Society

As previously discussed, a utopia is a perfect society. The ideas behind what may constitute perfection were explored but little reference was made to what this perfection may be applied to other than “society”. It is necessary therefore to discuss the concept of society a little in order that we may proceed with any social engineering (I have a dislike of the term 'social engineering' as it sounds rather ominous however it is the correct term to ascribe to my meaning and so I should just like to assure the reader I use it always with the best of intentions).

We understand what is meant by the word 'society' when used based largely on the context. When devoid of context we can only give very ambiguous definitions such as; a group of individuals linked by culture, geography or belief. Most humans now belong to multiple different societies of varying significance and importance to the individual. Our family is a kind of society although one of the smallest to which we tend to belong, religions and nationality vary greatly in their relevance to people but are among the largest societies. There are numerous different types of society between these polar examples such as fraternities, companies, political persuasions, sports teams – both supporting and playing for, the street you live on, the town you live in and so forth.

There are two societies that anyone reading this will belong to, along with me and over six billion others. Those societies are the links we share by being human and the links we share by participating in the world economy to which only a few isolated humans can claim they escape. We live in a world which contains societies within societies, all overlapping and merging into other societies. It is a patchwork quilt from which we define much of our selves.

The larger a society gets the more it's members will act in their own interests rather than the societies however this effect may be dampened by rivalry. People tend to look out for their friends, family and neighbours as they know them personally and can easily empathise with them. This is harder to do for people we can ascribe fewer characteristics to, especially when there are so many more unknown people than known ones in such societies. Religions and nations have maintained an impressive degree of loyalty over the years given their large size.

Humanity has no real threat or alternative, we cannot defect from being human and are in no present danger from another species. If you compare this state of the “human society” to the state of either a religious or national societies which do have competition it is more clear why the British media seem to think the life of a Brit is more relevant than the life of a non-Brit or that some people do not respect the lives of those with other religions to them. A society under some threat, whether it is perceived, potential or actual, will have more highly evolved defence mechanisms whereby the individuals are more induced to look out for strangers within their society.

Humanity as a species and the global economy have no real threats, competition

or alternatives and so there is no incentive for the individuals of those societies to look out for others in the same way they might, for example, for a fellow Canadian or Muslim. It is also quite observable that the greater the potential threat to a society the tighter they will bond together such as ghettoes forming in urban areas due to larger numbers of natives. The minority groups will feel the pressure of the larger society so will form tighter social bonds to compensate. It is an unfortunate irony that ensures a society needs to feel threatened in some way in order that they may act most altruistically to each other. The recipe for altruistic behaviour within society is to add rival societies and make them threatening.

I see no way to avoid a loss of altruism with the loss of competition, it is the logical and natural conclusion given the mechanisms of evolution and those of human nature. The only manner remaining in which altruism can be ensured in a “monopoly society”, such as humanity or the global economy, is by making altruistic principles a fundamental part of the system. These ends are hard to achieve as there is no such thing as a system for humanity or even a system for the global economy. Both of these monopoly societies exist as composite systems, the laws and economic practices of the various nations are different to one another and so the overall “system” is the interaction between these smaller systems. One must engineer altruism into the systems of each nation in order that the whole society of humanity may function in it's own best interests which is presently an impossible task.

That being said it is still prudent to consider the manner in which we may attempt to make a monopoly society altruistic. Without knowledge of the aim we cannot attempt to find ways of getting there. To find an answer to these considerations I find it best to trace things back to their origins. This way we may get a clearer understanding of the reasons for their coming into being. Peter Berger succinctly defines society as “referring to a system of interaction” and so we may ask when did humans begin to interact with each other? Clearly the answer is long before they may have been considered human, indeed as long a sexual reproduction has been occurring however I wish to jump rather a large chunk of evolution and move to when our mammalian ancestors first became pack animals. Sexual reproduction is a mechanism which is advantageous to the species, and therefore the genes, and not a direct advantage to the individual, in fact quite often the difficulty of sexual reproduction is fatal to individuals within species. Existing as a pack animal however does confer advantage to the individuals of that pack (which in turn confers a secondary advantage to the genes) and it is these interactions that I consider to be the first societies.

A society therefore exists in order to create advantages to the individuals that belong to it. This may seem like tautology as there is no incentive to join a society which offers no benefits however we are often just born into societies and removing ourselves from them may be more disadvantageous than simply remaining but more on this later. The advantages we observe that are gained by pack animals are primarily survival based where as those we see in humanity are often pleasure and leisure based. Regardless of what kinds of advantages a society may offer its members we must consider the mechanisms of how a society can offer these advantages.

To answer these questions we can turn to Adam Smith who first coined the term “the division of labour”. By combining work and utilizing individuals best skills a far greater degree of return can be found overall for the input work. It is only by cooperation and mutually beneficial trades of work and skills that these advantages may be gained. Mechanisms are needed within such societies, such as a pack of wolves, to organise the work so that it may be efficient and to distribute the gains. In smaller animal societies these mechanisms are very simple. A single individual can be in a reasonable position to lead the society as they will personally know each other member. This is not the case with many of the societies which have evolved in humanity and so more complex and defined systems and rules are required. Often we try to place an individual at the head of a large society but this can only succeed where a hierarchy exists. A hierarchy allows leaders to be responsible for only those they personally know, those leaders will then be lead by others who know them until finally there is just one leader at the very top with indirect command over many more people than they could possible know.

Hobbes describes living in a society as like having agreed to a contract. The terms of this contract are that the society will confer advantages to you provided you adhere to the rules of the society. I have asserted that societies naturally evolved as they can create situations of overall greater advantage but that this is not always how they remain. When a society fails to honour it's side of the bargain towards an individual it ceases to be a society that would naturally evolve. Those that would not receive a benefit would not “sign” a contract which restricted them to adhering to certain rules. Given enough time under these conditions I would argue that dissension within the society will ultimately cause it to collapse or reform. A more scientific way of putting this would be that a society which does not confer some advantage to all of it's members is not in equilibrium and must therefore experience some rate of change towards a state of equilibrium assuming no other countering forces.

Society is therefore a collection of rules/laws and systems in place to coordinate the interactions of individuals so that they may each gain greater advantage than they otherwise might outside of that (type of) society. My intended meaning in use of the brackets and their contents in the last sentence is that an individual may gain more advantage in another country or family than they do in their own but would get less if they had no family or country at all. To be a society does not require being better than other societies of the same kind only than no society at all. The aim of utopians is to design societies that are better than others of the same kind, in that they confer more advantages than them. The manner in which utopians can engineer “more advantages” is by careful design of the rules and systems that coordinate the interactions of the individuals. There are no other tools available as I have defined society and so any other attempts using different tools would fall outside the realm of utopianism. Your route to perfection might be to try and make perfect people but then this would be in the field of genetics or psychology.

Some utopians aim at tribes, some at city states, some at nations and some at the global level. Only the latter is a monopoly society but if a utopia is the most advantageous form of society it must surely be the most advantageous if it includes all the people. It is often easier to describe, or easier to hear about a utopia of smaller sizes but the description should aim at having the ability to operate on a global scale and this means altruistic systems. I defined systems such as these using game theory in my essay 'Utopian Design', which is effectively the other half of this essay. An altruistic system is one in which the Nash equilibrium always coincides with the highest overall gain in utils. I do not know if this will come up in a future essay and so the interested reader may find more on game theory in “A brief introduction to Game Theory” by Ken Binmore, or in this age of new wonders by typing “Nash equilibria” into a thing called Google...

Freedom

The aim of this essay is to discuss the concept of freedom and how it may be applied within society. Before considering how we may offer freedom within a society it may be best to discuss why freedom is desirable to an individual. Many people are willing to fight and die for their freedom but that alone is no justification for why society should offer freedoms. A logical or absolute reason is required for why freedoms are an advantage to individuals and to society. I happen to value my freedom highly but I am also aware that people hold differing views on what is important to them. It would be unreasonable of me to assert that freedom is “good” for no better reason than it is good for me. What properties of freedom allow it to be universally accepted as good regardless of the dispositions and preferences of the individual?

The best way of showing how freedom can be universally, beneficially offered, regardless of the individuals disposition is by comparing it to something more tangible. For the sake of the discussion we will compare the giving of an individual freedom to giving them a pet dog. In relation to dogs the individual may like them or dislike them (or have no real preference). There are also two states of dog ownership; one can own a dog or one can not own a dog. All those who like dogs will benefit from being given a pet dog however all those who do not like dogs will resent the gift. Even if they are able to reject the gift they may still resent those who got dogs as they got nothing of use to themselves. Peoples dispositions, i.e. liking dogs or not liking dogs, will determine the outcome of being given one. Accounting for each persons particular dispositions is impossible for large societies. You cannot reasonably give all those who like dogs a dog and all those who do not something else.

If we shall remove potential resentment and jealousy from the example so that we can focus on dogs alone; it would be reasonable to state that for all those who like dogs we should give a dog and all those who do not we should not give them a dog. What we should give people in this instance is entirely based on their dispositions which we have already asserted that it is impractical to know. Giving a dog is the opposite of not giving a dog and by doing one of those actions we rule out the other. Whatever we do, if done universally, must fail to suit one set of dispositions within our society.

Let us now change to offering from dogs to freedom and see if the same trouble arises. To state that some people do not like freedom may be hard to substantiate but it is certainly reasonable to say that many people like to follow rules and guidance and that certain restrictions to their freedoms give them security. These people who like to be lead we will describe as disliking freedom for the purposes of this example. If freedom were like dogs we would find that we needed to give freedom to those that desired it and remove it from those that did not. We would again also find that un-knowable dispositions dictated these differences in people. With dogs the act of having one removes the ability to not have one (at that point in time). With the tangible dog the two options are mutually exclusive. The concept of freedom however is really rather unique in this respect. Having freedom includes both options to satisfy both types of disposition. It is like saying having a dog is both having a dog and not having a dog simultaneously. Obviously that is a nonsensical statement with dogs but for freedom it is true. Having freedom is having options, the more freedom one gains the more options one has, there is no real opposite to freedom in the same way that you either have or don't have a dog. With freedom you can have more or less but by having more you do not exclude having less. Having less freedom is always included within a greater degree of freedom.

If we take our society and do not offer any freedom to all the people we may satisfy all those who like to be lead in the same way we would satisfy all those who did not like dogs by not giving them one, but we would fail to satisfy all those who value their freedom. If however, we provide freedom to our society, unlike with the gifting of dogs, we not only satisfy those who desire freedom but we also satisfy those who do not. Part of the freedom offered to all people includes, by definition, the ability to choose against using that freedom. By this logic we can safely argue that freedom is good regardless of disposition and can reasonably be offered to society as an advantage to all.

Having asserted that freedom is a good thing we now need to consider how society may offer freedoms to individuals and in order to do this I should like to first de-construct our understanding of how freedom is manifest. Hobbes defines freedom (well, liberty...) as “the absence of external impediments to motion”. We are solely concerned with the freedoms of people and may refine this broad definition of Hobbes' to be more specific in relation to people. What Hobbes calls motion I should like to call action which relates to any activity performed by a person such as eating or talking. As people are conscious beings and our actions are not purely reflex, each of our non-reflex actions must have a prerequisite. The prerequisite to human action I should like to call choice, in that someone first chooses to eat and apple and then performs the actions involved in eating the apple. Our refined Hobbsian definition of freedom becomes “the absence of external impediments to choice and action”.

When we eat an apple we are freely choosing to eat it and freely performing the action associated with eating. All freedoms of action also require the freedom of choice so a distinction between the two kinds of freedom in these circumstances is meaningless. Because of this any freedom that requires both a specific action and a choice we shall simply call a freedom of action. If we were free to choose something but unable to perform the associated action we should call that a desire. Examples of freedom of choice which have no specific associated action are better understood as opinions or beliefs.

If freedoms require the absence of impediments it is necessary to understand how an impediment might be manifested. An impediment to action is easy to understand as it is only the possibility of something that determines how free one might be to do that thing. I may choose to flap my arms and fly as I can imagine doing so, however flight under those conditions is impossible, and so I am not free to perform that action. However an impediment to choice is based only on knowledge. If I am aware of a choice I am free to make that choice regardless of the possibility of any associated action. The only impediment to choice that exists is that of ignorance, either by lacking any knowledge on the subject or by having the wrong knowledge.  

Having made clear the two distinct forms of freedom available to an individual we may describe how a society may best offer freedoms to people. To best facilitate the idea of increasing freedom of action to people a society must look to ensure the availability of services and their ongoing improvement. By providing a means of transport people are granted a physical freedom or greater freedom of action. Health services provide freedoms to individuals by improving the quality of life and extending it. Improvements to both goods and services used in society increase the efficiency within which any physical freedom they grant is dispensed. There may be many different ways to achieve these increases to freedom but the maxim to do so is always better goods and better services. A society looking to increase freedoms should sensibly invest in advancing technology.

Increasing the idea of freedom of choice is less tangible than a freedom of action and may be approached in a few ways. I asserted that ignorance of a subject or inaccurate understanding of the subject were the only ways in which freedom of choice may be removed. This is not to say a choice may not be influenced or biased by other factors which we shall return to shortly but presently we are concerned with the manner in which society may grant greater freedoms. Education is the main method societies provide the individual with increased freedoms of choice by increasing the individuals understanding of things. Much of what is taught within the education system does not overlap much with the manner in which people live their lives. A great understanding of calculus rarely provides new options to how one may act in a real life situation. It is from each other and the observation of social interactions where we tend to expand our horizons of choice. Education greatly facilitates social interaction without really having it as the main focus. I should like to see education focus more on teaching people how to choose and not just to read and write.

Misinformation is a greater threat to freedom of choice than the lack of knowledge. Understanding is rather like a jigsaw puzzle as each piece confirms and supports each other piece, inferences may be made about something unknown based on all the known parts. When a single piece of the puzzle is in the wrong place but believed to be in the correct position any assumptions based on that wrong knowledge will also be wrong. Misinformation can undo the work of education and it can propagate, so how might a society minimise false understandings? It is fair to say that it is impossible to ensure that all understandings had by a society are logically sound and accurate yet there are ways to reduce misinformation and consequently increase freedom. I would suggest that for a society to maximise freedom of choice (which is required for a pure democracy to function like a free market; to the greatest net advantage) it must be entirely truthful in all matters. Being truthful is not however complete disclosure, it is still reasonable to have military secrets provided that the reasons any secrets are kept are honestly explained. Complete honesty in state, business matters and in education are the first steps in reducing misinformation, they are the main areas in society which may really impact the populous and influence by example. As honesty and accuracy gain esteem as virtues promoting freedom, other areas in society in which no control may be had are encouraged to follow suit.

"To formulate any satisfactory modern ethic of human relationship, it will be essential to recognize the necessary limitations of men's power over the non-human environment, and the desirable limitations of their power over each other." - Bertrand Russell.

This essay has so far shown that freedom is a good and desirable thing for the individual and then has gone on to discuss what methods society may use to maximise the freedom of the individual. We must now look to find a satisfactory modern ethic concerning freedom such that it is useful and definable in the context of society. To have absolute freedom is to be omnipotent, the individual must have complete knowledge of all things and the power to achieve any action. Omnipotence may be an end goal for humanity, weather possible or not it is still a reasonable aim as each progression towards it is a beneficial one. Omnipotence is maximum freedom and therefore presumably the best situation for an individual to be in. We need not be concerned with omnipotence as it is not a reality, however, if society were to allow any possible action by any person it would cease to be a society and would result in anarchy. Society is a cooperative of peoples and must be concerned with not only increasing individual freedoms but also conserving those that already exist for all individuals. Where we proved that for the individual; maximum freedom, we must now concede that for society we can only offer maximum reasonable freedom.

If I were allowed complete freedom I would be able to kill another person, preventing me from doing so would deny me this freedom. If freedom is good we can use this example to show that preventing me from killing someone is “bad”. The reason that this is not a logically sound conclusion is that it only takes me, “the killer”, into consideration. Certainly by allowing me to freely kill I have greater freedom, but society includes all individuals, and by killing another I remove all of their freedoms. The freedom I would gain through being allowed to kill someone cannot surpass the “quantity” of freedom lost by that person due to being killed. From my perspective I may have a slight gain in freedom however the net change in freedom within society is reduced. Using this logic it is reasonable to assert that by limiting certain individual freedoms within society the total net freedom of that society may be increased.

This example focuses on what Russell refers to as the human element of society however a similar logic may be applied to freedoms concerning the non-human environment. Say I wished to burn all the oil and was somehow capable of such a feat. By doing so I have not directly harmed any person but I have removed the possibility of others being able to do so. Any freedom that does not directly concern another person (or one that is exacted on the non-human environment) must be repeatable or the changes reversible such that partaking of the freedom does not serve to remove it from others. Maximum reasonable freedom is therefore the greatest freedom allowable to the individual where interactions between the environment or other people exist in order to generate the greatest net freedom in society.

To generate the greatest freedom in society we must therefore restrict certain freedoms but a method to do so is required in order to achieve our aims. Restrictions may increase the net freedom of a group but they reduce the individuals freedom and so a method for finding the perfect balance is required. Too many laws and the individual is stifled, too few and the group exploits itself. A blanket statement such as – “a law may only exist if it serves to protect the freedom of an individual or prevent an individual from reducing the freedom of others” does cover all the sensible laws but it also includes many others that would result in the stifling of individuals. A degree of common sense is required in the formulation of laws and a sensible approach is a minimalist one. The fewer the laws the easier each one is to recall and adhere to, having less creates more gravity for each that remain and fewer laws will allow greater freedom to the individual.

An example of such a law that would be superfluous but that also falls within the blanket statement previously discussed would be one which prevented approaching someone in the street to consult them. This would be consistent with stopping the removal of freedoms as a person may not wish to be approached. It would however also stifle the individuals allowable conduct within a society and common sense dictates that the potential loss of freedom from such an act is negligible. No real harm has befallen the “victim”, potentially they may take offence and will lose a small amount of time. In situations like these a compromise is a far better solution than a law, this is because a law can only increase freedom to an individual by removing it from another where as a compromise or an alternative can increase the freedoms of all concerned. People are afforded places of privacy and may utilize those as much as they like yet in public places there is no requirement to leave others alone. This is the compromise presently offered by society and it seems reasonable, to pass a law to protect a minority of people who strongly dislike public encroachments upon their privacy would reduce the net freedom of society. Laws passed only to increase the net freedom will only ever protect a freedom the majority of the populous finds important.

It is also worth thinking about the degree of harm the loss of a freedom causes a person to suffer compared to any gain for society. In the previous example the harm caused was minimal however the usefulness of being able to approach people is fairly high. Not only would a law preventing these kinds of engagement reduce the net freedom of society based on our present dispositions but it would also reduce the net efficiency of society and the interactions that occur within it. It is worth asking each of the following questions when creating a law to ensure the law is sensible and to the advantage of society;

Does the law serve to protect the freedom of an individual or prevent an individual from reducing the freedom of others?

Does the law increase the net freedom of society?

Does a suitable compromise exist whereby a greater net freedom is found than by passing a law?

Does the law relate to all aspects of society and concern all people, ie is it universal? (if not then a “rule” should be provided rather than a law)

Does the introduction of the law prevent significant harm to an individual? If not does it cause any harm to society?

Now that we have seen the sorts of laws that should exist in society with the aim of promoting maximum reasonable freedom we can begin to think about how society is able to gain compliance from the populous. If a law is only intended to conserve freedoms then the manner in which prevention occurs is immaterial. If a murder is prevented then freedom is conserved. This means that there are numerous ways to approach the idea of conserving freedom. I could somehow make humans invulnerable and therefore make murder impossible. The freedom to murder people would be lost but the freedom to live would be conserved which is our initial aim. In reality the ability to make physical actions impossible is very limited and also impractical to implement. As such our primary method of conserving freedoms in society is to impose punishments as an incentive to the freedom of choice rather than only attempt to impede freedom of action. Laws represent a set of physical freedoms society wishes to restrict, as rules of conduct that if not adhered to, result in punishment. This means that performing the action is generally unhindered but the consequences of performing it are undesirable to the individual. It is reasonable to attempt to influence the freedom of choice rather than the associated action provided no misinformation is used. By influencing a choice rather than obscuring the choice with misinformation then no freedom of choice is lost.

There is no disadvantage to supplementing laws with physical hindrances provided they are economic and practical. A lock on a door makes it harder to steal what is behind the door where as a law only imposes consequences for actually stealing. Both of these preventative measures affect choice, but only one also affects the physical action. A lock on a door is much like a safety rail near a high drop, the aim of both is to reduce the chances of undesirable physical actions occurring. The law has far greater meaning and relevance in society than any form of physical hindrance as it demonstrates the moral dispositions of the populous. The appreciation and understanding of a law allow moral character to develop where as a system of limitations on freedoms that used only physical hindrances would cease to require individuals to think about their choices.

Rules were previously mentioned as an alternative to a law which only relates to specific areas of society. An example of such could be a code of conduct within a library, it is specific because it only relates to those who use the library. By breaking the rules (such as talking loudly and not stealing books which would still constitute a crime) the library is empowered to remove any privileges associated with library usage, but not to prosecute in a court of law and punish under the penal system. Often we call these kinds of rule a local bye-law however the usage of the term law misleading. Rules may appear to reduce freedoms but they only apply in situations where a system is set up to increase the degree of freedom. Rules serve to inform how a system works best, the more complex systems tend to require more rules. By making a distinction between rules and laws a society is better able to keep the number of laws to a minimum while suffering no diminishing functionality. Examples of areas where rules dominate over laws would be areas like the finance industry. Breaking the rules would mean that you were no longer able to partake in the system of finance and would presumably require a new profession but unless a theft or other actual law was broken no prosecutions would result.

To conclude this essay I should simply like to summarise each section in turn. Firstly we established that freedom was always good for the individual. We then moved on to discuss freedom in terms of choice and in terms of action. To maximise the former we asserted a need of education in society, truth in matters of state, and a general aim of increasing knowledge. To maximise freedoms of action we require our society to provide goods and services of an ever improving nature. We then curtailed our discussion with the realisation that in order to gain the greatest net freedom in society individuals are required to surrender certain freedoms that affect other individuals. The optimum method of discerning which freedoms a society needed to remove were debated with consideration given to common sense, compromise and consent. Once a sensible understanding had been obtained on the types of freedom that should not be given we looked at the methods available to state in order to impose these restrictions. In doing this we defined a difference between rules and laws and how using both may also increase freedoms. The summary conclusion of this essay is that society should offer the maximum reasonable freedom to individuals which may be ascertained by finding the greatest net freedom. In doing so many virtues are promoted such as honesty, creativity, faith and knowledge.

Utopian Design

To design something we must first know what it is we are trying to achieve. In order to design a utopia we must first be able to define one, which is easier said than done. A general description of a utopia is a perfect society yet such a definition requires two further definitions for both ‘perfect’ and ‘society’. The latter is very context dependant and contains many nuances dependant on its different uses and will be the subject of an essay in it’s own right but for the purposes of this one it is assumed we are able to appreciate the specific context in  which society is used. The word ‘perfect’ is subjective in that each person may deem a different set of conditions to constitute perfection. A utopia is then a subjective description of the authors ideas of perfection imposed on a society.

Most utopian authors will design their society around a principle they deem to encompass virtues. They will then seek to design ways of maximising the effect of that principle. Fourier and Rousseau constructed their ideas over a framework of freedom. Marx and Bellamy preferred the principle of equality while the utopian giant Plato founded his on the idea of justice. While each of these principles is both virtuous and desirable to some degree it is also the case than any one of these in isolation, with no consideration to other virtuous principles, would give rise to a severely lacking society. The complex and variable nature of societies requires that they should provide at least some degree of all noble principles.

By basing a utopian design on a single premise alone, the various omissions that inevitably results in will cause many to find the suggestions abhorrent. To frame this in an example we can consider the Cold War and describe the conflict in very simple terms. We can say capitalism and democracy stand for the principle of freedom where as communism stands for the principle of equality. The concerns of those living in the democratic capitalist societies regarding communism were not so much a dislike of equality as a principle, but more the loss of freedom required in a communism to obtain that level of equality.

When designing societies it is therefore wise to consider a mix of all desirable conditions of state. Disregarding any desirable principle is failing from the outset. These are harsh words that appear to condemn many great utopian works from many beautiful minds. My intent is not to criticise the visions of past utopians who have had many a positive effect on the progression of society. Plato was all to aware of the inevitable collapse of his utopia were it ever to come to fruition. Utopian works serve to illustrate issues within the social systems of the time and pose a selection of solutions to those problems. Many solutions have been taken from these utopian works and incorporated into the medley of existing social systems. Examples of ideas taken by society from utopian works range from the naming of Bovril to the rise of communist regimes and the education of the masses.

I have encountered no utopian works that were designed to be a complete and functioning social system with practicable means of getting to that state. This does not mean I have only found utopian works that were useless, far from it, I only wish to state that if your aim is to describe a theoretical society which could work in its entirety you must base it on multiple principles. This is however not the only consideration one must make if aiming at a holistic utopia as I shall endeavour to explain.

We can now extend our definition of utopia to be; a description of a society based on the maximisation of a number of virtuous and noble principles. With this new definition we notice a new problem in that some principles are entirely subjective just like the idea of perfection. Justice and happiness are both desirable principles to have as a basis for society however neither of them is satisfactorily definable. I can use words to describe freedom or equality in terms that allow them to be applied to all circumstances and situations. This is not achievable for justice or happiness, I can describe situations that would make me happy or where I would consider justice to have been done but these cannot readily be applied to all possible circumstances, nor would anyone necessarily agree with my personal conclusions.

I can therefore only describe a society based on my idea of justice if I am available to dispense this justice case by case, where as I can describe a society based on my ideas about equality and then play no further part in the running of that society.  The Declaration of Independence realised this problem perfectly and rather than disingenuously offering happiness to each subject it offers them the freedom to pursue happiness instead - an achievable end. The second requirement for practicable social design is to only use fundamental principles, that are themselves definable, as the basis for the society.

The third element of social design is more of a recommendation than a requirement and is contrary to the first point. Each new principle upon which your society is based will add greater complexity to the design than the previous principle as each one must work harmoniously with the rest. Each new addition creates an exponential increase in the interaction and conflict of your principles and makes aligning them and including them in all systems far trickier. For this reason you should have as many principles as you need but not one more, which is a good way to say nothing useful at all!

What other methods are available to us in which we may reduce the number of fundamental principles other than considering whether or not the principle is definable? There are three further methods of removing possible principles, the easiest being the removal of synonyms. Liberty is a synonym of freedom, fairness is a synonym of equality etc. There is no benefit to basing a society on both liberty and freedom, you may as well choose your preferred term, define it and then continue to use that term throughout. Basing a society on two or more synonyms will not increase the complexity of your society by much as the definitions should be the same however it will make an overall description of your society more confusing to interpret.

Another method of removing principles is by considering whether or not any of your potential principles are made redundant by any of your others. Efficiency is definable and also both a worthy and noble principle however if you also wish for your society to be sustainable you no longer need to stipulate efficiency as a principle. Assuming you achieve complete sustainability within your society there is no longer a need of efficiency, you will however need to be efficient in order to achieve a sustainable society. Although efficiency and sustainability are not synonyms we can see that the former is a prerequisite of the latter and the latter encompasses the former. You may not wish for a sustainable society, only an efficient one, but this then begs the questions as to what end your efficiency is aiming at. The more encompassing principles tend to have an implicit goal compared to the more general prerequisite principles. The prerequisite principles are rather more akin to a description of how one may choose to act in any given situation, they do not provide a motive for those actions.

The final method that may be used to remove excess principles from out fundamental basis for our utopian society is that of reducibility. The Declaration of Independence infers happiness from freedom, it assumes that by providing one the other will follow. As happiness cannot be defined we can only make this assumption and are not able to prove it but as we do not need to remove principles we cannot define this assumption is not a concern. There are also situations where a definable principle may be reduced in to another definable principle and this does allow us to remove a potential fundamental principle.

An example of this is the reduction of truth into freedom. A detailed explanation of this shall be offered in my upcoming essay on freedom but I shall provide a quick overview here. To be free one must be able to make choices. Choices depend on the information available that relate to the various options. Should someone be unaware of a choice or misinformed about information relating to that choice then they will lose a degree of freedom. To maximise freedom a society must also maximise the truth in information. We can therefore infer certain elements of truth required in society simply by having freedom as a fundamental principle.

That concludes the considerations that ought be given to the selection of fundamental principles but it does not conclude all the initial considerations one should make in social engineering. Many utopian works describe the actions of the utopian populous and how these people are generally more conscientious, kinder and happier. Often this allows them to operate within the described society, however were we to place today’s people into the described society it often seems as if it would tear apart at the seems. If you assume people to always act in their own best interest rather than societies best interest then it is much harder to create a system where people are conscientious, kind and happy.

“Good design becomes meaningless tautology if we consider that man will be reshaped to fit whatever environment he creates. The long range question is not much what sort of an environment we want but what sort of man we want” - Sommer.

We must create conditions where we can justify the mechanisms behind positive human behaviours rather than assume positive behaviour and base a society upon those assumptions. It is rather clear that if everyone was happy, kind and conscientious we would already live in utopia and would have no need of further social engineering.

The rule to achieve these positive behavioural mechanisms is simple to describe but harder to implement. In game theory we measure the goodness of an outcome in ‘utils’. Each player in game theory has a selection of possible outcomes in terms of the number of utils they may obtain from the various ways in which they play. There is also an overall number of utils as a combination of each individuals gain in utils. Generally players will aim to maximise their personal gain in utils regardless of the overall outcome in utils. This often results in a lower number of overall gain in utils. The aim of society on the other hand is simply to maximise the total number of utils for all players. The simple solution therefore is to always create conditions whereby whatever option an individual may choose that offers them the greatest return in utils also coincides with the option that also provides the greatest number of utils overall. This allows people to be simultaneously selfish and altruistic, the choices they make are in their own best interests while also being in the best interests of society.

I will use three fundamental principles in describing my utopia and these are freedom, equality and sustainability. These have been selected using the methods described in this essay and I will define each in separate essays to follow this one. I will then go on to describe the various aspects of my utopia including politics, economics, education, and so forth, relating back to my three fundamentals at all times while ensuring my populous will act in accordance with these aims of society by using game theory to set appropriate conditions.

Has the Welfare System Made Communism Obsolete?

"How happened it, that your workers were able to produce more than so many savages would have done? Was is not wholly on account of the heritage of the past knowledge and achievements of the race, the machinery of society, thousands of years in contriving, found by you ready-made to your hand? How did you come to be the possessor of this knowledge and this machinery, which represents nine parts to one contributed by yourself in the value of your product? You inherited it, did you not? And were not these others, these unfortunate and crippled brothers whom you cast out, joint inheritors, co-heirs with you? What did you do with their share? Did you not rob them when you put them off with crusts, who were entitled to sit with their heirs, and did you not add insult to robbery when you called the crusts charity?" - Bellamy

Many of the early heralds of communism were doing so as they saw injustice in the systems of society. The poor and weak were often exploited by the rich and powerful thus ensuring that a gap of wealth was sustained. Bellamy attempts to explain why he sees this imbalance as an injustice, the effectiveness of our work is only enhanced by our own personal skills by a tiny fraction compared to the improvements and developments made by our ancestors. Direct reward based only on an individuals aptitude is therefore, according to Bellamy, unfair. In Bellamy's era, along with other prominent early communists such as Marx, Owen and so forth, who lived in a time where the state only really provided military protection against other nations. The idea that a state would also take up the mantle of its citizens health, education and so forth was not yet conceived.

These pioneers of communism, the theorists rather than those who eventually came to lead real communist states, were attempting to enhance the condition of those people who they saw society as unjustly letting down. They developed a model for society which ensured that all were provided for. Communism is a social model that does achieve the aim of supporting those less able, however it does so at the cost of hampering other aspects of society. The potential for corruption within the communist system aside, there are still significant issues with both social and economic factors within a communism.

Socially speaking people compete with one another, each person wishes to “rise above their piers” by virtue of their achievements. This is not strictly speaking a financial desire but in capitalist systems the easiest way of measuring success is monetarily. Fame is also a measure of someone’s social success but this is harder to quantify than wealth and can only be achieved by a tiny fraction of the populous. As a result of these two limitations of measuring success in communisms a stagnation of the industrial and innovative forces was observed. Without the incentive of reward or even recognition of achievement a communist society of people (rather than fictional utopian altruists) will not keep pace with the world economy*.

*[I feel the need to make a small disclaimer here regarding the patent inaccuracy of this claim in regards China, a communist nation destined to be the greatest economic power in the world within the century. I am not suggesting that China is destined to fall victim to the ills of impotence and apathy, simply that it is a concern for such nations. The debate between communism and capitalism is still afoot and there are so many factors to be considered that it is hard to pinpoint exactly why the results differ as they do. It is clear however that we are yet still to find the perfect balance for society and success stories like China will help provide us with new solutions and ideas.]

In essence the problem communism is attempting so solve is the very real and highly significant gap of wealth, and the communist solution is the equalisation of wages. The negative ramifications of this solution are a tendency towards impotence in industry and apathy in the populous. Capitalism (which has many problems of it’s own that will be the subject of other essays) does not suffer from apathy or impotence as a communism does, it invigorates industry and forces people to always improve by many of the same mechanisms that govern biological evolution. Can we find a solution which gains the best of both worlds? One that would be considered just in that it provides for those who should inherit the benefits of modern society but are less able to contribute while also maintaining a strong productive workforce?

Around 1870 Bismarck was making the first political reforms in Germany that could be called the welfare state or ‘sozialstaat‘. Other countries followed suit and gradually things like national health services, state education, state pensions, social housing and so forth were more widespread throughout the developed democracies. The aims of the welfare state are very much in tune with those of the early communist pioneers in that they wished to better the condition of the poorest and weakest within society.
The welfare state therefore seems to be the best of both worlds solution, it provides a safety net for those who might otherwise struggle to survive while maintaining the benefits of a capitalist economy. The welfare sate, rather than handing out equal remuneration to all so they may support their needs, provides help specifically to those who require it; education for the young, medical care to the sick, pensions to those to old to work etc. A welfare state reduces the wealth gap but does not remove it entirely. Taxes levied on those who are supporting themselves by their labours are used to support those who cannot. This ensures a base level of poverty that is hard to fall below while reducing the maximum possible earnings for those at the other end of the spectrum.

The extent to which the wealth gap is reduced depends on the size of the welfare system. One taken to extremes would bare uncanny resemblance to a communism, the welfare state therefore creates a sliding scale as it were between pure capitalism - the survival of the fittest, where nothing is provided for those in need, and pure communism where all the nations resources are put into a welfare system. The optimal point between these two extremes is hard to say and subject to opinion. The English welfare state offers some support I see as socially harmful and would choose to reduce or remove while it also offers some support that I would fund more heavily.

Capitalism and communism are not two separate models but a single system determined by the level of welfare and therefore it would seem reasonable that some of the issues found in communism may also be found within a welfare state. The dole, child benefits, housing benefits and other such case handouts can act as a disincentive to productive labour. While being noble ideas aimed at supporting those in need, they are also exploitable. Great care should be taken when designing a welfare system so that it does provide for those in need but does not offer the opportunity to act solely as a drain on the system or nation. Not only must the level of wealth redistribution be appropriate but also the manner in which it is redistributed. When the difference one can get in the quality of life between working full time at minimum wage and being wholly supported by welfare is minimal there is little incentive to work.

I shall come to describe the manner in which I would personally design an entire welfare system in later essays but I shall conclude this one with the assertion that communism is not obsolete, it exists wherever welfare exists. We get too caught up in the words and assume that capitalism and communism are mutually exclusive where in fact they are just the two far points at either end of a single stick! Problems arise in social design due to its complexity and we should not castigate words based on these problems. Welfare has allowed us ways in which we may get the best of all options but it how we implement it that determines how much benefit may be derived. If we avoid trying to group entire social organisation structures with single words and instead attempt to understand the mechanisms behind those nations we will be vastly better equipped to understand the various failings and successes of those mechanisms enabling us to create a better society for everyone.

Tradition

A good number of traditions strike me as odd. The word tradition is defined as doing something that was also done by others of your family or culture. I do not wish to attack traditions or the people that adhere to them as they can provide great comfort and happiness to those people. My aim here is primarily a justification for why I do not follow many traditions, for this is one of the main causes of my difficulty in relating to society and vice versa.

For the larger part of my life I have been rather blind to the merits of social interaction and solved my problems with a logical cause-and-effect methodology. I do not have an intuitive idea of how my actions can cause an emotional response in others. It is only by observation of similar situations I encounter that I have been able to build up a database of appropriate social interactions. The older and more experienced I become the better I get at blending in, but I am far from perfect and still encounter new scenarios all the time which trip me up and expose my nature.

I have only recently learned the social merits that are to be gained from tradition. Until then I could not see any physical benefit to doing something in such-and-such a way based on the justification of that way being traditional. I would often conjure up more efficient or practical ways towards the same end which did not conform to the traditional approach. It must also be noted that both my parents were unconventional in their different ways and their effect on me in regards tradition must have been great.

As I have explored psychology I have come to appreciate the importance of social intercourse in defining and maintaining the "self" for want of a better word. I have historically always got a great deal of the important elements of social intercourse from animal interactions and so felt the need for human interaction less, particularly the kind found at traditional functions. This suited me for a few reasons; firstly animals are honest, they make it clear what they want and feel thus making interaction easier and secondly because their interactions are generally a lot less complicated than human ones. Animals have many less desires and fewer tools to express them and so learning the possible outcomes of a set of situations is significantly less onerous.

As our social intercourse as humans is more complex than other life on the planet we have developed methods to ensure that these interactions go well. We require social intercourse and external sentient affection much like we require nutrition, the equivalent of a bad or awkward social interaction is that of eating food which is off. It will not provide what was needed and may even cause harm to the individual. There are many ways in which we ensure that the food we eat is fit for purpose such as preparation, additives, cooking, storage and shelf life. The reasons for these are all well understood by the populous in both the aim and method. It is however not always so clear what methods are used to ensure social interactions do not spoil and cause harm in society.

Tradition is essentially a method by which social interactions are prevented from going bad. The idea is that everyone knows what is expected of them and of the various other people in the situation and so it is far harder to say or do something "wrong" and spoil the interactions. The reason for performing certain tasks and rituals is simply because that is what people are expecting and prepared for. Until I understood the importance of unspoilt social interaction I was utterly incapable of appreciating the usefulness of traditions.

The physical acts of the traditional event are irrelevant, excepting that those acts are known to all, what is relevant is the opportunity this provides for a bounty of fruitful interaction to occur. A full explanation as to why positive social interaction is so important in sustaining a healthy life is likely beyond my capacity and certainly beyond the intended length of this essay. "The Birth and Death of Meaning" by Ernest Becker is a good place to start if you wish to explore this concept further. For the purposes of this essay we can be content to assert that social interaction, to an individual, is essential to their well-being, and without any positive experiences over a long or critical (such as a newborn) time period the individual will suffer a lowering in their sanity and/or happiness. The traditional event is rather like a big feast that nourishes the mind.

Being seen failing to adhere to certain traditions is socially stigmatising and can not only cause you harm but can also harm those around you. I am very uncomfortable with dishonesty and have struggled as a consequence to evade tradition without upsetting others. Now knowing the underlying reasons for the existence of traditions in society is at least helpful in alleviating this problem even if it does not help me enjoy traditions any more than before.
To an extent I still think that the belief in tradition alone as a justification for a certain practice is quite close-minded. Only when things are perfect and there is nothing to complain about can we consider change to be a bad thing. Tradition is a resistance to change and without the further justifications I cannot condone it. This is another way of saying if you enjoy traditions, then by all means do traditional things but do them for fun and not because they are traditional. One can break tradition if desired with no ill effect if it is managed in such a way that causes no spoiling of social intercourse.