Page 1 of 2

Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:11 am
by Ned
We are a species of contradictions:

Co-operation and competition; desire for freedom and for power; generosity and greed; loyalty and enmity

In a social context this duality manifests itself as freedom from, and compassion for, one another.

The different social systems in our history were built on different assumptions of human nature.

- Capitalism assumes that our primary motivation is greedy self interest (freedom and competition)
- Communism is built on the assumption that we can be like a family, each caring equally for all (compassion and sharing).
- Socialism of various kinds try to find a compromise between those extremes.

So far without much success, because the compromises were arbitrary, piecemeal, without a clearly defined principle.

Can we find a compromise acceptable to most people?

I believe we can.

Let’s agree that we acknowledge both of our needs: freedom from, and compassion for, one another. Let us agree that the compassion part has priority, up to where the basic survival needs of every citizen in our country is assured. Beyond this point our priorities change and our need for freedom takes over.

The concept I have in mind is a variety of the ‘Basic Income Alternative’ a policy that has been and is currently studied by various western governments (including Ireland and Canada).

In my version, we have a two-compartment economy, with the two parts completely isolated from each other. One, the public sector, is communist in nature, while the second, the private sector, is pure capitalism.

In the public sector, basic human needs are the responsibility of the national government and takes priority over every other human activity.

In the public sector there is no money.

The government is in charge of all the industries and infrastructure (without exception) required to provide basic human needs: food, clothing, housing, health, education, communication, transportation.

The government controls all the resources necessary to eliminate poverty and make sure every citizen’s basic needs are satisfied.

The basic human needs can be easily calculated by using scientific data on age-dependent calorie requirements, climate-dependent clothing and housing requirement, population-dependent health- and education-requirement and the necessary energy and raw-material production, as well as the necessary infrastructure in transportation and communication. It could be easily planned – and adapted, as conditions change - based on physiological, climatic and demographic data.

Production in this economy presupposes that the sector is self contained, the nation has all the resources required to implement this system; no foreign trade is required.

Basic human needs are very easy to satisfy - we have all the resources and the technology to do it in abundance today, if we put everything else on hold and eliminate all waste (ostentation, lavish entertainment, military, finance, duplication and competition) until basic human needs are satisfied. In my opinion no ethical human being could justify spending any amount of resources on those items I just listed, as long as there is one hungry child or homeless citizen in the country.

This does not mean that I would want to live without arts or sports or some luxuries, but the beauty of the system is that I would not have to. The key word above is ***ABUNDANCE***. With intelligent organization, elimination of wasteful competition and duplication, we could produce ***ENOUGH*** of the basic necessities to accommodate individual differences in needs and statistical fluctuations in demand, with a comfortable margin of safety.

No regulation on the individual level is necessary. The produced goods and services could be made freely available: people could just help themselves in the warehouses, find the ‘basic quality’ house they need, close to the place where they work. If basic needs are guaranteed, no sane person would bother with hoarding, so no artificial shortages would happen (the assumption being that insane persons are in a very tiny minority).

Besides being in charge of all production activity to satisfy this goal, the government will have to maintain the police and the courts to make sure the system is defended against criminals, sociopaths and psychopaths. Another beauty of the system is that once basic needs are satisfied, the level of crime, violence and destructive behavior will decrease drastically.

The time an average citizen will have to work in the Public Sector could be as low as 2-3 hours per workday. This minimal contribution can be accumulated in advance to provide for vacations and personal projects, but would not be transferable to make sure no person has a ‘free ride’. You don’t have to ‘save up’ for illness and retirement, because those are provided for by the excess safety buffer built into the system.

The government would stay the sole ‘owner’ of all natural resources that are common birthright of all citizens. Among these are primarily land, air, water, space, forests, wildlife, mineral deposits, communication frequency bands. Nobody can expropriate any of this for exclusive personal use beyond what they are entitled to in their basic needs (these needs are defined by national consensus, reached by referendum, based on scientific and demographic data).

After basic needs are satisfied and poverty, hunger, preventable illness and ignorance is eliminated from the nation; crimes are prevented to the best of the police’s ability, then the government’s task ends. It has done all in its power to make sure that basic human needs are satisfied, nobody goes hungry, no one freezes to death on a winter sidewalk, nobody gets abused by crime or exploitation, no one too young, old or sick gets neglected, no human greed and evil is allowed to rule.

The second compartment in the economy which would be completely private, and totally separate from the Public Sector and the government. Other than assuring that no criminal activity (theft, fraud, murder, pollution, inhumanity to animals, etc) is taking place in the second tier, the government is staying completely out of it.

The private sector could be organized in any way participants want to - it can have money and banks and loans and interest rates and what-have-you. It can lease excess natural resources (only in a sustainable way) from the government for its own purposes, by contributing extra benefit to the public, basic-needs production economy (they can not pay in currency because the government does not use any). The value of natural resources in terms of public service provided for its use will have to be calculated by the economic planners of the government, based on scarcity of resources versus public benefit of service provided for it. It has to be dynamic, with strict guidelines protecting it from abuse.

Nobody could be forced to participate in the ‘private sector’ of the economy, it would be strictly voluntary. If the private economy organizes itself to use a recognized common currency, then citizens could get ‘paid’ for their work in the private sector and use this money to purchase luxuries (products and services beyond basic needs) just as they do now. The private sector could do any amount of foreign trade so long as it does not compromise the public economy.

No compromise would be tolerated when it comes to basic needs and rights, the sustainability of the system, the health of the environment and the rights of other living species. Of course there are millions of details to be worked out, I only wanted to describe the basic principles of a ‘workable’ social organization. And, of course, I have no roadmap leading from ‘A’ to ‘B’ and don’t even know if such a roadmap is possible in the immediate future. However, I wanted to describe how a social organization could exist without money.

To summarize:


The essence of my system: People decide that the most important goal is to make sure everybody’s basic needs are met. They create an economy to assure that. There is no money involved, every able citizen contributes a minimum number of hours per day and the produced goods are made available to everyone freely. This economy is completely self contained: it has its power generating stations, mining, industries, agriculture, transportation and communication facilities, schools and hospitals.

Now, whoever wants more can do it in their spare time, as long as 1./ they don’t touch our economy in any way whatsoever (if they can’t do it without us, it is their problem, we will not let anything compromise the ‘prime directive’). 2./ They don’t cause damage to the environment and don’t harm anyone in the process (including other species).

As Will Durant wrote in “The Lessons of History (chapter X. - Government and History) -- “If our economy of freedom fails to distribute wealth as ably as it has created it, the road to dictatorship will be open to any man who can persuasively promise security to all; and a martial government, under whatever charming phrases, will engulf the democratic world”

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 12:01 pm
by Brit Dems
Very interesting.

but . . . .


I can see the problem with identity and that is what to do with those outside the society.

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 12:08 pm
by Ned
Brit Dems wrote:I can see the problem with identity and that is what to do with those outside the society.
What do you mean? :?

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 12:55 pm
by bobevenson
Ned wrote: Capitalism assumes that our primary motivation is greedy self interest.
Self interest is not greed. Greed is taking more than your fair share of something. Ergo, your entire post is suspect.

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:05 pm
by Brit Dems
Ned wrote:
Brit Dems wrote:I can see the problem with identity and that is what to do with those outside the society.
What do you mean? :?

If one has a society there will always be those who will be thought outside society.

How will the society be identified?

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 3:42 pm
by Ned
Brit Dems wrote:
Ned wrote:
Brit Dems wrote:I can see the problem with identity and that is what to do with those outside the society.
What do you mean? :?

If one has a society there will always be those who will be thought outside society.

How will the society be identified?
I still don't understand your response.

What does it mean and what has it got to do with this thread? :?

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 4:40 pm
by Brit Dems
Ned wrote:
Brit Dems wrote:
I still don't understand your response.

What does it mean and what has it got to do with this thread? :?

One must identify the society before one can make a "social contract"

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Tue May 12, 2015 4:47 pm
by Ned
OK, I got it. It's all right. I am happy now. :)

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Wed May 13, 2015 7:51 pm
by Ned
I had high hopes for this thread, because it could open up discussion on possible different compromises we could imagine for organizing society.

I made one particular suggestion,but it is not cast in stone, it can be adapted in many different ways, or even discard it altogether and try to come up with a different compromise.

A compromise I believe is necessary, so we can end up with a stable and functioning system, instead of fighting like cats and dogs all the time.

I am sure many of you have heard the "Resource Based Economy" suggested by "The Zeitgeist Movement"

So, there is room for intelligent speculation here.

On other forums, I have received many responses, some positive, some negative, and I am surprised that so far no one seems interested in this topic.

(PS. Please, name callers stay away!)

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 9:41 pm
by Starfall
I have doubts that this system would work as smoothly as you describe. I will mention two issues in this post, but I also think that the class conflict that might arise from the two different economies is something to watch out for.

An important issue here is that someone has to make sure the government does its job like it is supposed to. As the world has seen with the failed USSR, theories that look good on paper usually do not translate well into the real world because they are never applied as they are supposed to be. Instead, they are twisted by the desires of those who are responsible with applying them. George Orwell's Animal Farm depicts a very good example: In theory, the system is perfectly applicable. The farm has more than enough resources to comfortably feed all animals, and they could all live in peace. However, the pigs (who represent the ruling class) end up being greedy and gradually change the system to favor them over the other animals. They hoard the resources to themselves, and create economic inequality anew. Eventually, their system collapses back to what they had before their "revolution".

Another problem is the Malthusian issue of population growth. If the population grows too quickly, the advances in technology will not be able to make up for the growth and the basic needs of everyone will no longer be satisfied. Right now, this isn't as much of an issue because the poor are simply left to starve, as if they never existed at all (When you are barely feeding yourself, it also discourages you from making any children.) In your system, this is impossible. Do you intend to implement some kind of population control mechanism in order to prevent it from spiraling out of control?

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 10:00 pm
by Ned
Starfall, as I have said numerous times:

a./ I don't see a road-map leading from here to there
b./ Even if it would work for a while, human beings are very good at corrupting any system.

I grew up in communist Hungary, so I know the difference between theory and practice.

Having said that, I still believe that some kind of a compromise between Communism and Capitalism is necessary. A compromise that rests on clearly defined and understood principles. Otherwise we will have what we have now - forever fighting over the percentages and wasting most of our resources in that fight.

The problem with the attitude of rejecting possible utopian situation is that it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

We need to know what the best compromise would be, even if impractical, so we have an idea of which direction to look for the next-best-thing compromise.

In this essay I tried to work out the basic principle of this compromise the best way I could. I have never seen a system before where both Communism and Capitalism would be incorporated in the system (it doesn't mean that there aren't any).

Unless we can come up with a compromise that somehow would satisfy both of our needs: freedom and compassion, we won't ever have a stable system.

And, an unstable system, at our level of technology, could so easily lead to extinction.

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 10:18 pm
by Starfall
The good(!) side of capitalism is that it doesn't get corrupted by greed, because it is built on greed. That is why it has lasted so long, and all other systems simply faded from existence.

Pure communism, I think, runs into more issues than your intermediate system does. You successfully eliminate some issues by including a private economy in your idea, but it is still far from perfect, as you yourself have said. However, I think the idea of mixing the two approaches together is worthy of deeper consideration. Is there a way to retain the capitalist mechanism of making use of greed, while not giving up the communist public economy? If there is, that would make the system superior to capitalism by nature; however I believe finding such a way is far from trivial. I suppose I will give it a longer thought :P

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 10:27 pm
by Ned
Starfall wrote:The good(!) side of capitalism is that it doesn't get corrupted by greed, because it is built on greed. That is why it has lasted so long, and all other systems simply faded from existence.

Pure communism, I think, runs into more issues than your intermediate system does. You successfully eliminate some issues by including a private economy in your idea, but it is still far from perfect, as you yourself have said. However, I think the idea of mixing the two approaches together is worthy of deeper consideration. Is there a way to retain the capitalist mechanism of making use of greed, while not giving up the communist public economy? If there is, that would make the system superior to capitalism by nature; however I believe finding such a way is far from trivial. I suppose I will give it a longer thought :P
The main mechanism of reducing the probability of corruption is two-fold.

- The public economy is self-contained (can not be held hostage to capitalist greed)
- No money is used in the public sector, so the problem of regulating distribution is eliminated.

As I mentioned in the essay: the "Guaranteed Income Initiative" that has been proposed and seriously studied by various governments would be an intermediate step in this direction. But I like the idea of everybody, at least minimally, contributing to the public economy.

A citizenry that does not have to fear losing its basic necessities is much less tempted to enter crime and violence. Even those who are doing well above the average, would be safer. Not mentioning the added benefit of not living in their gated communities, surrounded by a sea of misery and crime.

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 10:46 pm
by Starfall
The economy being self-contained is certainly a very important factor in reducing corruption. At the very least, it cuts off the corruption outside of the country from flowing in, and the system only has to tackle internal corruption. If the system continues functioning as you plotted out, then there are no problems. If capitalism works, there is no reason this system should not. Sadly, corruption is a serious threat and can be caused by any number of human desires. As I said before, however, that does not mean the system is wholly inapplicable. If a suitable way to go from capitalism to this new system could be found, then perhaps humans would not be as greedy and as lustful as they are today. I believe the most important task in creating a new social order (and the most promising way of changing systems) is changing the system of education. If you educate people in a way suitable for them to be part of this new system, then they will be. Today, even schools are ran with competitive systems. You enter an exam, the one who gets the better grade is applauded, the one who gets the worse grade is shunned. If this system was to be changed in a way that would prepare people for a new social order, that would be a very important first step towards the capitalism-communism hybrid that we aim to reach.

Re: Proposal for a new social contract

Posted: Fri May 15, 2015 10:50 pm
by Ned
Starfall wrote: I believe the most important task in creating a new social order (and the most promising way of changing systems) is changing the system of education. If you educate people in a way suitable for them to be part of this new system, then they will be..... If this system was to be changed in a way that would prepare people for a new social order, that would be a very important first step towards the capitalism-communism hybrid that we aim to reach.
Absolutely.

I addressed this issue several times, once in a thread I called: "Teaching critical thinking in education".

I just resurrected this thread from the graveyard, for your perusal. :)