Community, Society and Justice

Definitions from Oxford Languages

A month ago, I wrote about my views on ethical philosophy. Today, I’ll look at the other side of the coin – my political philosophy.

At the outset, I feel a need to issue a Radical Ideas Warning. Some of the ideas I offer here, indeed, are far more than radical. I make no apologies for this. For the future, even the survival, of human civilization, and of our human species as a whole, is at stake.

Politics versus Organize

When I first started thinking about ethics and politics, I found it hard to discern a clear dividing line between the two. Eventually, I asked myself: what question is each of these branches of knowledge trying to answer? For ethics, it is: What is right and wrong for a human being to do? For politics, I identified the question as: How should we human beings organize ourselves for maximum benefit to all?

Over time, I have come to feel more and more negative about using the word “politics.” In its place, the name I use for the part of my philosophy, which governs relations between people in societies and communities, is Organize.

Community versus society

The first key idea in my political (organizational) philosophy is that I make a very important distinction between a community and a society.

Community

A community is a group of people, bound together by some shared characteristic; but not necessarily by anything more. A community has no “general will.” It is merely a group of individuals.

Examples of communities are: The people who live or work in a particular town. The community of left-handed Italian grandmothers. The people who reside in a particular geographical area. And what I called in my ethical essay the “convivial community.” That is, the community of people, who make every effort to obey the natural law of humanity. And so, to make themselves convivial, or fit to be lived with.

Society

A society, on the other hand, is a group of people who have agreed to join in a common cause. A society has a “general will,” a will shared by the members as a whole. Namely, the objectives for which the society aims. Provided, of course, that those, who cease to agree with the objectives or the conduct of the society, can freely leave the society.

Examples of societies are a football club, a musical ensemble, or a political party.

Society in the singular

I am aware that many use the word “society” in the singular, in a meaning such as “the aggregate of people living together in a more or less ordered community.” In this meaning, it is often dignified with a capital S. I regard this usage as collectivist and misleading. My view is, there is no such thing as Society, only societies.

Those that use the word in this way seem to think that people owe a loyalty to, and should be prepared to make sacrifices for, this “Society.” (Or for something they call “the community,” with a definite article – essentially the same thing.) Further, in the minds of the political class and their hangers-on, this loyalty is owed, not to their fellow human beings, but to the political state that rules over them.

The voluntary society principle

My second key organizational idea, I call the voluntary society principle. It is: All societies must be voluntary.

This principle is explicitly supported by the UN Declaration of Human Rights, Article 20(2): “No one may be compelled to belong to an association.” When this right was first mooted, it was probably intended to apply to organizations like the Hitler Youth. But in my view, it is equally valid in regard to any society, including political and religious ones.

Thus, no-one is a member of any society, unless they have voluntarily chosen to become a member, and have not in the meantime countermanded that choice.

This is the reason why I do not accept the word “society” in its meaning of all the people in a geographical area. The people who live in that area are only a community. And because they are not a voluntary society, there is no common cause in which they can be considered to have all agreed to join. So, they cannot be assumed to support or to accept any particular political ideology or set of policies. Therefore, they cannot reasonably be expected to keep to rules or policies imposed by any political or religious ideology or faction.

To look at it another way. If you are opposed to some political philosophy – such as socialism, fascism or deep green environmentalism – then no-one has the right to force you to join, or to obey the rules of, any society that operates, or favours, that philosophy. And you must be able freely to leave any society that adopts any such philosophy into its tenets. The same is true for religious movements, for example militant Islam or Jehovah’s Witnesses.

Moreover, no-one has any right to treat you as if you were part of some collective that you have not voluntarily joined. You do not, by lawfully residing in an island called Britain, automatically become a member of a political society called “Britain.” You do not even become a member of such a society merely because you approve of the British culture of the past – the culture which seeded the Enlightenment, and nurtured the Industrial Revolution. To identify with, or not to identify with, such a political collective is your choice. And to cease to do so, if you desire, is also your choice.

Rejecting the political state

The voluntary society principle leads me to reject altogether the idea of Society in the singular. And thus, to reject also the idea that I should feel or show loyalty to any political state. In this, I go some way beyond most adherents of Reform UK.

I also reject all derived ideas like “social justice.” And I reject all political ideologies that depend on the idea. Such as socialism, where Society is supposed to own the means of economic production. Communism, where Society owns everything, and all resources are controlled and allocated by the political state. And fascism, which subordinates the interests of individuals to Society and to the nation.

Further, far from feeling loyalty towards the state, I see it for what it is – an outdated, failed political structure, that supports a tyrannical gang of inhuman, psychopathic criminals. And I reject it, and all those that use it for their own gain or to push other agendas. I simply want to be rid of all political states. And of the “United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland,” in particular.

My support for Reform UK

Myself, I only feel loyalty to a society as long as I agree with its principles and its direction. This is so, indeed, even for Reform UK. I voluntarily chose to become a member of the Brexit party, and voluntarily chose to allow my membership to flow over when Brexit morphed into Reform.

Right now, I choose to remain and be active in the party, because it seems to me to be “the only game in town.” Reform is the only movement in the UK with the potential to blow away the current ruling classes and their failed political system, right the wrongs they have done to us, and make life worth living again. But if, at some point, I lose confidence in the party’s principles, leadership and direction, then I will feel compelled to resign from the party.

The social contract

Those that make out that each of us is part of some geographically or politically based “society,” even if we do not wish to be, seek to base it on an idea that we have entered into what they call a “social contract.” My third key idea of political philosophy is that this social contract idea is invalid.

Two forms of the social contract idea have been suggested. The Hobbesian version, dating from 1651 and enshrined in Thomas Hobbes’s “Leviathan.” And the Lockean version, published in 1690 in chapters 8 and 9 (§95 to §131) of John Locke’s Second Treatise of Government.

The Hobbesian social contract

According to the Hobbesian narrative, at some time in the past, a group of people (or, at least, a majority of them) made a contract with each other. They consented to be ruled over despotically by an absolute sovereign, and by so doing authorized and approved 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. And we, today, are still bound by their agreement.

But I find this narrative 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? They do not exist.

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.

The Lockean social contract

There is an alternative form of the social contract idea, put forward by John Locke. He says 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.” But he is very clear about the purposes of the agreement: The objectives are the preservation of their property, and the preservation and enlargement of their freedoms.

Of course, even this Lockean form of the social contract suffers from many of the problems of the Hobbesian version. Where is this contract? What is in it? Where is my signature on it? What procedures should I follow when the government party fails to deliver on its end of the bargain? Fortunately, unlike Hobbes, Locke does offer some answers to this last question.

As I related back in June in the first essay of this set, Locke cautions that any government in such a political society must always act for the “public good.” That is, the good of every individual in that society, as far as that can be achieved by setting common rules for all. Indeed, anyone in government that acts against the interests of the people, or fails at least to strive to deliver services that the people value positively, is failing to act for this public good.

If a government departs from or goes beyond this, or seeks to “impoverish, harass or subdue” the people it is supposed to be serving, then it has become a tyranny, and is no longer legitimate. It is no more than a criminal gang. Its laws should not be obeyed, except for those entirely compatible with the natural law of humanity.

How to deal with a government that fails to deliver its side of the bargain? Locke gave us three options. One, put new people in charge. Two, dismantle and replace the system. Or three, abandon the whole idea of government. But we’ve tried the first of these on several occasions before, haven’t we – like 1642 and 1688? Without any recent successes at all.

Quite clearly, even if the Lockean version of the contract is to be believed, UK governments of the last several decades have persistently failed to act for the public good of all the people. In most cases, as with Labour today, the new gang in power has proven itself to be even worse than the old.

Indeed, since I have been old enough to think about these things, with just three exceptions (and two of those were very short-lived), every UK government has been worse than its predecessor. The three exceptions, in my view, were: Margaret Thatcher’s first term, 1979 to 1983. The first few months of the Coalition in 2010, when David Cameron and Nick Clegg, briefly, each served to restrain the other from their worst excesses. And Liz Truss’s 2022 government of 49 days, which, while showing good – if naïve – intentions, was suppressed by the usual establishment suspects.

Isn’t it high time we gave the dismantle-and-replace idea a go? Let’s get rid of the political state, and in its place build a system of governance that works for human beings.

Justice and freedom

Having explored at length the ramifications of the voluntary society principle, I will be content with far briefer introductions to my remaining two key ideas in organizational philosophy: common-sense justice, and the maximum freedom principle.

Common-sense justice

The fourth, and perhaps the most important, of my key ideas of organizational philosophy is the principle I call common-sense justice. 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. Put another way, if properly implemented, common-sense justice is the part of the system which turns David Hume’s “ought” into “is.”

The principle implies that if you don’t do, or seek to do, harm to innocent people, you don’t deserve to suffer any harms being done to you. On the other side, if you do harm to others, or seek to do harm to others, or impose on others unreasonable risks that lead to actual harm, you should be required to compensate those whose lives you damaged, and if appropriate to be punished in proportion to the seriousness of what you did.

In essence, common-sense justice is Charles Kingsley’s “Be done by as you did.” It is a hard taskmaster; but it is a fair one.

This kind of justice also teams up with the judgement by behaviour idea I discussed in my essay on ethics, rights and obligations. Together, they provide an ideal of justice, in which what matters is not who an individual is, but only how they behave (and, on some occasions, their motives for doing what they do).

It doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter what colour someone’s skin is. Or where they were born. Or what religion they were brought up in. Or 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.”

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!

Maximum freedom principle

My final key idea is the maximum freedom principle. 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.

There will also be a general presumption of freedom. Anything not prohibited will be allowed, unless it violates others’ rights, or causes or is intended to cause unjust harm to others, or imposes unreasonable risks on others.

To sum up

To the eight key ideas I listed at the end of my ethical paper, I will add five more, which are the keys of my political or organizational philosophy.

9.     Community versus society. A community is a group of people, 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 in a common cause. The two are not the same.

10.  Voluntary society principle. All societies must be voluntary.

11.  Falsity of the social contract idea. The Hobbesian version of the social contract is false, and has been foisted on us human beings fraudulently, by those that do not have our interests at heart. In the Lockean version, as soon as government fails to act for the good of the people, it loses its legitimacy. It must be reformed, or dismantled and replaced.

12.  Common-sense justice principle. Every individual deserves to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others.

13.  Maximum freedom principle. Except where countermanded by common-sense justice or the natural law of humanity, every individual is free to choose and act as he or she wishes.

Politics, Power and Psychopathy

Image credit: starline on Freepik

Today, I’ll return to the foundations of political philosophy. The subject, on this occasion, is psychopathy. What is it? And why does it seem so prevalent among politicians, and those that have or seek political power? (This is a précis of work I did between 2016 and 2019).

The meme that politicians are psychopaths

There’s been a meme going around, for years now, that politicians are psychopaths. This meme was first sowed in 2003 by neurophysiologist Paul Broks, who suggested, based on conduct leading up to the Iraq war, that Tony Blair was a “plausible psychopath.”

The meme was spread widely in 2012 via an article by James Silver in the Atlantic Magazine. It is still around today in the blogosphere, and every so often I catch new echoes of it.

Psychopaths and sociopaths

The word “psychopath,” dating from 1885, means: “a mentally ill or unstable person; especially a person affected with anti-social personality disorder.”

Some use an alternative term, “sociopath.” The distinction between psychopath and sociopath doesn’t seem entirely clear. But broadly, sociopaths suffer from anti-social personality disorder (ASPD). For example, they tend to be reckless, impatient and untrustworthy. Whereas psychopaths show further, and more severe, symptoms. Including: lack of empathy with others, dishonesty, manipulativeness and lack of remorse.

Robert D. Hare

In the field of psychopathy studies, a central figure is Robert D. Hare. He is a Canadian psychologist, now in his 90s, specializing in the psychology of criminal offenders. Around 1980, he developed his Psychopathy Check List (PCL). At the time, there was no general agreement on what a psychopath was, or how to identify one. Hare set out to create a measuring tool for psychopathy, so psychologists could be sure they were talking about the same things.

Since then, his check list has evolved into several different forms. The one, with which I’m concerned today, is the Screening Version (PCL:SV). This was developed in the 1990s, for use in psychiatric evaluations and personnel selection.

The prevalence of psychopathy

It’s generally reckoned that about 20% of prison inmates are psychopaths. And that psychopaths are responsible for over 50% of violent crimes. So, it’s clear that psychopaths cause real problems for those around them.

They can cause a lot of trouble at work, too. Many of you will have known the types that behave with cruelty towards those they work with, while sucking up to the big bosses. And if you’re unlucky enough to get one of them as your manager, you’re in trouble.

Hare has estimated that about 1% of the population are psychopaths. Other researchers think his number is high; 0.5% might be more supportable. But there seems to be a substantially higher proportion of psychopaths among business executives and CEOs. A figure of 4% has been suggested for this. Hare himself has said: “Not all psychopaths are in prison – some are in the boardroom.”

Hare’s check list

Robert Hare’s check list, in both the full and screening versions, consists of three elements:

1.     A list of items to be assessed. In the screening version, there are 12 such items.

2.     A scoring system; the higher the score, the greater the level of psychopathy.

3.     A cut-off score, at or beyond which an individual is to be regarded as psychopathic.

For the screening version, there are two different cut-off scores. The lower represents a “potential psychopath,” while the higher is simply referred to with the word psychopath.

Two Factors

There’s some dispute about Hare’s division of the list of items to be assessed into Factors, representing different aspects of psychopathy. The original check list had two Factors, each of six items. There have been developments since, by Hare himself and others. For my purposes today, however, I find Hare’s original two-factor approach good enough. So, I’ll stick with it.

Factor 1

Here are the six items in Factor 1 of the screening version of the test. As a whole, they refer to “selfish, callous and remorseless use of others.” The personality disorder, which tends to lead to these behaviours, is NPD (narcissistic personality disorder).

1.     Superficial. Glib; having a surface charm.

2.     Grandiose. Arrogant; think they are superior human beings to others.

3.     Deceitful. Lying, insincere, selfish and manipulative, unscrupulous, dishonest.

4.     Lack of empathy. Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people.

5.     Doesn’t accept responsibility. Denies responsibility; seeks to evade accountability for actions.

6.     Lack of remorse. Cold and calculating attitude to others, seeming to feel no guilt, lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims.

Factor 2

Factor 2 refers to “chronically unstable and anti-social lifestyle.” The personality disorder, which produces these behaviours, is called ASPD (anti-social personality disorder).

1.     Impulsive. Foolhardy, rash, unpredictable, erratic, reckless.

2.     Poor behaviour controls. Showing irritability, annoyance or impatience.

3.     Lacks goals. Living a parasitic lifestyle, or having no realistic, long-term goals.

4.     Irresponsible. Untrustworthy; repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments.

5.     Adolescent anti-social behaviour.

6.     Adult anti-social behaviour.

The scoring system and cut-off

To quote Hare: “Items … are rated on a 3-point scale (0 = item doesn’t apply, 1 = item applies somewhat, 2 = item definitely applies). The items are summed to yield total scores … that reflect the degree to which an individual resembles the prototypical psychopath. A cut-off score … or greater is used to diagnose psychopathy.”

In the screening version, the total scores lie in the range 0 to 24, and the cut-off score is 18. Anyone scoring 18 or more can be considered a psychopath. The threshold for potential psychopath, however, is much lower, only 13.

Of course, in a prison setting, or when screening someone for a job such as a police officer, the assessments must be done objectively and without bias. A mistaken positive diagnosis of psychopathy can bring undeserved ruin to the victim’s career and life. Because of this, Hare mandates that the test must only be carried out by suitably trained professionals.

Nonetheless, I think Hare’s test is of great value to ordinary people. Not so much to evaluate specific individuals like Tony Blair – though Paul Broks, I think, was along the right lines in his opinion. But more to gain an understanding of the levels of psychopathy among different sectors of the population. Among politicians, for example. Or among politically active groups, such as socialists, religious or social conservatives, and green activists.

Psychopathy in the general population

Next, I’ll look at the distribution of scores among the general population, as reported in a 2008 paper by Neumann and Hare in the Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology.

They took, from the MacArthur US violence risk assessment published in 2001, the PCL:SV scores from a group of 500 or so randomly selected people, whom the study had tested in order to provide a comparison group for the offenders tested in the main part of the study. These people came from the same demographic and racial mix as the offenders.

The most remarkable result, for me, was the distribution of test scores among the comparison group. I quote from the paper: “Over half of the total sample had a score of 0 or 1, and about two-thirds had a score of 2 or less. A score of at least 13, used in the MacArthur civil psychiatric study as an indication of ‘potential psychopathy,’ was obtained by 1.2% of the total sample.” This is an amazing result – and they add that this “is consistent with the findings of other large community studies.”

Moreover, 36% of the people in that random sample scored zero. They had no trace of any psychopathic tendencies at all. This is extremely reassuring news for those who, like me, posit that humans are naturally good, and psychopaths are aberrations.

Mr Politico

Now, I’ll create a cardboard cut-out of a typical politician. I’ll try to give him a good mix of the characteristics that politicians tend to have. I dub my candidate Mr Politico. Let’s see how well he does on the test, shall we?

Factor 1

Superficial? Glib? Having a surface charm? Check. Mr Politico goes out of his way to be smooth, slick and charming. And he is hardly ever at a loss for words; quite the opposite, in fact. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Grandiose? Arrogant? Thinks he is a superior human being to others? Check. Mr Politico wants power. And the more power he gets, the more it reinforces his conviction that he’s a superior being to those he rules over. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Deceitful? Lying? Insincere? Selfish and manipulative? Unscrupulous? Dishonest? Don’t make me laugh! Lying, exaggerating, hyping, denying or obfuscating the truth; these are Mr Politico’s stocks in trade. He doesn’t have any interest in the truth at all, if it conflicts with his policies or prejudices. Indeed, he may even deny that truth exists at all.

He seems to have little or no sense of right and wrong; and most of all, where his own selfish gain is involved. He often behaves as a hypocrite, and fails to practice what he preaches others ought to do. Mr Politico ticks every one of the boxes under the Deceitful heading. Score: 2.

Lack of empathy? Lacking sensitivity towards, or regard for, other people? Check. Empathy is “being sensitive to… the feelings, thoughts and experience of another.” And, vitally important, empathy is feeling for other individuals. Yet Mr Politico doesn’t care a damn about people as individuals, except his cronies and perhaps his family. If we look hard at his behaviour, we don’t see much evidence of empathy or fellow feeling towards us ordinary human beings; even towards those he is supposed to represent.

Mr Politico belongs to a mainstream political party. That is, a gang with an ideology and agendas it wants to impose on people. And he usually toes the party line. He supports the “Great Causes” and policies pushed by his masters – like “sustainable development,” “clean air,” or a maudlin over-concern for “safety” – ahead of the needs, desires, rights and freedoms of us human beings. The politics of the day, and his own privileged position in it, are all that matter to Mr Politico. Score: 2.

Doesn’t accept responsibility? Seeks to evade accountability for actions? Check. He may try to cover up his wrongdoings, or point the finger of blame at someone else, or lie in an attempt to rationalize his actions, or bluster to try to convince people that he was right all along. Lack of accountability is built into the system which affords him power, the political state. Score: generous 1, harsh 2.

Lack of remorse? Cold and calculating attitude to others? Seeming to feel no guilt? Lacking concern for the losses, pain and suffering of victims? Check. Just about every law that politicians make today is seeking to inconvenience us, to make us poorer, to violate our human rights and freedoms, or all three. And when was the last time a politician ever said “sorry?” Don’t make me laugh. Score: 2.

Factor 2

Impulsive? Foolhardy? Rash? Unpredictable? Erratic? Reckless? Maybe Mr Politico isn’t all these things all of the time; but they’re there, all right. He may support wars just because his masters say so. Or he may support highly risky “solutions” to green non-problems, like geo-engineering schemes, or replacing reliable energy sources by intermittent ones. Score: 1.

Poor behaviour controls? Irritable? Annoyed? Impatient? Again, Mr Politico isn’t all these things at once. But we far too often hear politicians demanding ACTION! NOW! on the trumped-up scare du jour. Score: 1.

Lives a parasitic lifestyle? Has no realistic, long-term goals? Well, I’ll admit, Mr Politico is innocent on that last one. He does have goals – to make himself popular, rich and famous, while screwing everyone except his cronies. But most professional politicians are parasites; because they live off taxation, yet do more harm than good to the people who pay through the nose for their “services.” Score: 1.

Irresponsible? Untrustworthy? Repeatedly failing to fulfil or honour obligations or commitments? Check. “Read my lips, no new taxes.” “The government will abide by the result of the [Brexit] referendum.” Politicians – and Mr Politico is no exception – can’t be trusted further than you can throw them. And that, unfortunately, isn’t far enough. Score: 2.

As to the last two, adolescent and adult anti-social behaviour, Mr Politico is probably not guilty. (But if he was, the story would have been suppressed, of course.)

Assessing Mr Politico

Mr Politico has scored 9 to 12 on Factor 1, and 5 on Factor 2. His score on Factor 1 shows him to be very likely a narcissistic personality. His score on Factor 2 shows that he may be an anti-social personality, too. His combined score is between 14 and 17. Mr Politico is a potential psychopath, maybe even verging on a full psychopath.

Mr Politico is, at best, in the worst 1.2% of the population. He is, quite clearly, not the kind of individual any decent human being would want to associate with. Let alone vote for! In a properly ordered community of human beings worth the name, he would be ostracized or imprisoned. He would never get even a sniff of power.

Assessing politicians in general

Now, Mr Politico is a cardboard cut-out of a politician. So, it would be rash to try to deduce, from the above, that every politician is a potential psychopath. In reality, most politicians show some of these psychopathic traits to some degree. Some possess more of them, others less. It is only when the traits are aggregated together that the diagnosis of psychopathy becomes sound.

However, in a supposedly democratic system, we should be able to expect – should we not? – that those to be allowed into positions of power should be qualified to represent the people. Thus, each must be at least as good a person – in this context, that means must score no higher on the PCL:SV test – than the people they are supposed to represent. And since half of the general population score 0 or 1 on the test, we can reasonably expect that those to be allowed power should score 0 or 1 on the test too.

But consider that, if an individual has even one of these psychopathic traits at the level of “item definitely applies,” that puts them over the median score, so ought to disqualify them from power. Yet many of today’s politicians seem to have two or more of these traits:  glibness, arrogance, deceit or dishonesty, lack of empathy, failure to accept responsibility, lack of remorse, recklessness, impatience, untrustworthiness. It would seem that political power, and the desire for it, breed narcissism. And anti-social behaviour, too.

To follow up Robert Hare’s comment I gave you earlier. Not all psychopaths are in prisons or in the boardroom – some are in parliament or on local councils.

Assessing the wider political class

It isn’t just politicians that show these psychopathic traits. Most political activists, and many in government positions, have them too.

Activists or “spokespeople,” glibly trying to sell their policy wares. Behind the scenes policy drivers, such as self-appointed aristocrats in organizations like the UN, and pressure groups striving to push policies in a particular direction. “Celebrities” and many of the rich. Quangocrats. Businessmen that mistreat their people, or go to government to get rules made to hobble their competitors. Virtually all the main stream media, as well as politicized academics and “scientists.” Bureaucrats and jobsworths, that seem to enjoy making life difficult for people. Far too many of these have one or more of the traits in Hare’s test.

Psychopaths and power

It’s easy to see why psychopaths are drawn to political power. It enables them to live out their grandiose delusions of superiority over others. The 16^th century, failed system of political states and “sovereignty” is explicitly set up to enable them to do bad things to us! And it allows them, more often than not, to get away with their crimes.

Furthermore, “democratic” elections select for glibness and persuasiveness, and thus in favour of psychopaths. And once a political party is seeded with enough psychopaths or potential psychopaths, if an honest person does get elected, they must kow-tow to their party’s policies, or risk their careers. That, I think, is why the few honest people, who do enter politics, almost always rapidly become either corrupted or side-lined. Or, perhaps, leave their party.

It gets worse. Once a critical level of psychopathic tendency is reached among those in charge of a political system, the entire system becomes corrupt. The political institutions, as a whole, go insane. And that’s where we are today.

To sum up

Psychopaths want power. Current political systems, including democracy, tend to favour psychopaths over honest people for positions of power. While this tendency acts quite slowly, over time it has relentlessly increased the incidence of psychopathic traits among politicians, and in government as a whole. So, today far too many of those with political power and influence are arrogant, deceitful, selfish, callous and remorseless in their treatment of others. Not to mention impatient, reckless and untrustworthy. And once a critical level is reached, political institutions go mad.

The same psychopathic tendencies also exist among the wider political class, that hang on to the coat-tails of power. Political activists, celebrities, big business, the rich, the media, academe, bureaucracy. All are corrupted by at least some degree of psychopathy. As a result, today we’re in the grips of a giant, collective, psychopathic insanity.

We are in need of a big dose of sanity. Can Reform UK provide that?

Some thoughts on Godalming Town Council

Image credit: Godalming Town Council

As the local Reform UK campaign manager, when I heard of a by-election for Godalming Town Council, I took the opportunity to look at what the council is doing for (or to) us.

When I took on the campaign manager job, it was for the general election. I was well aware that apart from by-elections, Surrey County Council was the next arena in which we would need to fight, and (at the time) the borough councils were also important. I hadn’t thought much about the town or parish council level, until this week.

Imagine, then, my disgust when I found out just how far down in local government the cancer and corruption, that is politics today, has spread.

The council

Godalming Town Council has only the status of a parish council. But it is unusual in that the councillors all have party affiliations. In Ash and Cranleigh parish councils, for example, most candidates stand as Independents – even if they are Lib Dem SCC councillors!

It has 18 members, elected by five wards of Godalming: Binscombe (3), Central and Ockford (4), Charterhouse (3), Farncombe and Catteshall (4), and Holloway (4). Before the vacancy, the composition of the council was 9 Lib Dems, 4 Greens, 3 Labour and 2 Tories.

The last full election to the town council was held in May 2023. This is the first by-election since. The next full election is expected in May 2027.

Lib Dem Paul Follows has managed to execute a clean sweep, being on the town council, borough council and Surrey County Council simultaneously. Not to mention having been the Lib Dem candidate at the general election. And Paul and Penny Rivers both have two council posts at the same time.

Green councillor Nina Clayton is no longer able to continue, for reasons I haven’t been able to find. The question of whether or not we want to field a one-off candidate in the by-election is under discussion. But we should certainly be looking to compete in the elections in 2027.

The Corporate Plan 2023/7

While familiarizing myself with what the town council does, I discovered a document called “Corporate Plan 2023/7.” It is at [[1]], and dates from November 2023. Here are some of its low-lights. All the items below are introduced by the words “Godalming Town Council will.”

Part One – Democracy, Accountability, Governance and Communications

8. Support and promote Equality, Diversity and Inclusion.

Part Three – Investing in our Community

4. Provide support, grants and promotion for local businesses that are actively working towards becoming carbon neutral.

Part Four – Environmental Protection

A1. Promote at least 10% Biodiversity Net Gain on private land and ensure it on land that we own.

A5. Support measures to improve air quality and water quality across the Godalming Town Council area.

B1. Ensure that Godalming Town Council is carbon neutral across Scope 1 and 2 by 2025 and across all other areas of its own operations by 2030.

B2. Ensure net zero scope 3 emissions by 2030.

B3. Lobby for and, wherever possible, deliver infrastructure for electric vehicles ahead of 2030.

B4. Promote an understanding of the climate and ecological crisis amongst our community and work together on strategies for reduction of individual carbon footprint.

B5. Support divestment in fossil fuels and oppose development of new sources for fossil fuels through ‘fracking,’ ‘acidisation,’ drilling and other unsustainable approaches.

B6. Strive to be a net exporter of renewable energy to the grid by 2030.

D1. Promote the concept of Godalming becoming a zero-waste town by encouraging repair, reuse, and re-fashioning in addition to re-cycling an increasingly wide range of items, diminishing the quantity of residual waste generated across the town.

Part Five – Sustainable Transport

1. Promote opportunities for a balanced, pedestrian and cycle-friendly, sustainable and affordable public transport system.

6. Continue to lobby for the implementation of a 20mph speed limit for the Godalming Town Council area and take action to promote active and sustainable travel.

A Reform UK perspective

There are severe conflicts between this agenda and Reform UK’s relevant policy positions as stated in the “Contract with You.”

Page 4: Reform UK will slash wasteful spending to increase spending for frontline public services and reduce taxes for working people.

Page 8: We must not impoverish ourselves in pursuit of unaffordable, unachievable global CO₂ targets.

Page 8: Scrap Net Zero and Related Subsidies.

Page 9: Scrap all Diversity, Equality and Inclusion roles and regulations to stop two-tier policing.

Page 17: Legislate to ban ULEZ Clean Air Zones and Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.

Page 17: Scrapping Net Zero means no more bans on petrol and diesel cars and no legal requirements for manufacturers to sell electric cars.

Page 17: We will keep the speed limit low where safety is critical. Otherwise, 20mph zones will be scrapped.

My personal perspective

In every case, I support Reform UK’s agenda against Godalming Town Council’s. I suspect that Reform’s huge increase in popularity in the last year is in large part due to the negative effects on ordinary people, over many decades, of the agendas of the “uniparty.” This designation includes all four of the parties represented on Godalming Town Council.

Almost everyone now knows that Labour and Tories are both bad, albeit in different ways. And the Greens are even worse. Most people don’t yet realize that the Lib Dems are just as bad as the Greens. But they will, once they see the quotes above from the Corporate Plan.

Equality, Diversity and Inclusion

From my perspective, “DEI” is a collectivist project, that seeks to forcibly promote certain sectors of the population above others, with quotas and the like, based on characteristics such as race or gender. My own view is diametrically opposed, and can be paraphrased as “It isn’t who you are that matters, only what you do.”

I quote from paragraph 2.5 of Reform UK’s constitution. “The Party shall conduct itself and its affairs in such a way that it does not discriminate against or in favour of any person on the grounds of their race, religion, gender, ethnic origin, education, beliefs, sexual orientation, class, social status, sectarianism or any other basis prescribed by law.” Amen!

I think Reform should be seeking to eliminate DEI, not just in the police, but in government as a whole.

Nett Zero

As an evidence-based person, I have searched for evidence that emissions of CO₂ from human civilization have been proven to cause bad effects to the planet or to our civilization. I have found many such claims, but I have never found any hard evidence for them.

I consider the “climate crisis” caboodle to be a total scam. I have gone so far as to pen a science-based de-bunk of the whole idea, and got it published at “the world’s most viewed website on global warming and climate change.” Here: [[2]].

I take very seriously indeed the right of every human being to the presumption of innocence until proved guilty. Therefore, I regard all policies that require me or anyone else to sacrifice ourselves to the god of nett zero as immoral, destructive and criminal.

Moreover, we know that the United Nations has, ever since 1970, been the primary driver of the green agenda, and thus of nett zero. Indeed, I have documented the history of the agenda in three essays on our Reform branch website: [[3]], [[4]], [[5]].

To paraphrase that history: At Rio in 1992, our “representatives” signed us up to a whole raft of commitments, that they must surely have known were utterly opposed to the interests of those they were supposed to represent and serve. So, they set us the people of the UK, without any chance to object, on a course that would inevitably lead to us losing our prosperity, rights and freedoms. They did it gladly! And now, they are basking in success.

This process has been pushed along by the UN and its IPCC, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC, being a UN organization, is seriously biased in favour of the green agenda. But the agenda has also been supported by the uniparty of mainstream UK political parties. Only Reform offers any hope of escape from green despotism.

Those that push and have pushed the green and nett zero agenda are dishonest, deceitful and reckless towards us the people. They have sought to sideline objective science. They have fabricated “evidence” to suit policy. They have failed to do any proper cost-benefit analysis on green policies. Indeed, they have sought to prevent any such thing being done! And they have suppressed the voices of us skeptics.

All this is enshrined in Agenda 2030, agreed at the UN in 2015. And without us, the people, ever having been allowed a chance to object.

Indeed, the UN’s concept of “sustainable development” has become an idol. We are to be expected to make huge sacrifices for the sake of future generations. Yet it is we, not they, who have paid the taxes. So, we are the ones who deserve to reap the benefits. This is a scam.

One part of the story, which I did not cover in the three essays because I intend to write it up separately, is the perversion of the precautionary principle. The original principle, “Look before you leap,” discourages action unless you are fairly sure the consequences will be nett positive. But this principle has been perverted and, indeed, all but inverted. It has become, in effect: “If in doubt about a risk, government must act to prevent it.” No matter how small or unlikely that risk.

Using this perverted precautionary principle, successive UK governments have collaborated with the UN and EU to impose on us all a tyrannical culture of safety at any cost, and arbitrary, often collective, ever tightening targets and limits. Which, so they plan, will continue to be tightened for ever.

And now, I find that the UN, the EU, and the “uniparty” that supports them in the UK, have extended the tentacles of this giant scam all the way down to Godalming Town Council.

Biodiversity

I have a few green-ish friends, and I have often asked them a question. “Name one species to whose extinction I have contributed, and say what I did, and roughly when, to contribute to that extinction.” I have never received a direct answer. So, I conclude that I cannot be guilty of endangering biodiversity. And so, “biodiversity net gain” is irrelevant to me. And I surely don’t want to pay for it.

I also ask: How could any human being put the interests of other species above the interests of their own? And most of all, someone in government? After all, government is supposed to be for the benefit of the people. People are human beings, no? And wildlife don’t pay taxes.

In short, absent hard evidence of a real biodiversity problem caused by my actions, I regard the touted “ecological crisis” as a scam.

Air quality

We all want clean air, don’t we? But there are questions on this subject which aren’t asked, and should be. First, isn’t the air in the UK clean enough already? And if not, why not?

Second, if the costs to the people of a reduction in air pollution are greater than the benefits, why should we do it? I think we should not. For government is supposed to be, in everything it does, a nett benefit to the governed. And so, any policy that imposes more costs on the people, or on groups or individuals among them, than the benefits those same people, groups or individuals receive as a result, should not be implemented.

I have documented the “clean air” scam in a series of essays about anti-car policies in the UK. Here they are, for those who have time to read up on the details: [[6]], [[7]], [[8]], [[9]], [[10]], [[11]].

I intend in the future to write a potted summary of these essays for our Reform branch website. So, I won’t go into any more detail here, except to point out the similarities between what has happened over clean air and anti-car policies, and what has happened over nett zero. Though it is the World Health Organization (WHO), rather than the IPCC, that has been active on the UN side in these matters.

Electric vehicles

I don’t want an EV. I can’t afford an EV. In this, I think I share the views of many older or poorer people in the area. At 72, I will never be able to afford to buy another car of any kind. So, all I want to do is carry on running my 14-year-old diesel car until either it dies, or I am no longer physically able to drive. And to be able to afford to do so.

Where I live, the parking is underneath the flats. If someone parked an EV down there, it would be seen as a fire hazard. I also resent public parking spaces being taken away, and converted to EV chargers that are almost never used.

Fossil fuels

In our current state of technology, fossil fuels are essential for the large-scale, reliable, dispatchable, cost-effective energy we need to power our civilization. Yes, we’ll have to move on eventually, but we’ll still need base load electricity (probably mainly nuclear) and fuels with high power density for transport (probably synthetic). For the medium term, we’ve got plenty of gas. So, let’s use it.

Because they are intermittent, neither wind nor solar power can generate the base load we need. And the idea that renewables are cheaper than gas is false; the price of electricity relative to gas has increased steadily, as more and more renewables have come on line. The renewable energy caboodle is, in my view, both a scam and a dead end.

Moreover, anyone that wants to stop other people using fossil fuels, while they are cheaper, more convenient or more reliable than other forms of energy, I see as a traitor to human civilization. They deserve to be made to live in an enclave, where they may not use any fossil fuels or products made using them. Let’s see how sustainable their economy would be!

Zero waste

I’d love to see a zero-waste council. Not one that forces us to re-cycle just about everything, but one where every penny people pay it is used for the benefit of the people who paid those pennies.

Indeed, my definition of a sustainable economy is one from which no wealth is lost. Where those, who fairly earn wealth, are able to spend it on goods and services from people like themselves. And to keep it away from dishonest politicians, bureaucrats, political activists and the like. That would mean that all local councils should be zero-waste, in my sense.

Reform will seek, through its DOGE program, to apply this kind of zero-waste approach to every part of government it controls.

Public transport

Public transport in the Godalming area is very poor, apart from the railway line. Only two bus services go anywhere except Guildford or Haslemere/Midhurst. The 46 is the only bus which stops within half a mile of my home. It only runs hourly, finishes at or before 7pm, and doesn’t run at all on Sundays. And it’s slow.

If you really want people to use public transport, you must make it frequent, convenient, and with good connections throughout the day. Everywhere. That simply isn’t economically feasible in a place like Godalming. So, a car is an essential for anyone who lives, or needs to go, anywhere off the beaten track of the Guildford/Haslemere corridor. (Example: I live near Charterhouse, and used to work in Tongham.)

20mph speed limits

No-one, except busybodies that get their kicks out of controlling people, likes 20mph speed limits. Ask the Welsh! Yet the council seem to want a 20mph limit even on the A3100 north of Meadrow, currently 40mph.

Personally, I have driven for 55 years, with only one accident above walking pace. And that didn’t injure anyone. So, why do I deserve to suffer restrictions, that aren’t going to improve anything for anybody?

This is another facet of the “safety at any cost” culture pushed by the UN and EU. This bad culture is one of the main reasons I supported Brexit in the first place, and later joined Reform. It is suffocating us, and we need to get rid of it.

Active travel

I used to be a very active traveller. In 1989 I bicycled coast-to-coast across North America, and in 1994 I walked all the way from Calais to le Havre. I still walk a lot, though no more than a few miles at a time these days. But active travel in the sense the politicians mean it isn’t something that is appropriate for a 72-year-old. And I live at the top of a hill, 170 feet above the town! Sorry, but I still need my car.

To sum up

Godalming Town Council is not, in my opinion, what a town council should be. Its function ought to be to make the town a good place to live, and to supply local services cost-effectively.

Instead, it is seeking to impose on the people of the town and its suburbs an agenda that is undemocratically being pushed by the UN and EU. This agenda is a scam, based on lies, scares and bad “science.” And it goes seriously against the interests of very many of the people of Godalming. Including me.

Reform UK will need to consider very seriously what our strategy should be for the May 2027 elections to Godalming Town Council and other councils of similar stripes.

---

[[1]] https://godalming-tc.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/2023/11/Corporate-Plan-2023-27-2-November-2023.pdf

[[2]] https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/03/15/climate-crisis-what-climate-crisis-part-one-the-evidence/

[[3]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/a-brief-history-of-the-green-agenda-part-one-1968-to-1992-by-neil-lock/

[[4]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/a-brief-history-of-the-green-agenda-part-two-1993-to-2018-by-neil-lock/

[[5]] https://reformpartygodalmingash.uk/a-brief-history-of-the-green-agenda-part-three-2019-to-now/

[[6]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/07/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-one-air-pollution-episodes/

[[7]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/08/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-two-the-story-up-to-2008/

[[8]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/09/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-three-the-comeap-report-of-2009/

[[9]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/10/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-four-the-story-from-2009-to-2022/

[[10]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/11/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-five-the-story-of-the-last-15-months/

[[11]] https://libertarianism.uk/2024/04/21/the-back-story-behind-anti-car-policies-in-the-uk-part-six-summary-and-diagnosis/

A sad tale and an AI fail

Yesterday, I learned of a sad event. Yet another of our much-loved Surrey country pubs has closed. I refer to the Dog and Pheasant in Brook, on the A286 between Milford and Grayshott. Here is the tweet about the closure in July:

I have been to this pub many times, often walking there and getting a bus back to Godalming.

But the way in which I became aware of the closure is interesting, too. As Reform UK campaign manager for Godalming and Ash, I was re-working my maps of the constituency to make sure they were aligned with the latest electoral boundaries. As part of that task, I was looking up the populations of our local villages, so we would have data to help work out whether or not we should bother to send a leafleting posse.

Recently, Google has added an “AI Overview” to the results of its searches. I was, therefore, a little surprised, having entered “brook surrey population,” to get this response:

Yes, you read that right. “There isn’t a settlement named ‘Brook’ in Surrey.” AI fail! There is also a Brook south of Albury, by the railway line from Dorking to Guildford. Double fail!

However, when I followed the very next link (you can see it above!), I got this:

Well, that tells you something. When a German organization can find Brook, Surrey, UK, but Google’s AI cannot, that rather discredits the AI, does it not?

I have to say, I think that artificial intelligence (AI) is a wrong turn, an aberration. I have more than 50 years of experience in software development. I have spent decades managing teams of software programmers, and decades testing what they produce. (Sometimes, but not always, at the same time). And I can tell you, without doubt, that no software can ever possibly be better than the programmer who wrote it.

AI suffers from this same problem. No set of AI rules of deduction can be better than whoever set its rules. But it has two more, even bigger, problems. One, no AI can be better than the data it has available to it to make its decisions. And two, this Google AI and its database seem to have been released for public use, without having been thoroughly tested. (By the way, this is not the first issue I have found with Google’s AI summary).

Now, consider how those that consider themselves our masters seem to want to use AI. “If the computer says it, it’s right.” Several hundred sub-postmasters, falsely accused of fraud against the Post Office, were caught in just this trap.

Yet Google’s AI said: “There isn’t a settlement named ‘Brook’ in Surrey.” Even mention Brook, Surrey, on-line, and could you be accused of “misinformation” under the on-line safety act?

Being what I am, I tried the same query the next morning, and got a different AI answer, but also wrong: “There isn’t a settlement named Brook in Surrey with readily available specific population data.” So now, Brook may or may not exist, but the AI doesn’t know its population. The Germans still do know it, though.

Then I tried Enton Green, which according to postcode-checker.co.uk has a (believable) population figure of 271. But the AI says it is around 10,000! Another AI fail.

So, why did the Dog and Pheasant have to close? No, it wasn’t AI’s fault. Brook is still there in reality, and the pub still has a catchment area. But successive governments, with bad policies such as “nett zero,” have suppressed our economy so far, that we ordinary people can no longer afford to go out and enjoy ourselves.

On this evidence, no-one should use AI at all. If decisions depend on the answers, the risk of error is far too great. The answers seem to change from run to run, too. But Google and the establishment seem to be pushing for everyone to use it.

That is worrying. For having people – likely including government – regularly using, and believing, an unpredictable tool that makes egregious errors like these, could easily become a major threat to those few freedoms we still retain.

The Natural Law of Humanity

Image credit: Tumisu, Pixabay

Last week, I looked at ethics in general, and the relations between moral obligations and human rights. Today, I’m going to try to answer head-on the question: What is right, and what is wrong, for a human being to do?

Where I came in

To list my first three conclusions from last week’s essay:

1)     Identity determines morality. Right and wrong behaviours for a species of sentient beings are determined by the nature of the species.

2)     Ethical equality. Among members of the same species, what is right for one to do, is right for another to do under similar circumstances, and vice versa.

3)     The natural law of humanity. There exists a list of ethical obligations, which represent the behaviours natural to human beings. This can be codified.

The second and third of these statements follow directly from the first. And as evidence for the first, I gave you the behaviours of different species co-existing in the same environment, such as waterfowl around a lake. Their behaviours have a similar core, but each species has its own variations too.

Our nature

In last week’s essay, I also stated my view of the present stage of development of humanity as a species. I identified the main elements of our nature as: To take control of our surroundings, to use them for our benefit, and to leave our mark on them. To use our faculties of reason, to seek to understand what we see around us and what we experience. To form ourselves into social groups, and to organize them in such a way as to bring benefits to everyone in them; and so, to provide a civilized habitat, in which we human beings can live our lives to the full. To interact with each other using Franz Oppenheimer’s economic means, “the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others.” And thus, to seek to co-operate in order to take control of our surroundings.

I introduced these elements of our nature in an essay called “The Rhythms of History,” back in late July. In which, I looked at our history in terms of a series of forward-moving revolutions; interspersed with periods of stagnation or backsliding, which result from counter-revolutions, or reactions, launched by those that want to hold us back.

The elements I listed above are those aspects of our nature, which have been most apparent during some of the best and most revolutionary periods in our history. In particular, the first “age of reason” in ancient Greece; the Renaissance; the second age of reason, otherwise known as the Enlightenment; and the Industrial Revolution. They are the aspects of ourselves, which have made us human beings as a species what we are today.

My plan of action

I dub the codified version of the natural law of humanity, as at our present stage of development, “the Convivial Code.” I use the word “convivial,” not only in its basic sense of living together, and in its sense of being friendly and jovial (with a sub-text of feasting in good company!), but also in the sense of “fit to be lived with.” Thus, convivial conduct is the conduct of a human being, who is fit to be lived with in a civilization.

That said, to codify the natural law of humanity completely is a monster of a task. Certainly not one which can be done by one individual, or in just a couple of thousand words!

I shall, therefore, structure the rest of this essay in three parts. First, I will make some general remarks about the Code. Second, I will look at John Locke’s one-sentence statement of the law of Nature in his Second Treatise of Government. And third, I will list the obligations, which I see as my best shot so far at capturing the salient features of the Code.

General features of the Convivial Code

The Convivial Code will be an ethical code of conduct, which encapsulates the natural law of humanity. It will be, in essence, a touchstone for humanity, at the stage at which we are today. It will be independent of any particular culture, religious belief or non-belief. It will constitute a core set of standards of “civilized” behaviour for human beings worth the name.

It will make allowance for those exceptional situations, in which strict adherence to the Code may not be practical. Self-defence and defence of others, in particular, will under certain specified circumstances be seen as valid reasons for deviating from the letter of the Code.

People who make every effort to keep up to the standards of the Code, and so to obey the natural law of humanity, make themselves convivial, or “fit to be lived with.” Together, these people constitute what I call the “convivial community.” What binds this community together is a shared willingness to behave convivially. I equate this with the “great and natural community” of John Locke, to which all human beings would naturally belong, if it were not for “the corruption and viciousness of degenerate men.” (And degenerate women).

The opposite, behaviours that violate the Code, I call disconvivial behaviours. I also sometimes use the term “real wrongdoing” for such behaviours, or even inhumanity. For those that fail to measure up to the core standards of human behaviour, most of all if they do so habitually or in large matters, are failing to behave as human beings. They are degenerates. Thus, they are not fit to be accepted into any civilization of human beings worth the name.

The Code has nothing necessarily to do with “laws” as they are made today. It cannot, and must not, be invented – and most of all, it cannot be made by edicts of any cabal of politicians or their hangers-on. That route, as Locke identified, results in laws that are often no more than “the fancies and intricate contrivances of men, following contrary and hidden interests put into words.” Instead, the Code must be discovered, by examining and understanding ourselves, our cultures and our history.

One major way in which the Code will differ from systems of political laws is that, for long periods, sometimes even over many centuries, the Code will be timeless. So, once set up, it needs no legislative. Changes only become necessary when circumstances occur which have not been envisaged before, or human nature itself changes, or new knowledge becomes available about what it is. And these events are rare. For example, the latest change in human nature came with the Industrial Revolution. Because of this, absent such events, the Code will be applicable retrospectively.

Once constructed and agreed – and that is a monster of a project in itself – the Code must be tried out in practice, very likely in prototype communities. These can then be used as seeds towards its wider and wider adoption. Other aspects to be hammered out would include the procedures for determining when a change is necessary to the Code, for specifying the changes, and for introducing a new version of the Code.

John Locke’s summary

Here is the text of John Locke’s one-sentence summary of the Code, from §6 of his Second Treatise. “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.”

In what sense did Locke mean that we are all equal? He certainly didn’t mean a socialist idiocy like equality of economic outcome. Indeed, he wrote: “I cannot be supposed to understand all sorts of ‘equality.’ Age or virtue may give men a just precedency. Excellency of parts and merit may place others above the common level.”

No: he meant ethical equality! In the same sense as I do. For he said, of the law of Nature: “What any may do in prosecution of that law, every one must needs have a right to do.” As to being all independent, it is a fact that each of us has our own body, our own mind, and our own will. It is up to each of us, as an individual, to live our lives as best we can. And as long as we behave as human beings, no-one should have any right to stop us doing so.

As to “no-one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions,” Locke is saying: no killing of human beings, no physical assaults, no infringing on others’ rights or freedoms, and no stealing or destruction of property. That’s a pretty good first shot at a law of civilized behaviour for human beings, is it not?

And yet, when we look at the actions of leaders, functionaries and hangers-on of political states around the world today, we see that a lot, even most of, the time they fall seriously short of this mark. Indeed, wars, physical assaults and destruction of property are built into the very foundations of the “Westphalian” states we suffer under. As is taxation, which enables the politically rich to extort earnings or property, or both, from the politically poor. And violations of our human rights and freedoms have become all but routine. Such as the “on-line safety act,” and facial recognition cameras in the public space.

My own contribution – “the Code lite”

It may not surprise you, at this point, to find that I have been working for many years towards my own best shot at writing the Convivial Code.

As I explained in last week’s essay, I see ethical codes in terms of lists of obligations to be kept to. Therefore, that is how I will express my approximation to the Code. As to its level of detail, I am aiming somewhere in between John Locke’s one-sentence statement, and a full treatment, which I would expect to extend to many dozens, if not hundreds, of pages.

I have expressed my version, which I will call “the Code lite,” as a list of 25 obligations. Of these, the first seven are positive obligations, to which the individual must keep if they are not to violate the natural law of humanity. The next four are expectations – things which the individual must strive to do. The remainder are negative obligations or prohibitions; things which the individual must not do. In each of these, the exceptional situations I discussed above, like self-defence, which may justify a deviation, must be borne in mind.

And I will define here what I mean by justice and injustice, and the adjectives just and unjust. By “justice,” I mean what I call “common-sense justice.” That is, the condition in which each individual is to be treated, over the long run, in the round and as far as practicable, as he or she treats others. And when I use the words “just” or “unjust,” I mean in accordance with, or not in accordance with, common-sense justice.

As I did above with John Locke’s version, you may care to contemplate how well the behaviours of those in positions with political power today, whether they are publicly visible or not, measure up to these obligations, expectations and prohibitions.

The positive obligations

1)     Respect the human rights and freedoms of all those who respect your equal rights and freedoms.

2)     Always seek the facts on any matter, and tell the truth as you understand it.

3)     Be honest, candid, straightforward and sincere in all your dealings.

4)     Take responsibility for the reasonably foreseeable effects on others of your voluntary actions.

5)     If your voluntary actions cause objective and unjust harm or inconvenience to others, you have an obligation to compensate them.

6)     If you engage in activities that impose a risk of harm on others, you must have in place resources to enable you to compensate them if such a harm eventuates.

7)     Always practise what you preach.

The first of these obligations, obviously, does not answer the question “precisely what are the rights and freedoms, which everyone must respect?” This I regard as something which must be fleshed out in the process of detailing the Code. But in outline, any right in any of the major lists of rights, from Magna Carta, via the 1689 bill of rights and the 1791 US bill of rights, to the UN declaration and the European Convention, must be checked to see if it is in reality a valid right. And if it is, it must be back-to-backed with an obligation or set of obligations, in the way I explained in last week’s essay.

The remaining obligations are more self-explanatory. They require close adherence to truth and honesty. They impose on you a responsibility for what you do to others; require you to provide compensation if you unjustly harm others; and impose a restriction on the risks to which you may subject others.

The last obligation is, perhaps, the most important of all. For hypocrisy – preaching that in a given situation, people should act in one way, yet yourself acting differently – is a sure sign of disconviviality.

The expectations

8)     Strive to be independent, self-reliant and rational in all your thoughts and actions.

9)     Always strive to carry out what you have knowingly and voluntarily agreed to do.

10) Always strive to behave with objectivity, justice, integrity and good faith.

11) Strive to be tolerant of all those who are convivial and tolerant towards you.

These are all couched in terms of striving to meet an obligation, rather than simply meeting it in every situation. This reflects the fact that these expectations are, for many if not all of us, harder to keep to than are obligations such as truthfulness, honesty and straightforwardness.

The prohibitions

12) Don’t bully anyone, or commit any aggression against anyone’s life, person or property.

13) Don’t interfere in other people’s lives without a good, objectively justifiable reason.

14) Don’t unjustly do to others what they do not want done to them.

15) Don’t intentionally do or aggravate injustice.

16) Don’t promote, support, co-operate with or condone any unjust violation of human rights or freedoms.

17) Don’t promote, support, make or enforce any law that harms, inconveniences, or violates the rights or freedoms of, innocent people.

18) Don’t seek to control others through emotional manipulation or obfuscation.

19) Don’t put any obstacle in the way of the economic free market, or unjustly deny anyone’s access to it.

20) Don’t unjustly deny others the right to make their own decisions in thought or action.

21) Don’t deny anyone the presumption of innocence, or require them to prove a negative.

22) Don’t try to take more from others than you are justly entitled to, or to impose costs on others that bring no benefit to them.

23) Don't pick favourites, or operate double standards with anyone.

24) Don't recklessly impose harm, or unreasonable risk of harm, on others.

25) Don’t willingly let yourself become a drain on others.

Would you agree with me, that these are all things which every civilized human being should refrain from doing? If you agree, would you also agree that under today’s conditions, we are all of us, again and again, subjected to violations of many, if not all, of these prohibitions?

To sum up

In this essay, I have made my best attempt to “put some flesh” on what I call the Convivial Code, the ethical code which specifies the natural law of civilized humanity. I have noted some of its general characteristics. I have given John Locke’s one-sentence summary of it, and my own “Convivial code lite” of 25 obligations. And I have suggested, for your consideration, that the behaviours of those with positions of political privilege today are very, very far from satisfying either John Locke’s summary of the Code or mine.