The law of nature.

As mentioned in the philosophy section and according to Kant any social contact should be structured in such a way that the person most adversely affected or disadvantaged by the core postulate or axiom will still choose it, then it starts to look like what this concept is, is a possible logical natural procedural progression of the categorical imperative. Because if the person most disadvantaged will choose it over the going alternative then presumably, or logically, everyone else then also would. That is a universalizable principle very Kantian. It’s more libertarian and far better and more just than utilitarianism where only the majority benefit at the possible expense of, or injustice against a minority. As Kant said if a choice or action is moral, or ethical, it is universalizable and it can’t bring about a contradiction.

Every action of a conscious mind is to firstly, enable that minds ability to experience time going forward and secondly to make that experience as pleasant as possible. As a example, at a very fundamental level, if you have a itch you rub or scratch it. This is to make your experience of time going forward more pleasant to yourself. On reflection one can reduce every action that one does to this. Its the mechanism that a violent criminal will use to appropriate your will. He threatens to make your experience of time going forward in this reality unpleasant or worse removes your ability to experience it. The violent criminal has subconsciously tapped into this mechanism to enable him to commit violent crime. Once one understands how it works a architecture for social contract can be designed to proactively address immorality instead of reactively through a multitude of convoluted laws that try do the same thing, dispense justice, very inefficiently and with the unpleasant unintended consequence of creating a mechanism that allows immoral lawyers to corrupt the intent of a law to achieve a “unjust” although beneficial outcome for their client, that is then upheld and ratified by the system. When you intuitively know that a ruling/judgement is incorrect but it still stands.

It appears that the rules of “The state of nature” or as I call it the “law of nature” are simple. Through observation it appears to always hold true and appears to be applicable to all conscious minds.

“Unless I perceive you as friendly or you can add value to me or my time going forward, I will generally leave you alone, unless I need, or want, to eat you. But affect my time negatively, irritate me, or put me or what I value in danger or potential danger in any way, I will take recourse as I see fit.”

The law of nature. – Or if not at least a very close approximation of it.

It’s equivalent to universal common law or law of the universe, the genesis or home of the fight or flight mechanism. It appears to be applicable to all forms of consciousness that have a finite life if you live forever and cannot die time will probably not have the same importance or value to you as there is always more of it.

This appears to be the law that guides all conscious minds, not just ours. It is bound by consciousness, space (it appears bound by the known universe) and time. The only difference with us as a species is that we can consciously comprehend that time has value and convey and convert that comprehension consciously and meaningfully to other members of our species (conscious minds), and we trade it, time, for other forms of value. The law of nature appears to dictate that we all own our time and that the right to choose what you do with it is up to you but beware of the consequences when you affect others time negatively or even just irritate them.. don’t walk through a pride of hungry lions.

It appears that the definition of justice is the protection and preservation of what you value, and the definition of value is time, as well as what you have legitimately traded it for.

This law is premised on the fact that all conscious minds attach value to their time.

It’s the law that dictates why a lion will chase a zebra and why a zebra will run away from the lion. It’s why you swat a fly or mosquito. It’s almost like a universal law of consciousness.

One can appreciate why Hobbes, and his fellow enlightenment philosophers, without access to a suitable definition of the “state of nature” would want to escape or isolate society from it. The “unless I need, or want, to eat you” and “recourse as I see fit” are the problematic parts. The “recourse as I see fit” more so, as generally we as a species tend not to want to eat each other, but as far as the mosquito or lion are concerned you may well still be high on the menu.

When one considers it, once one understands that this is a universal social compact that all conscious minds abide by, then one has the possibility of making those bits that are unacceptable or unpalatable, acceptable. This is instead of trying to reinvent the wheel and trying to define an alternative contract in its entirety as we appear to be trying to do. That contract will be infinitely more complex, and always be inferior or subservient to this natural default, as is apparent with the fight or flight mechanism that trumps any social contract or constitution that humanity may ever come up with when the chips are down.

Anyhow it’s just a theory that one can consider.a