In our nature-ism, is a very simple overarching social contract theory, or theory of government, that creates an architecture that allows for every other social contract to exist within its framework without exception. One where everyone except the dishonest see benefit, it could be argued though that they also see benefit as they can create their own community with its own unique social contract where they can practice and impose their morality on each other without external interference and negatively impacting those that view their morality as immoral. It has an architecture that creates the ability for groups to create their own culture, one that they consent to and deem moral as long as they don’t impose it on others. It’s core architecture based on the natural construct, time, and a exoteric logic made sound in the value theory of time. As this value theory appears to be universal and very simple it opens the door for a universal theory of justice, as well as allowing for an interesting economic and political theory. In philosophical terms it would be a metaphysical or possibly a ontological claim that we all value our time that then unlocks a epistemology with a absolute binary logic, along with a second infinitely variable component, that appears to define morality and ethics in a objective manner acceptable to all. That logic bridges the is-aught gap in Humes ethics or the fact-value distinction. It is a fact that every conscious being values time. This then forms the basis of a theory of government a political theory, a economic theory, in short a social contract theory that is fair just and should, as mentioned, be acceptable to all, a categorical imperative in Kantian ethics. All these theories have the same singular maxim, with its inherent underlying logic, so they tend to mesh in quite well. In Kantian ethics it could be considered the natural logical procedural progression, or realization, of the categorical imperative. As the maxim is an end in itself, that every conscious mind values its time, it places no undue obligation on others.
One of the problems with our current constitutions is that they all have multiple maxims, each one defining a right. All these rights bar one is not an end in itself and that creates obligations for others. These multiple rights create the possibility for them to come into conflict with each other, or having different meanings, or values, to different cultures, resulting in subjectivity being introduced. This results in a justice model which is not absolute and binary and thus introduce, due to the subjective nature of these rights, injustices these may be perceived or real. Time has all the properties to provide the ideal opportunity, or mechanism, for the realization, of what John Rawls would call a veil of ignorance. It has no biases, no race, culture, color, creed or any other property that can introduce biases. It is the one thing we all have by default. This architecture disadvantages anyone who introduces any form of bias, as it limits the selection pool for the person who is biased. It’s given to you for free by whoever you believe created you. It has some other interesting properties that all contribute to make it the ideal measure of value, you cannot buy more, and it is the common denominator in everything you do, even when you do nothing, or sleep, or think, you still have to spend time doing it. No on has the right to tell you how to spend your time, they have their own time and can spend it as they wish, as long as they don’t affect others negatively, without compensation or their consent. That would be the definition of a injustice.
It allows for a society where you can create as much value as you legitimately, ethically and, within reason, are able to. It results in a society where the following logic exists. We are all truly equal before the law. Everyone benefits equally, and everyone contributes equally, or at least as close to that as possible, the old and those severely mentally or physically challenged, cannot be expected to contribute to the same extent, unless they are productive of their own volition. It is a proposal for a architecture that allows for a just and fair social contract to exist, where the default state is far more acceptable and sustainable than any of the current models. In short everyone, who is moral, should ultimately see benefit not just a few. If considered it forces you to respect others time as you would yours. It’s a theory that has as its core postulate or axiom that nothing in life is free except your time to yourself, and anything anyone gives you of their own free will that they legitimately own. Time is a asset that you own, that is the genesis, or universal primary currency of value that is then traded for other secondary forms of value or assists, and secondly it defines justice as the protection and preservation of this value, and that it’s a injustice to affect others ownership of their time negatively without their consent. It would be good to read my other website on The definition of time. It is based on or in a logic that exists and defines morality and ethics in a absolute binary logic. That logic then transcends morality and ethics and manifests itself as defining value, and justice in a way that is strangely familiar, that appears to be because it already exists in our subconscious, I call this logic “the logic of time”. At its highest level the logic is the relationship you have with time you either have it or you don’t you are either alive or dead. it doesn’t get any more binary or absolute than that. At its next level when you are alive your consciousness is always in one of two states its in a state of free will or against its will. Again it is very absolute and binary, there is no grey area. You know when you are being raped, hurt, threatened with physical harm, or have had something stolen from you. In other words spending your time doing something that you don’t want to do. Most of us will go through our whole lives in a state of free will. Even a slave if he is there of his own volition is in a state of free will. The same applies to a chief or king his subjects, if its their culture to be subjects and regard their king as their king, no one outside that culture can dictate to them how they should behave within their cultural contract if it doesn’t affect others. This logic is further expanded on in the pages on justice as well as the logic pages of this document.
What this architecture appears to do is shift sovereignty. In the state of nature or original state sovereignty rests with the individual, as it does with all wild animals. What we have done as humans is to vest that sovereignty, either voluntarily or involuntarily in a government, state, individual or any other entity that our forefathers deemed appropriate at the time. What this architecture does is to place sovereignty back in the individual, with one caveat. When you feel a injustice has occurred there are protocols that transfer that sovereignty is then transferred to a reasonable peer of your choice. The logic here is that if you choose your peer or “king” in a dispute you have to abide by his ruling, you have no choice, you cannot claim injustice or bias, even if it results in a penalty as severe as the death penalty. A more in-depth interrogation of this concept is in the justice page.
This document proposes, or outlines a possible proposal for a social contract architecture that assumes that the the ownership of your time is yours it’s the universal currency of value for all conscious minds. With that as it’s core axiom, and the fact that time or value is a asset we all universally have, it unlocks the paradigm that everyone by default has value. That is a fundamental deviation from the current paradigm, where many go through life with the perception that they don’t and will never have anything, so they have nothing to loose. If people have a universally definition of value that everyone can agree to and everyone by default, have that value, everyone can now have possibly, or ability, of contribute towards the social contract in some way. This is again a fundamental deviation from the current paradigm where the contribution to the social contract is heavily biased towards those that are productive.
This document attempts to define and piece together what that social contract would look like or how it would be constituted and puts that out for debate. If found to be just, fair, acceptable to virtually all, one can adopt it, or portions of it, in some way shape or form. But it essentially is putting fundamental ideas and concepts out there for debate and consideration by the the greater society. As mentioned its a theory. The natural progression of democracy, unanimity. In terms defined by the philosopher, Immanuel Kant, this appears to be the natural logical procedural progression of the categorical imperative. It is unverbalizable, appears to not result in a contradiction, and should be acceptable to all over and above the current alternatives. The reason for it being acceptable over the current or all other alternatives is that it creates the architecture for all the other alternatives to exist within its architecture.
Its architecture provides a framework for a stable, just, environment, for any ideology, culture and religion to exist in, as long as the right for others to do the same is respected. In layman’s terms its entrenches your right to choose, as long as those choices don’t affect what others legitimately value negatively. It puts in place a socio-economic ecosystem with the mechanisms that entrench the concepts of responsibility and accountability. It has mechanisms for just recourse that should be acceptable to all.
Its architecture is based on what appears to be the law of nature. This is a law that seems to be bound by, or common too, all conscious minds. Its in our nature, hence the name.
There are four main Theories of Origins of Government:
- Force theory
- Evolutionary theory
- The divine right theory
- Social contract theory, this is the one this document attempts to expand on.
Social contract theory, is a government theory that has been studied by philosophers from the ancient Greek philosophers to the philosophers of the enlightenment to some modern day philosophers. It was well studied and expanded on by the enlightenment philosophers. The term takes its name from “The Social Contract” a 1762 book by Jean-Jacques Rossouw. It appears that the philosophers limited the study of the theory to being applicable to only the human race or experience. This document takes it up a level and looks at it in the context of its relevance to all consciousness that exists.
The default social contract or compact is the law of nature or “original state” as some philosophers put it. These philosophers for some reason have not felt it necessary to consider its impacts or influence on other forms of consciousness or possibly they thought that a social contract is a tenet that is only applicable to our species. As such they have not been able to define this default state yet, so they rather propose to want to escape this state. If it is not understood it creates an impression that it is “uncivilized and unpredictable and violent”. Thomas Hobbs tried to describe it in his document “Leviathan” in 1651 with the description of life in the absence of any social contract as “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and short”. Whereas Locke views the state of nature more positively and presupposes it to be governed by natural law, but failed to take it, or define it, much further. These philosophers, and society, choose instead not to define the default social contract or “Law of Nature” to see if it can be worked with, but rather create an alternative social contract with “tangible defined boundaries” to create a societal or government compact.
In our immediate case that social contract would be the constitution. The “state of nature” or “law of nature” or “original state” however is a bit like gravity, and as Locke correctly determined it is a natural law, you can ignore it if you want, but you cannot wish it away, it will always be the default, its the architecture with the fight or flight mechanism that trumps all other laws and ideologies, when all else fails… This approach rather attempts to define the “original state” or the “law of nature,” in a way that is a more exoteric logic and acceptable to all. Then using it as a foundation and adopting its inherent mechanisms and definitions that are just and fair and acceptable to all, and modifying or formalizing those mechanisms that make it unacceptable or unpredictable with protocols that are predictable, fair and just and again acceptable to all reasonable people. This new approach, or architecture, then proposes protocols that allow the law of nature to be more acceptable to people, instead of abandoning it and reinventing the same wheel very inefficiently, which some past philosophers, civilizations and cultures repeatedly appeared to have done. Those attempts to create social contracts, that are not based on universally acceptable axioms, have resulted in the creation of ideologies such as, capitalism and socialism among many others, all based in a logic that is a bit esoteric and all requiring a singular authority that all members surrender or vest their universal right to sovereignty in. This architecture returns a large proportion of that sovereignty back to the individual and allows substantially more liberty, restricted or limited to fraudulently taking away or appropriating what another individuals legitimately owns or values, as it appears is currently the case.
Its architecture, in our nature-ism, uses the law of nature, as its skeleton or basic starting point, and is based on the assumption that we all value our time, it’s the genesis of, and parity measure, of value. Value in the form of time, is an asset we are all born with equally, some more fortunate than others (think of a person born blind or worse), given to you by whoever or what ever you believe. If you don’t believe anything, then believe that your parents, or culture, gave it to you.. They take responsibility for you anyhow…. but essentially it assumes time is an asset, and we all own our time, that ownership is absolute on condition you respect the same right exists for all. A injustice is a infringement on this right. With this ownership comes responsibility and accountability as to how it is spent as well as recourse for when an injustice is perceived to have occurred. If your actions, harm or force or legitimately cause someone to invest time in something they don’t want to, or your actions require them to invest time in order for them to put themselves in a position they would have been had you not performed the action, that is an injustice. Again in layman’s terms don’t harm or take, or appropriate, what you do not legitimately own. It has a simple process for recourse, and that default is through a peer of your choice. The logic and structure of this is dealt with on the Justice Model page (still populating it).
This theory has a simple economic model following the logic “that everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally,” a logic that needs to be made sound. To make that logic sound everyone needs the means, or value, to contribute. As time appears to be the universal definition, or currency, of value, and contribution to a society is defined as adding value, everyone now has means or currency to contribute. The universal currency of value is time, which makes a lot of sense. Anyhow as mentioned this is a social contact where everyone benefits equally and everyone contributes equally. This social contract exists in a paradigm that, as you can see, values time, and this appears to be the definition of value in the original state. It allows for an economic model that is a sort of hybrid between capitalism and socialism. This model appears to have the best traits of both. It allows one to achieve anything one wants to, as per the best capitalist system, while also ensuring a decent minimum living standard for those who are willing to be productive, but are somehow incapable of that of their own volition, as per the best socialist system. What’s more, when you think of it capitalism has loads of what socialism needs, capital, and socialism has loads of what capitalism needs, a compliant labor force. They appear to be perfect bedfellows somehow, the one complementing the other where it falls short.
The comments box is now active and I would be interested to get some feedback so far. Interested to see what people think of this theory.
It appears to be based on a “law of nature” of the “original state” and the main axiom of this reality, appears to be that time is an asset you own. In layman’s terms, time is a asset you are born with and you spend it your whole life and die with none. Further to that time appears to be the universal definition of value. See my other website it probably needs a bit of knocking about thedefinitionoftime.org