Logic of the current systems vs the logic of this system.

If one tries to extract the fundamental logic of the architecture of current socio-economic models or systems, there either isn’t any logic, or it is disconnected and does not make logical sense.

• There is not a universally accepted definition of value. Instead, a limited or misplaced narrow definition of value exists, money, that is not applicable to all conscious minds equally. It results in some, by default, going through or spending life never having the ability to contribute anything towards the social contract. There is no universal parity for value. 
• There is no universally accepted simple definition of justice; it is very vague and defined by a multitude of convoluted and sometimes very unjust laws.
  • The justice system is inefficient and largely ineffective. It is often through a judge that you did not choose, and this often results in the decision being not fundamentally accepted by you.
  • Once you have been through the justice system and got a positive result, you are still generally no closer to getting substantive and commensurate recourse or compensation for the injustice.
• Only some contribute or pay tax towards the social compact or contract. This is, unjustly, heavily biased towards those that are deemed to be productive. Due to corruption, the benefit of this contribution is largely misappropriated or squandered through incompetence or dishonest representatives that want to unjustly extract more value than they are entitled to.
• The default in this architecture is that you start off with no value or nothing to lose and for many it can and does remain that way for a large portion, if not their whole lives. If you have nothing to lose there is no logical reason to invest effort to maintain the status quo.
• It allows and protects people who are unproductive and thus don’t create value. Employment, especially in the public sector, often does not create value. Many are unproductive with their time and a drain on the resources rather than a contributor. Government is the main culprit here. The government focus has shifted and does not serve the people but is rather a drain on the resources through unproductive employees and elected political parties that use it as an employment agency for their unproductive cadres.
• Your freedom to choose what you do is limited, even though in many cases your choices don’t or would not affect others at all. This prevents the creation and development of major areas in the economy that could contribute. Instead, it drives those sectors underground to an alternate informal economy that does not contribute but ends up being destructive to the social contract or compact of the society in which it exists. Your right to choose, although possibly destructive to yourself, is still fundamentally your right, if it doesn’t limit others’ right to choose, or impose injustice on them should be left unfettered. This right should not be restricted or limited, but rather embraced for the contribution or value it can add or make to others in the society in which it exists.
• Fraud, especially internet fraud and cybercrime are commonplace and the architecture allows for them to be committed with little or no tangible means for recourse for those affected. It allows for those responsible to continue unabated and with impunity free of consequence.
• Governments don’t seem to have a clue as to who’s who in the zoo, let alone an accurate record of everyone in your society. At the very least you would want to know who’s who in the society that you exist in and know that their benefit is in fact going to them and they are still alive or exist in the community, every few months.

The presuppositions of this philosophy.

There are four presuppositions that are at the foundation of this philosophy. 

1. Firstly that the physical world, or reality, objectively exists.
2. Secondly that consciousness exists and can experience this objective reality subjectively through its embodiments unique sensory perspective.
3. That consciousness uses time as the mechanism to experience this reality, it starts when that conscious being is created and starts spending time in this reality ends when it dies or stops spending time in this reality.
4. That every conscious being values this ability to spend time in this reality.

The two tiered logic.

There is a two tiered logic. The one is absolute and binary. It is the ultimate value that you place on your time it is infinite, it is this logic that allows a criminal to appropriate your will. You value your time so much that a criminal who threatens to disrupt that experience, or that experience of someone you care about, can appropriate your will and control or dictate your actions. It is the genesis of criminal law. When someone appropriates your property, including your time, without your consent. The second tier of this logic is not binary but infinitely variable, that is the value others place on your time. It is when someone appropriates your property, including your time, with your consent. It is the genesis of contract law. Its value to others is directly affected by their needs or requirements, and your ability to satisfy those needs. When you need a doctor you don’t go see a mechanic and when you need a mechanic you don’t go see a doctor.

So, as you can see the underlying logic in the architecture of the current socio-economic models or systems is flawed, vague and unjust at times. This current logic appears to be like this because the current socio-economic models are evolutions or iterations of the legacy feudal systems or religious ideologies and are based on a flawed value theory that has values that are not ends in themselves, in other words they place undue obligations on others they also have multiple values that opens up the reality where two rights can clash. What makes this philosophy unique is that it has only one value or right, that right is also an end in itself so it places no undue obligations on anyone, the only obligation is to respect the right of others to exist and spend his time in this reality without placing undue obligations on others. This document now tries to understand and address these issues in a more logical way that should be acceptable to any reasonable person. This philosophy, or social contract, or moral theory, has to be as simple as possible as it has to encompass every other social contract that exists as such any complication risks possibly excluding a moral theory or social contract and this theory defines the set that includes every other social contract that exists including those that currently don’t yet exist. From capitalism and democracy to socialism and every other philosophy on that spectrum. This overarching theory has to be tolerant of every other culture and custom. In the extreme it would need to allow every other culture and custom to exist even one with a absurd custom but it has to protect those that don’t ant to be exposed to customs that they ,may find offensive. So again in the absurd if there was a culture with a custom that condones unjustified murder it would need to accommodate that but also protect those that find the custom unacceptable from being subjected to it. In other words respect others right not to be exposed to your custom if they find them offensive. 

Laws and criminality

One needs to realize that one cannot legislate a criminal out of criminality. A criminal is by definition a criminal because he doesn’t obey laws so you cannot by definition legislate a criminal out of criminality there is a logical disconnect or flaw in the reasoning. One can however if one understands the reasoning and logic underpinning the mechanism that the criminal uses to commit a crime one can create a architecture for a social contract or moral theory that uses that same mechanism that the criminal uses to commit injustice proactively in the architecture of the social contract against the criminal instead of reactively through ever more convoluted laws and “unjust” justice models. The emergent models are on the face of it counterintuitive but the reasoning and logic is sound and on more in-depth assessment and scrutiny it is apparent that it is in fact reasonable and sound. 
In a utopian or almost utopian societal contract, the underlying logic should be sound rooted in an irreducible moral value theory. This logic should allow for a social contract thats architecture results is just and fair environment for a reasonable person to exist in. It could possibly result in something like this:

• A universally accepted definition of value, or currency for value, that is acceptable to all conscious minds. A parity in the value system, that would be time. See my other site the definition of time thedefinitionoftime.org
• For the mechanisms to exist to protect that value. That would define justice.
• A system of dispensing justice that is simple and fair: it is through a peer of your choice, a peer you would consider reasonable. A sort of simple universal common law.
• Compensation for an injustice is substantive and commensurate with the injustice. A process that attempts to restore you to the position you were in as if that injustice had not happened.
• Everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally.
• The default architecture should be that everyone has something to lose. This provides the mechanisms for self-correction and protection of the system to exist. Inherently it creates a considerably more stable system.
• The only way to create value is to invest time productively. Any form of government should be created to focus on serving the will, or as Rossouw puts it the general will, of the people, communities, or culture, that created it. It should be funded by the people that it represents and serves, that funding coming by choice from the people or community it serves. Allowing for accountability and responsibility for services supplied by them through elected or appointed officials. This concept goes a long way to placing sovereignty in the hands of the individuals.
• Freedom to choose what you do as long as you respect others and their right to the same. Your actions must either not affect others or positively affect them, if you negatively affect them, without their consent, that would be an injustice.
• The mechanisms can be put in place for those affected by cybercrime and internet fraud to have access to meaningful recourse and justice.
• For the above freedoms to exist a few simple rules would need to be implemented and adhered to.
• Everyone has the opportunity to create opportunity.

Apart from the practical implementation of the above, the underlying logic of the above should be sound and just to any reasonable person.

That logic can only exist if one defines value in a way that

• Allows for everyone to have value by default.
• Everyone in that society accepts that that definition of value is sound and true.

If the universal default currency of value is defined as time, as it subconsciously appears to already be, then the logic is available to be used and the architecture can be put in place for it to be realized.

Possible socio-economic model.

Conventional thinking dictates that capitalism and socialism are mutually exclusive. This logic creates a space where they can be mutually inclusive. This logic states that you must always have a choice as to how you spend your time, you just cannot infringe on others’ time without their consent. It is based on what appears to be the “law of nature” as it is defined in this document. That is a crime or injustice. So if the core axiom of this architecture is that you can always have a choice, then you can choose to be capitalist or you can choose to be socialist. This is where the trick or magic comes in, as the logic bounds both. When one thinks of it, capitalism has in excess what socialism lacks that is capital to encourage productivity, and socialism has in excess what capitalism lacks and that is a compliant labour force. They are in fact perfect bedfellows. Not only that, but there are also tenets of each that the other cannot seem to perfect or allow in isolation, an example would be, an effective social safety net, jobs for all who want, allowing members to follow their dreams and aspirations, becoming as wealthy as your ability will allow.

Anyhow this logic allows for the unlocking of a socio-political-economic model that is like no other.

Because of the unique nature of that relationship that everyone (consciousness) has with time, its absoluteness and sanctity, and the fact that we all generally like to live, or, value our time, this architecture allows us to define certain fundamental things that should be universally acceptable to all, and those definitions then allow one to define other things or tenets. It allows one to define certain things in a far simpler manner than we current do. That would be like what value is and what justice is, in a way that is so very basal, or basic, that every conscious mind appears to understand this subconsciously in a logical way. Now it would appear that time defines value, and this now opens a very interesting paradigm. One in which, time defines value, and justice is protection of that value. This appears to already be universally accepted and respected.

When one thinks about it, the logic of an ideal society is that everyone must be allowed the opportunity to do what they feel they want to do with their time, in other words own your time, as long as they respect the rights of others to do the same, don’t hurt or harm others, don’t break the law of the land, and can support themselves in the process, in other words to not be a burden on the rest of general society. This is a sound logical, reasonable, and just base for consideration. One that is tending towards an ideal social order. The basic logic is simple and understandable. Then one can expand on that further with the simple logic that in an ideal society everyone contributes equally, and everyone benefits equally. Again, the logic is simple, sound and should be acceptable to all. Everyone must contribute equally primarily to the maintenance of that social contract and to provide a social net for the old and frail and for those that are incapable of being productive or creating their own value. So, the logic is sound but let’s unpack the logic here a bit.

The logic is simple, as everyone has time and if time defines value, then logically everyone has value to contribute, so, logically speaking everyone then has the means to contribute to a society because everyone has time. Practically it’s implementation is possibly another story but logically that reality can exist, and its logic is sound. That sound logic didn’t exist before you realized that time defines value, although on consideration it appears obvious.

Now the reality exists for an architecture with a logic to possibility create a reality or paradigm where everyone has the ability to contribute equally, and everyone benefits equally. But for that reality to exist everyone needs to accept that time defines value and the right to ownership of your time is absolute. This tenet seems to be the core axiom of the law of nature, the very basal social contract that bounds all conscious minds, so by definition it is an inalienable natural right. In the process one realizes that the definition of respect, or “mutual respect and understanding” would be to respect what others value and that would fundamentally be their time and they must respect yours. The best way to get them to respect your time is if you contribute half your time as the universal contribution or tax the other half is for you to earn whatever your time is worth to others. A very simple social compact or contract, a work week is generally accepted to be 40 hrs 20 hrs (50%) for you and 20 hrs (50%) for the social contract. It allows for a society where the rules are simple, in layman’s terms, don’t hurt anyone, don’t steal from anyone, be friendly and respect other cultures as they must yours. This architecture results in a society where everyone now also has the ability to benefit equally. In its simplistic form the benefit is is derived firstly from the monetary contributions, they are used to maintain the system and critical infrastructure that requires potential infringement on rights, and justice, the balance is for the sake of simplicity divided up and paid to all equally. And secondly, from the contribution of time by those who don’t have jobs to those who have proportionally contributed excess monetary value. This then balances the scales to allow parity for their excess monetary contribution. Adding credence to the logics axiom “everyone contributes equally and everyone benefits equally”. Now because the default is that you all benefit, this results in a society where the reality exists that everyone now has something to lose, instead of the current reality where very few have anything to lose. This creates a whole other dynamic or reality or paradigm, with a far more acceptable default state, but it can only exist if the definition of time holds true. Further, because time appears to define value, now one possibly can define other axioms or principles that open other possibilities. For example, when one considers it, one realizes that justice is defined as protection of what you value and injustice is a violation of what you value or your time. In other words, justice is the protection of yourself and everything that you value or invest time in or on, and an injustice is when you are forced to spend time on something you don’t want to, or your time, or things you value, or things you created and invest your time in or on is taken away from you or violated. On consideration of virtually all current just laws that exist in our current democracy, they all appear to do just that, define injustice as a violation of your time or what you value. Murder, theft, fraud, slavery, expropriation without compensation, corruption, the list goes on all have their genesis in not valuing your or others time, or fraudulently or misrepresenting it. The above is a simplistic representation of the model there are anomalies or exceptions, a retired person cannot be expected to contribute, they must still benefit, some may not want to work or just be unemployable.. this I find hard to believe their time must be useful to someone in some measure, they cannot be that useless, they can surely pick up rubbish or dig a trench.. to maintain a just society they must also benefit a very reduced benefit even though they don’t deserve it. So in essence these anomalies result in everyone contributing slightly more than they benefit to pay or compensate for these unjust anomalies. Nothing in life is free so the more productive unfortunately have to foot the bill as it were. A injustice they are prepared to tolerate to maintain the social contract. This sacrifice pales into insignificance when one tries to compare it to the sacrifices that they currently have to make.

So now the reality exists for the above as well as that everyone can contribute value equally in a measurable manner and everyone can benefit equally in a measurable manner. The axioms of the logic are sound and just one can now look at possibilities for implementation. The core axiom of this logic is so basal and just that it appears to be a law of nature or define how consciousness interacts with time in this reality.

So, if the definition of time holds true, and by observation it appears to, then it allows for a paradigm to be created for the above logic to exist and be sound.

It’s an architecture for consciousness that is centred around a subconscious logic that already appears to exist. 
The social order logic is that everyone contributes equally, and everyone benefits equally. You cannot benefit more than you contribute. As nothing in life is free except your time to yourself, and anything anyone wants to give you that they legitimately own. It is just and fair to all.

The core axiom of that logic is that we all value time. Time is an asset we all have. Its ownership is absolute. An injustice is when you are forced to spend your time doing something you don’t want to do, it’s all we are born with, and we are all born with it. The logic is sound. The logic cannot exist if you don’t value time.

This axiom then results in a logic for a social order model as well as a logic for a justice model that are both logical and sound. 

The logic for the justice model is that justice is inquisitorial and through a peer of your choice, it works on the simple principle that if you choose your peer, one you consider to be a reasonable person, you cannot claim any injustice or bias, and you must abide by his judgement and sanction or sentence. Sound logic for a model.

So fundamentally we all are born, created or start off equally, in that when a conscious mind is created or born the one and only asset they all created with is time, again the underlying logic is sound. Some are possibly more fortunate than others but that is very possibly due to a wise investment of time by your forefathers, or culture, or possibly criminality, but that criminality is what we are trying to understand and put a stop to going forward. Again, the logic is just and sound. 

So, this architecture or ideology ‘s core axiom is that we all have time. We all view it as an asset, and ownership of that time is absolute, you have the right to cede that ownership to say a chief or government as we all appear to have done under the current architecture. You are created or born with time, spend it your whole life and then you pass on, to wherever or whatever reality your culture or beliefs dictate.

This axiom that we all value time appears to be already subconsciously universally accepted by all conscious minds, not just our species, it appears to be a universal law of nature. 

The social order logic is that everyone contributes equally, and everyone benefits equally. You cannot benefit more than you contribute. As nothing in life is free except your time to yourself, and anything anyone wants to give you that they legitimately own. It is just and fair to all. This definition or axiom, as mentioned, allows for a type of logic to exist, that logic appears to be a universally accepted natural logic, that guides “the state of nature” or the “law of nature” that appears to be a default and appears to already be subconsciously applicable to and accepted by all conscious minds. 

This logic then results in an interesting socio-economic model for what appears to be an almost utopian or possibly even a utopian society. Definitely more so than the current architecture allows.

When one thinks about it you cannot get more time not for all the money in the world you have a finite amount of it so you would naturally value and protect that time that you have. This logic applies to all life that has a finite life or time in this reality or space. If you had an infinite amount of time there is a good chance that it would have no value to you as there would always be more, but this is for someone else to figure out…