these concepts,
perhaps, no more than attempts by the politically rich to fool us, the
politically poor, into supporting their immoral and destructive schemes?
This “social contract” narrative is not only absurd, but has
been foisted on us human beings fraudulently, by those that do not have our interests
at heart.
John Locke’s view
I shall now give you some important quotations from John
Locke’s First and Second Treatises of Government.
In his Second Treatise (§4), he started from a view of humans being naturally
in “a state of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their
possessions and persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of
Nature. A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is
reciprocal, no one having more than another.” So, in Locke’s natural law, the
way in which all human beings are equal is that they are politically
equal.
And of this law of Nature, he says: “The state of Nature has
a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that
law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and
independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or
possessions.”
He also understood that, among those genetically human, some
fail to keep to this law of Nature. They kill people, or injure them, or try to
enslave them or otherwise take away their freedoms, or steal from them, or
defraud them, or damage or destroy their property. To counter the dangers posed
by these individuals, he posits (§95)
that a group of people may choose to form a “political society.” This they do
“by agreeing to join and unite into a community for their comfortable, safe and
peaceable living.” This is Locke’s idea of a social contract. But he is very
clear about the purposes of such an agreement. “The great and chief end,
therefore, of men uniting into commonwealths, and putting themselves under
government,” he says in §124,
“is the preservation of their property.” And in §57: “The end of law is not to abolish or restrain,
but to preserve and enlarge freedom.”
Moreover, he cautions in §12 that “a great part of the municipal laws of
countries” are no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men,
following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” And such laws are “only
so far right as they are founded on the law of Nature.”
Of governments, he says in §135: “Their power in the utmost bounds of it is
limited to the public good of the society. It is a power that hath no other end
but preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or
designedly to impoverish the subjects.” And the “public good” he defines in the
First Treatise, §92:
“the good of every particular member of that society, as far as by common rules
it can be provided for.”
In §140
of the Second Treatise, he addresses taxation. “It is true governments cannot
be supported without great charge, and it is fit every one who enjoys his share
of the protection should pay out of his estate his proportion for the
maintenance of it.” I read this as meaning that each individual should pay, for
any period in which government defends his assets, in proportion to the benefit
he receives from that protection. And I read “out of his estate his proportion”
as saying that what he is expected to pay should be in direct proportion to his
total wealth. That means, the only tax should be what would today be called a
fixed-rate wealth tax. So, there should be no taxes on incomes or on transactions,
no taxes at all on the very poorest, and very definitely no impositions on some
kinds of people but not others! As Locke says in §142: “One rule for rich and poor, for the favourite
at Court, and the countryman at plough.”
In §149,
he says of government power: “All power given with trust for the attaining an
end being limited by that end, whenever that end is manifestly neglected or
opposed, the trust must necessarily be forfeited, and the power devolve into
the hands of those that gave it.” Further, the people always retain “a supreme
power to remove or alter the legislative, when they find the legislative act
contrary to the trust reposed in them.”
In §199,
he speaks of tyranny. “Tyranny is the exercise of power beyond right, which
nobody can have a right to.” He describes two aspects of tyranny. First:
“making use of the power any one has in his hands, not for the good of those
who are under it, but for his own private, separate advantage.” And second: “when
the governor, however entitled, makes not the law, but his will, the rule, and
his commands and actions are not directed to the preservation of the properties
of his people, but the satisfaction of his own ambition, revenge, covetousness,
or any other irregular passion.”
Moreover, he says in §201:
“Wherever the power that is put in any hands for the government of the people
and the preservation of their properties is applied to other ends, and made use
of to impoverish, harass or subdue them to the arbitrary and irregular commands
of those that have it, there it presently becomes tyranny.”
He says in §221:
“The legislative acts against the trust reposed in them when they endeavour to
invade the property of the subject, and to make themselves, or any part of the
community, masters or arbitrary disposers of the lives, liberties or fortunes
of the people.” And they are entitled (§222)
“to resume their original liberty.”
And Locke is very clear and forthright, when he says in §225: “But if a long
train of abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way, make
the design visible to the people, and they cannot but feel what they lie under,
and see whither they are going, it is not to be wondered that they should then
rouse themselves, and endeavour to put the rule into such hands which may
secure to them the ends for which government was at first erected.”
Good and bad laws
To apply John Locke’s insights to our situation today. Are
the laws, that are being made by political governments today, directed towards
the preservation of our property? Are they being made for the public good, that
is, the good of every single individual among the governed, as far as it can be
maintained by common rules? Or are they being used to impoverish us, to harass
us, for the “private advantage” of those in power, or to subdue us to their
wills or their “irregular passions?” Are these laws being made to preserve and
enlarge our freedom, or to restrain or even to abolish it?
Further, is everyone paying taxes in direct proportion to
the benefit they receive from government, and no more? Or are tax laws being used
to favour certain interests or agendas, against the interests of the rest of
us?
Now, there do exist some good laws on statute books all over
the world. Against murder, for example. Or rape, or other violent aggression. Or
theft, or fraud, or property destruction; or stalking. Such laws, when properly
defined and implemented, can help to protect our rights such as life, property,
security of person and privacy. Good laws can also serve to protect our
freedoms, by preventing others from putting obstacles in the way of us
exercising them. Such freedoms include: A general presumption of liberty of choice
and of action. Freedom of movement. Freedom of religion. Freedom of opinion,
expression and communication. And the right of parents to choose how their
children are to be educated.
Now, if you will, please take a few moments to review my first
essay in this set. In just the first few hundred words there, I gave many
examples of our rights and freedoms being violated by governments, in the UK
and elsewhere. In the main part of that essay, I recounted the “long train of
abuses, prevarications and artifices, all tending the same way” that has been
used to build up the spectre of an, in reality non-existent, “climate emergency.”
This emergency, so its supporters claim, demands “action” up to and including
the destruction of human industrial civilization. And towards the end, I made a
list, based on the UN Declaration of Human Rights, of some of our rights and
freedoms, which are particularly under threat from government today.
Here is a paraphrase of that list, with a few recent
examples added.
Our privacy is in tatters. We are stalked by cameras
recording where we go, and our on-line activity is monitored and recorded. Our
freedom of movement has been unreasonably limited, with the threat posed by COVID
used as a lame excuse. Further, more and more local authorities are making it
harder to drive in and around our cities, with traffic controls, punitive
charges and restrictions springing up everywhere without any objective
justification or meaningful consultation. And even bigger violations are now planned,
such as forbidding residents of cities like Oxford to drive their cars out of
their immediate neighbourhoods.
Tax laws have been made that unfairly harm certain groups of
people. (Including me.) These have also violated the right to free choice of
employment. And most of what we are forced to pay in taxation simply disappears
into the maw of the state and its cronies and hangers-on. Only a small part of
it comes back to us in the form of services we actually want.
Our freedoms of opinion and expression are under very
serious threat. And social media and Internet censorship are being introduced via
a so-called “on-line safety” bill. Moreover, our freedoms of association and peaceful
assembly have been gravely curtailed.
Moreover, governments are violating equality before the law,
and so trashing the rule of law. (Think Partygate).
Furthermore, they are failing to allow a fair and public
hearing of accusations made against us (such as being responsible for “global
warming”), or an independent and impartial tribunal to judge such accusations.
And they do not respect the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, and
the guarantees necessary for us to be able to defend ourselves.
Edmund Burke, almost a century after Locke, told us, rightly,
that “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny.” It is clear, beyond all doubt,
that many if not most of the laws being made by political governments today are
bad laws. As John Locke would say, they are “the fancies and intricate
contrivances of men.” If not also tyranny, fuelled by “private, separate
advantage,” “covetousness,” “irregular passion,” or all three.
These bad laws, not being founded on or even related to the
behaviours natural to human beings, are therefore wrong to impose on
human beings. Promoting, actively supporting, making or enforcing such laws,
far from being valid things for government to do, are actually real
wrongdoings. They are disconvivial acts; or, in common parlance, crimes.
Common-sense justice
The second process in our fourth dimension is the
common-sense justice principle. I state it as follows: Every individual
deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as
practicable, as he or she treats others. Thus, common-sense justice is
individual justice. As with ethical equality, this principle at first sight
looks obvious; and clearly fair, to boot.
Some view this idea as like the slightly scary figure of
“Mrs. Be-done-by-as-you-did” in Charles Kingsley’s The Water Babies. Or
the vision of the prophet Obadiah: “As thou hast done, it shall be done unto
thee: thy reward shall return upon thine own head.” But the principle also
implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do, harm to innocent people, you don’t
deserve to suffer harms being done to you. On the other side, if you do harm to
others, or seek to do harm to others, or to impose on others unreasonable risks
of harm, then you should be required to compensate those you harmed, and if
appropriate to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did. So,
why should anyone feel scared by this principle, unless they have done a wrong,
or wrongs, they feel a need to hide?
The principle, also, has radical repercussions. For it blows
away two more pillars of the political state, beyond those already knocked over
by the ethical equality principle. These are the ideas of sovereign immunity
and “the king can do no wrong.” Indeed, since a wrongdoer that has had
political power is likely to have done more harm than those who have not, the (formerly)
powerful will often be the hardest hit by stringent application of the
principle.
Common-sense justice teams up with the “judgement by
behaviour” idea I discussed above. Together, they provide an ideal of justice,
in which what matters is not who an individual is, but only what they do
(and, on some occasions, their motives for doing it). It doesn’t (or shouldn’t)
matter what colour someone’s skin is. It doesn’t matter where they were born.
It doesn’t matter what religion they were brought up in. It doesn’t matter what
their gender or their sexual preferences may be. All that matters are their
actions and their intent towards others. Thus, under common-sense justice,
everyone is truly “equal before the law.”
And when common-sense justice is translated into the
economic sphere, I like to summarize its effects in an aphorism only one word
different from an infamous slogan popularized by Karl Marx. Here’s my version: “From
each according to his ability, to each according to his deserts.” Now that’s
justice!
It is with the process of common-sense justice that that the
idea of a new form of governance, to supersede the political state, first comes
into view. I call my proposed system “just governance,” and I will give a brief
outline a little later. The primary function of just governance will be to
deliver common-sense justice to all those who require it, and to all those that
deserve it.
Moreover, when an ideal of common-sense justice is in place,
I expect it to lead to a far better tone of life than we have today. For, if
you want to be treated better by others, all you have to do is find a way to
treat others better!
Upholding human rights
The third process in our fourth dimension is upholding human
rights. Beyond the delivery of common-sense justice, the major secondary
function of just governance will be to uphold the rights of all convivial human
beings. That is, to uphold the rights of all those who respect the equal rights
of others.
These rights will, of course, include all the rights and
freedoms I listed in my discussion on good laws, above. But there will be a
whole lot more. I envisage these rights as being defined by, or as I like to
put it “back-to-backed” with, the obligations of the Convivial Code.
Maximizing freedom
The fourth and last process in our fourth dimension is
maximizing freedom. I like to put this as “maximum freedom for everyone,
consistent with living in a civilized community.” And maximum freedom for an
individual is, of course, conditional on that individual respecting the equal
rights of others. Just governance will be able, much like today’s systems, to
place restrictions on the freedoms of those that have been proven to have
committed a disconvivial act or acts, in proportion to the severity of the act
or acts.
There will also be a general presumption of freedom. The
Convivial Code will contain, as far as feasible, all the known prohibitions
against disconvivial behaviour. Anything not prohibited will be allowed, unless
it violates others’ rights, or causes or is intended to cause unjust harm to
others. To sum this up: Except where countermanded by justice, the Convivial
Code or respect for rights, every individual is free to choose and act as he or
she wishes.
Just governance
Just governance is my design for a new form of governance to
supersede the political state. I see its remit as to enable people to live
together in an environment of peace and tranquillity, common-sense justice, and
maximum rights and freedom for every individual. In particular, just governance
will not allow anyone to try to impose, by browbeating, force or threat of
force, any particular political or religious ideology on others.
I described just governance at some length in the fifth
essay of my set of six. The following section consists mainly of extracts from
that essay, which summarize the main features.
The primary function of just governance will be provision of
common-sense justice to all. Maintenance of peace and tranquillity, and the
upholding of the human rights of all those who respect others’ equal rights,
are also important functions. And just governance will allow maximum freedom
for everyone, consistent with living in a civilized community.
In practical terms, the aim of just governance will be to
minimize injustice. It will seek to avoid any gross or persistent treatment of
individuals worse than they treat others.
Just governance will also include strong quality assurance
on its own processes. And, it will need some subsidiary functions, such as
diplomacy with other just governances and, for a time, with legacy states.
Put succinctly, just governance will be governance of
convivial people, by convivial people, for convivial people. It will govern
communities of individuals, in much the same way as a referee governs a
football match. It will also adjudicate as needed on the relationships between
those individuals, the voluntary societies to which they belong, and other
individuals and societies they interact with.
Just governance will have no legislative
Crucially, just governance will not have any permanent
legislative. For its code of law, the Convivial Code, comes from human nature,
not from edicts made by political elites. Thus, once it has been specified and
agreed, it will need to change only so often as human nature itself changes, or
new knowledge is gained about what it is.
Any proposed variations to the Code will need to go through
an exhaustive and public change control process. Comparable, perhaps, in
difficulty with getting an amendment agreed to the US constitution.
Furthermore, when the Code is updated, all parties to contracts must agree if
they wish to move to the new version; if not, they will stay with the old.
The character of just governance
Just governance will be bottom-up and de-politicized. It
will focus on the individual, and on small communities. And it will not allow
any political or religious ideology or agenda to be imposed on any of the
governed against their wills.
In structure, it will be like a network, not a hierarchy. It
will have no central or commanding point, at which undue concentration of political
power can collect. Except in clear emergency, it will be reactive rather than
pro-active. And it will have no mechanisms to enable one interest group
unjustly to override the interests of others.
Just governance will never interfere in matters like
religion, personal health, education or welfare, that are outside its remit.
Moreover, it will not seek to control or to meddle with economic activity in
any way. It will not interfere with any activity, unless there is reasonable
suspicion of rights violation, fraud or actual harm being done to someone; or of
intention to violate rights, to defraud or to cause harm; or of criminal
negligence; or of recklessness beyond the bounds of reason.
Just governance must work, initially, in a defined
geographical territory. However, I want it to be adaptable to a future
non-territorial system, in which governance companies will compete for
individual customers in the free market, as insurance companies do today. And I
want it to be able to adapt as people move in or out of communities, or as the
population of an area rises or falls, or as tastes change. So, I envisage that,
at need, communities or neighbourhoods will be able to amalgamate or split.
Moreover, the de-centralized and networked nature of just
governance should enable it to be scaled up to areas inhabited by hundreds of
thousands, or even millions, of people. Eventually, so I foresee, it can grow
to become world-wide. But this will not be a “world government,” or anything
like it. Its growth and its modus operandi will be bottom-up like the
Internet, not top-down like the European Union or United Nations.
The judicial function
The primary institutions of just governance will be
judicial, including impartial arbitration of disputes and assessment of
externalities and risks. The major institution will be courts of just
governance.
Where will the authority of just governance come from? Why
should convivial people obey and uphold its judgements? The answer must be,
that the decisions it makes must be accepted by very many convivial people. The
common-sense nature of the justice principle will play a large part in this.
But just governance must also operate in a way which is objective, thorough,
impartial, and totally honest; and which ensures that everything it does, it
does in good faith. Ultimately, the authority of just governance can only come
from its impartiality, its objectivity, its honesty, and the common-sense
nature of its principles.
Furthermore, just governance must always seek the truth of
the matter, and weigh the evidence on both sides. It must always place the
burden of proof on the side demanding action from governance; and most of all,
if they seek to restrict anyone’s rights or freedoms. It must be quantitative
where necessary. It must assure rights such as due process, a fair hearing, and
the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. It must keep meticulous
records, and make them open to public inspection. And it must not allow its
processes to be influenced by lies, hype or agendas of any kind. Indeed, the
judicial function in just governance will not be so different from the best
justice systems extant today. Except, of course, that just governance will be
entirely free from all politics.
As far as detailed legal procedures are concerned, I see no
reason why existing mechanisms should not continue locally, as long as they are
honest and consistent with the Convivial Code. For example, juries will
continue to be used where they have traditionally been used.
Moreover, under just governance, the procedural rights,
which parties have when accused in a court of just governance, will be extended
to all confrontational situations, even those in which just governance itself
is not directly involved. For example, disciplinary hearings at work must
assure due process, fair hearing and presumption of innocence, just as they
would be assured in a court of just governance.
Restorative and retributive justice
As in today’s legal systems, I expect there will be a
separation between two areas of justice. On the one hand, arbitration and
restorative justice; that is, the resolution of disputes, and the calculation
and ordering of restitution for wrongs. And on the other hand, criminal or
retributive justice.
I expect that restorative justice in just governance will be
similar to the equivalent in the best legal systems in place today; except that
it will be totally non-politicized. It will enable those who have unjustly
suffered objective, quantifiable wrongs to claim compensation from the
perpetrators of the wrongs. Failure to act, where this failure causes damage to
another, can also be taken into account. I expect that, as today, restitutions
will usually be financial. Just governance will have power to confiscate and
sell assets for the purpose of compensating victims. Those without sufficient
resources (money or assets) to pay the restitutions may be subjected to an
indenture on their future earnings.
Retributive justice, on the other hand, will subject the
perpetrators of disconvivial acts not only to orders for restitution to the
victims where appropriate, but also to penalties comparable to criminal
punishments today. But, unlike today’s systems, I expect that these penalties
will be reserved for cases in which the perpetrator, in addition to acting
disconvivially, shows mens rea, the “guilty mind.” There must be bad
faith; or intent to violate rights, cause harm or damage; or criminal
negligence; or irresponsibility beyond the bounds of reason. The old adage will
always apply: “No punishment without guilt.”
As to the criminal penalties which may be imposed, I expect
that these will almost never be of a financial nature. Nor will the punishments
be physical, unless the crime is reckoned sufficiently heinous, or the
perpetrator sufficiently dangerous to others, to justify imprisonment. And
where it is necessary to withdraw a right (such as freedom of movement) as part
of a criminal penalty, the withdrawal can only be temporary, for a stated
period. Thus, there will be no death penalty for common crimes.
Those guilty of political crimes that result in death
or deaths of innocent people, on the other hand, do deserve the death penalty.
In particular, any politician, military official or military supplier that promoted,
actively supported, or took part in warlike acts of aggression against innocent
people, such as the Western invasion of Iraq, air strikes in Syria, or the
Russian invasion of Ukraine, deserves death. Preferably, at the hands of the
relatives and friends of the victims of those acts of aggression.
Where neither death nor imprisonment is appropriate, then
since it is the mind which has committed an offence, it is the mind that should
be punished. Thus, most criminal punishments are likely to be demeaning rather
than debilitating; successors, maybe, to the stocks of Tudor England. They will
be accompanied by publication of a formal statement of the crime, in order to
allow those who so wish to choose to ostracize the criminal.
Another old adage which will apply is: “The punishment must
always fit the crime.” And not just in terms of proportionality to the
seriousness of the offence. The type of the punishment should be strongly
influenced, or even determined, by the type of the offence.
Externalities and risk
Another aspect of the judicial function will be to make
objective assessments of actual or alleged externalities (side effects), such
as pollution or noise, which cause, or can reasonably be expected to cause,
damage to others. If appropriate, those that cause such externalities will be
made to compensate the individuals and groups affected by the damage they
caused, each in proportion to the amount of harm they suffer. In extreme cases,
an activity, that causes externalities greater than the benefits it brings to
those who do it, could be banned altogether.
Then there is risk. One principle, which will be included in
the Convivial Code, is that those doing activities which cause risks to others
must be required to have sufficient resources available (for example, through
insurance) to be able to compensate those harmed, if damage does result from
the risk. But beyond this, the judicial function will be able to analyze and
assess actual or alleged risks, in much the same way as for externalities. The
analysis must be objective, impartial, honest, quantitative and rigorous, and
will assess the cost and benefit effects on the individuals and groups on both
sides of the risks.
Appeals and pardons
I envisage that there will be an appeal procedure, in the
event of a party being aggrieved by a decision. But there will be no pre-chosen
final arbiter, such as a supreme court. Instead, there will be a limit on the
number of times a decision can be taken to appeal. It will also be possible for
the quality control function of just governance to order a review of a
decision.
Just governance will not issue pardons without a good
reason. The only way in which a pardon can be issued, will be through a court
decision. Though a court will be able to lessen or set aside criminal
punishments out of clemency, if the situation objectively warrants it.
Secondary aims and functions
The secondary aims of just governance are upholding human rights,
and allowing maximum freedom for everyone. That freedom, of course, must be
tempered by individual responsibility for the effects of willed actions on
others. Under just governance, everyone will be held accountable for the
reasonably foreseeable effects of their willed actions on others.
The function that upholds rights would correspond, in
today’s terms, to a police force. I envisage that there will be people trained
and paid to do this function; and they would do many of the things police today
do. Such as check out incidents, investigate possible crimes, and bring
perpetrators to justice for trial. In addition, every adult will have the right
to arrest anyone they reasonably suspect of a real wrongdoing, and bring them
to justice. But except in clear emergency, just governance will be reactive
rather than pro-active. In particular, it will not send agents to lie in wait
on the off chance that someone may break some petty rule.
Other aspects of the upholding rights function would be the
emergency services which today are often required, with or without police, at
or after incidents. Under the same heading, when required, would come dealing
with disasters such as floods, and defence against invaders, military
aggressors and violent gangs. I envisage that volunteers would be trained and
retained to take on such functions, if and when they become necessary.
Local and emergency rules
There will, at times and in places, be a need to make what I
call “local rules.” These are sane, sensible, non-politicized conventions for
the benefit of all users of the public space (that is, space open to all) in
the local area. For example, rules of priority for traffic junctions. But local
rules must be kept to a minimum. Any proposed new local rules must be submitted
to a court for consideration. And any disputes over local rules will be heard
by a court in the normal way.
There may also be a need to make temporary rules in the
event of a clear emergency, such as a flood or an epidemic. The scope of such
rules must be as limited as possible. And objective, rigorous risk assessments
and cost-benefit analyses must be done on the effects of the rules, both
positive and negative. Any such rule, that has not been rigorously justified
within a very short period of its introduction, must be struck down. Further,
all such rules must be regularly audited. And any rule that is shown to have
failed to deliver the benefits promised from it, or is no longer delivering the
benefits promised for it, must also be struck down.
Supporting functions
I have described, above, the three major functions of just
governance: delivering justice, upholding rights and maximizing freedom for
all. But there are at least two supporting functions in addition.
The first of these is quality control. This must maintain a
constant ethical watch on the actions of governance as a whole, and of the
individuals who constitute it. It could include psychological testing of those,
such as judges and assessors, whose power if misused could lead to miscarriages
of justice. The quality control function must also assure that the functions of
governance are being performed as they should be. If things are not being done
up to standard, matters can be sent to a court for review. The quality control
function will also be involved in the appeals procedure.
The second supporting function is co-ordination, as needed,
with other governances. Bearing in mind the need to be able to govern a wide
area without there being a point at which power can collect, and the need – for
a time – for just governance to co-exist with legacy states, I envisage some
form of diplomatic function. This would maintain relations with, and negotiate
as needed with, other governances on matters which affect both parties, such as
the planning and development of proposed new infrastructure.
A possible structure for just governance
I am well aware that to try to specify in detail how just
governance will work is a bit Utopian. This section, therefore, puts forward a
few off-the-wall ideas for how things might work. It surely will be
subject to change during development!
Just governance will be, by design, de-centralized. The
communities, in which the governed live, will be small enough to produce
diverse “flavours” of community for people of different tastes. I have in mind
a town or small city, with a population range of a few thousands up to perhaps
a hundred thousand. Economically, different communities will tend to specialize
in different things. So, there will be much trade, both between neighbouring
communities and between those further apart.
Moreover, free movement will be the norm. Change of
residence, while requiring agreement from those in the receiving neighbourhood,
will be easy enough that dis-satisfied convivial people can choose to move to
places more congenial to them. Visitors, who behave convivially, will be free
to go anywhere in the public space they wish. And temporary, periodic and
permanent migration will be controlled only at the lowest, neighbourhood, level.
The institutions
The institutions of just governance, too, will be built from
the bottom up. I envisage, first, local or neighbourhood organizations, on a
scale of a few hundred people. And second, community organizations, on the
scale of a town or small city. There will also be governance institutions,
which can provide services on a wider basis than just a single community.
On the few occasions on which a larger scale of agreement
and co-operation is necessary between neighbouring communities – for example,
fighting a defensive war, or agreeing on what infrastructure is to be developed
– this will be accomplished through alliances. These alliances may be ad-hoc
and temporary, or longer-lasting. And in them, representatives of the different
communities will work for the benefit of all they govern.
The institutions will be divided, I think, between those
whose services must be local to a particular community, and those providing
services on a wider geographical scale. Both will be project management and
contracting organizations. I envisage that they will have few direct employees.
Instead, they will source staff as needed from pools of suitably skilled and
qualified individuals; who may either be independents, or work for skill-based agencies.
On the wider scale, I expect the services to include: Judges
and arbitrators. Detectives. Risk and cost-benefit assessors. Diplomats and
negotiators. And quality auditors. The people who do these jobs will work, at
different times, on behalf of different communities. Judges in particular, I
expect, will travel from place to place, as they used to in the days of
assizes. And quality auditors will most likely be senior individuals assigned
from another branch of just governance (such as judges or assessors) to a
particular community for a fixed term.
At the community level, I expect the services to include:
Police (except detectives), firemen, paramedics and other first responders.
Maintaining a capability for military defence. Making and administering local
(and, at need, emergency) rules as required. Providing premises and support
staff for courts of just governance. And maintaining pre-existing
infrastructure in the public space, such as roads and footpaths.
The neighbourhood
I envisage that the neighbourhood of just governance (NJG)
will be a voluntary society in a neighbourhood of a few hundred people, for
those who take an interest in just governance locally. Its main functions will
be to conserve the special characteristics of the local area, and to assess
possible changes to it. All local planning decisions will be taken at the NJG level,
except those which also impact other neighbourhoods in the community. Assessing
the suitability of potential incoming migrants, permanent or temporary, will
also be done at the NJG level. And I expect it will be possible for NJGs to
amalgamate via “friendly union,” or to split via “friendly secession,” as
circumstances demand.
Interested people in the neighbourhood will meet regularly
to discuss matters affecting their neighbourhood. They will make decisions by what
is in essence direct democracy. The NJG as an institution will probably be
closer to an area residents’ association than anything else that exists today.
The members of the NJG will choose representatives to uphold the interests of
the people in the neighbourhood in discussions at the next, community, level.
The community
I envisage the community of just governance (CJG) to be a
unit large enough to be economically viable in the free market. (This is not
the same thing as being self-sufficient without outside trade; that would
require a far larger unit.) I expect its usual size to be in the tens of
thousands of people. I expect that CJGs, too, could amalgamate or split as
needed.
I envisage that CJGs will probably be non-profit companies.
I expect the remit of a CJG to be closer to that of a town council than
anything else today. It might well be headed by a mayor.
I would expect the CJG, first, to organize those functions
of just governance which must be delivered at the local level, such as first
response to incidents, and local military defence where necessary. Second, to
make “local rules” which are appropriate to the area; and, in an emergency
situation, to make rules for dealing with the emergency in the community. And third,
to maintain the local infrastructure.
In addition to the regular discussions on CJG-level matters
among the representatives from the NJGs, I expect there would be periodic (probably
yearly) meetings open to all community residents, something like a New England
open town meeting. One of the likely functions of the town meeting would be to
elect the mayor, and to elect those who will represent the CJG in any alliances
or negotiations with other governances which may be necessary.
The wider level
The institution which I expect to deliver those services of
just governance which can be managed and delivered from outside any particular
CJG, I have dubbed the Society for Just Governance (SJG). An SJG will probably be
a non-profit company. It will be the nearest equivalent in just governance to a
government today. It will be a project management and contracting organization,
using externally sourced skills, such as detectives, judges, diplomats and
quality auditors, to do the work. It will compete with other SJGs in the free
market.
It is important to note that SJGs will not be territorial.
In that way, they will be like insurance companies, not like political states.
At any time, an SJG will govern one or more CJGs. A CJG will
be able to switch SJGs, subject to reasonable notice. And ideally, in the
longer term, NJGs or even individual households should be able to select which
SJG they prefer; just as people today can choose their supplier for their home
contents insurance.
How to pay for just governance
Next, a thorny issue: How should just governance be paid
for? In my view, what an individual is expected to pay for just governance
should be in proportion to the benefit he or she gets from it. I see the
benefits provided by just governance – for example, protection of property – as
being in direct proportion to the individual’s total wealth. Thus, periodic
payments should be in proportion to the individual’s total wealth at the time.
I did a back-of-an-envelope calculation, which suggested
that (as of 2017) just over 10 per cent of UK government spending goes on core
governance functions, such as courts, police and military defence. This gives a
ball-park figure for the expected costs of just governance; though I would hope
that, with stringent auditing, those costs could be reduced further.
Of the remaining government functions, those services which
are necessary, but not part of core governance – such as welfare, pensions, health
care and education – need to be de-politicized, with control being passed to
those who provide those services. And new, just and more flexible financial
arrangements will have to be devised. Development of new infrastructure will
also need to be reviewed. I would expect that, under just governance, most new
infrastructure would be paid for by user fees, such as tolls.
As an important feature of the system of payment for just
governance, there will be no taxes on incomes or on transactions. Nor will there
be any re-distributory or confiscatory taxation.
Money and currency
Money, in some form, is vital to the functioning of any
economy. And the broader the range of skills and interests among those taking
part in an economy, the more vital money becomes.
Who should be able to issue money under just governance? I
confess I’m in two minds about this question. It’s tempting to answer, anyone
who has the resources to honour the money they issue. That would be, in
essence, a return to the early days of banking. But might it not lead to a
cacophony of competing currencies, which could easily descend into chaos
whenever an issuer fails, and their money becomes worthless?
On the other hand, it occurs to me that a convenient way to
finance just governance might be to have a single currency, shared by an alliance
of CJGs. (Which I might as well call an AJG, or Alliance for Just Governance.) And
then, to allow the currency to be inflated by a fixed, small amount each month
or year. This should ensure that the periodic payments for just governance are in
direct proportion to the value of assets denominated in that currency. In the
process, it would do away with taxation, as it exists today, altogether!
I extended my back-of-the-envelope calculation for the UK in
2017, suggesting that all the protective functions of just governance could be
covered by inflating the currency at about 1.3% per year (at a historical
average of GDP to wealth). Or 1.5% per year to cover all functions of
just governance.
As a wild shot at a potential solution, consider the
following. Banks for Just Governance (BJGs) would issue currencies. These
currencies would probably be linked to the values of suitable baskets of
commodities, which may include precious metals. Beyond changes in the commodity
prices, a BJG would be allowed to inflate its currency each year by a
percentage sufficient to cover the needs of the CJGs it serves. Each year, each
CJG town meeting should be able to elect its BJG (and so currency) for the subsequent
year. The proceeds of the inflation they have authorized would then be passed
each month to the CJGs to cover their operating expenses.
I can see, in my mind’s eye, economists shaking their heads
at such a wild idea. But can anyone out there come up with a better one?
The Do dimension
The final dimension, Do, is where we get things done. As I
said earlier: What Creativity creates, Economics exchanges, and Aesthetics
appreciates.
The single most important attribute of this dimension will
be the economic free market, supported by just governance from the fourth
dimension. In a truly free market, no-one is prevented from justly acquiring,
or justly using, wealth. There are no arbitrary barriers or obstacles to the
provision of goods or services. There are no arbitrary restrictions on what, or
with whom, individuals or societies may trade – or, indeed, not trade if they
so choose. There are no tariffs on goods or services crossing arbitrary
boundaries. And there are no taxes beyond what is strictly necessary to support
the framework of just governance, which underlies the free market.
I expect that there will be a very diverse mix of economic
actors. While there will still be some large companies, the political
privileges that protected them from smaller competitors will have been taken
away. I expect many new, small, nimble companies to arise. The one-person
business, far from being discouraged or all but banned as is the case today,
will become a new normal for people who like to be independent. Indeed, many
people who play important roles in just governance – even judges – will be
independents. And older forms of business, such as the family business, the
partnership and the co-operative, I expect to gain new leases of life.
As to energy: Abundant, affordable, reliable energy is a
necessity for a productive economy. Energy resources, along with other natural
resources, will continue to be used; very much so! But they will be used
wisely.
I expect working patterns in the new world to be more
flexible than today. In particular, the “job for life” will become unusual.
People will need to be more open to learning new skills, and I expect a new
adult education market to arise to meet this need. Far more jobs will be
oriented around projects, lasting a few days, weeks or months, and far less
around continuous processes. Many people will work less hours, but will use
them more intensely. Working from home will become commonplace, though the
current over-emphasis on it, I think, will prove to have been a passing fad.
And automation and artificial intelligence will prove to have been beneficial
in the long term – though there will have been some teething troubles!
As to welfare, I envisage a sustainable system, which can
help those who are poor through no fault of their own, while allowing everyone
to get on with their lives in their own way. I think it will have four main
components. The first is savings. The second is insurance. Third comes the
implementation of systems of mutual aid; perhaps through re-vitalization of
friendly societies, or creation of modern versions of them. Fourth is a revival
of civil society, in which people look out for their neighbours, and in which
there is personal contact between helpers and helped. And as a final backstop,
particularly in cases of unexpected emergency, there is always voluntary
charity.
I make no apologies for ending this section with an extravagant
vision of the future. I wrote this way back in 2004, but I haven’t been able to
find any better way to put it. Here it is:
“Picture, if you will, a rolling, grassy plain. And,
standing on that plain, many human beings. A few hundred, or a thousand, should
suffice. Imagine if each of those people, on that rolling plain, takes in
light, and gives out light in return. If each of them gives out less light than
he or she receives, the economy – the candle, if you like – sputters and dies.
But if each individual gives out as much as he or she receives or more, the
candle burns. And continues to burn, brighter and brighter. Just imagine, every
one of those human beings on that rolling plain, happy, smiling and bathed in
light!”
Constructing the
Convivial Code
Originally, I was planning to make, as part of this essay, a
first stab at a laundry-list of rights and obligations, which could form a
basis for the construction of the natural law for human beings, which I dub the
Convivial Code. I found, however, that to try to do that here would have made
this essay so long, that it would have become precisely the giant tome I was
trying to avoid. So, I’ll content myself today with saying how I plan to do the
job (when I eventually get round to doing it!), making some additional notes about
it, and publishing three ethical laundry-lists I myself have produced.
Ethical sources
What I plan to do, when I get there, is go through a number
of ethical sources and lists of rights or obligations, published at various
times from antiquity up to the present. I’ll aim to extract from these sources
a list of the obligations they levy on, and corresponding rights they grant to,
convivial human beings.
Here’s my provisional list of source material, in
chronological order of publication:
1.
Confucius’ Golden Rule.
2.
The Christian Ten Commandments.
3.
Aristotle’s virtues list.
4.
Magna Carta.
5.
John Locke’s one-sentence statement of the Code.
6.
1689 English Bill of Rights (if it adds
anything).
7.
1791 US Bill of Rights.
8.
1948 UN Declaration of Human Rights.
9.
Ayn Rand’s virtues list.
10. My
own ethical laundry lists.
In this exercise, I plan to leave out ideas from religions
other than Christianity, since I am insufficiently familiar with them.
Rights and
obligations
As one whose view of ethics is primarily rights-based, I see
the main task in constructing the Code as to make a list of valid human rights,
and at the same time to back-to-back these rights with obligations which, when
kept to by convivial people, result in those around them enjoying the
corresponding rights. These obligations then become the core of the Code.
Fundamental rights, rights of non-impedance and procedural rights
Over the centuries, many lists of human rights have been
constructed. From Magna Carta of 1215, via the 1689 English Bill of Rights and
the 1791 US Bill of Rights, to the 1948 United Nations Declaration of Human
Rights (just about the only half-way good thing the UN ever did), these have
had positive effects on the conduct of many of those in power.
These lists contain three types of rights. First, there are fundamental
rights. These result from moral prohibitions – obligations to refrain from
doing something, which apply to everyone – of the form “Do not...” followed by
something bad.
Second, there are rights of non-impedance. These result from
more nuanced moral prohibitions, of the form: “Do not put any obstacle in the
way of...” followed by something good. Rights of non-impedance always carry an
implied rider: “...provided it does not violate your, or anyone else’s,
rights.”
And third, there are procedural rights. These rights, such
as the presumption of innocence until proven guilty, must guide the procedures
used in confrontational situations. And, in particular, must guide the new
institution of just governance, which will supersede the state.
General and contractual rights
At right angles to this division, there is another split of
rights into two groups: general and contractual. By a general right or
obligation, I mean one common to all convivial human beings. Thus, a general
right accrues to everyone without exception, subject only to the individual
keeping to his or her general obligations. Contractual rights or obligations,
on the other hand, arise out of contracts and agreements made with others.
Under just governance, one important use of contractual
rights and obligations will be what I call “agreement to vary.” Through such an
agreement, societies will be able to agree with their members, if they so wish,
extra rules or different rules from the core Code in their dealings among
themselves. Individuals and societies will also be able to agree, by mutual and
informed consent, to vary or waive certain provisions of the core Code, either
for one transaction or on a more regular basis.
For example, this will allow people, who so wish, to agree
to do potentially dangerous activities, such as playing sports. Or sadists and
masochists to agree to perform acts together, which most people would find unpleasant
or even repugnant. Or religious societies to impose dietary restrictions on
their members. Or voluntary communes to impose a particular political ideology,
such as socialism, on their residents.
Exceptions
One problem with viewing ethics in terms of lists of
obligations is that it isn’t always practical to keep to the obligations with
absolute strictness. For example, to include in the Code an absolute
prohibition on physical violence would be impractical, because it would not
allow those under attack to defend themselves. Each rule of the Code must,
therefore, also specify the conditions under which individuals may reasonably
break it, and at what level they may do so.
I identify four sets of conditions, which may justify deviation
from the Code in certain circumstances. The first two are self-defence, and
defence of others. To allow these as reasons to deviate in certain situations answers
many of the tricks, that philosophers like to bring up as apparent
counter-examples to ethical principles. For example, the Code will require you
to be truthful and honest in all your dealings with others. But if someone you
suspect of wanting to harm your neighbour asks you where he has gone for the
week-end, and you know where he is, it can be OK to lie in your neighbour’s
defence, and say that you don’t know. This would, however, not be OK if you
have specifically undertaken to tell the truth in the matter; for example, if
you are a witness in a court of just governance.
The other two conditions, which may justify deviations from
the Code, are required to enable just governance to be effective. One of these
is for proportionate acts in the execution of common-sense justice, such as
enforcing judgements made by honest courts. The other is for proportionate
acts, such as arresting someone to bring them to trial, based on reasonable
suspicion of real violation of the Code.
Which of these four exceptions apply to a particular right,
depends on which right it is. In a few cases, it’s possible that there may be
additional exceptions to particular rights. For example, some rights, such as
the right to control access to your property, can be traded away; in this case,
as part of a contract to let the property.
Virtues, expectations
and vices
Human rights are not the only source of obligations to
others. There are also obligations which correspond to the virtues which
thinkers, such as Aristotle and Ayn Rand, have included in their ethical
laundry-lists. Because sometimes a virtue may not be attainable in practice,
these will often be couched in terms like “Strive to…” followed by a statement
of the virtuous behaviour. These kinds of obligations generate, for the
recipient, something similar to a right, but less strong. I will dub as “expectations”
the benefits, which arise when people keep to such obligations.
I will also use “expectations” to describe those putative
rights, such as always being told the truth, which if they were elevated to the
status of actual rights would have a negative effect of making people think too
hard before they speak or act, thus crimping their style. You have an
expectation that everyone you deal with should strive to tell the truth. And if
their untruths are gross or repeated, you have a right to shun them, and to
claim compensation if their conduct has harmed you. But you cannot reasonably point
to a single small untruth, and say, “Hey, you lied to me; you’re a criminal,
and you owe me compensation!”
Beyond encouraging virtues, the Code is likely to discourage
certain vices. I do not mean the kind of arbitrary “vices” that in themselves
harm no-one else, such as being gay, taking drugs or drinking alcohol. Rather,
I mean the kind of vices that psychopaths (including politicians) often show.
Such as: arrogance, bad faith, corruption, deceit, recklessness towards others,
and untrustworthiness.
It is also important, I think, to exclude from the Code the
false virtues, like altruism and self-sacrifice, that are often promoted by
collectivists. Where you have not taken on an explicit obligation to help
someone in a particular situation, the decision on what to do must always be
your own. The species survival instinct may lead you to help; as long as you
have the requisite skills and courage, and the effort and cost are not too
great. But to sacrifice yourself for the sake of others, against your better
judgement, is madness.
Moreover, you don’t have any obligation to help those that
have done harm to you; for example, those that have promoted or supported political
policies hostile to you. They owe you compensation for what they did to you. You
don’t owe them anything.
Discrimination
The judgement by behaviour principle discourages the kind of
discrimination that is based on who someone is, rather than what they do. But
the Code cannot go so far as to make a blanket prohibition of all forms of
discrimination. When deciding with whom they want to interact, all individuals
and societies must have the right to discriminate as they see fit. For example,
a club may admit only members of certain races or religions. A company may
refuse to hire Jews, Irish people, communists or former politicians. A woman
may pick a tall man to offer her love to, in preference to a short one. Or a
Christian baker may refuse to bake a bespoke cake for a gay wedding.
However, discrimination does go against the Code if it is
done in bad faith. Thus, if a society or company does not wish to deal with
certain types of people, they must make public any discriminatory policies they
have, before they solicit members or customers. And they must make those
policies clear before any attempts to negotiate a contract.
Children’s rights
The rights of children, as opposed to adults, will need to
be borne in mind when constructing the Code. Parents will be responsible for
bringing up and educating their children, as far as adulthood. But they must have
all the powers necessary to pick the education that they think is most
appropriate for each child.
Parents will also be responsible for the behaviour of their
children towards third parties.
As regards behaviour towards children, by parents or third
parties, children will receive all the rights from the Code. But they will not,
when young at least, be considered able to give informed consent. This can give
them additional rights against those that try to mistreat them.
Since different children mature at different rates, I am not
a believer in arbitrary age limits in order to be allowed to do certain things.
In cases where there is no risk to third parties, I prefer to see parents
having discretion to decide what their children may do, subject of course to
the decision being reasonable. If there is some risk to third parties, for
example from young drivers, an aptitude or low-level proficiency test may be
appropriate. In any cases of serious dispute involving children, I prefer to
see an objective and understanding judge given the task of making the best
decision for all concerned.
That said, I cannot see any viable alternative to specifying
a single age, at which every child is to be deemed to have become an adult, and
takes on the responsibilities of an adult. The 18th birthday seems
to me as good a coming-of-age threshold as any.
My own ethical laundry lists
I have recently produced three ethical laundry lists, each
of which comes from a slightly different direction. I include them here in
order to give a sense of the kind of ethical stances, which derive from my bottom-up
method of philosophical thinking.
List A is a slightly updated version of my summary of the
Code in the form of eight exhortations, which I included in the third essay of
my set of six.
A1. Be
peaceful.
A2. Seek
the facts, and tell the truth.
A3. Strive
to be honest and straightforward in all your dealings.
A4. Strive
always to behave with justice, integrity and good faith.
A5. Be
tolerant of those who are tolerant towards you.
A6. Respect
the rights and freedoms of those who respect your equal rights and freedoms.
A7. Don’t
interfere in other people’s business without a very good, objective reason.
A8. Take
responsibility for the effects of your voluntary actions on others.
Now, just look at that list. They’re all basic values of
humanity. They are absolute minimum standards for any convivial human being,
are they not? So, they should be pretty easy to keep to, should they not?
Therefore, how could any human being worth the name fail, deliberately, to
measure up to even one of these standards? And why should anyone waste time or
compassion on those that fail even to try to obey them?
I’ll leave you to answer these questions!
List B contains what a friend calls “obscenities.” That
is, actions and attitudes, which are not acceptable for any convivial
human being to do. I originally called it the “28 Deadly Sins.” But I have
added a few more since then. Each obscenity is worded either as a noun or
nouns, or using a present participle.
B1. Fanaticism
or extremism in politics or religion.
B2. Disregard
for the moral equality of all human beings.
B3. Disregard
for the ideal of justice for every individual; that is, that every individual
deserves, as far as practicable, to be treated as he or she treats others.
B4. Disregard
for the presumptions of liberty of choice and freedom of action.
B5. Interfering
in, disrupting or lowering the quality of others’ lives without good and
provable reason.
B6. Claiming
to be acting “democratically,” yet failing to allow ordinary people a
meaningful say in a political matter that affects them.
B7. Claiming
to “represent” someone politically, yet failing to argue their side of a case
in which they have an interest.
B8. Promoting,
supporting, making or enforcing harmful or unjust laws.
B9. Intentionally
harming, harassing, impoverishing or inconveniencing people who do not harm you
or others.
B10.
War, aggressive violence.
B11.
Lies, spin, hype, promulgating falsehoods,
spreading unfounded or exaggerated scares.
B12.
Dishonesty, deceit, cheating, bullshit,
insincerity, unscrupulousness, bad faith.
B13.
Arrogance, claiming superiority over others,
authoritarianism.
B14.
Hypocrisy; failing to practise what you preach.
B15.
Lack of empathy; failing to recognize that every
person is different and an individual.
B16.
Violating the rights of human beings, such as
dignity, property, privacy and the right to make individual choices.
B17.
Violating human freedoms such as freedom of
speech, association, movement, opinion, religion, expression, communication,
peaceful assembly and protest against injustice.
B18.
Violating procedural rights such as the
presumption of innocence, due process, an independent and impartial hearing,
and no punishment unless and until guilt has been proven beyond reasonable
doubt.
B19.
Untrustworthiness, empty promises.
B20.
Recklessness towards others.
B21.
Imposing risks on others, without having
available the resources to compensate them if things go wrong.
B22.
Failing to accept responsibility and
accountability for the consequences of willed actions on others; lack of
remorse.
B23.
Seeking to indoctrinate people, and most of all
children, with falsehoods or emotional manipulation.
B24.
Taking wealth away from people against their
wills; taking wealth away from people without delivering equivalent value to
them in return.
B25.
Seeking to compel people, who do not harm you or
others, to do things against their wills. Such as take medical treatment they
do not want, or pay for things they do not want.
B26.
Putting obstacles in the way of the free market
economy, or of people’s access to it.
B27.
Cronyism, unjust favouritism.
B28.
Unjust and unearned enrichment of yourself or
your cronies at other’ expense.
B29.
Cynical exploitation of people.
B30.
Cruelty to people.
B31.
Unnecessary cruelty to animals.
B32.
Name-calling, ad hominem, attacking the
person rather than trying to rebut their ideas.
B33.
Denying people the right to control access to
their private property.
B34.
Attempting to encircle people; to deny them, or those
authorized by them, the right to enter or leave their property.
List C, a further list of exhortations, I gave in the
fifth essay of my set of six. Many of these came originally from the 2014
version of my philosophical system. There are several overlaps between this
list and the lists above.
C1. Don’t
do intentional harm to others.
C2. Don’t
put any obstacle in the way of anyone’s access to the free market.
C3. Don’t
try to take more from others than you are justly entitled to.
C4. Don’t
intentionally do or aggravate injustice.
C5. Don’t
try to claim that you have moral rights that others do not.
C6. Don’t
unjustly deny others the right to make their own decisions.
C7. Don’t
require anyone to prove a negative.
C8. Strive
to uphold the principles of Civilization: voluntary society, common-sense
justice, human rights, and maximum freedom for all.
C9. Don’t
lie, deceive, cheat, mislead or bullshit.
C10.
Strive to be independent in thought and actions.
C11.
Don’t willingly let yourself become a drain on
others.
C12.
Always strive to do what you have knowingly and
voluntarily agreed to do.
C13.
Do not knowingly aid, encourage or condone
disconvivial behaviour.
C14.
Do not tolerate dishonesty, unless there is good
and objectively justifiable reason to be dishonest in a particular situation.
C15.
And last, but very much not least: Practise what
you preach.
Our enemies’ system
But our enemies – those that want to hold back our progress,
or even to haul us back down where we started from – have a philosophical
system too. It’s a top-down system, in contrast to mine, which is bottom-up. I
call our enemies’ system Downerism, and its adherents Downers (the word is
short for “top-downers”).
I don’t have direct access to the minds of Downers. So, I
have to infer their philosophy from how I see them behave. On that basis,
here’s what their system looks like in outline:
Figure 2 – Overview
of our enemies’ philosophical system (Downerism)
Recall, first, how my system works from the bottom up. When
our human nature is allowed to flourish unchecked, our first dimension, what we
are, drives the second, how we Think. Our Humanity drives our thirst for
Knowledge and our Reason. In turn, our Knowledge drives the ways in which we
Behave in our third dimension. In classical philosophical terms, our Reason
drives our Ethics. Our third dimension and the Conviviality it leads to, in
turn, drive the way in which we Organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all.
In classical terms, our Ethics drives our Politics, not the other way round. And
Civilization, the product of our fourth dimension, generates the environment in
which we can Do, to the very best of our potential and abilities, what is
natural for us to do.
Looking at the overview diagram above, our enemies’
system, like mine, has five levels. But they are the opposite way round. The
progression (or, more accurately, retrogression) is top-down. For Downers, the
agenda, the ideology, the collective, the state, the laws, the propaganda
narratives, are everything. And the individual human being, rights and
freedoms, truth and honesty, right and wrong, objective common-sense justice,
and human prosperity in the free market, all count for nothing.
Agendas
The Downer methodology begins with an agenda. Many Downers
seem to believe that their vision of the future, and so their agenda, will be beneficial
to human beings. Some supporters of environmentalism, for example, seem to think
that the kind of world the United Nations, World Economic Forum and other such political
actors want to force us into would be in some way better than the industrial
civilization we have built over more than two centuries.
But in reality, virtually all Downer agendas are merely more
or less thinly disguised programmes of hatred and destruction. Deep green
environmentalists, for example, have an agenda that seeks to destroy our human
industrial civilization. Do you recall this quote from Maurice Strong,
principal architect of the deep green agenda? “Frankly, we may get to the point
where the only way of saving the world will be for industrial civilization to
collapse.”
Very often, Downers’ hatred is directed at anyone who is unwilling
to conform to their agenda. Theocracies and other religious extremists, and fascist,
communist and socialist régimes,
all tend towards these kinds of persecutions. Often, too, the hatred is
directed against people who are in some way different from others. Racism and
anti-semitism all have their roots in hatreds of this kind. Sometimes, the
scapegoats are those who develop their talents, and make themselves better than
others at what they do. Egalitarian, anti-intellectual and anti-capitalist
movements are often of this kind; as was Stalin’s genocide against the kulaks
in the 1930s. But in forms like deep green environmentalism, the Downer agenda
arises more from a hatred of human achievements; and even from a hatred of
humanity as a species. For me, deep green environmentalism is a religion,
driven by hatred for human beings.
Downer agenda setters are the worst of the worst. They are
the corrupt, vicious “degenerate men” (and women) that John Locke identified. And
protecting ourselves against them and their kind was the very reason that we needed
to implement governments in the first place! So, to allow even one of them into
any kind of government power is madness, verging on civilizational suicide.
Politics
Downer agenda setters have a vision of how they want
things to be. And they seek to use politics to force their agenda on others
against their wills. They pervert the natural human urge to take control of our
surroundings into an un-natural, malevolent, destructive urge for control over other
people.
Thus, Downers pursue power and control over others. They
seek political power, for themselves and for those who subscribe to similar
visions. For them, the political state is the highest good. Thus, it is the source
of, and the mechanism to be used to achieve, everything they think is good.
The first stage in any Downer agenda is the (apparent)
legitimization of the agenda, and of the ideology behind it. They achieve this
by building a political movement. Some of these are attracted to the agenda by
a shared hatred of those it targets as victims. Some like it because they see a
prospect of personal gain for themselves. Others fail to see the malice in the
agenda, and buy into it because they are fooled by its propaganda into feeling
an angst, which they may be able to palliate by joining the movement.
Yet others are simply useful idiots for the cause. They support it just because
it seems to be a “cool” thing to do.
But many Downer agendas are, very obviously, malicious and
tyrannical. For example: a world ruled over by communists. A world without Jews
or non-Aryan races. A global, tyrannical super-state. Or a country – such as
Pol Pot’s Cambodia – without a middle class. Even agendas that are not quite so
obviously evil can lead to harmful policies and serious violations of rights.
For example, the “war on drugs,” or the “war on terror.” Even an agenda that on
first hearing sounds good, like eliminating poverty, reducing obesity, fighting
an epidemic, reducing pollution, preserving wildlife or sustainable
development, can still cause much unjust harm to innocent people when it is put
into practice.
Psychopaths and power
It is, relatively speaking, easy for Downers to achieve power
in current political systems. For many Downers are, or are on the verge of
being, psychopaths. And some of the characteristics of psychopaths are
extremely useful to those that want to get, and so to exercise, political power.
Here are some of the typical signs of a psychopath:
Glibness and surface charm. Arrogance; thinking they are superior beings to
others. Dishonesty, and the deceits, insincerity, selfishness and corruption it
brings. Untrustworthiness. Lack of empathy. A tendency toward recklessness,
combined with unwillingness to accept responsibility for the effects of their
actions on others. Lack of remorse for their harmful acts. And more.
Are not charm, arrogance, dishonesty and selfishness, to
name but four of the above, all positive assets for those seeking to climb the
greasy pole that is politics today? Most of all, in democracies? And are not
these and other psychopathic signs apparent among far too many of today’s politicians,
among many others in positions of political power, and among a great majority
of political activists?
Abuse of power
For Downers, legislation made by those in power trumps any
notions of right and wrong, and any ideal of justice. Thus, they seek to get
made bad and oppressive laws, with which to rule over people. And because they
have little or no idea of right and wrong, Downers have little or no respect
for the rights or freedoms of human beings. They will seek to do to their victims
whatever furthers their agenda, no matter how much harm and pain results to
those victims. They do not mind violating rights, picking on innocent
scapegoats, or creating or spreading moral panics. And for many of them,
violence and even war are OK.
Thus, when Downers are in control, ethics goes out of the
window, and so do human rights. What is right and wrong for human beings to do,
is not seen as an important question. In its place, everything revolves around what
is legal or illegal, no matter how bad the laws are.
So, when Downers control a state, it is their politics
that drives what behaviours are considered acceptable; not, as it ought to be,
ethical standards appropriate to human beings. Recall what John Locke said
about “the municipal laws of countries,” that they are “only so far right as
they are founded on the law of Nature.” Locke understood the problem!
Narrative and propaganda
The politically correct narrative or dogma of the day,
trumpeted by Downers and their cronies everywhere (and most of all in the
media), overpowers in their minds any idea of objective truth. They will tell
only the tale they themselves want to hear. And they will only accept facts
when they fit their narrative. They will reject all opposing facts and evidence
without even examining them. And they rarely provide any hard, objective evidence
for the claims they make. Moreover, they often project their own denial of
reality on to their opponents; as with those that call climate realists names
like “deniers” or “conspiracy theorists.”
So, Downers create a mental atmosphere of lies and propaganda,
deceptions, hype, and unreasoning fear. They season this atmosphere with fake
or misleading news, smears and insults. And they seek to suppress dissenting
views.
It is no coincidence, I think, that every repressive
government that has ever existed has had an extremely powerful propaganda arm.
Today’s governments, even “democracies,” are no exception. The mainstream media
fall over each other to parrot the party line, to ignore or suppress
opposition, and even to spread new unfounded scares and other ruses. The BBC’s
failure, over decades, to allow a voice to those skeptical of the catastrophic
human-caused global warming narrative is a good case in point.
Faith and force
At the bottom of the pyramid, the foot soldiers of
Downerism apply what Ayn Rand called the destroyers of the modern world: faith
and force. They believe, with blind faith, in the Downer agendas and
narratives. They promote, support or enforce bad, unjust laws. They think that
those bad laws are right, just because some bunch of politicians made them. And
that those who will not believe the faith, must be made to follow it by force.
So, these Downer foot soldiers will act towards their
victims in ways that, in objective terms, are inhuman; like the Spanish
inquisitors, or those that sent prisoners at Auschwitz into the gas chambers.
The future they desire is, as George Orwell put it: “a boot stamping on a human
face – forever.”
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what Downers do to us
human beings when they are allowed any kind of power.
Parasites, pests and pawns
It hardly needs saying that those, that make use of the
state and political power to achieve their ends, are users of Franz
Oppenheimer’s political means; that is, the “unrequited appropriation of the
labor of others.” All of them, thus, are Downers.
But among them, there is a cadre that use the political
means in a wider sense than Franz Oppenheimer’s definition. They seek to
influence, or even to control, governments. This may be for their own personal
gain, or for that of their cronies. Or it may be because they seek to impose on
people a particular agenda of how the world or some aspect of it should be,
regardless of whether or not those people want it.
They include: The great majority of politicians.
Many government employees. Most of the political establishment, and those that
are well connected with it. Advisors, influencers and bureaucrats, both in
government and in “non-governmental organizations.” Activists of many different
hues. Greedy or politicized company bosses. Activist media figures and
academics. Rich individuals and “celebrities” with their own political goals,
or with narcissistic tendencies, or both. Devotees of the agendas of the United
Nations, European Union, World Economic Forum and similar organizations.
Parasites
The essence of the political means, as Franz Oppenheimer
saw it, is taking resources from others without their consent. The takers then
use these resources to enrich themselves or their cronies. In my terms, they
are parasites on the people from whom the resources are taken. In John Locke’s words,
they use political power for “private, separate advantage.”
Those that use the political means in this way include all
those that take money, extracted through taxation, to do “jobs” that do not
provide equivalent value in return to the individuals who paid those taxes. Or
those – a lot of them – that simply take tax money, and waste it on things that
bring no benefit at all to us. This cabal of parasites also includes many, if
not most, politicians. It includes a very high proportion of government
officials, bureaucrats and jobsworths. And it includes many government
“experts,” “advisors” and technocrats.
The parasite cabal also includes a lot of big company
bosses, “money men” such as bankers, and other corporate cronies. They take
subsidies or bail-outs, or lobby for advantages for themselves, or profit from wars
or bad laws. Or they secure lucrative government contracts, which they perform
incompetently.
Let’s face it, these parasites are enemies of humanity. And if
you are a human being worth the name, whether or not a particular parasite causes
harm to you personally, that parasite is your enemy, too.
Pests
But there is another, even more malicious group, which
Oppenheimer for some reason failed to call out when he wrote his book. I call
them pests. Or sometimes, a stronger word: vermin.
Pests want power for the sake of what they can do with it.
Pests want to control people, to persecute, and to screw up people’s lives. In John
Locke’s words, they use power to satisfy their “ambition, revenge,
covetousness, or any other irregular passion.”
The most virulent pests seek political power in order to
pull policy strings. They want to do things to us, that we do not want, and
that often cause us actual or even serious harm. So, they lobby, inside or
outside government, for policies that harm certain groups or types of people.
In this highly virulent group, too, are those – including globalist activists
such as the United Nations and the World Economic Forum – that seek to force on
us a particular agenda of how the world or some aspect of it should be. Most
church leaders are in on this scam, too. And environmentalist groups, including
Extinction Rebellion, are pests par excellence.
Politicians that promote, support or vote for harmful
policies, including aggressive wars, green or globalist policies, and
violations of our human rights, are pests too. As are government employees,
sub-contractors and “non-governmental organizations,” that help along such
policies. Corrupt academics and other “experts” that attempt to stamp these bad
policies with a seal of “authority.” Media hacks that perpetuate the narratives
behind the harmful policies, or seek to “cancel” opposition and deny freedom of
speech. And corporate bosses, that lobby government to get policies made to
restrict their competitors.
Under the heading of pests also come those that actually
carry out government violations of human rights. Such as: Police that harass,
or unjustly stop, innocent people, or enforce bad laws. And those that tax us,
seek to impoverish us or cause unnecessary expenditure to us, spy on us, or
violate our rights or freedoms in any way.
Even those that do not seek to use politics to enrich
themselves personally, are nevertheless pests if they promote, support, make or
enforce bad laws that harm innocent people. I see them, therefore, as users of
the political means. Like the parasites, but in many ways worse.
Pests, like parasites, are enemies of humanity, and of every
human being worth the name.
Pawns
There is today a third, and very numerous, group of people I
call “pawns.” These people are not directly parasites or pests. This is because
they use the economic means in most aspects of their lives. Nevertheless, they
ally themselves with the parasites and pests, by supporting the current
political set-up. They do this, primarily, by continuing to vote for mainstream
political parties, and so underwriting the charade of sham “democracy.”
Moreover, far too many of them behave as if they were
obedient sheep, and fail even to try to resist the harms and rights violations
that are being done to us human beings. And they still fail to do so, even when
the actions of governments and their hangers-on cause unjust harm to people they
know personally, or even to them as individuals.
I call them pawns, because that is what they are;
foot-soldiers, that allow themselves to be used by the political parasites and
pests for their own ends. But they also buy, with far too little scrutiny if
any at all, the narratives of the mainstream media. They do not have enough
skepticism about what they are told, or enough desire to find out the facts.
And they often let themselves be swayed by falsehoods or by emotional
manipulation. Thus, they fail to see through agendas such as nationalism,
environmentalism, globalism and religious extremism.
Indeed, some among the pawns come to support the bad agendas
they have been spoon-fed. And they feel a desire to force those agendas on to
others. This is a particular problem with those who have let themselves become
“converted” by the preachings of environmentalism, or of political ideologies,
or of religious extremism of some kind. These pawns are in very serious danger
of making themselves into pests. This danger is especially great for
“celebrities,” whose fame may give their words undue weight in helping to
persuade other pawns into supporting these bad agendas.
Most pawns do not have a strong ethical sense. They cannot
see that most of the laws being made are bad, and harm the very people government
is supposed to be serving. And they don’t seem to be aware, that this is not at
all what government ought to be doing! Further, they tend to accept the
narrative that they are part of some political “society.” They also think that
government, and others with power in this “society,” are morally sound, and on
their side. Blinded by the aura of “authority,” they fail to see the violations
of the rights of innocent people by government and their hangers-on as the very
serious crimes they are.
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is what we're up against today.
