Understanding the Villain

I need to begin this essay with a disclaimer as we will be treading very on delicate ground, topics where words which are devoid of meaning cause people to recoil at the sounds of them. The villain in question is Adolph Hitler and the disclaimer wishes to assert that in no way do I condone the actions of this man, nor do I attempt to provide him with any excuses to remove him from blame. The aim of this essay is to show how we should learn from mistakes by critical analysis of them. I must therefore apologise to any reader who takes any offence at my selection of words or the implications of them. All to easily do we get caught up in the emotion surrounding a topic and allow our rational self to take a back seat. This can affect our responses and our faculties of understanding and can cause conflict where views and aims are actually very much in line. I therefore advise caution and restraint to any who read on from this point.

I am no historian, or expert in World War II or Hitler, I have only read a few chapters of his works. I think however, most who live in the western world would agree that the Holocaust was the greatest mistake of the last few hundred years and is thus one of the most significant things to learn from, so that we may avoid any similar recurrence. I have taken a holistic approach to learning and knowledge and can apply a modicum of understanding from numerous disciplines upon the events that lead up to the Holocaust. Those who know far more than me on the subject may be able to highlight specifics to refute my suggestions and I would welcome them as such persons provide the best possibility to advance ideas. The reason my less learned opinion is still of some use is that of the different perspective, and consequently probing different links. The extent to which human knowledge has reached means that the most learned people in specific areas will know less in other areas, the institutionalization of learning to some extent has focused the “angle” at which a subject is viewed thus further reducing the change of spotting links. A holistic approach to something will not necessarily have good “focus” on the subject, i.e. know less of the details, but will look at a broader picture.

Mostly people will blame the holocaust on Hitler and leave the analysis at that. Much as the assertion of blame is correct it does not serve any purpose in the use of logic. People being unique renders blaming anyone for something meaningless in a search to prevent recurrences. Someone else as an object of blame may serve as a tool to remove personal guilt or even increase our own self esteem. These are psychological reasons or motives for blame and may help the individual who blames another. No expression or sharing of this blame is required to obtain the psychological merits as they are specific and personal. I would go so far as to suggest that when blame is no longer a personal feeling an individual may have, but instead a socially accepted premise, it can become dangerous and detrimental to both individuals and society. Blame becomes socially affirmed when people begin to voice their feelings about who to blame for what with significant agreement, the media outlets clearly leading the way. I shall now briefly detail some of the negative aspects regarding the concept of blame which certainly apply to socially accepted blaming but may still apply to the individual who keeps their thoughts to themselves.

Blame divides people and groups and generates hatred between them. Hatred of individuals is far from ideal but that is not to say it cannot be justified, however when the focus of hatred is towards a group, represented by some commonality, it is unjustified and very damaging to society. Hatred is a negative emotion along with many others that are generally best avoided both personally and for a society at large. Many critical dystopians suggest that fear is a good method of controlling society which may be true, but it will create an environment in which the people become increasingly hateful, mistrustful and selfish which ultimately will be the failing of that society. Fear, hate and blame all fall into the category of negative thoughts which tend to proliferate more negative thoughts and feelings in both self and others, and as such should be avoided where possible.

Blame will cause apathy in individuals in that they believe they are not responsible for the fault and are under no obligation to help resolve it. This may be a justified response but it is rarely the choice that will be optimal for them or the society concerned. Blame is useful in this respect for locating an individual to rectify a problem which they have caused so that they may remedy it, as such it may be considered an optimal resolution. This is no longer useful when a situation cannot be undone or the individual responsible does not have the appropriate means to remedy the situation. In these situations the optimal response to return things to their original state requires a group effort.

Blame serves to absolve people in their potential role in bringing about a problem. If I can blame someone else for this mistake I am under no obligation to change my ways or improve upon myself. Rarely are mistakes the consequence of one persons actions alone yet we all still love a scape goat.

I could go on about the logical incompatibility with blame, or the negative effect it can have as an attitude for both individuals and societies, or how unhelpful it may be in arriving at the best solution. Suffice it to say I am of the opinion that the question should always be; 'how do we solve this?' not, 'who is to blame for this?'. Although we are unable to solve the Holocaust we may look beyond blaming Hitler and examine social conditions and opinions prior to the events. We can also look at what motivated Hitler and how he came to believe his actions were acceptable or beneficial. In doing this we may find ways to safeguard against other potential social catastrophes.

Hitler pitied those who he saw as his fellow man, the labouring classes of Austria and Germany. He blamed their condition primarily on those in positions of power and socialists. His political motivations originated with a mixture of love and pity for those with least. Even though he saw these people as wretched, hateful and immoral he had the clarity to observe that their condition had made them this way and that they were not naturally so. For this reason he wished to create a society of proud people that would not let others slip into wretchedness.

Hitler's initial motivations were good in that he wanted to do what he saw as right and best for others. Fictional super-villains often seem motivated by “evil” things, such as wanton destruction, however it is far more chilling to observe an attempt at altruism fail so spectacularly. In reality people are generally only motivated by self interest or altruism, the former without any morality is often regarded as evil but for this explanation I will leave it in the self interest category. Only the most disturbed or mentally ill people are motivated sadistically or masochistically and such people are often social outcasts, instantly recognizable to others as “odd”. Hitler cannot have gotten to the position he did by being an evil soul as it were - those who do harm to others without any obvious personal gain. People of such dispositions do not relate to others and are missing the tools required to lead and inspire, Hitler was however renown for his oratory prowess and for his ability to inspire people.

We can only conclude that Hitler was misguided if we cannot conclude his motives were “pure evil”. It is hard to see how a purely self interested motivation could require genocide to exact. Thus the only conclusion which I am left able to draw is that Hitler was a misguided altruist. This must serve as a warning to all politicians, sociologists, activists and utopians in that one assumes their aims are altruistic or for the general good. We may all comfort ourselves in that we are nothing like Hitler and are in no danger of being misguided. Certainly few of us reach such levels of power and thus are not in a position to cause such extreme harm, however it is still a good reminder that actions we intend to do good may have quite the opposite effect if we are incorrect in our assumptions.

So, where did Hitler go wrong? What were his incorrect assumptions? The first answer I would give to these questions is that of association. Association is a useful tool to have evolved as it allows us and other animals to learn from similar circumstances. No two objects or events are identical such as two apples. By associating these two distinct objects we are able to infer with good probability that upon finding the first was good to eat that the second will be also. Hitler saw many socialists and people in positions of power were Jewish. He also felt he had very little associations with Jewish people especially when compared to the labouring classes of what he called the Mother Land.

The critical error Hitler made was to assume that it was the Jewish influence in these positions of power rather than the system surrounding such positions that caused what he saw as the main problems in society. Rather than examine the social, economic and political systems as the object of his problem he made Jewish people the object instead. Hitler was both socially astute and very bright, nor had he ever personally been caused to suffer by any Jews, which begs the the question; how was is possible to arrive at a conclusion that to modern observes seems so obviously wrong?

To answer this question I would look to the social conditions of the time, not just quality of life but the general feeling of the people, the views they may hold or find socially acceptable and the scientific understanding of the times. In the period before Hitler's rise to power the concepts of eugenics where being explored seriously for the first time. The scientific community had not yet come to a consensus as to the benefits or morality of eugenics, many simply saw it as a new tool to better humanity. Others inferred from these ideas that some humans or types of human were better than others, a scientifically administered licence for racism. These ideas were all still in the theoretical stage as conducting experiments was not a simple task. As such those outside the scientific community were able to freely make their own interpretations of eugenics.

The abolition of slavery was not all the long before the time period in question and little change was to be seen regarding how white people treated and saw black people. Emigration and immigration were not as common place as they are today. Perhaps most significantly at that time no events had yet come to pass in which a racist view was taken to an extreme. I am not saying one needs hindsight to appreciate how wrong racial motivated genocide is, but it is a great deal easier to reach that conclusion and requires a lot less consideration. Most people know about WWII and the Holocaust and can directly relate that to have been a bad thing, there is a wide and consonant view in society of this fact which was not so readily available to people prior to those events. These three factors combined with the scientific communities position at the time lead to a climate that was far more accepting of racial slander or making the enemy of society a race.

A social climate that is more accepting of racism will not only help to produce people like Hitler but it will also help those people to gain public support. This was not exclusive to Germany, the average level of racism in Europe was unlikely to have been that different from one country to the next. The factors exclusive to Germany were the result of WWI. This is well documented and understood but in a nut shell the German people felt belittled and second rate as a result of the defeat and it's consequences. When an individual is made to feel this way they will become insular, insecure, resentful and feel the need to prove themselves. Societies of people are inclined towards acting in similar ways to individuals when the general feeling is aligned. One could argue that it was society which created a role for a new kind of leader rather than Hitler leading society astray. As with so many questions the answer is most likely to be six of one and half a dozen of the other, and also somewhat of the chicken and egg conundrum.

To quickly recap the various factors which allowed for the holocaust;

1. The poor social conditions within Austria and Germany, including large wealth gaps.
2. The national lack of pride and self worth resulting from the loss of WWI, a national insecurity if you will.
3. The unstable economic climate prior to Hitler's rise to power, this effect is mostly through exacerbating the previous two factors.
4. An incomplete understanding of the ramifications of Darwinism and eugenics.
5. A lack of any serious social stigma regarding racism.
6. A general public loss of faith in government.

It is not easy to predict what problems any of these factors might cause but it is not as hard to appreciate that any of these situations is unlikely to result in good things. The fewer problems a society has the less able it will be to generate a snowballing problem which gains momentum from contributions from those many problems. It is somewhat stating the obvious and not particularly useful to conclude that to avoid large unforeseeable problems in society one should tackle all observable problems in that society. This may be true but the message I wish to get across is the significance of a broad approach. It might have been possible to prevent the Holocaust by solving the specific problem of Hitler himself somehow, but this is quite a hit and miss approach that seems quite ridiculous when phrased in this way, although many still talk about going back in time and killing him! A more assured way of preventing the Holocaust would be to remove the social conditions that allowed it to occur, even if such a society could produce a character such as Hitler, it would not provide them with a role to fill, i.e. such a society would not bring Hitler to power.

So what of Hitler, some might say my arguments do remove him from blame, instead making him the victim of society. While it may be the case that society is the catalyst for characters and events we cannot remove accountability from the individual. To do so would be to throw society in to anarchy. If we are just automatic machines devoid of free will responding to stimulus then personal accountability is an important stimulus to allow us to cooperate effectively.

Although I may have claimed Hitler's initial motivations were altruistic it is clear from his actions he strayed very far from the moral path. The man Hitler was to become was either deluded or corrupted, perhaps by power or fear or urgency. A man must be judged on their actions, not their motives leaving Hitler pretty damned. I have paid most attention to how someone could come to form the political views that they did and then be raised to power, and not how a potentially altruistic person could come to command such atrocities. I generally put this down to a gaining of momentum of his idea, the support of his people and of his contemporaries. An incremental advance towards acts of evil is far easier to bare than a direct plunge from goodness.

I am however quite suspicious of his assumptions to which I provided only one reason for at the time. I am suspicious as Hitler seems too bright to really believe what he preached. A cynical part of me suspects Hitler to be disingenuous in his assertions appointing Jews as the enemy of society. Perhaps he felt he could rally the people to his cause most effectively by making an easy enemy for the labouring classes to unite against. If this were the case we can conclude more readily that Hitler was motivated by power, by self interest and not altruism. If this is the case I have failed to provide any suggestion as to how such an individual could come to exist however I suspect that the answer would still be the result of social conditions!

Crime and Punishment

Solutions to reduce crime often involve the increasing of enforcement services. I can see the logic behind such an approach however in reality it appears as if it were more akin to attempt to douse a fire by shooting at it. I would categorize crimes as sociological and physiological. Sociological crimes are those committed by people as a result of their environment. Often it is poverty that encourages crime as a solution for people to provide for themselves and their families. This is not the only cause of sociological crimes, sometimes it is not absolute poverty, in that the individual may not be able to provide a means of living, but a more relative poverty in which standards of living within the larger society are significantly greater than they are able to obtain. It is not that people, who commit these crimes even though they can make ends meet, are any greedier than any other person. It is more a combination of feeling let down by the larger society, and therefore more justified in their actions, and that they simply have less to lose than those with the higher standards of life by committing crimes.

Sociological crimes may not be economically motivated at all. Take the example of prison inmates who will routinely attack known informants. This is an inevitable consequence of their environment, it is an evolved survival mechanism. The environment in which inmates live is different to those of a free person and so their ethical and moral codes change to suit that environment. Essentially, in prison society the law prohibits snitching and the punishment for the crime is a beating from any available inmates. This society law is in the best interests for the whole society of inmates in the same way that a law against any sort of violence towards another person outside a prison is in the best interests of that society as a whole. The main difference between the two societies is that outside of prison society, laws are written down and systems of trying people are formalized, where as inside of a prison the opposite is the case.

Other less extreme examples may be found within smaller societies that co-exist within a larger society. The larger society is usually a country in these cases, and the smaller ones could be an area like a “rough estate or project” or a crime syndicate or even a board of directors. Each society will have different codes that have come to exist in order that the society is advantaged, and some of these will make certain “crimes” in the eyes of the larger society acceptable in the eyes of the smaller society. Most smaller societies will not find any need to turn to crimes and will just differ in codes of social conduct and tradition, but a few, such as the given examples, may polarise their morality enough that they may begin to commit crimes without remorse as they too feel justified in their actions. In both the cases of the poor and the socially extreme, it is not that they lack morality that leads to crime, but a change in perspective that then morally permits certain crimes.

Families and friendship groups are the smallest kinds of society and these also may give rise to criminal tendencies dependant on the circumstances of these small societies. A wealthy family who live in a nice area and mix with good people is less likely to produce criminals however the nature of the family life, rather than the larger local societies in which they exist, may still lead to criminal behaviour. Examples where abuse exists are statistically more likely to produce criminal offspring. Each kind of society in which we exist, from the very smallest to the largest, will offer us new perspectives on social interaction and conduct. The further from the norm of the largest societies best interests one gets, the more likely that some criminal behaviour will be considered morally acceptable within that society. One cannot address the reduction of sociological crime by looking at the whole nation as a single society, one has to look to improve the condition of all societies contained within the larger, from the family to the city to the county(/state) to the trade unions and so forth. By improving the condition within a rough estate you may reduce the chance of that estate producing criminals but that does not stop the friends, family and occupations of those living in that estate from potentially encouraging criminal behaviour, nor will such an approach help any other estate. Reducing crime must occur by making changes to systems and conditions across the board.

I have not yet discussed physiological crimes as the solutions to them are outside the scope of this essay. I would define physiological criminals as those who have some mental condition which causes them to struggle with morality, society, interaction, empathy or emotions. When aspects such as these are missing from a person they are far more predisposed to commit crimes as they simply do not understand why they should not commit them or care about the consequences. I am not suggesting that by having any degree of the afore mentioned deficiencies that criminal behaviour will result, only that the chances are increased. This is similar to sociological crimes in that poor social conditions will not ensure criminal behaviour, only increase the likelihood of it. There are far less physiological criminals that sociological ones and most of the former will also be influenced by aspects of the latter. In present day you may be able to differentiate the two kinds by where they are imprisoned; the sociological criminals in normal prisons and the physiological criminals in mental institutions. The reason physiological crimes are outside of the scope of this essay is because the solutions to them are either eugenics for future generations or physical alteration for the current generations. Neither of these has pleasant connotations nor do we posses a full understanding of how the brain is different in these individuals such that they may be “fixed” by eugenics or by medical operation. We wait upon science for a solution to the purely physiological crime and so for now the best we can achieve is to reduce the number of sociological or part sociological crimes using social engineering.

There are two methods which should be used in combination to reduce the sociological crimes within a large society such as a nation. One relating to how crimes are punished while the other relates to the whole of society and all it's subsidiary societies. To describe the consequences to the individual for committing a crime I should like to introduce two categories of crime. Unlike sociological or psychological crimes which are defined as a causal effect the new types of crime are based on their impact. A crime can be a personal crime or a social crime in that it can have an effect

on a specific individual or group of individuals in the case of personal crimes, or it can be a victimless crime that damages society as a whole in some way as per the social crime. Clear cut examples of both kinds could be a mugging for a personal crime and vandalizing a phone box as a social crime. I am also quite fond of the term “economic crime” for the social crimes as another way of being able to define them is when you are able to show the cost of that crime in purely economic terms. No amount of money however can undo the damage caused to a rape victim, one of the most severe examples of a personal crime.

The line between these two examples of personal and social crimes is very hard to draw. Having a brick thrown through your window may be fixed with suitable compensation but how does it amend the feeling of security that one might lose, even their neighbours may suffer in this regard. The jury is a human mechanism that is able to make analysis on specific situations which a legal code cannot hope to have covered. The jury is there to judge guilt or innocence on the ambiguous cases. It seems therefore reasonable that a jury could also be responsible for the determination of the category of the crime in unclear cases, whether it be a personal one or a social one. The reason for needing to clarify this point is due to the differing nature in which each is “punished”.

I have put punished in quotation marks as I believe the term to be rather vindictive. By my own definitions of the causes of crimes, they can only be the result of social conditions or mental conditions and this should act somewhat in defence of the perpetrator. My aim in a legal system is to have a macroscopic effect of reducing crime rather than an individual effect of punishing a crime. Certainly the ramifications for committing a crime would not be to the advantage of the perpetrator however they would not be intended in a vindictive, spiteful or vengeful manner. My aim with suggested “punishments” are designed such that they are to the overall net advantage of the whole society. In the case of social or economic crimes the solution is reasonably easy. These acts cause negligible personal harm and are not a threat to the members of society. Rather than incarcerate the perpetrators of these crimes at great expense to society in conditions where they cannot really give anything back to society it would be in everyone's best interests to place some social fine upon the perpetrator greater than the sum of the damages caused. Such a fine could be levied on earnings, and scale with them such that they still have incentive to perform to their best ability within the society in which they still have most of their freedom.

A mechanism like this would reduce the costs incurred by a penal system to societies advantage when a social criminal was convicted. Another modifier however is required such that these kinds of crime in general are to the advantage of society, not just when a conviction is made. This additional modifier is required because the Nash equilibrium will not be in the correct position for utopian design if it is left out. Society would still lose out economically to crime and it would still naturally exist at some level. Let us say the conviction rate for vandalism is ten percent and that the damages caused by someone was a hundred pounds it would be necessary to charge the fine at some quantity above one thousand pounds. Greater than the cost of the damages over the conviction rate for crimes of that type (and economic magnitude) is the required formula to ensure that social crimes are to the advantage of society and that conditions in a game theory analysis of crime ensure a minimum number of people participate in it. This could be a particularly financially crippling approach in crimes with very low conviction rates and may result in the impossibility of repayment, which in turn upsets the mathematical basis of the solution. There are several ways to negate the personal problems, these however serve as suggestions rather than requirements. These will tend to further upset the mathematical basis of the solution which can either be remedied by inclusion in the fine generating formula to account for those losses in some other cases or simply by ignoring them as the system does not have to be perfect in order that it provide advantage to society.

Personal crimes are generally more serious and pose a greater threat to other individuals in the society. The very possibility of such crimes is often enough to reduce peoples freedom as they may be unwilling to act in certain ways for fear of becoming the victim of some personal crime. For this reason it is still important to be able to segregate those who commit personal crimes from the general populous. Although harder than with social crime, it is still possible to ensure that most of those who must be removed from the free society can contribute to that society. This cannot however be to the overall net advantage of society, even if an economic advantage is gained there is no available mechanism to undo or compensate the emotional damage a victim may suffer.

I do not wish to go in to a detailed description of how a society could best segregate the more violent criminals as there are many suitable options each with their own pros and cons, and likely many more I have not considered. All I shall say on the matter of punishing the perpetrators of personal crimes are some general pointers that seem sensible to employ in most systems. First and foremost there should be, where possible, the potential for segregated criminals to contribute to the larger society. This happens to a very small extent in some prisons presently but not in a way that comes even close to covering the costs of running those prisons. This is because logistically it is hard to generate useful work while conforming to the other requirements of a prison. Economies of scale seem the most obvious way to increase the efficiency of work done within a prison. Another way to increase the efficiencies of labour are to provide incentive for those labours. The direction I am heading in with these assertions is a more tightly controlled society for those criminals who the larger society desires the absence of. Such a society would have tight border controls instead of prison walls, it would have an economy and industry, it would likely have some form of marshal law, but it would not unnecessarily remove the freedoms of those required to live there. The industries of this “prison society” would trade with the larger society thus providing mutual benefit, however taxes upon industries within the prison society would be marginally higher to ensure it paid for itself. There are many areas to explore regarding this idea which I shall have to devote a separate essay to at a a later date entitled something riveting such as “possible mechanisms for optimising a penal system”. A clear advantage of a system as similar to the larger society as possible is that it would adopt a similar ethical code, which will help with the next requirement.

The second requirement of this segregated society for violent criminals is the capacity to re-integrate with the larger society. This could be after a sentence has been served or based upon an individuals personal development. The former is easier to implement but may not be the best answer in all cases such as those violent individuals who show no signs of not repeating their actions. The latter however requires a lot of human resources and would need to be done effectively else it is not worth doing. It may well be the case that inmates are eligible to re-enter the larger society but choose not to based on the life and friends they have made in their new environment. Without the potential for re-integration there would be no acceptance by society that it had failed the individual as much as the individual had failed society. It would be hypocrisy to base a system on a logic that accepts society as the cause of most crimes (not only by having made laws in the first place to afford a term to describe “crime”) only then to deny criminals a chance of freedom within that society.

The third requirement is simply an acceptance of the various kinds of criminal a society wishes to exclude. All of them may have committed crimes which are unacceptable to other members of society but they will likely need different accommodation based on their individual tendencies. Most sociological criminals can be trusted to live and work with relative freedom in a large area, much like any other area of the larger society, in order than the are able to contribute most back to society and are punished least for their failings in the larger society. Of the two kinds of criminals who cannot be trusted with much freedom, one is the physiological criminals who may need exclusion from all people but who may also need special catering for. These individuals will likely end up in high security mental institutions. The other kind are the most angry and unrepentant sociological criminals who continue with dangerous criminal behaviour after their conviction and removal from society. These people will not accept the rules of any society and need conventional incarceration, much more akin to how the higher security prisons in the western world are now. The hope is that these latter two kinds of people will be in the minority of criminals and so minimal provision need be made for them, at minimal cost to society.

Crimes have been divided into two categories such that they may be appropriately accounted for. Social crimes have been dealt with in an economic way to ensure that society gains net advantage when they are committed. This approach draws heavily on the assumption that the majority of choices are made based on some understanding of the odds surrounding the potential pay off. A similar economic approach is used to deal with personal crimes however the exact mechanisms behind the solutions are up for debate due to the added complexity resulting from the need to exclude these criminals from the larger society. That concludes the “punishment” section of this essay and I have spent rather longer than I would have liked, saying less than I feel I needed! I originally asserted two methods by which a society can hope to reduce crime and spent a long time detailing aspects of punishment which may seem to dwarf the following section which is intended as the main mechanism with which a society can reduce the crime rate.

To illustrate this mechanism I am going to use an example found in chemistry. The molecules dinitrogen tetroxide (N₂O₄) and nitrogen dioxide (NO₂) exist in an equilibrium with one another. This means that two molecules of NO₂ will periodically form into a molecule of N₂O₄ and then periodically revert back. An equilibrium position exists between these two possible states which details the likelihood of a shift in a direction occurring for any molecule on average and which tells you how much of either molecule you have in a given mix of many such molecules_. The value of the equilibrium position can be altered by changing the conditions within your mix of N₂O₄ and NO₂. If you were to increase the pressure exerted on your mix then you would shift the equilibrium such that a higher ratio of N₂O₄ exist compared with less NO₂. I think this system works in exactly the same way with criminal tendencies, if NO₂ represents criminals and N₂O₄ represents non-criminals then the aim is to find the aspects of your society which relate to pressure in the example and increase them. In both society and the chemistry example, more than just one factor effects the equilibrium position. By using all factors in combination you are best able to shift an equilibrium.

The theory is that when you have asserted what conditions in society alter the equilibrium of criminals to non-criminals you are able to make significant enough changes to practically eradicate sociological crimes. There are some serious problems with this suggestion in that with the chemistry example there is only one system, where, as we have already asserted, with the larger society there exists also many smaller societies. Each of these societies having different priorities and different circumstances will ensure a variety of ethical codes, and so conditions which may reduce criminal behaviour in some spheres may have the reverse effect in others. Homogenising society is an abhorrent idea however it can only be advantageous to the larger society if all members are in agreement as to the moral validity of the law. The goal should not be homogeneity, but rather maximum ethical variance within the confines of the law, which in turn suggests that the less restrictive the laws, the greater the potential for ethical (and therefore cultural) variance.

I shall touch on a few aspects where obvious changes can be made to society that would reduce sociological crime by shifting the equilibrium away from criminal behaviours. The reason for only a brief description of a few factors is because the whole social system should be constructed with this principle in mind and to describe how each and every aspect of society may help in reducing crime would be both tedious and arduous. A more sensible approach is for me to make reference to that particular advantage when I discuss those aspects of society. The scope of this essay is more of a theoretical approach to crime reduction rather than a complete description of how that may be achieved.

The first, most obvious and most significant aspect of society one could alter with the intent of reducing crime is the wealth gap. By raising the conditions of the lowest wealth with welfare and increased minimum wage you will reduce the number of economically motivated sociological crimes. Raising the lower bar of wealth will serve not only to reduce absolute poverty but also relative poverty, as the lower bar will be closer to the upper. I am not against the idea of lowering the upper bar the further reduce relative poverty and therefore further reducing crimes motivated by relative poverty. It is not as simple a solution as it sounds as one cannot just raise the level of wealth for the poorest members of society, any attempts to do so will have serious economic and social ramifications. This is mostly a challenge for economists and so possible routes towards raising the lower bar of wealth levels will be discussed in my economic essays (theses “essays of which I speak so often are starting to feel like the hydra's heads, each time I complete one I create a need of writing two more!).

Opportunity strikes me as another example where sociological crime could be reduced. By increasing social mobility, providing an equally good education to all of society, and offering a meritocratic employment policy another section of motivations for crimes can be removed from the equation. By finding the right conditions in areas such as these few it may be possible to apply the right “pressure” on society such that the ratio of criminals in that society reduces naturally. If we return to our chemistry analogy to compare alternate methods of reducing crime such as employing more police, making more arrests and convictions and building more jails we would find a distasteful result. If we took a sealed bottle of N₂O₄ and NO₂ and attempted to individually remove the “criminal NO₂” molecules without changing the equilibrium conditions, all that would happen is N₂O₄ molecules would split to make more NO_2, replacing those removed. The only net effect of such a process is to reduce the overall contents of the bottle, the ratio of contents will remain the same. In other words, convicting individual criminals does nothing to reduce the overall crime rate. Even if you caught all the criminals new ones would come into action to replace them.

I must apologise for having taken such a long time to say little more than; improving society is the only way in which we will reduce crime. It feels like for the record this essay at least calls for me to state my position on the death penalty – which is against, however I am not sure my reasons for this position are of any particular interest...

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.