In defense of empathy

Sociopaths will go where the power is. Which is why you will find them at the head of companies, governments & criminal enterprises. Wherever there is way to exert power over others and a way to avoid consequences, there they will be. So how do you create a system that keeps them in check? A system that discourages sociopathic thinking and fosters empathy?

This is my idea, I am sure that not only are the many others, but that my idea can be improved immensely, but this is what I can come up with.

The main underlying belief is this: No one knows why we are here & what the purpose, if any, of life is. There is no perfect human, no perfect philosophy of existence. That does not necessarily mean it is impossible to find such proof, just very unlikely and it would require overwhelming evidence. I believe that every human being is responsible for finding their own life purpose, their own raison d’etre and in so doing, maybe they can find a greater truth. Throughout history, imperfect people have come up with great & lasting ideas. This is good & should be encouraged.

This means that every human being should have the opportunity & security to pursue their truth. It means that every human being should ideally be free from hunger & thirst, be safe & secure and most importantly, it means that every single human being should have a voice over everything that might affect them. Consent & free choice is the foundation of a free & just society. One human, one vote and all that.

However, no matter how simple you make society, there will always be too many choices for one human to ponder. Imagine everything that affects you and then imagine that you would have to make a conscious choice on all that. It would break your mind. A true direct democracy is too vast for our feeble human minds. That does not mean that we should give up and give in to an authoritarian system, since this will always lead to abuse & societal destruction.

My idea for a solution for this is the Direct Mandate Democracy. Not Representative Democracy, because again, a hierarchical system will always fail. I am sure others have come up with a similar idea and probably expressed it better, but I have not come across it, so here goes:

1. If something affects you, you have a voice in the matter, a mandate.

2. If you do not feel you have the knowledge or the time to deal with a specific area, you can delegate your mandate to someone else, but only if they consent to it. No one can be forced to take responsibility, but it is appreciated.

3. If you accept a mandate from others, you are responsible for it. You should have, or attain, the knowledge needed for this. You can in turn give these mandates on to someone else that you feel would be a good steward.

4. Once one or more people, who are willing to act on these mandates, have the majority of mandates, they are responsible for acting on them.

5. The consent of a mandate goes both ways. If you have given it away, it should also come with the resources to enact it.

6. A mandate can always be withdrawn and it can never override anyone’s basic human right. You cannot break consent.

7. There are two kinds of mandates: Continuing & project-based.

8. A continuing mandate is for things that continue. How we want our community to run, infrastructure, maintenance, food production, services etc.

9. Project-based mandates are for things where there is a deadline. If we want to create something new, there needs to be a cut-off point, where a mandate no longer can be withdrawn. Otherwise it would make it impossible to do a new project. At the very least, a withdrawal should require a vote from all stakeholders.

10. If a choice has serious consequences, like if a mandate-group decides that a choice is needed that changes things radically, all mandates should go back to the individual. For example, if it is determined that we need to change how votes are cast, it should be voted on by everyone (need better explanation here). How to determine if a choice is radical, I do not know, but maybe there is a mandate-group for this?

11. Overall votes on things like resource-allocation and the foundational philosophy behind a community should be taken by all. Ideally, consensus should be sought.

12. Everyone should know who has their mandate and what choices have been made, so that they can withdraw it, if they are not in agreement with how it is used.

I believe this could work, at least as long as everyone enters into it with honest intentions, with empathy. One way to test it, is to try and look at your present life (or situations in the past) and see how it might work there. For me, I think my factory could run more or less like it does now under this system. Again, it requires people who are honest with themselves and their fellow humans. It also requires that people are willing to take on responsibility. Which might be a problem, but I think that as long as a given mandate is understood to be both a gift and a burden, it might make it easier to bear. I am certainly more willing to take on responsibility, if it is given instead of taken.

Another issue is how to do resource-allocation. To determine how resources are divided and used. This is how I think about this:

1. There are two kind of resources: Material & Time.

2. Material resources are both available material as well as financial (in that they can buy material).

3. Time resources are the available work-hours. As in: How many people can work how many hours, with what kind of skills.

4. Once you have determined, both individually & as a community, what your needs & wants are, you can start prioritizing resources. What is essential and what is nice to have.

5. Once you have the basics in order, it becomes clearer what new projects can be initiated.

6. Since all material resources are either grown or mined, you could argue that all resources are time resources. Not really that important, except it means that you could potentially replace money with time: One hour worked gives you a “work-hour” token. Would require a vast computing system though.