A Rock for Society to Build Itself on

The world of humans has found itself in a tumultuous state.

Through the ages, many types of society have tried and ultimately failed in their attempts to base their society on their idea of functional and fair concepts.

It is not that many of the individual social rules which have been built are wrong, but rather that the very foundations of society have been built on shifting sands.

While each and every one of us as individuals have a concept of what society should be built upon, it is that very point that causes the ultimate failure of those societies.

Why is this?

Because each individual has their own concept, then several individuals of similar minds, begin to build a structure from their concept, and all others who are of different minds, are minimized and suppressed.

So how do we find a rock to build on, that can support and properly function, in our globalized multicultural environment?

In the past, societies began, being built upon one or both of the two following fundamental concepts.

The first concept is that there is a God, and that God has issued edicts that we must follow. Words like “Truth” and “Justice” derive from this concept, as absolute concepts, and leaders use these God issued edicts to control their citizens. Again, this type of social order can function within the bounds of its citizens, when they are fairly similar and homogeneous.

The second concept derives from the answer to the question: “how can humans live together without harming each other?”

There are examples of both types of ancient social systems, with the religion based systems creating a “King under God” type structure, and the secular social systems like what we see in the Hammurabi Code.

The current dilemma we find ourselves in, is that the very concepts of truth and justice, along with many fixed definitions used in society have been called into question, with the onset of post modernism and modern science.

Post modernism, with its philosophical concept that the human mind is not capable of being certain about anything, has become mired down in its own ideas, and threatens to be the undoing of all civilization to date.

As modern science has begun digging deeper and deeper into the quantum world, where the physical rules we understand from our five senses begin to fall apart as a guideline to social behaviour, the post modernist thinking that we cannot be certain of anything seems to be a very reasonable and logical place to stand.

Human experiencing, from the beginning of humankind, is only based on the physical world, and our sense perception of it, while the quantum world is similar to the human mind, and can imagine anything regardless of it being rooted in reality or not. They are not one and the same, and operate at totally different levels. But for post modernist thinkers, these very real and delineated lines get blurred by the urge to get outside the limitations of the physical world.

So, assuming that these above statements are true, how do we find a rock to build society on, that can successfully support humanity, in our post modern, quantum thinking, globalized multicultural environment?

It seems that the best minds we have in the world today are falling into two groups.

Both essentially try to stand their ground, either from a religious God based edict system, or from an ideological based system like Communism or Socialism.

While there are merits to each of these concepts, they both have proven to not be a match for the place in time and space which humanity currently finds itself. Both require the enforcing of rules on populations that are varied and intermixed.

If we do not find a new alternative, we will be warring for either communist or democratic or sharia law until we (or nature) find a way to end humanities suffering.

So where are we to turn?

I would like to approach this question, in a humble and reasonable manner, from the very beginning.

Please bear with me.

Where does the need for human society arise?

If there were only one human on the face of the world, or in a location where humans did not bump into other humans, there would be very little need for any form of social order.

It is only when two or more humans live in proximity to each other, wishing to “live together without harming each other”, they must begin to practice some form of society.

When early societies began to build basic rules to deal with this reality, they utilized rules which had grown out of their various superstitious and religious beliefs.
Those beliefs essentially said that humans will not live together without harming each other, unless a threat of eternal or divine punishment is used to control them.
Leaders then began to use those beliefs to control their population, and added their own military strength as a method of control.

Thus all of those societies have been built by using Power to control, as their base.

With fewer and fewer folks agreeing with that way of thinking, and the marginalized and suppressed minorities of the world bumping into each other, and in full uprising, none of the current concepts are working.

So, back to searching for the rock….

The first requirement when multiple humans want to live together, is personal space.

We do not function well when there is no sense of personal space.

Likely even in caves, there was a “this is my spot” and “that is your spot”. And any disagreement was dealt with in a very decisive manner.

It is no wonder that the root concept of property ownership arose very early from this need of personal space.

The second related requirement, although it does grow from a very selfish urge (and also a survival urge) is “this is mine” and “that is yours”. It is likely that this is the first place where the concept of “fairness” comes into play.

Likely the “this is mine” began as the only issue, but obviously, humans soon came to the understanding that “if i want this to be mine, then I have to allow that to be yours”…. mutual understanding of my space, and my stuff were the earliest forms of “a society where we can live together without harming each other”… in the form of “don’t steal my stuff”.

Jumping to our present predicament, socialists think that we shouldn’t own stuff, and that it is ownership which creates social struggles. This is simply not true. The answer to social struggles is not to take away everyone’s toy. Then NO ONE is happy and envious of the things they don’t have.

I do also understand that the socialist and communist method of creating this “equality” is to use power to enforce it.

In any case, we can see that the earliest rules of society fell in line with most of the Ten Commandments which most of us are familiar with.

My case in point here is, that the social rules required to build a healthy society, do not need to be Edicts from God, but that all humans must practice these basic rules in order to live together without harming each other.

Root concepts:

Don’t Kill (if you do that, others have the right to kill you, and enforce the law of payback)

Don’t Steal (if you steal my stuff, I can also steal your stuff – two edged sword)

Don’t Sleep with your neighbours wife. (Again, if you do it, your neighbour automatically get the right to respond in kind)

Don’t Lie (no one will trust you)

Don’t Envy (this only leads to stealing or manipulation to get what is someone elses

The God Edict parts of those commands were largely put in to say “if you don’t obey these rules, God will punish you”.

The point I am making here, is that these basic social rules form the basis of the “secular social contract” which are common to all societies, regardless of their beliefs or ideologies.

The following social structure needs to be added on top of these basic rules.

Honour your father and mother must become “Respect for others”

Don’t disrespect me or mine, or that automatically gives me the right to give you the same back.

Which is the basis of fairness, which brings humans past the basic survival instincts, to:

“Do unto others as you would have them do unto you”.

Any of the older social, cultural and ideological structures, that rely on “us vs. Them” need to be seen as outdated.

The flipside of the call to only treat others as you would have them treat you, is:

If you do not treat others properly, you will be treated by the social structure in kind.

So, the next issue that needs to be addressed is:

“Why should we value an ordered society over individual rights and freedoms society?”
In days past, to ask such a question would seem to lack intelligence, but post modernism is taking all assumed truths, and throwing them out.

First, we need to admit that we do NOT know things for certain.
Second, we need to recognize that the world we experience is NOT a quantum world, and so the basic common sense rules of how things work, are still the set of rules that make a functional society.
Third, because we cannot know anything for 100% certain, we need to make DECISIONS about what type of society we want to live in, understanding that these are not some sort of eternal truth, but that humans, with their limitations and inadequacies, must have space to experience an ACCEPTABLE amount of freedom, and ACCEPTABLE amount of personal space, and ACCEPTABLE amount of personal freedom.

Then we can ask ourselves “why does this decision better than that decision”.

Fourth, we need to realize that because we live in a physical sense world, we need common sense rules which we see, hear, smell, taste and touch.

Fifth, we need to function in our society in an adult manner, realizing that

Further Notes to flesh out:

The world of lawyers must be therefore cleaned up, where “eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” must be reinstated.

If we are to continue to exist, our rules must be FAIR and STRONG.

How can we limit the abuse of power in this society?

Benevolence of leaders, and a restriction on time in power, with no repeats.

The apex of power must be shared equally with folks from all backgrounds = a leadership council.

To be continued: